[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 173 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7396-S7413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2012

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2354, which the clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A 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.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations, with an amendment to strike all 
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                               H.R. 2354

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors, 
     flood and storm damage reduction, short protection, aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, and related efforts.

                         general investigations

       For expenses necessary where authorized by law for the 
     collection and study of basic information pertaining to river 
     and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore 
     protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related needs; 
     for surveys and detailed studies, and plans and 
     specifications of proposed river and harbor, flood and storm 
     damage reduction, shore protection, and aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration projects and related efforts prior to 
     construction; for restudy of authorized projects; and for 
     miscellaneous investigations and, when authorized by law, 
     surveys and detailed studies, and plans and specifications of 
     projects prior to construction, $125,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                         construction, general

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary for the construction of river and 
     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects 
     authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, and plans 
     and specifications, of such projects (including those 
     involving participation by States, local governments, or 
     private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by 
     law (but such detailed studies, and plans and specifications, 
     shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
     construction); $1,610,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the 
     Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived 
     from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by 
     Public Law 104-303; and of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover one-half of the costs of construction, replacement, 
     rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects 
     (including only Lock and Dam 27, Mississippi River, Illinois; 
     Lock and Dams 2, 3, and 4 Monongahela River, Pennsylvania; 
     Olmsted Lock and Dam, Illinois and Kentucky; and Emsworth 
     Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Pennsylvania) shall be derived 
     from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

                   mississippi river and tributaries

       For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects 
     and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley 
     below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, 
     $250,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of 
     eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors 
     shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

                       operation and maintenance

       For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
     care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
     reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related 
     projects authorized by law; providing security for 
     infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including 
     administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor 
     channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public 
     agency that serve essential navigation needs of general 
     commerce, where authorized by law; surveying and charting 
     northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 
     clearing and straightening channels; and removing 
     obstructions to navigation, $2,360,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and 
     maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for 
     inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 
     Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available from the 
     special account for the Corps established by the Land and 
     Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)) shall 
     be derived from that account for resource protection, 
     research, interpretation, and maintenance activities related 
     to resource protection in areas managed by the Corps at which 
     outdoor recreation is available; and of which such sums as 
     become available from fees collected under section 217 of 
     Public Law 104-303 shall be used to cover the cost of 
     operation and maintenance of the dredged material disposal 
     facilities for which such fees have been collected.

                           regulatory program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $193,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

       For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites 
     in the United States resulting from work performed as part of 
     the Nation's early atomic energy program, $109,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and 
     other natural disasters and support emergency operations, 
     repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters 
     as authorized by law, $27,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                            general expenses

       For expenses necessary for the supervision and general 
     administration of the civil works program in the headquarters 
     of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the offices 
     of the Division Engineers; and for the management and 
     operation of the Humphreys Engineer

[[Page S7397]]

     Center Support Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, 
     the United States Army Engineer Research and Development 
     Center, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance 
     Center, $185,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2013, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official 
     reception and representation purposes and only during the 
     current fiscal year:  Provided, That no part of any other 
     appropriation provided in title I of this Act shall be 
     available to fund the civil works activities of the Office of 
     the Chief of Engineers or the civil works executive direction 
     and management activities of the division offices:  Provided 
     further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 
     appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general 
     administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other 
     activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other 
     natural disaster.

     office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works

       For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), 
     $5,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013.

                        administrative provision

       The Revolving Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available 
     during the current fiscal year for purchase (not to exceed 
     100 for replacement only) and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles for the civil works program.

