[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4995-H5016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 337 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2354.
{time} 1856
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. Chaffetz (Acting Chair) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
July 12, 2011, the bill had been read through page 24, line 23.
Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Rehberg
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $2,200,000) (increased by $2,200,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment directs $2.2 million of the
Department of Energy's Fossil Energy Research Development budget to the
Risk Based Data Management System.
The Risk Based Data Management System is a State governmental agency-
based information system initiative to help States collect and
aggregate essential oil, gas, and environmental compliance information,
local geology data, base of freshwater data, well construction
specifics, area production historical data, and information provided by
companies applying for permits.
This type of information system has resulted in better environmental
protection; public disclosure of all chemicals; easier, cheaper, and
faster environmental compliance for industry-enhanced State
environmental enforcement. That's why my amendment is broadly supported
by State environmental agencies, State regulators, the energy industry,
and many in the environmental community.
Providing this funding will allow for enhanced environmental
protection
[[Page H4996]]
and enhanced oil and gas production. It improves public disclosure of
chemicals by providing funding for data systems where operators can
disclose chemicals used on all procedures in any State.
The amendment also strengthens State environmental regulation of oil
and gas by providing funding for reviews of State environmental
programs, including initiatives like the highly successful STRONGER,
which is an organization that has done comprehensive reviews of State
oil and gas agencies' administrative and regulatory operations using a
multi-stakeholder team of three regulators, three environmental NGOs,
and three industry representatives.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1900
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment. The gentleman from Montana is a valued member of the Energy
and Water subcommittee. His amendment will provide a reasonable amount
of funding to continue work on the fossil energy Risk Based Data
Management System. By more efficiently tracking and disseminating
information, the system will help ensure that the environment is
protected while reducing costs for industry, benefits for which I hope
all sides can agree.
I support the gentleman's amendment and urge Members to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend's
amendment.
Since we have been debating this bill, we have heard time and again
that we must make tough decisions on what we choose to fund. My
colleagues across the aisle, in particular, have made a point
repeatedly that we should not be funding activities where industry can
and should.
This program deals with research and development to maximize the
production capabilities of marginal wells and reservoirs. Certainly we
can't argue about the merit of that; but it seems that as we talk about
subsidies, particularly to a very profitable industry--oil and gas--we
should be consistent. Compiling and maintaining a database on oil and
gas wells at this level of detail I do not believe is the proper role
of the Federal Government and is likely to be duplicative of what is
currently being done in the industry.
Further, it is my understanding that States and private industry have
had a great deal of success fostering the recovery of oil and natural
gas from marginal wells with similar initiatives. These State and
industry initiatives have been successfully driven by an economic need
to have pertinent information on hand when evaluating the economic
viability or filing permit applications.
Given that that process is working on a local and State level, I do
not believe that we should rush for Federal Government involvement. It
seems to me that we should be looking for smaller government wherever
possible; and this gives us a chance today, in opposition to this
amendment, to do it right.
The gentleman makes the assertion that this system has resulted in
public disclosure of all chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
Texas has arguably one of the strongest--if not the strongest--
disclosure laws and is still far from a requirement to disclose ``all''
chemicals; and the database in question is also significantly weaker
than Wyoming's regulation on public disclosure.
Mr. Chairman, I do reluctantly, because of my friendship with the
gentleman, strongly oppose his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with my colleague
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) about the issue of energy
efficiency in buildings as it relates to funding for the Energy
Information Administration.
First let me say that I very much appreciate the committee's efforts
with respect to the EIA and the overall bill. The EIA is an essential
resource for the commercial building sector as they seek to improve
energy efficiency and reduce energy costs.
I want to clarify the intent of the committee direction for the EIA
funding of the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, also
known as CBECS. I recognize that the committee recommended an
appropriation of $105 million for EIA in fiscal year 2012, roughly $9
million above fiscal year 2011 levels.
Unfortunately, the committee also included limiting language that I'm
concerned about. Does the gentleman from New Jersey consider CBECS a
priority for EIA?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois and agree
that the Consumer Building Energy Consumption Survey is an important
resource for the building sector. The bill provides an increase of $10
million for the Energy Information Administration; and if funding is
available, I expect that an update of the consumer building survey
would be funded.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. As you know,
I serve as cochair of the High Performance Building Caucus with
Representative Russ Carnahan of Missouri. Many members of the High
Performance Building Coalition have come to us to express their concern
about an updated CBECS since the latest data is nearly a decade old.
Substantial investments in the commercial building sector have been
made since the last CBECS was published in 2003. The updated data is
not only valuable to building owners looking to make improvements, but
also necessary to inform the Annual Energy Outlook that we, in
Congress, rely on.
Finally, I would like to point out that the building renovation
sector relies overwhelmingly on American-made goods for its work. In
fact, over 90 percent of the manufacturing of furnaces, insulation and
ductwork is here in the United States. So by making this data available
to commercial buildings through CBECS, we are directly supporting
American jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARNAHAN. I thank may colleague, Mrs. Biggert, for her remarks
and also want to address the important issue of CBECS funding and to
engage in a colloquy with my colleague, Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARNAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I also appreciate my colleague raising this important
issue. I agree that the committee understands the importance of this
program. The CBECS data is essential not just for Federal programs to
reduce energy use like EPA's Energy Star for buildings and DOE's
building technologies program, but for private sector efforts like the
U.S. Green Building Council's lead rating system as well.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you.
As you know, the committee report language states that the Energy
Department is directed to fund all data collection, releases and
reports on oil, natural gas, electricity, renewables and coal, all
previously funded international energy statistics and all ongoing
energy analysis efforts before allocating funding to the energy
consumption surveys. Unfortunately, this language effectively excludes
funding for the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, also
known as CBECS.
This is one of the few tools we have that provides a comprehensive
assessment of how commercial buildings as diverse as offices,
supermarkets and senior centers use energy.
[[Page H4997]]
I want to thank the ranking member, I want to thank the chairman, and
I want to thank my cochair of the High Performance Building Caucus,
Mrs. Biggert, for their engagement on this issue. In fact, there was
broad private sector support for continuing CBECS.
At this point I would like to submit for the Record two letters that
were submitted by private sector stakeholders to the Appropriations
Committee in support of CBECS. I just want to read one sentence from a
letter that I will be submitting for the Record: ``If funding is not
provided, work on the 2011 CBECS data will likely not continue, and the
government and industry will be forced to rely on data that is nearly a
decade old, resulting in potential missed opportunities to increase
building efficiency.''
ASHRAE,
Atlanta, GA, May 5, 2011.
Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen,
Subcommittee Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development.
Rep. Peter J. ``Pete'' Visclosky,
Subcommittee Ranking Democrat, House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
Re Fiscal Year 2012 Funding for the U.S. Energy Information
Administration's Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey.
Dear Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Democrat Visclosky:
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers Inc. (ASHRAE), founded in 1894, is an
international organization of over 52,000 members. ASHRAE
fulfills its mission of advancing heating, ventilation, air
conditioning and refrigeration to serve humanity and promote
a sustainable world through research, standards writing,
publishing and continuing education.
Recently ASHRAE learned that, due to needed funding
reductions for fiscal year 2011, work on the 2011 edition of
the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Commercial
Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) has been halted.
ASHRAE strongly urges you to include funding for CBECS in
the FY 2012 appropriations bills to allow work on the 2011
edition of the Survey to continue. This is especially
important, because the most recent (2007) CBECS data are
flawed and unusable. Currently, the latest version of CBECS
data is from 2003. If funding is not provided, work on the
2011 CBECS data will likely not continue, and the government
and industry will be forced to rely on data that is nearly a
decade old, resulting in potential missed opportunities to
increase building efficiency.
The Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey is a
national sample survey that collects information on the stock
of U.S. commercial buildings, their energy-related building
characteristics, and their energy consumption and
expenditures. Commercial buildings include all buildings in
which at least half of the floorspace is used for a purpose
that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural, so they
include building types that might not traditionally be
considered ``commercial,'' such as schools, correctional
institutions, and buildings used for religious worship.
Buildings consume 40 percent of energy in the United
States. Increasing the efficiency of buildings can decrease
the need for additional energy production, while expanding
current capacity; positively impacting U.S. economic and
national security.
Information from CBECS plays a critical role in building
energy efficiency through the many federal and private sector
programs that use the Survey's data in their efforts to
establish benchmark levels and promote energy efficient
practices. These programs include: The ENERGY STAR Buildings
program; Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
for Existing Buildings; Green Globes'; ASHRAE's
Building Energy Quotient (BEQ) building energy labeling
program; and many others.
For all of the reasons above, we respectfully request that
you continue funding for CBECS in fiscal year 2012 and future
years. Suspension of work on the 2011 Survey was done to help
alleviate our nation's deficit and debt issues, but has
serious adverse consequences for national building energy
efficiency efforts. We look forward to working with you to
remedy this matter for the benefit of all. Please feel free
to contact Mark Ames, ASHRAE Manager of Government Affairs.
Personal regards,
Lynn G. Bellenger,
ASHRAE President 2010-2011.
____
We are writing as representatives of the commercial real
estate industry and other energy efficiency stakeholders to
urge that the 2011 edition of the U.S. Energy Information
Administration's Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption
Survey (CBECS) be funded at $4 million for fiscal year 2012
(FY12) so that the on-going collection of energy data for the
commercial buildings sector can be resumed.
CBECS provides critically important information to support
programs that promote energy efficiency in our nation's
commercial building stock. It is a national sample survey
that collects data on energy-related building characteristics
such as electricity consumption and expenditures. Information
from CBECS is the basis for many federal and private sector
energy efficiency and sustainability programs, including the
ENERGY STAR Buildings program, Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) for Existing Buildings, and other
building energy labeling platforms.
For the real estate sector, these programs are the primary
benchmarking and information mechanism for energy efficiency
and sustainability. Business owners use them to compare their
buildings and make capital expenditure decisions, while
office tenants use ENERGY STAR and other programs to assess
the energy efficiency of buildings where they lease space. In
addition, there is growing pressure on the CBECS data set as
major U.S. cities have started to require ENERGY STAR ratings
(which are based on CBECS data) for government-owned and
large private sector buildings. Lack of robust CBECS data
will make the real estate sector's compliance with state and
local laws increasingly difficult.
The market is currently using CBECS data from 2003, which
is the most recent dataset the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) has published. We understand that
problems from the 2007 CBECS data collection effort, which
caused it to be discarded, are being corrected by the EIA as
it prepares to undertake survey work this year. If funding is
not provided, work on the 2011 CBECS process will be
suspended. This will force companies, consumers, and
government stakeholders to rely on data that is nearly a
decade old and does not reflect the significant strides that
have been made in building technologies, operations, and
efficiencies that have occurred in this rapidly evolving
arena since the release of the 2003 data set. Opportunities
to increase building efficiency and upgrade our building
stock will be missed in the absence of more current and
reliable CBECS data. Further delay in collecting and
publishing new data will diminish the efficacy and
reliability of energy benchmarking systems that depend on
CBECS.
Increasing the efficiency of buildings can decrease the
need for additional energy production, while expanding
current capacity, positively impacting the U.S. economy and
national security. We respectfully request that you continue
funding for CBECS at $4 million in FY12 and future years.
This is a small investment on a critically important piece of
data infrastructure that will leverage significant impacts.
Sincerely,
Ankrom Moisan Architects; Beck Architecture LLC; Biositu,
LLC; Building Owners and Managers Association
International (BOMA); Brandywine; Campbell Coyle
Holdings, LLC; Cannon Design; The City of New York;
Cook+Fox Architects; e4, inc.; Earth Day New York;
Energy Future Coalition; GGLO; Green Realty Trust, Inc;
Grubb & Ellis; HOK; Insight Real Estate, LLC; Institute
for Market Transformation; International Council of
Shopping Centers; Jones Lang LaSalle; Johnson Controls,
Inc.; Joseph Freed and Associates; Kirksey
Architecture.