             general provisions--corps of engineers--civil

       Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in title I of this 
     Act, or provided by previous appropriations Acts to the 
     agencies or entities funded in title I of this Act that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2010, 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 have been denied or restricted by 
     this Act, unless prior approval is received from the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
       (4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity 
     for a different purpose, unless prior approval is received 
     from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
       (5) augments or reduces existing programs, projects or 
     activities in excess of the amounts contained in subsections 
     6 through 10, unless prior approval is received from the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
       (6) General investigations.--For a base level over 
     $100,000, reprogramming of 25 percent of the base amount up 
     to a limit of $150,000 per project, study or activity is 
     allowed:  Provided, That for a base level less than $100,000, 
     the reprogramming limit is $25,000:  Provided further, That 
     up to $25,000 may be reprogrammed into any continuing study 
     or activity that did not receive an appropriation for 
     existing obligations and concomitant administrative expenses;
       (7) Construction, general.--For a base level over 
     $2,000,000, reprogramming of 15 percent of the base amount up 
     to a limit of $3,000,000 per project, study or activity is 
     allowed:  Provided, That for a base level less than 
     $2,000,000, the reprogramming limit is $300,000:  Provided 
     further, That up to $3,000,000 may be reprogrammed for 
     settled contractor claims, changed conditions, or real estate 
     deficiency judgments:  Provided further, That up to $300,000 
     may be reprogrammed into any continuing study or activity 
     that did not receive an appropriation for existing 
     obligations and concomitant administrative expenses;
       (8) Operation and maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming 
     authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to 
     respond to emergencies:  Provided, That the Chief of 
     Engineers must notify the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations of these emergency actions as soon thereafter 
     as practicable:  Provided further, That for a base level over 
     $1,000,000, reprogramming of 15 percent of the base amount a 
     limit of $5,000,000 per project, study or activity is 
     allowed:  Provided further, That for a base level less than 
     $1,000,000, the reprogramming limit is $150,000:  Provided 
     further, That $150,000 may be reprogrammed into any 
     continuing study or activity that did not receive an 
     appropriation;
       (9) Mississippi river and tributaries.--The same 
     reprogramming guidelines for the Investigations, 
     Construction, and Operation and Maintenance portions of the 
     Mississippi River and Tributaries Account as listed above; 
     and
       (10) Formerly utilized sites remedial action program.--
     Reprogramming of up to 15 percent of the base of the 
     receiving project is permitted.
       (b) De Minimus Reprogrammings.--In no case should a 
     reprogramming for less than $50,000 be submitted to the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       (c) Continuing Authorities Program.--Subsection (a)(1) 
     shall not apply to any project or activity funded under the 
     continuing authorities program.
       (d) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Corps of Engineers shall submit a report to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to establish 
     the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer 
     authorities for the current fiscal year:  Provided, That the 
     report shall include:
       (1) A table for each appropriation with a separate column 
     to display the President's budget request, adjustments made 
     by Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if 
     appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level;
       (2) A delineation in the table for each appropriation both 
     by object class and program, project and activity as detailed 
     in the budget appendix for the respective appropriations; and
       (3) An identification of items of special congressional 
     interest.
       Sec. 102.  None of the funds in this Act, or previous Acts, 
     making funds available to the Corps, shall be used to 
     implement any pending or future competitive sourcing actions 
     under OMB Circular A-76 or High Performing Organizations.
       Sec. 103.  None of the funds in this Act, or previous Acts, 
     making funds available to the Corps, shall be used to award 
     any continuing contract that commits additional funding from 
     the Inland Waterways Trust Fund unless or until such time 
     that a long-term mechanism to enhance revenues in this Fund 
     sufficient to meet the cost-sharing authorized in the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662), as 
     amended, is enacted.
       Sec. 104.  Within 120 days of the date of the Chief of 
     Engineers Report on a water resource matter, the Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) shall submit the report 
     to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees 
     of the Congress.
       Sec. 105.  During the fiscal year period covered by this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Army is authorized to implement 
     measures recommended in the efficacy study authorized under 
     section 3061 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
     (121 Stat. 1121) or in interim reports, with such 
     modifications or emergency measures as the Secretary of the 
     Army determines to be appropriate, to prevent aquatic 
     nuisance species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way 
     of any hydrologic connection between the Great Lakes and the 
     Mississippi River Basin.
       Sec. 106.  The Secretary is authorized to transfer to the 
     ``Construction'' account up to $100,000,000 of the funds 
     provided for reinforcing or replacing flood walls under the 
     ``Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies'' heading in Public 
     Law 109-234 (120 Stat. 455) and Public Law 110-252 (122 Stat. 
     2350) and up to $75,000,000 of the funds provided for 
     projects and measures for the West Bank and Vicinity and Lake 
     Ponchartrain and Vicinity projects under the ``Flood Control 
     and Coastal Emergencies'' heading in Public Law 110-28 (121 
     Stat. 153) to be used with funds provided for the West Bank 
     and Vicinity project under the ``Construction'' heading in 
     Public Law 110-252 (122 Stat. 2349) and Public Law 110-329 
     (122 Stat. 3589), consistent with 65 percent Federal and 35 
     percent non-Federal cost share and the financing of, and 
     payment terms for, the non-Federal cash contribution 
     associated with the West Bank and Vicinity project.
       Sec. 107.  The Secretary of the Army may authorize a member 
     of the Armed Forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction and 
     employees of the Department of the Army to serve without 
     compensation as director, officer, or otherwise in the 
     management of the organization established to support and 
     maintain the participation of the United States in the 
     permanent international commission of the congresses of 
     navigation, or any successor entity.
       Sec. 108. (a) Acquisition.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     acquire any real property and associated real property 
     interests in the vicinity of Hanover, New Hampshire as may be 
     needed for the Engineer Research and Development Center 
     laboratory facilities at the Cold Regions Research and 
     Engineering Laboratory. This real property to be acquired 
     consists of 18.5 acres more or less, identified as Tracts 
     101-1 and 101-2, together with all necessary easements 
     located entirely within the Town of Hanover, New Hampshire. 
     The real property is generally bounded to the east by state 
     route 10-Lyme Road, to the north by the vacant property of 
     the Trustees of the Dartmouth College, to the south by 
     Fletcher Circle graduate student housing owned by the 
     Trustees of Dartmouth College, and to the west by 
     approximately 9 acres of real property acquired in fee 
     through condemnation in 1981 by the Secretary of the Army.
       (b) Revolving Fund.--The Secretary is authorized to use the 
     Revolving Fund (33 U.S.C. 576) through the Plant Replacement 
     and Improvement Program to acquire the real property and 
     associated real property interests in subsection (a). The 
     Secretary shall ensure that the Revolving Fund is 
     appropriately reimbursed from the benefiting appropriations.
       (c) Right of First Refusal.--The Secretary may provide the 
     Seller of any real property and associated property interests 
     identified in subsection (a)--
       (1) a right of first refusal to acquire such property, or 
     any portion thereof, in the event the property, or any 
     portion thereof, is no longer needed by the Department of the 
     Army.
       (2) a right of first refusal to acquire any real property 
     or associated real property interests acquired by 
     condemnation in Civil Action No. 81-360-L, in the event the 
     property, or any portion thereof, is no longer needed by the 
     Department of the Army.
       (3) the purchase of any property by the Seller exercising 
     either right of first refusal authorized in this section 
     shall be for consideration acceptable to the Secretary and 
     shall be for not less than fair market value at the time the 
     property becomes available for purchase. The right of first 
     refusal authorized in this section shall not inure to the 
     benefit of the Sellers successors or assigns.
       (d) Disposal.--The Secretary of the Army is authorized to 
     dispose of any property or associated real property interests 
     that are subject to the exercise of the right of first 
     refusal as set forth herein.
       Sec. 109.  The Secretary of the Army may transfer, and the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service may accept and expend, up to 
     $3,800,000 of funds provided in this title under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance'', to mitigate for fisheries lost 
     due to Corps of Engineers projects.
       Sec. 110.  The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, is directed to fully utilize the Federal 
     dredging fleet in support of all Army Corps of Engineers 
     missions