KMD Architects; Lake Flato Architects; Lord, Aeck &
Sargent Architecture; Mahlum; MEI Hotels Incorporated;
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB); Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC); National Roofing
Contractors Association (NRCA); Polyisocyanurate
Insulation Manufacturers Association; Real Estate Board
of New York (REBNY); Related; SERA Architects;
Servidyne; Simon Property Group; SmithGroup; Terrapin
Bright Green; The Durst Organization; The Real Estate
Roundtable (RER); Tishman Speyer; Transwestern; U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC); Vornado Realty Trust;
Wight & Company.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. McKinley
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $39,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $39,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman
Frelinghuysen and the committee for their efforts in developing
legislation that is intended to streamline processes and increase
efficiency within the Department of Energy. Throughout this
legislation, we can see intelligent savings that will result in less
spending and more efficient use of tax dollars.
However, I'm concerned that this legislation as written and reported
will have the unintended consequence of destroying the National Energy
Technology Laboratory's ability to manage approximately $19 billion in
contracts and conduct the necessary research and
[[Page H4998]]
development to advance safe natural gas drilling, clean coal
technologies and energy independence.
{time} 1910
I shared my concerns with Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member
Visclosky in a bipartisan letter signed by my colleagues Mike Doyle,
Tim Murphy, and Mark Critz.
America depends on fossil resources for 85 percent of our energy
requirements, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Coal is mined in 26 States in our country and used to generate
electricity in 48 of the 50 States. However, without NETL's research
into clean coal technology, hundreds of thousands of jobs across
America are in jeopardy.
The fossil fuel R&D program that is being cut in this bill is unique
among the DOE programs because the program direction account includes
funding for the operations, maintenance, and administration of the
National Energy Technology Lab, along with salaries and benefits for
all of the Federal researchers who work there. NETL is the only
government owned, government operated national laboratory. OMB requires
that all Federal costs be included in the program direction account.
This amendment would restore the funding cut within Fossil Energy
Research and Development to program direction in an effort to recognize
the outstanding work being done by NETL and the unique manner in which
the laboratory is funded and maintained.
Mr. Chairman, these projects are in every State and almost every
congressional district in the country. Virtually every one of my
colleagues has a vested interest in this laboratory being funded
sufficiently and effectively so we can complete these projects.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Your amendment would shift an additional $39 million within Fossil
Energy Research and Development to program direction. I recognize the
important role that the Fossil Energy Research and Development program
plays in securing our energy future, especially when 70 percent of our
energy comes from fossil sources. And I certainly recognize your strong
advocacy as a gentleman from West Virginia, and the important role in
fossil fuel that your State plays, providing such for the Nation.
I also recognize the critical role scientists and their research at
our national laboratories--including the one in your State, NETL--play
in keeping our Nation in the lead in fossil energy technologies.
Our bill demonstrates this support by funding Fossil Energy Research
and Development at $32 billion above the fiscal year 2011 level. The
bill also, however, increases the transparency of these programs by
moving research and development out of program direction and into
research programs. With that change included in the bill, the
Department of Energy still has the authority to fund laboratory
personnel doing valuable work at the national labs. However,
recognizing my colleague's concerns, we would be happy to work with the
gentleman as we move toward conference to ensure that salaries and
expenses for ongoing activities are fully funded while increasing the
transparency of ongoing research.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's remarks, and
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and
oil shale reserve activities, $14,909,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from
prior years shall be available for all naval petroleum and
oil shale reserve activities.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $192,704,000,
to remain available until expended.
SPR Petroleum Account
Notwithstanding sections 161 and 167 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241, 6247), the Secretary of
Energy shall sell $500,000,000 in petroleum products from the
Reserve not later than March 1, 2012, and shall deposit any
proceeds from such sales in the General Fund of the Treasury:
Provided, That during fiscal year 2012 and hereafter, the
quantity of petroleum products sold from the Reserve under
the authority of this Act may only be replaced using the
authority provided in paragraph (a)(1) or (3) of section 160
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6240(a)(1) or (3)): Provided further, That unobligated
balances in this account shall be available to cover the
costs of any sale under this Act.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
(including rescission of funds)
For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve storage, operation, and management activities
pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,
$10,119,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That amounts net of the purchase of 1 million barrels of
petroleum distillates in fiscal year 2011; costs related to
transportation, delivery, and storage; and sales of petroleum
distillate from the Reserve under section 182 of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6250a) are hereby
permanently rescinded: Provided further, That notwithstanding
section 181 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6250), for fiscal year 2012 and hereafter, the Reserve
shall contain no more than 1 million barrels of petroleum
distillate.
Energy Information Administration
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $105,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Non-defense Environmental Cleanup
For Department of Energy expenses, including the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment and other expenses necessary for non-defense
environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any
real property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $213,121,000, to
remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Matheson
Mr. MATHESON. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 27, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, in the report language from the committee
report for this bill, the Appropriations Committee included some
language talking about concern about the lack of remediation activity
taking place around the country at various Department-sponsored
facilities and small sites under the responsibility of the Department,
and this is in terms of environmental cleanup for non-defense sites.
I share that concern, and the committee report language talks about
having the Department not later than November 15, 2011, give a detailed
plan on remediating these small sites.
Here is the issue. When you have some smaller sites that need to be
cleaned up, you have your management infrastructure in place. We are
spending money each year to maintain the management structure, but if
you don't spend the money to actually do the cleanup, you just extend
the life cycle of this project out year after year after year. I think
if we focus on these projects and get them done by investing the funds
to clean them up quickly, it is actually from a life-cycle basis better
off for taxpayers.
Now, this is a tough bill to find a pay-for because overall--and I
applaud the fact that we looked at reducing spending in this bill--but
my suggestion is a modest increase in the non-defense environmental
cleanup account of $10 million, which will bring the funding level to
what it was in the last fiscal year. That is paid for by reducing by
$10 million the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons
activity account, which had been plussed up $185 million in this bill.
There are a few of these sites around the country. They are smaller.
There are some sites that are larger. I am not directing where this
money goes. I am just trying to put money into the non-defense
environmental cleanup account, hoping that since the committee
indicated in its report language that it
[[Page H4999]]
wants the smaller sites to move on a faster basis, that this funding
could help assist in that effort. In my opinion, this is in the
taxpayers' interest to do this.
Now, there are sites around the country. There happens to be one in
my congressional district. It is in Moab, Utah. It is a facility where
the Department of Energy has been cleaning up a radioactive tailings
pile that is on the banks of the Colorado River. It is a pile where the
environmental impact statement indicated that in the long term, it is a
near certainty that this tailings pile would be flooded and flushed
down the river. There are about 25 million users of this water
downstream. There has been ongoing bipartisan agreement in the House of
Representatives for years about the cleanup of this site.
And this is just one, and I think there are others that also are
mandatory as well. Again, my amendment cannot direct it to one
particular site, but I am suggesting that increasing funding by $10
million to bring the non-defense environmental cleanup account up to
last year's level is a good thing to do. That's the purpose of the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1920
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman from Utah's amendment, but I salute his advocacy and passion
for his purpose for being here this evening.
This amendment seeks to funnel off defense funding that is needed for
the modernization of our nuclear infrastructure. With a nearly $500
million reduction to the request for weapons activities, this bill
already takes opportunities to find savings with the account. Right now
this bill provides for our defense requirements and is well balanced.
Further reductions would unacceptably impact the ability to meet the
goals of modernization and to support the nuclear security strategy set
forth in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
This bill takes a consistent approach to funding for environmental
cleanup, providing a slightly lower but sustainable and stable funding
stream to continue work at all the cleanup sites.
It is not responsible to increase this account above what was
requested for these activities, particularly at the expense of an
important national defense program.
I urge my colleagues to make defense a priority and to vote ``no'' on
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be
postponed.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to ask my friend from New Jersey to engage in a
colloquy. The purpose of it is to talk about the nuclear prototype.
As you know, and as the ranking member knows and the full committee
ranking member, Mr. Dicks, knows, the Ohio class nuclear submarine is a
critical component of our country's national security and is one-third
of our nuclear deterrence, along with bombers and nuclear missiles.
These critical systems are aging and are close to the end of their
lifecycle. As part of the Ohio replacement, or SSBN(X) program, we are
looking at expanding the nuclear core so that the future nuclear
ballistic submarines can have a core life expectancy of 40 years, over
20 years.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for engaging
this opportunity to call attention to the strong support this bill
provides for the Office of Naval Reactors, which I am proud to say
reflects bipartisan priorities.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.
And I want to point out that the Ohio replacement nuclear reactor
development program was identified specifically by line item within the
Naval Reactor Section and allocated a full $121.3 million specifically
for the SSBN(X) reactor program. This was done to ensure that the
program be fully funded to the requirement amount without delay for FY
2012.
I want to just get assurance of the support of the committee for this
program, and I yield to the gentleman regarding the committee's
position on it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to join with my friends in support of
this program. In doing so, we will be providing 100 percent
clarification to this body and all agencies. The SSBN(X) development
programs within Naval Reactors and the Department of Energy, along with
associated programs directly related to the Ohio replacement program,
are indeed fully funded to their requirement within this legislation.
These funds have been allocated for a specified purpose: the
development of a nuclear reactor prototype and all associated programs.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for that.
Just to be abundantly sure, in order to ensure that there's no
confusion within the Department of Energy and Naval Reactors, is it
true that the prototype development for this new and complicated
reactor system is fully funded to the required request?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the chairman.
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. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.
Then I am hearing that the subcommittee has fulfilled the body's
intent to ensure all funding lines related to the SSBN(X) Ohio
replacement nuclear program are allocated to the required amount.
I thank the gentleman for his support and for Mr. Culberson's support
and Mr. Dicks' support.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And Mr. Visclosky's as well.
Mr. KINGSTON. And Mr. Visclosky's support as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 27, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $41,000,000)''.
Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $21,000,000)''
Page 35, line 15, after the second dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an amendment that
I asked my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support, and Mr.
Higgins from the other side of the aisle has joined me on this
amendment.
With all due respect to the subcommittee chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, I believe this amendment is wise, that it is
an appropriate amendment. And that is because what we are talking about
here with my proposed amendment is taking $41 million in funding to
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup--to take that money from multiple
administrative accounts and utilize the money for in-the-field cleanup
activity for sites such as that which exist in my district known as the
West Valley Nuclear Demonstration Project in western New York.
My hope is that by doing this amendment, we will stop money from
being funneled more into the DC bureaucracy but rather be funneled and
put out into the field and into the nuclear waste sites so that the
sites can be remediated once and for all.
The Department of Energy estimates that by making the investment now
in
[[Page H5000]]
nuclear site remediation, we will save our Nation hundreds of millions
of dollars in the coming decades. If properly funded, the Department of
Energy can complete phase one of the West Valley project in my
congressional district by 2020. This alone is estimated to save
taxpayers $120 million.
For all of these reasons, I would ask both sides of the aisle to join
us in our amendment and support this amendment allocating
administrative dollars that are targeted to go to enhance bureaucracy
in Washington, DC, and have those dollars deployed into our districts
that qualify for nuclear waste cleanup remediation projects under this
line, so that those nuclear waste sites are cleaned up once and for
all, and we can actually get a bigger bang for the buck in these
nuclear waste sites that need to be cleaned up.
I ask that both parties on both sides of the aisle support our
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS. I thank my colleague and friend Mr. Reed.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would
provide an adequate level of funding for the Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup program.
The Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program addresses the
environmental legacy of former civilian and non-defense nuclear
programs at sites across the country. The large quantity of hazardous
and radioactive waste generated at these sites and the contamination
that remains is one of our Nation's largest environmental liabilities.
The Department of Energy has an obligation to clean up this nuclear
waste and protect local communities against risk to human health,
safety, and the environment. And Congress has an obligation to fund the
program at a sufficient level to clean up these sites thoroughly and
expeditiously. However, quite simply, the amount of money appropriated
in this bill is insufficient to do so.
Mr. Chairman, continuing to underfund the cleanup of these nuclear
sites will delay and extend project schedules, cause commitments to
State governments and local communities to be missed, and increase the
overall costs in the long run.
In my community of western New York, the West Valley site was
established in the 1960s in response to a Federal call for efforts to
commercialize the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from power
reactors. The site ceased operations in 1972, and 600,000 gallons of
high-level radioactive waste was left behind, posing a significant and
enduring hazard.
The land is highly erodible and contains streams that drain into Lake
Erie. We have already seen a leak on the site level into a migrating
plume of radioactive groundwater. The consequences would be
environmentally and economically dire if this radioactive waste makes
its way into the Great Lakes, the largest source of freshwater in the
world with 20 percent of all the freshwater supply on Earth.
{time} 1930
For the past four decades, the progress in cleaning up the waste at
West Valley has been stymied by perennial funding shortfalls. The
insufficient funding in this bill will extend the first phase of the
cleanup from 10 to 14 years. With maintenance costs at $30 million a
year, an additional 4 years means $120 million in Federal funding will
be wasted, which could be avoided if we properly fund this cleanup.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot jeopardize the irreplaceable natural
resources of the Great Lakes or of the communities and resources near
the other nuclear sites across the country by continuing to underfund
this important cleanup program. Congress needs to maintain its
commitment to clean up these sites, and it needs to take proper steps
to ensure that our communities and our environment remain safe for
future generations.
I am proud to work with my friend and colleague Mr. Reed on this
important issue, and I urge support for this bipartisan amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I would
like to recognize the strong advocacy of the two gentlemen from New
York who just spoke--the gentleman from Buffalo as well as the
gentleman from Corning.
Our bill provides $213 million for non-defense environmental cleanup,
only $6 million below the request, to provide for the environmental
cleanup of a number of small sites, including the West Valley
Demonstration Project in New York, Brookhaven and the gaseous diffusion
plant sites.
The total funding requirements of this account have come down as
cleanup milestones have been accelerated ahead of schedule because of a
large infusion of funding from the Recovery Act. This amendment goes
beyond the base funding needs and attempts to sustain the higher rate
of cleanup under the Recovery Act. Understandably, they'd like to
continue that. We know that the levels of spending in the Recovery Act
cannot be sustained. We must transition these sites to a lower, stable
and more sustainable level as the Recovery Act work is completed and
those dollars are less. Further, this amendment seeks to decrease
funding for our national security activities.
This bill provides strong support for the nuclear security activities
at the NNSA. It will take a skilled and talented workforce to
successfully carry out these challenging and absolutely vital
activities. Last year's lower level for the Office of Administration
assumed that NNSA would use $20 million in existing prior year balances
to help pay its personnel costs for the year. These balances are now
used up, and funding must return to the base level requirements of $420
million. This cut would result in layoffs, which would make it
jeopardize NNSA's ability to carry out its nuclear security
responsibilities.
I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's yielding, and would join
in his opposition to the amendment, reluctantly, as the chairman
indicated.
I certainly do understand the concern of the two gentlemen who have
offered the amendment, the concern regarding cleanup in the State of
New York and elsewhere; and do share their concerns that we are not
adequately investing and cleaning up contaminated communities where we
do as the Federal Government have an obligation.
I also do point out that, given the constraints faced by the
subcommittee, I believe that the chairman has made wise choices, the
best that he could, relative to the spreading of resources; and join in
his opposition to the amendment. Obviously, we would like to continue
to work together to see that adequate funding at some point is provided
for these and other programs.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into
a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, the Office of River Protection was created to put a
focus on the 53 million gallons of wastes in the 177 underground tanks
at Hanford in my district in Washington. These wastes are being
retrieved from the tanks and are being prepared for the waste treatment
plant where they will be vitrified and ultimately sent to Yucca
Mountain.
For years, DOE was clear that a steady, stable annual funding level
of
[[Page H5001]]
$690 million would allow for the successful completion and hot start of
WTP. The department has, however, changed its mind and would prefer to
front load funding. I have been clear that, even without increasing the
total project cost, spending in excess of $690 million a year at the
waste treatment plant now will have impacts on the funds available for
other projects, including the work at the tank farms.
The waste treatment plant is dependent on two critical elements aside
from its own budget: first, a robust program at the tank farms to get
the waste ready to feed WTP on time and, second, Yucca Mountain.
I appreciate the provisions in this bill to help halt the
administration's illegal shutdown of Yucca Mountain, and I ask that you
work with me to ensure the correct balance of funding is provided when
it comes to the waste treatment plant and the tank farms within the
Office of River Protection.
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. HASTINGS of Washington. In reclaiming my time, I thank the
chairman, and I appreciate his visiting Hanford.
I appreciate the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for
visiting Hanford; and of course, I appreciate the ranking member of the
full committee, who had had a great deal of interest on this issue
prior to my even coming to Congress.
I appreciate the work that the committee has done in the past,
because this is a project that has legal requirements. In these
difficult times, I am very pleased with the work that you have done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment
facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial
actions, and other activities of title II of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, and title X, subtitle A, of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, $449,000,000, to be derived from the
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund,
and not more than $150,000,000, to be derived from the
barter, transfer, or sale of uranium authorized under section
3112 of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-10) or
section 314 of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103), to remain
available until expended: Provided, That proceeds from such
barter, transfer, or sale of uranium in excess of such amount
shall not be available until appropriated.
Science
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not more than 49 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance and
one bus, $4,800,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Holt
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Luetkemeyer). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $42,665,000)''.
Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $42,665,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this bill H.R. 2354 reduces the Department of
Energy's Office of Science from about $43 million below this year's
level. My amendment would restore that funding so that the Office of
Science can sustain its current operations.
I know the subcommittee chair, my friend from New Jersey, and the
ranking Democrat, my friend from Indiana, understand very well the
importance of this office of the Department of Energy, and I know
they've worked hard to fit their bill into the budget constraints; but
I must ask them to join me in taking another look at this office.
Scientific research lies at the very heart of the national innovation
system that keeps us competitive, that enhances our quality of life,
that fuels our economy, and that improves our national security. The
Office of Science is the Nation's primary sponsor of research in the
physical sciences. Its funding helps maintain America's first-rate
workforce of research scientists and engineers, who are working daily
to address some of the greatest challenges and to push the boundaries
of existing knowledge.
Thousands of graduate students and early career scientists at
hundreds of U.S. institutions, the next generation of America's
scientific talent, depend on the support of the Office of Science for
their research and training. In addition, the office maintains
excellent, unique user facilities that are relied on by more than
25,000 scientists from industry, academia and national laboratories to
advance important research that creates jobs today and that could lead
to entire industries tomorrow.
The success of the Office of Science clearly shows the quality and
the importance of the work supported there: MRI machines, PET scanners,
new composite materials for military hardware and civilian motor
vehicles, the use of medical and industrial isotopes, biofuel
technologies, DNA sequencing technologies, battery technology for
electric vehicles, artificial retinas, safer nuclear reactor designs,
three-dimensional models of pathogens for vaccine development, tools to
manufacture nano materials, better sensors--on and on.
{time} 1940
The Office of Science has been the source of hundreds and hundreds of
innovative technologies. Some have become the underpinnings of modern
scientific disciplines and have revolutionized medicine and energy and
military technology.
The America COMPETES Act--passed in a very bipartisan vote here in
Congress in 2007 and signed into law by President George Bush--
recognized that we have underfunded our basic research agencies for far
too long, and it laid out a vision for doubling the funding at our
research agencies, including the Office of Science. This law was
reauthorized last year. The bill we are considering today woefully
underfunds the office by this national goal.
Matching last year's funding level with an additional $42.7 million,
as my amendment would do, is the least we can do. Many dozens of
organizations, universities, and companies have joined to advocate
strongly for maintaining the current level of work for the Office of
Science. My amendment is fully offset by transferring funding from the
nuclear weapons account, which receives an additional $195 million in
the underlying bill before us today.
So let's get our priorities straight. Investments in our Federal
science agencies and our national innovation infrastructure are not Big
Government spending programs that we cannot afford; they are the
minimum downpayments for our Nation's national security, public health,
and economic vitality. All this talk down the street now about how
we're going to grow, this is it. We cannot afford to postpone this
research.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H5002]]
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. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. I rise to speak in favor of the Holt-Bishop amendment to
support funding for the Department of Energy Office of Science. This is
a vital investment in the Nation's future.
We have tough decisions to make about where to make cuts. And
certainly there is a lot of opportunity to cut things that aren't
effective that we can't afford to continue with, but we don't want to
cut things that are integral to our future. And an investment in
science, in research and technology, that is the future of this
country.
We're not going to compete with the rest of the world on wages. We're
not going to compete with the Third World on wages. We have to compete
in the area of productivity. And we can't be the most productive nation
on Earth unless we invest in science and technology.
I have a letter here from the Energy Sciences Coalition in support of
Mr. Holt and Mr. Bishop's efforts that talk about the need for
scientific research, world-class user facilities, teams of skilled
scientists and engineers that are funded by the Department of Energy
Office of Science at universities and national labs around the country.
Economic experts have asserted as much, crediting past investments in
science and technology for up to half the growth in GDP in the 50 years
following the end of World War II. At this time when we're being
challenged by other nations for our leadership in science and
technology, this is not the right time to disinvest from this vital
research.
The amendment by Mr. Holt and Mr. Bishop is supported by countless
associations of physics and chemistry, countless universities and
institutions of higher learning--my own University of California
campuses at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Merced, Riverside, San Diego, San
Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz, but also around the country,
from the University of Chicago to U.S.C. to the University of Tennessee
and the University of Virginia, all over the Nation, not to mention
Princeton University. And why? Because these institutions of higher
learning have been leading the way in path-breaking developments that
have just boosted our economy and our understanding of energy and the
world around us.
So this is a vital investment in the future, and I urge support for
my colleagues' amendment.
Energy Sciences Coalition,
Task Force on American Innovation,
May 6, 2011.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: As members
of the Energy Sciences Coalition and the Task Force on
American Innovation, we write today to urge you to make
robust and sustained funding for the Department of Energy
(DOE) Office of Science a priority in the Fiscal Year 2012
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
We recognize the difficult challenges and choices you face
as you work to reduce the federal budget deficit, get the
economy growing again, and create jobs for the American
people. However, to achieve these goals, Congress must make
strategic decisions and set priorities when it comes to
federal funding.
We believe that the scientific research, unique world-class
user facilities, and teams of skilled scientists and
engineers funded by the Department of Energy Office of
Science at universities and national laboratories are
critical to long-term economic growth and job creation.
Economic experts have asserted as much, crediting past
investments in science and technology for up to half the
growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the 50 years
following the end of World War II. Yet today, other nations
such as China, India, and Europe are increasingly investing
in their scientific infrastructure and are challenging U.S.
leadership in areas such as supercomputing and energy
research with the goal of capitalizing on the many
technological advances and economic benefits that result from
scientific research.
That is why we urge you to support the request of
Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Representative Rush
Holt (D-NJ) to the House Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee to make strong and sustained
funding for the DOE Office of Science a priority in fiscal
year 2012. They articulate how important the DOE Office of
Science is to American industry and universities, how it is
unique from and complementary to the research efforts of
other federal research agencies, how it serves to educate the
next generation of scientists and engineers, and how research
funded by the DOE Office of Science has made our nation more
secure, healthy, competitive, and prosperous.
In light of current budget constraints, and with an eye
toward creating jobs and strengthening the economy, we urge
you to sign the Biggert-Holt letter and support making
funding for the DOE Office of Science a priority in fiscal
year 2012.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
(ASTRA); American Association for the Advancement of
Science; American Chemical Society; American Institute
of Physics; American Mathematical Society; American
Physical Society; American Society of Agronomy;
American Society for Engineering Education; American
Society of Plant Biologists; Americans for Energy
Leadership; Arizona State University; ASME; Association
of American Universities; Association of Public and
Land-grant Universities; Battelle; Binghamton
University, State University of New York; Biophysical
Society; Business Roundtable; California Institute of
Technology; Cornell University.