[[Page S7398]]

     and no restrictions shall be placed on the use or maintenance 
     of any dredge in the Federal Fleet.
       Sec. 111.  The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, is directed to maintain the Federal 
     dredging fleet to technologically modern and efficient 
     standards.
       Sec. 112.  The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers is directed to utilize funds from the 
     revolving fund to expeditiously undertake necessary health 
     and safety improvements, including lead and asbestos 
     abatement, to the dredge ``McFarland'':  Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall ensure that the Revolving Fund is 
     appropriately reimbursed from appropriations of the Corps' 
     benefiting programs by collection each year of amounts 
     sufficient to repay the capitalized cost of such construction 
     and improvements.
       Sec. 113.  With respect to the property covered by the deed 
     described in Auditor's instrument No. 2006-014428 of Benton 
     County, Washington, approximately 1.5 acres, the following 
     deed restrictions are hereby extinguished and of no further 
     force and effect:
       (1) The reversionary interest and use restrictions related 
     to port and industrial purposes;
       (2) The right for the District Engineer to review all pre-
     construction plans and/or specifications pertaining to 
     construction and/or maintenance of any structure intended for 
     human habitation, other building structure, parking lots, or 
     roads, if the elevation of the property is above the standard 
     project flood elevation; and
       (3) The right of the District Engineer to object to, and 
     thereby prevent, in his/her discretion, such activity.
       Sec. 114.  That portion of the project for navigation, 
     Block Island Harbor of Refuge, Rhode Island adopted by the 
     Rivers and Harbors Act of July 11, 1870, consisting of the 
     cut-stone breakwater lining the west side of the Inner Basin; 
     beginning at a point with coordinates N32579.55, E312625.53, 
     thence running northerly about 76.59 feet to a point with 
     coordinates N32655.92, E312631.32, thence running northerly 
     about 206.81 feet to a point with coordinates N32858.33, 
     E312673.74, thence running easterly about 109.00 feet to a 
     point with coordinates N32832.15, E312779.54, shall no longer 
     be authorized after the date of enactment.
       Sec. 115.  The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, is authorized, using amounts available in 
     the Revolving Fund established by section 101 of the Act of 
     July 27, 1953, chap. 245 (33 U.S.C. 576), to construct a 
     Consolidated Infrastructure Research Equipment Facility, an 
     Environmental Processes and Risk Lab, a Hydraulic Research 
     Facility, an Engineer Research and Development Center 
     headquarters building, a Modular Hydraulic Flume building, 
     and to purchase real estate, perform construction, and make 
     facility, utility, street, road, and infrastructure 
     improvements to the Engineer Research and Development 
     Center's installations and facilities. The Secretary shall 
     ensure that the Revolving Fund is appropriately reimbursed 
     from the benefitting appropriations.
       Sec. 116.  Section 1148 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254; 110 Stat. 3718; 114 Stat. 2609) 
     is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Disposition of Acquired Land.--The Secretary may 
     transfer land acquired under this section to the non-Federal 
     sponsor by quitclaim deed subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines to be in the public 
     interest.''.
       Sec. 117.  The New London Disposal Site and the Cornfield 
     Shoals Disposal Site in Long Island Sound selected by the 
     Department of the Army as alternative dredged material 
     disposal sites under section 103(b) of the Marine Protection, 
     Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, shall 
     remain open until completion of a Supplemental Environmental 
     Impact Statement to support final designation of an Ocean 
     Dredged Material Disposal Site in eastern Long Island Sound 
     under section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and 
     Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
       Sec. 118. (a) That portion of the project for navigation, 
     Newport Harbor, Rhode Island adopted by the Rivers and 
     Harbors Acts of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1075); June 25, 1910 
     (36 Stat. 632); August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 845); and, modified 
     by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Public Law 106-
     113, appendix E, title II, section 221 (113 Stat. 1501A-298); 
     consisting of a 13-foot anchorage, an 18-foot anchorage, a 
     21-foot channel, and 18-foot channels described by the 
     following shall no longer be authorized after the date of 
     enactment of this Act: the 21-Foot Entrance Channel, 
     beginning at a point (1) with coordinates 374986.03, 
     150611.01; thence running south 46 degrees 54 minutes 30.7 
     seconds east 900.01 feet to a point (2) with coordinates 
     375643.27, 149996.16; thence running south 8 degrees 4 
     minutes 58.3 east 2,376.87 feet to a point (3) with 
     coordinates 375977.47, 147643.00; thence running south 4 
     degrees 28 minutes 20.4 seconds west 738.56 feet to a point 
     (4) with coordinates 375919.88, 146906.60; thence running 
     south 6 degrees 2 minutes 42.4 seconds east 1,144.00 feet to 
     a point (5) with coordinates 376040.35, 145768.96; thence 
     running south 34 degrees 5 minutes 51.7 seconds west 707.11 
     feet to a point (6) with coordinates 375643.94, 145183.41; 
     thence running south 73 degrees 11 minutes 42.9 seconds west 
     1,300.00 feet to the end point (7) with coordinates 
     374399.46, 144807.57; Returning at a point with coordinates 
     (8) with coordinates 374500.64, 144472.51; thence running 
     north 73 degrees 11 minutes 42.9 seconds east 1,582.85 feet 
     to a point (9) with coordinates 376015.90, 144930.13; thence 
     running north 34 degrees 5 minutes 51.7 seconds east 615.54 
     feet to a point (10) with coordinates 376360.97, 145439.85; 
     thence running north 2 degrees 10 minutes 43.3 seconds west 
     2,236.21 feet to a point (11) with coordinates 376275.96, 
     147674.45; thence running north 8 degrees 4 minutes 55.6 
     seconds west 2,652.83 feet to a point (12) with coordinates 
     375902.99, 150300.93; thence running north 46 degrees 54 