Council of Energy Research and Education Leaders; Council
of Graduate Schools; Cray Inc.; Crop Science Society of
America; Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB); Florida State University;
General Atomics Corporation; Geological Society of
America; Harvard University; Iowa State University;
Jefferson Science Associates, LLC; Krell Institute;
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Materials
Research Society; Michigan State University; NC State
University; Oak Ridge Associated Universities; Ohio
State University; Princeton University; Semiconductor
Equipment and Materials International.
Semiconductor Research Corporation; Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM);
Semiconductor Industry Association; Soil Science
Society of America; South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology; Southeastern Universities Research
Association; SPIE, the International Society for Optics
and Photonics; Stanford University; Stony Brook
University, State University of New York; Tech-X;
University at Buffalo; University of California System;
University of California Berkeley; University of
California Davis; University of California Irvine;
UCLA.
University of California Merced; University of California
Riverside; University of California San Diego;
University of California San Francisco; University of
California Santa Barbara; University of California
Santa Cruz; University of Central Florida; University
of Chicago; University of Cincinnati; University of
Pittsburgh; University of Southern California;
University of Tennessee; University of Texas at Austin;
University of Virginia; University of Wisconsin-
Madison; Vanderbilt University; Washington University
in St. Louis.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes
[[Page H5003]]
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in support of the gentlemen's amendment.
While I have stated many times in committee as well as on floor
debate that I applaud the chairman's bringing funding into the science
account almost to where we were in fiscal year 2011 and have described
it as a not insignificant achievement, adding these $43 million to
bring it into parity with current year spending is not asking too much
and, as the previous speakers have indicated, is very important to
making an economic investment in knowledge and jobs that we so
desperately need in the United States.
In the committee report we indicate that, relative to the Office of
Science, understanding that harnessing a scientific and technological
ingenuity has long been at the core of the Nation's prosperity. We talk
about that national prosperity linkage to scientific research and
curiosity. I also, relative to the concerns the chairman expressed
about the weapons account, think that that important priority will not
be adversely impacted by the shift of funding called for in the
amendment.
I rise in strong support of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. The Holt-Bishop amendment would increase the
Office of Science budget by $42.7 million, reducing the National
Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activities program by the
same amount, putting the Office of Science in line with the FY 2011-
enacted levels, protecting jobs and supporting American innovation
through scientific discovery.
The Office of Science is crucial to scientific innovation, which is a
key component of American job creation and a cornerstone of our
Nation's long-term strategy for economic growth.
How many times have we heard Members of Congress from both sides of
the aisle come to this floor and espouse the benefits of innovation on
job creation? How many times have we heard from both the current
President and past Presidents talk about moving our Nation forward into
the 21st century where technology and scientific advancement will
fortify our Nation's economic growth?
The Office of Science within the Department of Energy, including our
national laboratories, is one of the most powerful tools the Federal
Government has at its disposal to promote scientific innovation, to
support private industry advancements, to foster medical breakthroughs,
and to gain a better understanding of the world around us.
{time} 1950
I am proud to represent Brookhaven National Laboratory, a Department
of Energy lab and one of the largest employers in my district. BNL is
also ground zero for many of the scientific discoveries and innovations
that have expanded our understanding of physics and nature, many of
which have a direct link to developing new materials for industry, more
effective drugs, and better fuels, the intellectual capital that
private industry thrives upon.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Republican policies embodied
within H.R. 1 would have slashed $1.1 billion from the Office of
Science, choking off Federal investment in basic research that is key
to our Nation's long-term competitiveness. These draconian cuts would
have impacted each DOE national lab with a 30 percent cut to every
science facility and program from the FY 2011 request level. The number
of jobs that would have been eliminated as a result of H.R. 1 is
estimated to be close to 10,000 in the Office of Science. How can any
reasonable person argue that laying off thousands of the most highly
trained, highly skilled scientists the world has to offer moves this
Nation forward?
The Holt-Bishop amendment would hold the Office of Science spending
at FY 2011 levels. This is the minimum level of appropriation required
for this Nation to remain at the cutting edge of scientific innovation,
which is essential to our economic competitiveness which, in turn, is
directly linked to what ought to be our number one priority in this
Congress--job creation. I encourage my colleagues to support the Holt-
Bishop amendment.
I will also be including in the Record a list of the 2010 Fortune 100
companies which delineates those companies relying upon Office of
Science facilities to deliver their products.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Royce
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would decrease the allocation
of the Department of Science and the Department of Energy budget by $10
million. And let me give you an example of what $10 million is used
for, by way of example, in this department. There's $10 million for
appropriating money to methane hydrate research and development.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I was once a capital projects manager and I
understand the impulse to invest in technologies that are going to have
a payback, that are going to provide a return. But to do that, not only
do you have to be able to figure out whether or not it's possible to
get that payback, but it has to be a viable alternative when compared
against other competing alternatives. And that's what I want to speak
to here.
The government here in the U.S. has already spent $155 million on
research and development commercialization for this technology, for
methane hydrate, over the last 5 years. Taxpayers do not need to
subsidize the gas hydrate industry to find equivalent alternatives to
replace oil. We are at $100-a-barrel oil. There is already enough
financial incentive in the commercial market to research methane
hydrate if it, in fact, were a viable energy option. I just have to
tell you, no one has tried to extract methane hydrates in a commercial
way because it is not economical.
Think about this for a moment: It is only found in the Arctic. It is
only found offshore. It's essentially methane gas compressed under
high-pressure conditions at great depths. And basically the point here
would be, you'd liquify it.
The reality is there are real hazards of developing gas hydrates. And
because it's such an incredibly hazardous substance, I can't foresee
gas drilling and production operations adopting this scenario,
especially when you consider all of the other fossil fuels that would
be utilized first before such a technology would ever be deployed.
You've got oil shale. You've got oil sands, tar sands. You've got the
existing conventional deposits of oil under capped wells.
Now, with every one of these challenges, a solution could be found
much more economically in terms of extracting energy than you would
ever find by producing energy from natural gas in this particular
methodology. So the government has spent 10 years researching and
developing ways to extract methane hydrates. We are still at a very
primitive phase.
As I have shared with you, it is very hazardous if we were ever to
deploy such a technology. There is a long list of alternatives which we
certainly would go through first before we ever got to this. So it is
time to eliminate the funding that can be appropriated toward methane
hydrate research and development and use that more productively.
And let me make one other observation about this. We are in a
situation now where we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend.
When we identify an area of the budget where we can make these types of
savings, we should
[[Page H5004]]
be cognizant of the fact that this type of borrowing, this sheer amount
of borrowing has an impact not only on job creation, on economic
growth, but also basically on the long-term solvency of the government.
If we're running up debt at these levels and we find areas in the
budget to slice off these sums, we can bring down that deficit. The
impact on the market is such that the market sees us ratcheting down
expenditures to come back into compliance with economic reality. And as
a consequence of that, we avoid some of the adverse impacts that come
with the overborrowing--as I indicated, 40 cents on every dollar--the
overborrowing that is creating the kind of uncertainty in this economy
today in which employers are reluctant to go out and hire, in which the
impacts are not just felt in the jobless rates that we just saw climb
up here in the United States but are also filled in the way in which we
are perceived internationally in terms of our capacity to deal with our
debt.
Now is the time to make some commonsense decisions here, and here is
$10 million that can be saved.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
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.
{time} 2000
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding, and would join him
in his opposition to the amendment.
I would make a general observation. The gentleman's amendment would
cut $10 million from the Office of Science. When you look at a $4
billion budget, your first impression might be it is of little
consequence as far as the overall scientific research in this country.
But I would point out that in fiscal year 2010 the account was for
$4.904 billion. In fiscal year 2011 it was reduced to $4.842 billion.
For, prospectively, 2012 it's reduced another 43. The gentleman's
amendment would increase that reduction by almost 25 percent for the
coming fiscal year. And I do think it is time to say ``no,'' and let us
apply ourselves to serious scientific research.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and appreciate the chairman
yielding.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, when I was just listening to my
colleague on the other side talking about this is a small amount of
money, I just did a town hall meeting in Thomson, Georgia, just
recently. A lady there got up and said to me, ``Dr. Broun, a million
dollars is a lot of money.'' And we here in Congress talk as if a
million dollars, or even a billion dollars, is not a lot of money, and
it is to the citizens of this country.
We cannot continue down this road of, as Mr. Royce was saying, of
borrowing 40 cents on every dollar that the Federal Government spends.
It's creating tremendous uncertainty out there in the economic world.
And this debt is going to be crushing to us.
I believe we are in an economic emergency. So cutting $10 million for
a project, though it might be interesting--I am a scientist, I am a
physician, I have a science background--there are a lot of things that
would be interesting to research and interesting things to do. But just
like a business when it gets overextended, what's it do? It lowers its
borrowing limit. Then it starts trying to work out that debt. Then it
starts looking at every expense that it has, every corner of its
expenses, and tries to cut expenses. Besides that, then they start
looking at revenue.
Now, my Democratic colleagues and the President want to raise taxes
to increase the revenue, but that actually is a tax that will drive
away jobs. In fact, I have got a lot of businesses, small as well as
large, in my district that tell me the tax burden today is so high that
they are not hiring new people. And increasing taxes on small business
is going to further drive away jobs from this country.
So cutting $10 million may not sound like a lot to Members of
Congress, but I am going to support this amendment. I urge its
adoption.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Broun. I will only take a minute here to
close.
You know, I am also for pure research in science. I am for scientific
research where we can drive progress in the United States. But as I
shared with you earlier, I am a former capital projects manager, and
one of the things you learn is to identify those projects which have
some ability conceptually to have a return on investment. All right?
When you run into a project which is not only on the face of it
uneconomical, but one which is hazardous, and on top of that you see a
listing of all the ways in which you would extract energy at much less
cost than you would ever get to this, and it would be the very last
resort on the list, you would not keep that on your list of capital
projects to entertain. And I can tell you this. If you were constricted
in your budget, especially if you were going out and borrowing 40
percent on the dollar for your budget, you would certainly take this
off the list of capital projects that you would commit to.
So I commit to you, it is only logical at this point that we pass
this amendment and we incrementally at least make progress where we
know we can on reducing the borrowing and send back a little vote of
confidence to the market that all of us here, when we see an
opportunity, are going to shave back Federal expenditures in areas
where there cannot possibly be a return on that investment for the
taxpayers of the United States.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I again want to say that
Members of Congress should do what I am doing, and I believe it's very
critical for us to do so. I have supported over $5 billion worth of
cuts in the appropriations bills that we've seen thus far.
We are in an economic emergency as a Nation. Creating jobs in the
private sector and putting our country back on good economic course and
creating a stronger economy and creating more taxpayers by creating
those jobs out in the private sector is what is absolutely critical for
the future of this Nation. So even though this may sound like a meager
amount of money to some Members of Congress, $10 million is still a lot
of money, and I support the amendment. I applaud Mr. Royce for bringing
it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
[[Page H5005]]
Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``reduced
by $820,488,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $820,488,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts funding within
the Department of Energy's Office of Science, transferring more than
$820 million to the spending reduction account. Contained within this
$820 million reduction are some of the most egregious examples of
government waste imaginable, such as $47 million for undetermined
upgrades--undetermined upgrades--$20 million for the energy innovation
hub for batteries, $4 million for energy efficient-enabling materials,
and almost $9 million for the experimental program to stimulate
competitive research.
In my extensions, I will list a whole lot of other egregious examples
of government waste that this amendment will cut. These are just some
of the many examples of duplicative, wasteful examples within the
Department of Energy's Office of Science that are funded by taxpayer
dollars that would be cut by this amendment.
While I believe the Federal Government does have a role in vital
basic science research, I do not believe the Federal Government should
be spending scarce taxpayers' dollars on every type of research
imaginable or suggested here in Congress. Much of the research done in
the agency should be done in the private sector.
Tough fiscal decisions have to be made, and they have to be made
right now. We have put off bringing discipline to the budget and
appropriations process far too long. Members of Congress need to look
far and wide through every single nook, cranny, and corner of the
Federal expenditures and cut wasteful, duplicative spending. And this
is just an amendment that will cut over $820 million of those kinds of
projects that we just cannot afford.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
My amendment cuts funding within the Department of Energy's Office of
Science, transferring $820,488,000 dollars to the spending reduction
account.
Contained within this $820,488,000 reduction are some of the most
egregious examples of government waste: $20 million for Energy
Innovation Hub for Batteries; $24.3 million for Fuels from sunlight
Energy Hub; $547,075,000 for Biological and Environmental Research; $8
million for Solar Electricity from Photovoltaics; $16 million for
Carbon capture and sequestration; $8 million for Advanced solid-state
lighting; $4 million for Energy Efficient--Enabling Materials; $10
million for Methane hydrates; $47 million for Undetermined upgrades;
$15 million for Energy systems simulation--internal combustion engine;
$8.52 million for Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research; $4 million for Physical behaviors of materials--
Photovoltaics; 52,741,000 for Chemical sciences, biosciences and geo
sciences--Solar Photochemistry; $43,003,000.00 for Chemical sciences,
biosciences and geo sciences--Geosciences; and $12,849,000 for
Workforce development.
While I believe the federal government does have a role in vital
basic science research, I do not believe the federal government should
be spending scarce taxpayer dollars on all types of research. Much of
the research done in the agency should be done in the private sector.
Tough fiscal decisions have to be made now! We have put off for too
long bringing discipline to the budget and appropriations process.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
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.
{time} 2010
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. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. The Department of Energy owns world-class facilities
and researchers, and we should be taking full advantage of these
facilities and not cut this account to where we are not able to use the
capital fixed assets we have for this significant request in a
reduction in funding.
I would point out to my colleagues, in 2006 President Bush made a
commitment to double the budget for the Office of Science over a
decade. The commitment to double funding for research and development
by President Bush in science and technology was a response to stark
warnings from a group of government experts and business leaders that
warned in their report, known as ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,''
that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our
economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are
gathering strength.
I would certainly share the gentleman's concern about some of the
myriad programs and ensuring that they do communicate with one another.
He had mentioned the hubs. I had been critical of hubs in my past
comments.
He has talked about management. I have been very critical of the
Department of Energy as far as their project management.
But I would also point out that in relative terms, I believe that the
Office of Science, and particularly given the leadership under
President Bush by Dr. Orbach, who is now at the University of Texas,
has done a very good job in getting a handle on the Department,
improving its management skills and trying to do their very best as far
as the expenditure of these funds.
For those reasons I do, again, strongly oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Nuclear Waste Disposal
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law
97-425), $25,000,000, to remain available until expended, and
to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck
Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 28, amend lines 16 through 19 to read as follows:
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purpose of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law
97-425), including the acquisition of real property or
facility construction or expansion, $25,000,000 to remain
available until expended and to be derived from the Nuclear
Waste Fund: Provided, That $2,500,000 shall be provided to
the State of Nevada to conduct appropriate activities
pursuant to that Act: Provided further, That $2,500,000 shall
be provided to the affected units of local government, as
defined in Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, to
[[Page H5006]]
conduct appropriate activities pursuant to the Act: Provided
further, That the distribution of the funds shall follow the
current formula used by the affected units of local
government: Provided further, That $20,000,000 shall be
provided for the purpose of research and development in the
areas of fuel recycling and accelerator transmutation
technology.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, Thomas Jefferson said: ``Laws and
institutions must go hand-in-hand with the progress of the human
mind.''
As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries
are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with
the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep
pace with the times.
Almost 30 years have elapsed since this Congress passed the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act; and over that time, technology and scientific
knowledge have evolved and, indeed, new discoveries made, truths
discovered, and opinions changed.
But for some reason, Congress still clings to technology from a
bygone era to address today's nuclear waste issues.
The fact is, sticking our country's nuclear waste in a hole in the
ground for long-term storage is a 20th-century solution. Instead, we
should encourage the use of a 21st-century technology.
My amendment redirects money from the nuclear waste fund and
designated from Yucca Mountain licensing and waste storage into the
development of a 21st-century solution, a fuel recycling and
accelerated transmutation program. This program would significantly
reduce the toxicity of nuclear waste and retrieve additional energy
from the material through radio chemistry and subcritical transmutation
using accelerator technology.
Perhaps more important for Nevada, the site of Yucca Mountain and the
State with the highest unemployment rate in the country, is the fact
that this 21st-century solution has the potential to create in a single
generation no less than 10,000 new direct research and development jobs
utilizing existing regional technology capabilities.
My amendment also provides continued oversight funding for the State
of Nevada and the affected units of local government as they have
received resources to oversee the Yucca program since its inception.
Even during the most recent continuing resolution passed by this body
only a few short months ago, funding through the Department of Energy
continued to provide these resources.
The U.S. continues falling behind developed and developing countries
in fully funding and implementing these types of projects, 21st-century
solutions that are critical to maintaining our Nation's economic and
technological superiority.
I urge my colleagues to embrace the future of nuclear waste disposal
and support this amendment so that this institution may go hand in hand
with the progress of the human mind and with the change of
circumstances this institution also advances to keep pace with the
times.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of
order, and I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
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.
{time} 2020
Point of Order
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
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.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The gentleman from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that during your
deliberation on the point of order that you consider the fact that in
the second session of the 111th Congress, a similar provision was
passed by this body in H.R. 5866.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting
direction. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Advanced Research Projects Agency--energy
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities
authorized by section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act (42
U.S.C. 16538), $100,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $79,640,000)''.
Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $79,640,000)''.
Mr. SCHIFF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous
consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, my amendment as offered by my colleagues,
Representative Bass and Representative Fudge, would simply restore
ARPA-E funding to the fiscal year 2011 level of $179.6 million.
ARPA-E was created in 2009 to bring the kind of innovative thinking
that is well known at DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, to the energy sector. That includes a focus on high-risk, high-
reward R&D and a quick-moving culture made up of experts who stay for
just a few years to ensure that new ideas are continually being brought
forward. Unlike some government agencies, its philosophy, much like a
tech start-up, is to hire the best technical staff and then hire the
managers and leadership that can get the best out of them.
This reinvention of the way that government does business is
something that we should be encouraging. A leaner approach adopted from
the private sector, with a more agile leadership and the mandate to cut
underperforming research avenues, is exactly what the Department of
Energy needs. The American Energy Innovation
[[Page H5007]]
Council, made up of CEOs and chairmen of some of America's biggest
companies, including Bill Gates, Norm Augustine and Jeff Immelt, have
proposed spending $1 billion a year on ARPA-E, seeing it as a vital
part of our energy future. This bill provides just $100 million, so
they endorsed a version of this amendment in the Appropriations
Committee.
I recognize that we have a serious deficit problem as a member of the
Blue Dog Coalition, and we need to deal with it. But as we make the
difficult choices to do that, I don't believe that as we emerge from a
recession that we should cut the innovative research that makes America
great and has fueled our economic growth for generations.
Energy is not just an economic issue, of course. It is also a
national security issue. Some of our ARPA-E's research may help us cut
down on fuel convoys in Afghanistan, and every bit of energy
independence protects us from even higher energy prices driven by
either instability in the Middle East or skyrocketing demand from
China.
More than 50 universities, venture capital firms and professional
societies--the Association of American Universities and the Association
of Public and Land-grant Universities--have signed a letter in support
of increasing ARPA-E funding. They and I hope that we will provide the
funds that ARPA-E needs to continue to do the research that will change
our world, not today, but tomorrow and for decades to come.
This amendment offsets the increase with a cut to the departmental
administration account. As many people have noted, the Department of
Energy has a serious management problem, and perhaps cutting this
account will send a message that a new approach is needed.
But this invests in our future. Energy is a national security issue,
it's an economic imperative, it's a health issue, and it's an
environmental issue; and to invest in this kind of cutting-edge
research in a reinvention-of-government kind of an agency is exactly
the direction we should go. It's a proven approach that has been proven
in the Defense Department with DARPA. It can work here in Energy. It's
off to a very promising start, developing new battery technologies
where we can lead the development of new batteries for electric
vehicles for another generation.
I was very moved by a speech from a CEO of Google about a year ago,
and he talked about how the revolution in energy that is just beginning
will dwarf the revolution we have just come through in
telecommunications because energy is a far bigger sector of our
economy. We want to lead that energy revolution. If we do, the benefits
to our economic development will be enormous, just as they were in
terms of the telecommunications revolution. We don't want to see this
leadership go to China, India or any other nation. But if we're serious
about it, we need to invest in cutting-edge research. That's exactly
what ARPA-E does.
I urge this Congress not to cut back on the Nation's future, but to
support the innovative work being done by ARPA-E.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
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. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment and move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. A minute or two ago, I was in the
Cloakroom and I drew up the Web site for ARPA-E, and it says at the
top: ``Disruptive and innovative approaches to technology.'' What a
wonderful thought, that a government agency can be disruptive and
innovative at the same time.
Billions of dollars have been spent on coal, on oil research, on wind
and solar, on biomass and conservation and the FreedomCAR. I got
involved in the alternative energy business way back in the late
seventies when I was a staffer when ERDA was created. We had a real
energy crisis in this Nation as we do today. And yet we're really not
anywhere nearly as far along this path as we need to be.
Now, someone in the Congress, in the Department of Energy, had the
good idea of taking all these ideas for research and creating an entity
that would be devoted to giving individuals and inventors, people with
good ideas, that little spark that they need to turn those ideas into
reality.
The first time they went out for solicitations, they got some 3,500
to 4,000 short, 7-page letters describing ideas. This is a program that
leverages a relatively small amount of research dollars into an
enormous potential benefit not only to America but to the world.
{time} 2030
But within our boundaries here, we have the objective of lessening
our dependence on foreign energy, of cleaning up our environment, of
creating jobs and new economies for Americans. Given the fact that we
have spent literally billions on the research and development in
traditional energy resources, all we are asking to do in this amendment
is to get the level up to last year, $71 million over the suggested
appropriation of $100 million; $71 million. All that to support an
agency that, using their own words, provides a fresh look, a flexible,
efficient way to find new ideas to solve very serious problems in
America.
I hope that the Congress will support Mr. Schiff's amendment to add
this $71 million to keep this program strong, active, and moving
forward because I think it has the potential to do more than any other
research program in alternative energy can do today. I urge support of
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have spoken
on a number of occasions this evening about the need to invest in
research. In this instance, there is a school of thought that I would
not argue, that ARPA-E has shown some promise as a new organizational
model at the Department of Energy. But as I have stated, debating this
point in the past, I am troubled that the vigor at the Department that
has led to ARPA and this new idea, singular, has largely been absent
when it
[[Page H5008]]
comes to addressing the systemic management and communication problems
in other existing applied programs.
The Department had a great idea that I support in creating energy
frontier research centers. That began in 2009, and we now have 46
energy frontier research centers doing good work. We now have energy
innovation hubs. We have a hub for energy-efficient building systems.
We have a hub for fuels; a sunlight hub. We have a hub for modeling and
simulation. There is a request approved in this bill for a hub for
batteries and storage. A hub for critical materials.
The Department of Energy in 2007 had an idea that we should have a
bioenergy research center system, and we now have three. We have the
Joint Bioenergy Institute in Berkeley, California. We have the Great
Lakes Bioenergy Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin. We have the
Bioenergy Science Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
In 1997, the Department of Energy had an idea. We should have a Joint
Genome Institute. It was established, and now we have one in Walnut
Creek, California.
We have what has been described to me as the gems of the intellectual
power of the United States of America in the various laboratories that
I have not even enumerated in my remarks.
Again, given the allocation we have had, there have been cuts to the
underlying accounts in science and EERE that provide funding for many
of these research centers. I think before we proceed along the lines
established in this amendment, we need to make sure that the Department
understands what their allocation of resources are for what they have
and what they historically have had to make sure that there is good
communication, and to make sure that the promise of ARPA is met as we
proceed down this road before again we start making additional
significant investments.