     minutes 30.7 seconds west 881.47 feet to an end point (13) 
     with coordinates 375259.29, 150903.12; and the 18-Foot South 
     Goat Island Channel beginning at a point (14) with 
     coordinates 375509.09, 149444.83; thence running south 25 
     degrees 44 minutes 0.5 second east 430.71 feet to a point 
     (15) with coordinates 375696.10, 149056.84; thence running 
     south 10 degrees 13 minutes 27.4 seconds east 1,540.89 feet 
     to a point (16) with coordinates 375969.61, 147540.41; thence 
     running south 4 degrees 29 minutes 11.3 seconds west 1,662.92 
     feet to a point (17) with coordinates 375839.53, 145882.59; 
     thence running south 34 degrees 5 minutes 51.7 seconds west 
     547.37 feet to a point (18) with coordinates 375532.67, 
     145429.32; thence running south 86 degrees 47 minutes 37.7 
     seconds west 600.01 feet to an end point (19) with 
     coordinates 374933.60, 145395.76; and the 18-Foot Entrance 
     Channel beginning at a point (20) with coordinates 374567.14, 
     144252.33; thence running north 73 degrees 11 minutes 42.9 
     seconds east 1,899.22 feet to a point (21) with coordinates 
     376385.26, 144801.42; thence running north 2 degrees 10 
     minutes 41.5 seconds west 638.89 feet to an end point (10) 
     with coordinates 376360.97, 145439.85; and the 18-Foot South 
     Anchorage beginning at a point (22) with coordinates 
     376286.81, 147389.37; thence running north 78 degrees 56 
     minutes 15.6 seconds east 404.86 feet to a point (23) with 
     coordinates 376684.14, 147467.05; thence running north 78 
     degrees 56 minutes 15.6 seconds east 1,444.33 feet to a point 
     (24) with coordinates 378101.63, 147744.18; thence running 
     south 5 degrees 18 minutes 43.8 seconds west 1,228.20 feet to 
     a point (25) with coordinates 377987.92, 146521.26; thence 
     running south 3 degrees 50 minutes 3.4 seconds east 577.84 
     feet to a point (26) with coordinates 378026.56, 145944.71; 
     thence running south 44 degrees 32 minutes 14.7 seconds west 
     2,314.09 feet to a point (27) with coordinates 376403.52, 
     144295.24 thence running south 60 degrees 5 minutes 58.2 
     seconds west 255.02 feet to an end point (28) with 
     coordinates 376182.45, 144168.12; and the 13-Foot Anchorage 
     beginning at a point (29) with coordinates 376363.39, 
     143666.99; thence running north 63 degrees 34 minutes 19.3 
     seconds east 1,962.37 feet to a point (30) with coordinates 
     378120.68, 144540.38; thence running north 3 degrees 50 
     minutes 3.1 seconds west 1,407.47 feet to an end point (26) 
     with coordinates 378026.56, 145944.71; and the 18-Foot East 
     Channel beginning at a point (23) with coordinates 376684.14, 
     147467.05; thence running north 2 degrees 10 minutes 43.3 
     seconds west 262.95 feet to a point (31) with coordinates 
     376674.14, 147729.81; thence running north 9 degrees 42 
     minutes 20.3 seconds west 301.35 feet to a point (32) with 
     coordinates 376623.34, 148026.85; thence running south 80 
     degrees 17 minutes 42.4 seconds west 313.6 feet to a point 
     (33) with coordinates 376314.23, 147973.99; thence running 
     north 7 degrees 47 minutes 21.9 seconds west 776.24 feet to 
     an end point (34) with coordinates 376209.02, 148743.06; and 
     the 18-Foot North Anchorage beginning at a point (35) with 
     coordinates 376123.98, 148744.69; thence running south 88 
     degrees 54 minutes 16.2 seconds east 377.90 feet to a point 
     (36) with coordinates 376501.82, 148737.47; thence running 
     north 9 degrees 42 minutes 19.0 seconds west 500.01 feet to a 
     point (37) with coordinates 376417.52, 149230.32; thence 
     running north 6 degrees 9 minutes 53.2 seconds west 1,300.01 
     feet to an end point (38) with coordinates 376277.92, 
     150522.81.
       (b) The area described by the following shall be 
     redesignated as an eighteen-foot channel and turning basin: 
     Beginning at a point (1) with coordinates N144759.41, 
     E374413.16; thence running north 73 degrees 11 minutes 42.9 
     seconds east 1,252.88 feet to a point (2) with coordinates 
     N145121.63, E375612.53; thence running north 26 degrees 29 
     minutes 48.1 seconds east 778.89 feet to a point (3) with 
     coordinates N145818.71, E375960.04; thence running north 0 
     degrees 3 minutes 38.1 seconds west 1,200.24 feet to a point 
     (4) with coordinates N147018.94, E375958.77; thence running 
     north 2 degrees 22 minutes 45.2 seconds east 854.35 feet to a 
     point (5) with coordinates N147872.56, E375994.23; thence 
     running north 7 degrees 47 minutes 21.9 seconds west 753.83 
     feet to a point (6) with coordinates N148619.44, E375892.06; 
     thence running north 88 degrees 46 minutes 16.7 seconds east 
     281.85 feet to a point (7) with coordinates N148625.48, 
     E376173.85; thence running south 7 degrees 47 minutes 21.9 
     seconds east 716.4 feet to a point (8) with coordinates 
     N147915.69, E376270.94; thence running north 80 degrees 17 
     minutes 42.3 seconds east 315.3 feet to a point (9) with 
     coordinates N147968.85, E.76581.73; thence running south 9 
     degrees 42 minutes 20.3 seconds east 248.07 feet to a point 
     (10) with coordinates N147724.33, E376623.55; thence running 
     south 2 degrees 10 minutes 43.3 seconds east 318.09 feet to a 
     point (11) with coordinates N147406.47, E376635.64; thence 
     running north 78 degrees 56 minutes 15.6 seconds east 571.11 
     feet to a point (12) with coordinates N147516.06, E377196.15; 
     thence running south 88 degrees 57 minutes 2.3 seconds east 
     755.09 feet to a point (13) with coordinates N147502.23, 
     E377951.11; thence running south 1 degree 2 minutes 57.7 
     seconds west 100.00 feet to a point (14) with coordinates 
     N147402.25, E377949.28; thence running north 88 degrees 57 
     minutes 2.3 seconds west 744.48 feet to a point (15) with 
     coordinates N147415.88, E377204.92; thence running south 78 
     degrees 56 minutes 15.6 seconds west 931.17 feet to a point 
     (16) with coordinates N147237.21, E376291.06; thence running 
     south 39 degrees 26 minutes 18.7 seconds west 208.34 feet to 
     a point (17) with coordinates N147076.31, E376158.71; thence 
     running south 0 degrees 3 minutes 38.1 seconds east 1,528.26 
     feet to a point (18) with coordinates N145548.05, E376160.32; 
     thence running south 26 degrees 29 minutes 48.1 seconds west 
     686.83 feet to a point (19) with coordinates N144933.37, 
     E375853.90; thence running south 73 degrees 11 minutes 42.9 
     seconds west 1,429.51 feet to end at a point (20) with 
     coordinates N144520.08, E374485.44.