So I do understand and appreciate what the gentleman wants to do
here. I do support this research to create this knowledge, but it is
time to ensure that the Department is managing properly and having
proper communication between all of these other centers first. For that
reason, I object to the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, for the cost of loan guarantees for renewable energy or
efficient end-use energy technologies under section 1703 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, $160,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the amounts provided
in this section are in addition to those provided in any
other Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section
1703(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, funds
appropriated for the cost of loan guarantees are also
available for projects for which an application has been
submitted to the Department of Energy prior to February 24,
2011, in whole or in part, for a loan guarantee under 1705 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005: Provided further, That an
additional amount for necessary administrative expenses to
carry out this Loan Guarantee program, $38,000,000 is
appropriated, to remain available until expended: Provided
further, That $38,000,000 of the fees collected pursuant to
section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 shall be
credited as offsetting collections to this account to cover
administrative expenses and shall remain available until
expended, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2012
appropriations from the general fund estimated at not more
than $0: Provided further, That fees collected under section
1702(h) in excess of the amount appropriated for
administrative expenses shall not be available until
appropriated: Provided further, That for amounts collected
pursuant to section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, the source of such payment received from borrowers is
not a loan or other debt obligation that is guaranteed by the
Federal Government: Provided further, That none of the loan
guarantee authority made available in this paragraph shall be
available for commitments to guarantee loans for any projects
where funds, personnel, or property (tangible or intangible)
of any Federal agency, instrumentality, personnel or
affiliated entity are expected to be used (directly or
indirectly) through acquisitions, contracts, demonstrations,
exchanges, grants, incentives, leases, procurements, sales,
other transaction authority, or other arrangements, to
support the project or to obtain goods or services from the
project: Provided further, That the previous proviso shall
not be interpreted as precluding the use of the loan
guarantee authority in this paragraph for commitments to
guarantee loans for projects as a result of such projects
benefiting from (1) otherwise allowable Federal income tax
benefits; (2) being located on Federal land pursuant to a
lease or right-of-way agreement for which all consideration
for all uses is (A) paid exclusively in cash, (B) deposited
in the Treasury as offsetting receipts, and (C) equal to the
fair market value as determined by the head of the relevant
Federal agency; (3) Federal insurance programs, including
under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210; commonly known as the ``Price-Anderson Act''); or (4)
for electric generation projects, use of transmission
facilities owned or operated by a Federal Power Marketing
Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority that have
been authorized, approved, and financed independent of the
project receiving the guarantee: Provided further, That none
of the loan guarantee authority made available in this
paragraph shall be available for any project unless the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget has certified
in advance in writing that the loan guarantee and the project
comply with the provisions under this paragraph.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
For administrative expenses in carrying out the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $6,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 31, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $6,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates funding
for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program,
transferring $6 million to the spending reduction account.
Mr. Chairman, I am 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry
producing more fuel-efficient automobiles. However, there is simply no
good reason that the Federal Government should be subsidizing billion-
dollar companies at a time when our Nation is broke.
Over the past few years, we have seen the automobile industry receive
an unprecedented amount of government assistance. We have seen an
industry bailout, the market distorting Cash for Clunkers program, and
many more subsidies, all done with little regard for taxpayers' money.
It is time that we begin to reverse this disturbing trend and let the
automobile industry succeed or fail on its own merits. We have to stop
these kinds of subsidies, particularly in these hard times when our
Nation is in economic emergency. I urge support of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
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.
[[Page H5009]]
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program supports the
development of innovation and advanced technologies that create energy
jobs and reduce our Nation's dependence on oil.
I believe that this is an energy issue in its truest form as far as
reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Another observation I would
make: If the amendment is adopted, it would ensure that we would have
no oversight, no oversight of the loans that the Department has already
issued, ensuring that both Congress and the administration would,
therefore, abdicate their responsibility to protect and ensure that
taxpayer dollars are used in the manner they were intended and that the
recipients follow through on the conditions of those loans.
For these reasons and reasons espoused by my chairman, I again am
opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
{time} 2040
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Departmental Administration
For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
not to exceed $30,000, $221,514,000, to remain available
until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency
Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases
in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same
or greater amount, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for
miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $111,883,000 in
fiscal year 2012 may be retained and used for operating
expenses within this account, and may remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by
the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during 2012,
and any related appropriated receipt account balances
remaining from prior years' miscellaneous revenues, so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2012 appropriation from the
general fund estimated at not more than $109,631,000.
Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $2,500,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the
operating budget of the Office of the Energy Secretary by 50 percent,
transferring $2.5 million to the spending reduction account.
I've spent a considerable amount of time on the floor of the House
during the FY 2012 appropriations process working to find spending cuts
across every level of the Federal Government and across nearly every
agency. I understand the challenges that the Secretary of Energy faces
and the enormity of the Department that he is tasked with overseeing.
But even the Department of Energy must do its part to reduce the
deficit.
We've got to cut wherever we can. The future of our Nation depends
upon it. Our children and grandchildren's future depends upon it. We're
broke as a Nation. We have to look into every nook, cranny, and corner
of the Federal expenditures and find wherever we can reduce
expenditures, and this is my attempt to continue to do so.
I urge support of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
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.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $35,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $35,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the
Department of Energy administration account by $35 million and increase
the Global Threat Reduction Initiative by a $35 million amount as well.
As cofounder of the House Nuclear Security Caucus, together with my
colleague Mr. Schiff, I am deeply concerned about the potential nuclear
security threats and vulnerabilities, and I am committed to
strengthening momentum on efforts to secure fissile materials and
prevent the proliferation and misuse of sensitive nuclear materials and
technologies here and around the world.
I also want to thank Representative Sanchez for her longstanding
commitment to this important issue as well.
Mr. Chairman, nuclear terrorism is a threat so serious in its
consequences that we often shrink from even contemplating it. But
ignoring the problem is not an option. There are some relatively
straightforward steps that we can take to reduce our vulnerabilities,
and one of these is to strengthen the Global Threat Reduction
Initiative.
To date, this important program has converted or verified the
shutdown of 76 out of 200 highly enriched uranium research reactors to
be converted or verified as shut down by the year 2022. The program has
removed 3,085 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and plutonium from
42 countries. The program has eliminated all highly enriched uranium
from 19 countries and plans to eliminate all of it from an additional
nine countries by December of 2013.
These countries--the 19 it was removed from--include Brazil,
Colombia, Latvia, Portugal, South Korea, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain,
Thailand, Greece, the Philippines, Slovenia, Sweden, Romania, Libya,
Turkey, Taiwan, Chile, and Serbia.
In addition, the program has also overseen the removal of 960
kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Mr. Chairman, that's enough for
38 nuclear weapons, and this is since 2009.
It is vital that we work together to transcend any differences in
this body to prevent our world from sleepwalking to utter disaster. We
are at a crossroads. The technical advances that have enabled
transnational communication and cooperation for progress have also
enabled and benefited individuals and groups bound by ideologies that
threaten the very foundations of civil society and government. I
consider it our collective mission to ensure that we succeed in
controlling nuclear technology and materials to leave a stable global
environment for generations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and Representative
Sanchez in supporting this important amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
and salute the gentleman for his knowledge. He serves on the
authorizing committee, and we can't argue
[[Page H5010]]
against the statistics that he has proposed.
I should say for the record that our bill strongly supports our
nuclear security strategy. It fully funds the 4-year effort to lock
down nuclear materials around the world and increases funding for our
other international security efforts, such as enforcing export controls
and promoting nuclear safeguards.
With that, I am happy to yield to the ranking member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman for yielding and supporting
the amendment.
I certainly appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment. I think
it's very, very important. Certainly I think the most serious threat
confronting this Nation is that of nuclear terrorism.
Again, I appreciate the gentleman's work on the issue day in and day
out, offering the amendment, as well as those who support it. I rise in
support of it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank
Representative Fortenberry for working with me along with
Representative Larsen and Garamendi in order to offer this important
amendment.
This amendment is a small restoration of funds in response to a $468
million cut to defense nonproliferation programs in this bill--
equivalent to an 18% reduction in funding.
The $35 million would come from the Departmental Administrative
account.
This transfer of funding will contribute to reducing the risk of
nuclear terrorism.
The danger that nuclear materials or weapons might spread to
countries hostile to the United States or to terrorists is one of the
gravest dangers to the United States--nonproliferation programs are
critical to U.S. national security and must be a top priority.
The funding for Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)
specifically supports securing vulnerable nuclear material around the
world in 4 years, in order to prevent this deadly material from falling
into the hands of terrorists intent on doing us harm.
Nonproliferation programs are the most cost-effective way to achieve
these urgent goals and objectives.
Last year at the Nuclear Security summit which brought together
nearly 50 heads of state in Washington, President Obama secured
significant commitments from countries willing to give up their nuclear
weapons-usable material.
The United States must follow through on its international
commitments to help remove and secure these materials.
Failing to do so will jeopardize the effort to secure these materials
in 4 years, result in unacceptable delays and complicate further
negotiations with countries who have vulnerable nuclear bomb-grade
materials.
Specifically, a $35 million increase would prevent delays of at least
1 year to Highly Enriched Uranium reactor conversions in Poland,
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ghana, and Nigeria.
Reactor conversions are directly linked to removal of bomb-grade
material: removals of vulnerable material from these sites that cannot
take place until the reactors are converted.
These countries are among the NNSA's highest priorities to secure
material, convert research reactors and remove vulnerable HEU.
These funds would also expedite by 1 year the development of a new
low enriched uranium fuel for the conversion of 6 U.S. High Performance
Research reactors that currently use approximately 150 kilograms--6
nuclear weapons' worth--of highly enriched uranium annually.
The $35 million will help not only the U.S. fuel development program
but also our R&D efforts with Russia for conversion of their high
performance reactors that need this same new type of high density fuel.
Over 70 research reactors that should be shut down or converted are
in Russia, and there has been recent progress on converting at least 6
reactors.
We are right at the cusp of success in addressing these dangerous
Russian reactors.
Cuts to funds now would send a bad message and squander an important
opportunity to move forward and pursue cost sharing on some of the
remaining reactors.
The 9-11 Commission and of the Nuclear Posture Commission noted the
urgency of addressing this grave danger, with the Nuclear Posture
Commission warning that ``The urgency arises from the imminent danger
of nuclear terrorism if we pass a tipping point in nuclear
proliferation.''
I urge support for this modest increase of $35 million that will help
address the risk of delays to the most urgent efforts for removing and
securing vulnerable materials, stemming from FY11 appropriations cuts.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Shimkus
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 54, line 20, after the second dollar amount insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 54, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank my colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee. I don't come down to the floor often. This is a special
occasion and a special time to bring focus on Yucca Mountain.
As the investigation continues into the shutdown of Yucca Mountain,
we have heard over and over again that the licensing application should
move forward and let the science speak for itself.
The $10 million provided in the bill is a start but too low for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do anything functional toward
reviewing the licensing application. In fact, just a few years ago,
they were receiving nearly $60 million for these efforts.
In addition, the Shimkus-Inslee amendment--it didn't officially get
recorded that way, but that was our intent, that Jay Inslee, my friend
from Washington State, would join me. The amendment adds $10 million to
continue the Yucca Mountain license application. There is $10 million
in the bill, and my amendment would take it to $20 million.
Our amendment is budget neutral and fully offset by taking funds from
the DOE's departmental administration account. We are asking DOE to do
more with less by making modest cuts to an account for salaries and
expenses. And, again, I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for
helping us find a way to move in this direction. Again I want to thank
my colleague Mr. Inslee for supporting this amendment.
I have had a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk to
me about when are we going to have a vote on the floor to show our
support for what we have done? What we have done historically, in 1982
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed, 30 years, countless different
administrations on both sides of the aisle, different control of the
Chamber here, both parties.
{time} 2050
This has been our consistent policy for 30 years. Now, with Japan and
Fukushima Daiichi and part of the problem being high-level nuclear
waste stored in pools, we have to have a centralized location. This
amendment says let us finish the science to get to the final permit,
and let that science be the judge. It's providing the money.