[[Page S7399]]

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                central utah project completion account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, $28,991,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $2,000,000 shall be deposited into 
     the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for 
     use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission, and of which $1,550,000 for necessary expenses 
     incurred in carrying out related responsibilities of the 
     Secretary of the Interior. For fiscal year 2012, the 
     Commission may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for 
     administrative expenses.

                      water and related resources

                     (including transfers of funds)

       The following appropriations shall be expended to execute 
     authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:
       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, and others, $885,670,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $10,698,000 shall be available for 
     transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
     $6,136,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower 
     Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which such amounts 
     as may be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam 
     Fund:  Provided, That such transfers may be increased or 
     decreased within the overall appropriation under this 
     heading:  Provided further, That of the total appropriated, 
     the amount for program activities that can be financed by the 
     Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of Reclamation special fee 
     account established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i) shall be derived 
     from that Fund or account:  Provided further, That funds 
     contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 are available until expended 
     for the purposes for which contributed:  Provided further, 
     That funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to 
     this account and are available until expended for the same 
     purposes as the sums appropriated under this heading:  
     Provided further, That of the amounts provided herein, funds 
     may be used for high priority projects which shall be carried 
     out by the Youth Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 
     U.S.C. 1706.

                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $53,068,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That the Bureau of 
     Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount 
     of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575:  
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of 
     water for in-stream purposes if the water is already 
     committed to in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or 
     order.

                    california bay-delta restoration

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply, 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent 
     with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     $39,651,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities 
     may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other 
     participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized 
     purposes:  Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be 
     used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program 
     management:  Provided further, That the use of any funds 
     provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for program-
     wide management and oversight activities shall be subject to 
     the approval of the Secretary of the Interior:  Provided 
     further, That CALFED implementation shall be carried out in a 
     balanced manner with clear performance measures demonstrating 
     concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of 
     the Program.

                       policy and administration

       For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2013, 
     $60,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377:  Provided, That 
     no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and 
     administration expenses.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in title II of 
     this Act for Water and Related Resources, or provided by 
     previous appropriations Acts to the agencies or entities 
     funded in title II of this Act for Water and Related 
     Resources that remain available for obligation or expenditure 
     in fiscal year 2010, shall be available for obligation or 
     expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) initiates or creates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act, 
     unless prior approval is received from the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate;
       (4) restarts or resumes any program, project or activity 
     for which funds are not provided in this Act, unless prior 
     approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate;
       (5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits, 
     unless prior approval is received from the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate:
       (A) 15 percent for any program, project or activity for 
     which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year; or
       (B) $300,000 for any program, project or activity for which 
     less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year;
       (6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities 
     Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the 
     Resources Management and Development category to any program, 
     project, or activity in the other category, unless prior 
     approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate; or
       (7) transfers, where necessary to discharge legal 
     obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than 
     $5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor 
     claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated 
     rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments, 
     unless prior approval is received from the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       (b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of 
     funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and 
     Rehabilitation category.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer'' 
     means any movement of funds into or out of a program, 
     project, or activity.
       (d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the 
     funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or 
     categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to determine the final 
     point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis 
     Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the 
     water quality standards of the State of California as 
     approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis 
     drainage waters.
       (b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program 
     and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
     shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan'' 
     described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department 
     of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future 
     obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or 
     providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the 
     San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit 
     beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal 
     reclamation law.
       Sec. 203.  Section 529(b)(3) of Public Law 106-541, as 
     amended by section 115 of Public Law 109-103, is further 
     amended by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$30,000,000'' in lieu thereof.
       Sec. 204.  Section 8 of the Water Desalination Act of 1996 
     (42 U.S.C. 10301 note; Public Law 104-298) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``2011'' and inserting ``2016''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``$25,000,000 for fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2011'' and inserting ``$3,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2012 through 2016''.
       Sec. 205. (a) Permitted Uses.--Section 2507(b) of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (43 U.S.C. 2211 
     note; Public Law 107-171) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``In 
     any case in which there are willing sellers'' and inserting 
     ``For the benefit of at-risk natural desert terminal lakes 
     and associated riparian and watershed resources, in any case 
     in which there are willing sellers or willing participants'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``in the Walker River'' 
     and all that follows through ``119 Stat. 2268)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``in the Walker River 
     Basin''.
       (b) Walker Basin Restoration Program.--Section 208(b) of 
     the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-85; 123 Stat. 2858) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iv), by striking ``exercise water 
     rights'' and inserting ``manage land, water appurtenant to 
     the land, and related interests''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``The amount made 
     available under subsection (a)(1) shall be provided to the 
     National Fish and Wildlife Foundation'' and inserting ``Any 
     amount made available to the National Fish and Wildlife 
     Foundation under subsection (a) shall be provided''.
       Sec. 206.  The Federal policy for addressing California's 
     water supply and environmental issues related to the Bay-
     Delta shall be consistent with State law, including the co-
     equal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for the 
     State of California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing 
     the Delta ecosystem. The Secretary of the Interior, the 
     Secretary of

[[Page S7400]]

     Commerce, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency Administrator shall jointly coordinate the 
     efforts of the relevant agencies and work with the State of 
     California and other stakeholders to complete and issue the 
     Bay Delta Conservation Plan Final Environmental Impact 
     Statement no later than February 15, 2013. Nothing herein 
     modifies existing requirements of Federal law.
       Sec. 207.  The Secretary of the Interior may participate in 
     non-Federal groundwater banking programs to increase the 
     operational flexibility, reliability, and efficient use of 
     water in the State of California, and this participation may 
     include making payment for the storage of Central Valley 
     Project water supplies, the purchase of stored water, the 
     purchase of shares or an interest in ground banking 
     facilities, or the use of Central Valley Project water as a 
     medium of payment for groundwater banking services:  
     Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     participate in groundwater banking programs only to the 
     extent allowed under State law and consistent with water 
     rights applicable to the Central Valley Project:  Provided 
     further, That any water user to which banked water is 
     delivered shall pay for such water in the same manner 
     provided by that water user's then-current Central Valley 
     Project water service, repayment, or water rights settlement 
     contract at the rate provided by the then-current Central-
     Valley Project Irrigation or Municipal and Industrial Rate 
     Setting Policies; and:  Provided further, That in 
     implementing this section, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall comply with applicable environmental laws, including 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1531 et seq.) Nothing herein shall alter or limit the 
     Secretary's existing authority to use groundwater banking to 
     meet existing fish and wildlife obligations.
       Sec. 208. (a) Subject to compliance with all applicable 
     Federal and State laws, a transfer of irrigation water among 
     Central Valley Project contractors from the Friant, San 
     Felipe, West San Joaquin, and Delta divisions, and a transfer 
     from a long-term Friant Division water service or repayment 
     contractor to a temporary or prior temporary service 
     contractors within the place of use in existence on the date 
     of the transfer, as identified in the Bureau of Reclamation 
     water rights permits for the Friant Division, shall be 
     considered to meet the conditions described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (I) of section 3405(a)(1) of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575; 
     106 Stat. 4709).
       (b) The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
     Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 
     the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation shall initiate 
     and complete, on the most expedited basis practicable, 
     programmatic environmental compliance so as to facilitate 
     voluntary water transfers within the Central Valley Project, 
     consistent with all applicable Federal and State law.
       (c) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act and each of the 4 years thereafter, the Commissioner 
     of the Bureau of Reclamation shall submit to the committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a report that 
     describes the status of efforts to help facilitate and 
     improve the water transfers within the Central Valley Project 
     and water transfers between the Central Valley Project and 
     other water projects in the State of California; evaluates 
     potential effects of this Act on Federal programs, Indian 
     tribes, Central Valley Project operations, the environment, 
     groundwater aquifers, refuges, and communities; and provides 
     recommendations on ways to facilitate and improve the process 
     for these transfers.
       Sec. 209.  Section 10009(c)(2) of the San Joaquin River 
     Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 
     1356) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2019, all funds in 
     the Fund shall be available for expenditure without further 
     appropriation.'' and inserting ``October 1, 2014, all funds 
     in the Fund shall be available for expenditure on an annual 
     basis in an amount not to exceed $40,000,000 without further 
     appropriation.'' in lieu thereof.

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy 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, $1,795,641,000, to 
     remain available until expended:  Provided, That $165,000,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2013 for program 
     direction:  Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated, the Secretary may use not more than 
     $170,000,000 for activities of the Department of Energy 
     pursuant to the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 2061, et seq.):  Provided further, That within 12 months 
     of the date of enactment, the Secretary shall initiate 
     separate rulemakings to establish efficiency standards for 
     televisions and set top television boxes.

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and 
     energy reliability 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, $141,010,000, to 
     remain available until expended:  Provided, That $27,010,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2013 for program 
     direction.

                             Nuclear Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy 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 more than 10 buses, all 
     for replacement only, $583,834,000, to remain available until 
     expended:  Provided, That $86,279,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2013 for program direction:  Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Department shall develop a strategy within 3 months of 
     the publication of the final report of the Blue Ribbon 
     Commission on America's Nuclear Future to manage spent 
     nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste at consolidated storage 
     facilities and permanent repositories that can be implemented 
     as expeditiously as possible.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

                         (including rescission)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     $445,471,000, to remain available until expended:  Provided, 
     That $151,729,000 shall be available until September 30, 2013 
     for program direction:  Provided further, That for all 
     programs funded under Fossil Energy appropriations in this 
     Act or any other Act, the Secretary may vest fee title or 
     other property interests acquired under projects in any 
     entity, including the United States:  Provided further, That 
     of prior-year balances, $187,000,000 are hereby rescinded:  
     Provided further, That no rescission made by the previous 
     proviso shall apply to any amount previously appropriated in 
     Public Law 111-5 or designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                 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 $500,00,000 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 paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of section 160 of 
     the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 
     6240(a)(1) and (2)) are hereby repealed:  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)

       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 of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6250a) are 
     hereby rescinded.

                   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, $219,121,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions, and other

[[Page S7401]]

     activities of title II of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and 
     title X, subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
     $429,000,000, to be derived from the Uranium Enrichment 
     Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, to remain available 
     until expended.

                                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, $4,842,665,000, to remain available until expended:  
     Provided, That $180,786,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 2013 for program direction.