But I will tell you that we have high-level nuclear waste all over
this country, and we need it in one centralized location. It has been
our policy that that would be Yucca Mountain--an isolated area in
Nevada, in the desert, 90 miles from Las Vegas. It's underneath a
mountain, in the desert, in one of the most arid places in this
country. If we can't store it there, we really can't store it anywhere.
As you've heard from my colleagues already this evening, it is stored
in locations we should not have it.
Again, I really want to thank the Appropriations Committee for
helping me through this process. We need a vote. I will call for a
vote.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. INSLEE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. INSLEE. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois and the
committee for helping us find a solution to this problem.
There are really a couple of reasons for this amendment:
One, there really is a national interest here. We've got 75,000
metric tons of nuclear waste at 80 sites in 45 States. This is a
national interest, a national
[[Page H5011]]
bill, and is an appropriation we need to get done.
Two, my State is particularly acute at the Hanford site, a place
where we fought World War II and the Cold War, and now we are preparing
nuclear waste to go to Yucca Mountain--nuclear waste that, essentially,
will be all dressed up with no place to go if we don't finish this
project.
This is a very small step forward, but I do think it's important, not
just for the $10 million that will help us move forward on the
scientific assessment of this, but the fact that it will be another
statement by this House of why we need to move forward. We made that
statement in 1987. We made that statement in 2002. We made it again in
2007. This is the way to do it in the appropriations system. It is an
important statement to make. We've got to continue to push this ball
uphill until this job gets done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Shimkus'
and Mr. Inslee's amendment, and I congratulate them on bringing this
very important amendment to the floor in this appropriations bill.
Just across the Savannah River from my district is the Savannah River
site. I've been over there very many times, and I am very concerned
about the storage of nuclear materials that are there on the site, and
that's happening all over this country. We hear people talk about this
as nuclear waste, but I don't view it that way. In fact, there is a
tremendous amount of energy in the fuel rods and in the nuclear
material that's being stored at facilities all over this country. We
just don't know how to utilize it, and we're just beginning that
process.
Some of these fast reactors, small modular reactors, would burn up a
lot of this nuclear material and would provide energy that is
drastically needed. Yet, Mr. Chairman, one man from Nevada--a staffer,
who left from being on staff in the U.S. Senate and went to the
administration--has, what I consider to be, illegally closed up Yucca
Mountain. This administration has illegally closed up Yucca Mountain.
This facility has been studied at great lengths. I'm on the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee, and am the Subcommittee chairman for
Investigations and Oversight. We've looked at this. We've had hearings.
In fact, I just recently had a group of people from our local area, the
Augusta area--and North Augusta, in the South Carolina area of Aiken
County, where SRS is--testify about what's going on and about Yucca
Mountain.
It is critical that we as a Congress do what the law requires. We
need a central repository. We need somewhere we can store this
material, not as waste, but we need a repository so that this material
can be set in a safe, scientifically studied area that won't harm
anybody. Yucca fits all of those categories. It's the only place in
this country that does. We can store this material until we can utilize
it.
We need to be energy independent as a Nation. Nuclear energy is going
to be one of the keys of an all-of-the-above energy policy. We, on our
side, have been fighting for that, and I know some Democrats are very
supportive of nuclear energy, as I am. I am an ardent supporter of
nuclear energy, and I think it's absolutely critical in order for us to
go forward. Yucca Mountain has to be a part of that formula, and we
cannot close it up. We've spent billions of taxpayer dollars on this
facility. One man, because he doesn't want it in his backyard, has
prompted this administration to close it up. We've got to open it up.
So I congratulate Mr. Inslee and particularly my dear friend John
Shimkus from Illinois for bringing this amendment to the floor. We need
to support it. We need to have a vote on it so that we can show how
important this is to Members of Congress. I congratulate them, and I
wholeheartedly support it, and hope other Members of Congress will
support it, too.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
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. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's yielding. I would just add
two brief comments in support of the amendment and of the chairman's
remarks.
The administration's attempts to shut this activity down, I believe,
are without scientific merit, and are contrary to existing law and
congressional direction.
I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to
demonstrate its capability to meet its contractual obligation under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act by addressing the spent fuel and other high-
level nuclear waste at permanently shutdown reactors.
So, again, I will join in support of the amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman.
We're going to keep Yucca Mountain open, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
{time} 2100
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $41,774,000, to remain
available until expended.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities
(including rescission of funds)
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and
[[Page H5012]]
other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, the purchase of not
to exceed one ambulance and one aircraft; $7,131,993,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount not more than $139,281,000 may be made available for
the B-61 Life Extension Program until the Administrator for
Nuclear Security submits to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate the outcome of
its Phase 6.2a design definition and cost study: Provided
further, That of the unobligated balances available under
this heading, $40,332,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided
further, That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that
were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
(including rescission of funds)
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of
not to exceed one passenger motor vehicle for replacement
only, $2,086,770,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the unobligated balances available under
this heading, $30,000,000 are hereby rescinded; Provided
further, That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that
were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Naval Reactors
For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval
reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or
otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment,
facilities, and facility expansion, $1,030,600,000, to remain
available until expended.
Office of the Administrator
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator
in the National Nuclear Security Administration, including
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$12,000, $420,000,000, to remain available until expended.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any
real property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of
not to exceed one ambulance and one fire truck for
replacement only, $4,937,619,000, to remain available until
expended.
Other Defense Activities
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense,
other defense activities, and classified activities, in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, and the purchase of not to exceed 10 passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only, $814,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Bonneville Power Administration Fund
Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 9309454, are
approved for the Kootenai River Native Fish Conservation
Aquaculture Program, Lolo Creek Permanent Weir Facility, and
Improving Anadromous Fish production on the Warm Springs
Reservation, and, in addition, for official reception and
representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $3,000.
During fiscal year 2012, no new direct loan obligations may
be made from such Fund.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary
services pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power
area, $8,428,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5
of the Flood Control Act of 1944, up to $8,428,000 collected
by the Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of
power and related services shall be credited to this account
as discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual
expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses
shall be reduced as collections are received during the
fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2012
appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided
further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$100,162,000 collected by the Southeastern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, for construction and acquisition of transmission
lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, and for
administrative expenses, including official reception and
representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 in
carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16
U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power
Administration, $45,010,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s),
up to $33,118,000 collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2012 appropriation estimated at
not more than $11,892,000: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $40,000,000 collected
by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant to the
Flood Control Act of 1944 to recover purchase power and
wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections, to remain available until expended
for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures: Provided further, That for purposes of this
appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are
generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred
(excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, including
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500; $285,900,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $278,856,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the
Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a),
up to $189,932,000 collected by the Western Area Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2012 appropriation estimated at
not more than $95,968,000, of which $88,924,000 is derived
from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That of the
amount herein appropriated, not more than $3,375,000 is for
deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Account pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided further,
That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $306,541,000
collected by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant
to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project
Act of 1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses
shall be credited to this account as offsetting collections,
to remain available until expended for the sole purpose of
making purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided
further, That for purposes of this appropriation, annual
expenses means expenditures that are generally recovered in
the same year that they are incurred (excluding purchase
power and wheeling expenses).
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$4,169,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat.
[[Page H5013]]
255) as amended: Provided, That notwithstanding the
provisions of that Act and of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$3,949,000 collected by the Western Area Power Administration
from the sale of power and related services from the Falcon
and Amistad Dams shall be credited to this account as
discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual
expenses of the hydroelectric facilities of these Dams and
associated Western Area Power Administration activities:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual
expenses shall be reduced as collections are received during
the fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2012
appropriation estimated at not more than $220,000: Provided
further, That for purposes of this appropriation, annual
expenses means expenditures that are generally recovered in
the same year that they are incurred.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, $304,600,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$304,600,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 2012 shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall be
reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2012 so
as to result in a final fiscal year 2012 appropriation from
the general fund estimated at not more than $0.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(including transfers of funds)
Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made
available in this title for the Department of Energy shall be
used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity
or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar
arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for
Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a
program, project, or activity if the program, project, or
activity has not been funded by Congress.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Department
of Energy may not, with respect to any program, project, or
activity that uses budget authority made available in this
title under the heading "Department of Energy--Energy
Programs", enter into a contract, award a grant, or enter
into a cooperative agreement that obligates the Government in
excess of the budget authority available under such heading
for such purpose, or that is properly chargeable to budget
authority of a future fiscal year before such budget
authority is available, regardless of whether the contract,
grant, or cooperative agreement includes a clause
conditioning the Government's obligation on the availability
of such budget authority.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to major
capital projects.
(c) Except as provided in this section, the amounts made
available by this Act for the Department of Energy shall be
expended as authorized by law for the projects and activities
specified in the text and the ``Bill'' column in the
``Comparative Statement of New Budget (Obligational)
Authority for 2011 and Budget Requests and Amounts
Recommended in the Bill for 2012'' included under the heading
``Title III--Department of Energy'' in the report of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
to accompany this Act.
(d) None of the funds provided in this title shall be
available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act;
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
(5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by
more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
(e) The Secretary of Energy and the Administrator for
Nuclear Security may jointly waive the restrictions under
subsection (a) and subsection (d) on a case-by-case basis by
certifying to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the national
security interest to do so.
Sec. 302. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used--
(1) to augment the funds made available for obligation by
this Act for severance payments and other benefits and
community assistance grants under section 4604 of the Atomic
Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2704) unless the Department of
Energy submits a reprogramming request to the appropriate
congressional committees; or
(2) to provide enhanced severance payments or other
benefits for employees of the Department of Energy under
section 4604; or
(3) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan
that covers employees of the Department of Energy.
Sec. 303. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be available to the
same appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with
funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter
may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as
originally enacted.
Sec. 304. None of the funds in this or any other Act for
the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration may
be used to enter into any agreement to perform energy
efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville
service territory, with the exception of services provided
internationally, including services provided on a
reimbursable basis, unless the Administrator certifies in
advance that such services are not available from private
sector businesses.
Sec. 305. When the Department of Energy makes a user
facility available to universities or other potential users,
or seeks input from universities or other potential users
regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a user
facility or a proposed user facility, the Department shall
ensure broad public notice of such availability or such need
for input to universities and other potential users. When the
Department of Energy considers the participation of a
university or other potential user as a formal partner in the
establishment or operation of a user facility, the Department
shall employ full and open competition in selecting such a
partner. For purposes of this section, the term ``user
facility'' includes, but is not limited to: (1) a user
facility as described in section 2203(a)(2) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13503(a)(2)); (2) a National
Nuclear Security Administration Defense Programs Technology
Deployment Center/User Facility; and (3) any other
Departmental facility designated by the Department as a user
facility.
Sec. 306. Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or
made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2012 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
Sec. 307. (a) In any fiscal year in which the Secretary of
Energy determines that additional funds are needed to
reimburse the costs of defined benefit pension plans for
contractor employees, the Secretary may transfer not more
than 1 percent of an appropriation made available in this or
any subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act to any other appropriation made available to the
Secretary by such Act for such reimbursement.
(b) Where the Secretary recovers the costs of defined
benefit pension plans for contractor employees through
charges for the indirect costs of research and activities at
facilities of the Department of Energy, if the indirect costs
attributable to defined benefit pension plan costs in a
fiscal year are more than charges in fiscal year 2008, the
Secretary shall carry out a transfer of funds under this
section.
(c) In carrying out a transfer under this section, the
Secretary shall use each appropriation made available to the
Department in that fiscal year as a source for the transfer,
and shall reduce each appropriation by an equal percentage,
except that appropriations for which the Secretary determines
there exists a need for additional funds for pension plan
costs in that fiscal year, as well as appropriations made
available for the Power Marketing Administrations, the loan
guarantee program under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, shall
not be subject to this requirement.
(d) Each January, the Secretary shall report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate on the state of defined benefit pension plan
liabilities in the Department for the preceding year.