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities 
     authorized by section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act 
     (Public Law 110-69), as amended, $250,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

         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, $200,000,000 is appropriated 
     to remain available until expended:  Provided, That the 
     amounts 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 2011 
     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 pursuant to 
     section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, no 
     appropriations are available to pay the subsidy cost of such 
     guarantees for nuclear power or fossil energy facilities:  
     Provided further, That none of the loan guarantee authority 
     made available in this Act 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 provision shall not be interpreted as precluding the 
     use of the loan guarantee authority in this Act for 
     commitment to guarantee loans for projects as a result of 
     such projects benefiting from (a) otherwise allowable Federal 
     income tax benefits; (b) being located on Federal land 
     pursuant to a lease or right-of-way agreement for which all 
     consideration for all uses is (i) paid exclusively in cash, 
     (ii) deposited in the Treasury as offsetting receipts, and 
     (iii) equal to the fair market value as determined by the 
     head of the relevant Federal agency; (c) Federal insurance 
     programs, including Price-Anderson; or (d) 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 Act 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 title.

        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.

                      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, $237,623,000, 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 $125,740,000.

                    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

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and 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; $7,190,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

                         (including rescission)

       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, $2,404,300,000, to remain available until expended:  
     Provided, That of the unobligated balances available under 
     this heading, $21,000,000 are hereby rescinded.

                             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, $1,100,000,000, 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,$404,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2013.

               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 ambulances and one fire truck for 
     replacement only, $5,002,308,000, to remain available until 
     expended:  Provided, That $321,628,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 2013 for program direction.

                        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, $819,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                     POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATION

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, 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 $7,000. During fiscal 
     year 2012, no new direct loan obligations may be made.

      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

[[Page S7402]]

     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. 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:  
     Provided further, That not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue such 
     regulations as are necessary to clarify that a State may 
     establish rates for the wholesale sale of electric energy in 
     interstate commerce pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory 
     Policies Act of 1978 such that those rates shall not unduly 
     discriminate against the qualifying cogeneration facility or 
     qualifying small power production facility selling the 
     electric energy or exceed the costs to produce and deliver 
     the electric energy, as determined for the specific 
     technology at issue.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

       Sec. 301.  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. 302.  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. 303.  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. 304. (a) Submission to Congress.--The Secretary of 
     Energy shall submit to Congress each year, at the time that 
     the President's budget is submitted to Congress that year 
     under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a 
     future-years energy program reflecting the estimated 
     expenditures and proposed appropriations included in that 
     budget. Any such future-years energy program shall cover the 
     fiscal year with respect to which the budget is submitted and 
     at least the four succeeding fiscal years. A future-years 
     energy program shall be included in the fiscal year 2014 
     budget submission to Congress and every fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       (b) Elements.--Each future-years energy program shall 
     contain the following:
       (1) The estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations 
     necessary to support programs, projects, and activities of 
     the Secretary of Energy during the 5-fiscal year period 
     covered by the program, expressed in a level of detail 
     comparable to that contained in the budget submitted by the 
     President to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (2) The estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations 
     shaped by high-level, prioritized program and budgetary 
     guidance that is consistent with the administration's 
     policies and out year budget projections and reviewed by 
     DOE's senior leadership to ensure that the future-years 
     energy program is consistent and

[[Page S7403]]

     congruent with previously established program and budgetary 
     guidance.
       (3) A description of the anticipated workload requirements 
     for each DOE national laboratory during the 5-fiscal year 
     period.
       (c) Consistency in Budgeting.--
       (1) The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that amounts 
     described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) for any fiscal 
     year are consistent with amounts described in subparagraph 
     (B) of paragraph (2) for that fiscal year.
       (2) Amounts referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) The amounts specified in program and budget information 
     submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Energy in support 
     of expenditure estimates and proposed appropriations in the 
     budget submitted to Congress by the President under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for any fiscal year, 
     as shown in the future-years energy program submitted 
     pursuant to subsection (a).
       (B) The total amounts of estimated expenditures and 
     proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs, 
     projects, and activities of the administration included 
     pursuant to paragraph (5) of section 1105(a) of such title in 
     the budget submitted to Congress under that section for any 
     fiscal year.
       Sec. 305.  Section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
     (42 U.S.C. 16512) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Specific Appropriation or Contribution.--
       ``(1) In general.--No guarantee shall be made unless--
       ``(A) an appropriation for the cost of the guarantee has 
     been made;
       ``(B) the Secretary has received from the borrower a 
     payment in full for the cost of the guarantee and deposited 
     the payment into the Treasury; or
       ``(C) a combination of one or more appropriations under 
     subparagraph (A) and one or more payments from the borrower 
     under subparagraph (B) has been made that is sufficient to 
     cover the cost of the guarantee.''.
       Sec. 306.  Plant or construction projects for which amounts 
     are made available under this and subsequent appropriation 
     Acts with a current estimated cost of less than $10,000,000 
     are considered for purposes of section 4703 of Public Law 
     107-314 as a plant project for which the approved total 
     estimated cost does not exceed the minor construction 
     threshold and for purposes of section 4704 of Public Law 107-
     314 as a construction project with a current estimated cost 
     of less than a minor construction threshold.
       Sec. 307.  In section 839b(h)(10)(B) of title 16, United 
     States Code, strike ``$1,000,000'' and insert ``$5,000,000.''

                              (rescission)

       Sec. 308.  None of the funds in this Act or any other Act 
     shall be used to deposit funds in excess of $25,000,000 from 
     any Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses derived from 
     Federal onshore and off-shore oil and gas leases issued under 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et 
     seq.) and the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) 
     into the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and 
     Other Petroleum Research Fund.