(e) This transfer authority does not apply to supplemental
appropriations, and is in addition to any other transfer
authority provided in this or any other Act. The authority
provided under this section shall expire on September 30,
2015.
(f) The Secretary shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in writing not less than 30 days in advance of each transfer
authorized by this section.
Sec. 308. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for the construction of facilities classified
as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830
unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of
Health, Safety, and Security to ensure the project is in
compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
Sec. 309. Plant or construction projects for which amounts
are made available under this and subsequent appropriation
Acts with an estimated cost of less than $10,000,000 are
considered for purposes of section 4703 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2743) as a plant project for which the
approved total estimated cost does not exceed the minor
construction threshold and for purposes of section 4704(d) of
such Act (50 U.S.C. 2744(d)) as a construction project with
an estimated cost of less than a minor construction
threshold.
[[Page H5014]]
Sec. 310. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical
decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any
successive departmental guidance, for construction projects
where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a
separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the
project for that critical decision.
Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to make a grant allocation, discretionary grant
award, discretionary contract award, or Other Transaction
Agreement, or to issue a letter of intent, totaling in excess
of $1,000,000, or to announce publicly the intention to make
such an allocation, award, or Agreement, or to issue such a
letter, including a contract covered by the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary of Energy
notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives at least 3 full business days in
advance of making such an allocation, award, or Agreement, or
issuing such a letter: Provided, That if the Secretary of
Energy determines that compliance with this section would
pose a substantial risk to human life, health, or safety, an
allocation, award, or Agreement may be made, or a letter may
be issued, without advance notification, and the Secretary
shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives not later than 5 full
business days after the date on which such an allocation,
award, or Agreement is made or letter issued.
Sec. 312. None of the funds made available by this title
may be used to make a final or conditional loan guarantee
award unless the Secretary of Energy provides notification of
the award, including the proposed subsidy cost, to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives at least three full business days in advance
of such award.
Sec. 313. None of the funds included in this title for the
Department of Energy shall be made available to initiate,
administer, promulgate, or enforce any ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined by Executive Order 12866
unless the Committee on Appropriations has been notified not
later than 30 days before the issuance of such action.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, for
necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the
Alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment
of the Federal share of the administrative expenses of the
Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $68,400,000, to
remain available until expended.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law
10009456, section 1441, $29,130,000, to remain
available until expended.
Delta Regional Authority
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and
to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act of 2000, as amended, notwithstanding
sections 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act,
$11,700,000, to remain available until expended.
Denali Commission
For expenses of the Denali Commission including the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment as necessary and other expenses, $10,700,000, to
remain available until expended, notwithstanding the
limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali
Commission Act of 1998 (title III of division C of Public Law
105-277): Provided, That funds shall be available for
construction projects in an amount not to exceed 80 percent
of total project cost for distressed communities, as defined
in the subsection (c) added to section 307 of such Act by
section 701 of Title VII of the provisions of H.R. 3424
(106th Congress) enacted into law in section 1000(a)(4) of
Public Law 10609113 (113 STAT. 1501A-280), and an
amount not to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed
communities.
Northern Border Regional Commission
For necessary expenses of the Northern Border Regional
Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle
V of title 40, United States Code, $1,350,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall
be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding
section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
For necessary expenses of the Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle
V of title 40, United States Code, $250,000, to remain
available until expended.
Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 54, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $250,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $250,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission is a Federal-State partnership intended to address the
economic needs of the southeastern United States, and the Lord really
knows that we have some economic needs in that area. In fact, in my
district, we have counties that unemployment approaches or exceeds 25
percent. But contained within the FY12 Energy and Water appropriations
bill is $250,000 in funding for this commission. My amendment
eliminates funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission,
transferring the $250,000 to the spending reduction account.
Some of you may ask: Why go after such a small amount as $250,000?
Mr. Chairman, here we see a Federal commission conducting work that
would be better managed by a State agency. This entity is so small that
it's hard to even find information on how the commission spends hard-
earned taxpayer dollars. In fact, we can't even find a Web site for
this commission. We need to look for spending cuts across every level
of the Federal Government, even if that means finding cuts in the
smallest of Federal bureaucracies.
For generations, Americans have been told by Members across the aisle
that more government, more bureaucracy, and more Federal spending are
the answers to all of their problems. We're losing our liberty because
of that kind of philosophy. This line of thinking has removed many of
our liberties that our Founders intended for us to have. Congress must
make every effort to roll back the Big Government mentality in
Washington and allow States to manage their own affairs. Zeroing out
funding for this commission would be a good step in sending government
powers back to the States and the people.
I urge support of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission includes all of the
counties from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida that are not already served by the
ARC or the DRA. Though relatively new, this regional commission is
intended to address planning and coordination on regional investments
and targeting resources to those communities with the greatest needs.
Many of these areas covered by this commission suffer from high
unemployment--10 percent in South Carolina, one of the highest in the
Nation. Marion County in South Carolina has 19 percent unemployment.
The county has seen both textile and manufacturing jobs disappear, and
this economic predicament is similar in much of the area covered by the
commission.
As we have seen with ARC investments, investment in regional
commissions can go toward area development and technical assistance
goals such as increasing job opportunities, improving employability,
and strengthening basic infrastructure.
The conventional wisdom among economists has long been that regional
approaches can be valuable in addressing developmental situations that
cannot be addressed simply through local policies. For example, to help
people in one jurisdiction to find jobs, one may have to create jobs
for them in a neighboring growth center.
In recent years regional approaches have gained greater support,
hence the relative newness of the Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission, in part because of increased global competition that rural
communities face.
{time} 2110
When people think of the First Congressional District that I
represent, because we produce more steel in one congressional district
than any State in the United States of America, they also miss the fact
that one of the counties I have the privilege of representing has 9,000
people in it, another has 14,000 people, another has 23,000. There are
[[Page H5015]]
very rural areas that are also economically stressed and do not have
those centers of gravity and need that type of tension to try to
generate some new economic opportunity and jobs, which is why, just
from my practical experience with the rural counties I have, I do
believe it is important to continue to work with the commission; and
that is why I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Please tell me what this commission does. We've looked and looked,
and we can't find a Web site for them. We can't find anything for them.
This is my district, what we are talking about. I represent the
northeast corner of the State of Georgia. In fact, we worked very
strongly, my staff and I, with the Appalachian Regional Commission, the
ARC, that the gentleman just mentioned. But we can't find even a Web
site for this commission. And just having a commission for the sake of
a commission, even though this would be considered a small amount of
money, $250,000, to me is a lot of money. And if we add little bits of
money together, after a while, then we get into bigger and bigger
funds.
So I think we need to start looking at getting rid of duplicative
commissions, duplicative functions of the Federal Government. And this
is just one--because my staff and I looked to try to find what this
commission does, what this $250,000 is expended on. We couldn't find
it.
I'm for economic development. In fact, in those counties in northeast
Georgia that I represent, we do have a tremendous unemployment rate. In
some of those counties, we have 20, 25 percent, maybe even higher,
underemployment and unemployment rates. So I am extremely, extremely
cognizant of the need for developing jobs for these areas. But I'm also
very cognizant that we are in an economic emergency as a Nation; and
wherever we can save money, I would like to do so.
I don't know what this commission does. I can't find anything about
it. So if the gentleman would please tell me, I would be eager to know.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Well, if I could reclaim my time, relative to the
gentleman's congressional district, I can't speak specifically, except
to note, again, the commission is relatively new; the dollar amounts,
relative to the Federal budget, are modest; and we're talking about
seven States. Perhaps the real value here is that they are spread a bit
thin and obviously do not have at this point in time a program in the
gentleman's district.
But I don't think that that was warranted, given the breadth of their
responsibilities over seven States, to argue against their demise. So,
again, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
in carrying out the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, including official
representation expenses (not to exceed $25,000),
$1,027,240,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That of the amount appropriated herein, not more than
$7,500,000 may be made available for salaries and other
support costs for the Office of the Commission: Provided,
That of the amount appropriated herein, $10,000,000 shall be
used to continue the Yucca Mountain license application, to
be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided further,
That revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and
other services and collections estimated at $890,713,000 in
fiscal year 2012 shall be retained and used for necessary
salaries and expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31
U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year
2012 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2012
appropriation estimated at not more than $136,527,000:
Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated under this
heading, $10,000,000 shall be for university research and
development in areas relevant to their respective
organization's mission, and $5,000,000 shall be for a Nuclear
Science and Engineering Grant Program that will support
multiyear projects that do not align with programmatic
missions but are critical to maintaining the discipline of
nuclear science and engineering.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $10,860,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$9,774,000 in fiscal year 2012 shall be retained and be
available until expended, for necessary salaries and expenses
in this account, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31,
United States Code: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues
received during fiscal year 2012 so as to result in a final
fiscal year 2012 appropriation estimated at not more than
$1,086,000.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by section 5051 of Public Law
100-203, $3,400,000 to be derived from the Nuclear Waste
Fund, and to remain available until expended.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects
For necessary expenses for the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004,
$4,032,000: Provided, That any fees, charges, or commissions
received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law 110-140 in
fiscal year 2012 in excess of $4,683,000 shall not be
available for obligation until appropriated in a subsequent
Act of Congress.
GENERAL PROVISION, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Sec. 401. (a) None of the funds provided in this title for
``Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Salaries and Expenses''
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that ---
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act; or
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
(b) The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may
not terminate any project, program, or activity without the
approval of a majority vote of the Commissioners of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission approving such action.
(c) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may waive the
restriction on reprogramming under subsection (a) on a case-
by-case basis by certifying to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
that such action is required to address national security or
imminent risks to public safety. Each such waiver
certification shall include a letter from the Chairman of the
Commission that a majority of Commissioners of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission have voted and approved the
reprogramming waiver certification.
(d) Except as provided in this section, the amounts made
available for ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Salaries and
Expenses'' shall be expended as authorized by law for the
projects and activities specified in the text and table under
that heading in the report of the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives to accompany this Act.
TITLE V--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF
(including rescission and transfers of funds)
Sec. 501. (a) Effective on the date of enactment of this
Act, the unobligated balance of funds in excess of
$1,028,684,400 made available for ``Department of
Transportation--Federal Railroad Administration--Capital
Assistance for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity
Passenger Rail Service'' by title XII of Public Law 111-5 is
hereby rescinded, and the remaining amount is hereby
transferred to and merged with the following accounts of the
Corps of Engineers--Civil in the following amounts for fiscal
year 2011, to remain available until expended, for emergency
expenses for repair of damage caused by the storm and flood
events occurring in 2011:
(1) ``Construction'', $376,000.
(2) ``Mississippi River and Tributaries'', $589,505,000.
(3) ``Operation and Maintenance'', $204,927,000.
(4) ``Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies'',
$233,876,400.
[[Page H5016]]
(b) With respect to each amount transferred in subsection
(a), the Chief of Engineers, acting through the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, shall provide, at a
minimum, a weekly report to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate detailing the
allocation and obligation of such amount, beginning not later
than one week after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Each amount transferred in subsection (a) is designated
as an emergency pursuant to section 3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5
(112th Congress).
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
Sec. 602. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided, in this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 603. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be obligated by any covered
executive agency in contravention of the certification
requirement of section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of
1996, as included in the revisions to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation pursuant to such section.
Sec. 604. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to conduct closure of adjudicatory functions,
technical review, or support activities associated with the
Yucca Mountain geologic repository license application until
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reverses ASLB decision LBP-
10-11, or for actions that irrevocably remove the possibility
that Yucca Mountain may be a repository option in the future.
Sec. 605. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be expended for any new hire by any Federal agency funded
in this Act that is not verified through the E-Verify Program
established under section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1324a note).
Sec. 606. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation
that was convicted (or had an officer or agent of such
corporation acting on behalf of the corporation convicted) of
a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the
preceding 24 months.
Sec. 607. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation
that any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed,
for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been
exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a
timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority
responsible for collecting the tax liability.
spending reduction account
Sec. 608. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Broun of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________