                              (rescission)

       Sec. 309.  Of the amounts appropriated in this title, 
     $73,700,000 are hereby rescinded, to reflect savings from the 
     contractor pay freeze instituted by the Department. The 
     Department shall allocate the rescission among the 
     appropriations made in this title.
       Sec. 310.  Recipients of grants awarded by the Department 
     in excess of $1,000,000 shall certify that they will, by the 
     end of the fiscal year, upgrade the efficiency of their 
     facilities by replacing any lighting that does not meet or 
     exceed the energy efficiency standard for incandescent light 
     bulbs set forth in section 325 of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295).
       Sec. 311. (a) Any determination (including a determination 
     made prior to the date of enactment of this Act) by the 
     Secretary pursuant to section 3112(d)(2)(B) of the USEC 
     Privatization Act (110 Stat. 1321-335), as amended, that the 
     sale or transfer of uranium will not have an adverse material 
     impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or 
     enrichment industry shall be valid for not more than 2 
     calendar years subsequent to such determination.
       (b) Not less than 30 days prior to the transfer, sale, 
     barter, distribution, or other provision of uranium in any 
     form for the purpose of accelerating cleanup at a Federal 
     site, the Secretary shall notify the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations of the following:
       (1) the amount of uranium to be transferred, sold, 
     bartered, distributed, or otherwise provided;
       (2) an estimate by the Secretary of the gross market value 
     of the uranium on the expected date of the transfer, sale, 
     barter, distribution, or other provision of the uranium;
       (3) the expected date of transfer, sale, barter, 
     distribution, or other provision of the uranium;
       (4) the recipient of the uranium; and
       (5) the value of the services the Secretary expects to 
     receive in exchange for the uranium, including any reductions 
     to the gross value of the uranium by the recipient.
       (c) Not later than June 30, 2012, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
     revised excess uranium inventory management plan for fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2018.
       (d) Not later than December 31, 2011 the Secretary shall 
     submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
     report evaluating the economic feasibility of re-enriching 
     depleted uranium located at Federal sites.
       Sec. 312. (a) The Secretary of Energy may allow a third 
     party, on a fee-for-service basis, to operate and maintain a 
     metering station of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is 
     underutilized (as defined in section 102-75.50 of title 41, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations)) and 
     related equipment.
       (b) Funds collected under subsection (a) shall be deposited 
     in the general fund of the Treasury.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, 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, 
     $58,024,000, 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 100-456, 
     section 1441, $29,130,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2013:  Provided, That within 90 days of 
     enactment of this Act the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
     Board shall enter into an agreement for fiscal year 2012 and 
     hereafter with the Office of the Inspector General of either 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Department of Energy 
     for inspector general services.

                        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, 
     $9,925,000, 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, $9,077,000, to 
     remain available until expended, notwithstanding the 
     limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998:  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 by section 307 of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998 (division C, title III, Public Law 
     105-277), as amended by section 701 of appendix D, title VII, 
     Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-280), and an amount not 
     to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 
     amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
     including official representation expenses (not to exceed 
     $25,000), $1,027,240,000, to remain available until expended: 
      Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $899,726,000 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 
     $127,514,000.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the 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 Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $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, 
     $1,000,000.

                  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, $1,275,000, 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, $213,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. (a) Definitions.--In this section:

[[Page S7404]]

       (1) Chairperson.--The term ``Chairperson'' means the 
     Chairperson of the Commission.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission.
       (3) Spent fuel pool.--The term ``spent fuel pool'' means an 
     underwater storage and cooling facility for spent (or 
     depleted) fuel assemblies that have been removed from a 
     reactor.
       (b) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Chairperson shall order licencees to, in 
     accordance with the recommendations of the 90-day task force 
     of the Commission, enhance spent fuel pools by:
       (1) providing sufficient safety-related instrumentation 
     that is able to withstand design-basis natural phenomena to 
     monitor key spent fuel pool parameters (such as water level, 
     temperature, and area radiation levels) from a control room;
       (2) providing safety-related, alternating-current 
     electrical power for the spent fuel pool makeup system;
       (3) providing onsite emergency electrical power for spent 
     fuel pools and instrumentation for cases in which there 
     exists irradiated fuel in a spent fuel pool, regardless of 
     the operational mode of the relevant reactor; and
       (4) installing a seismically qualified means to spray water 
     into spent fuel pools, including an easily accessible 
     connection to supply the water (such as using a portable pump 
     or pumper truck) at grade outside a relevant structure.
       Sec. 402.  Consistent with the findings of its 90 Day Task 
     Force, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall order 
     licensees to reevaluate the seismic, tsunami, flooding and 
     other hazards at their sites as expeditiously as possible, 
     and thereafter, at least once every 10 years, and the 
     Commission shall require licensees to demonstrate to the 
     Commission that the design basis of structures, systems, and 
     components for each operating reactor meet current NRC 
     requirements and guidance with regard to these threats. The 
     Commission shall require licensees to update the design basis 
     of structures, systems, and components for each operating 
     reactor, if necessary.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501.  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. 502.  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.

                                TITLE VI

                 ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                   mississippi river and tributaries

       For an additional amount for ``Mississippi River and 
     Tributaries'' for expenses resulting from a major disaster 
     designation pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)), 
     $890,177,300, to remain available until expended for repair 
     of damages to Federal projects:  Provided, That the Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army for Civil Works shall provide a monthly 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate detailing the allocation and 
     obligation of these funds, beginning not later than 60 days 
     after enactment of this Act:  Provided further, That the 
     amount in this paragraph is designated by Congress as being 
     for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     (Public Law 99-177), as amended.

                       operation and maintenance

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance'' 
     for expenses resulting from a major disaster designation 
     pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)) to dredge 
     navigation channels and repair damage to Corps projects 
     nationwide, $88,003,700, to remain available until expended:  
     Provided, That the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 
     Works shall provide a monthly report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     detailing the allocation and obligation of these funds, 
     beginning not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act: 
      Provided further, That the amount in this paragraph is 
     designated by Congress as being for disaster relief pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended.

                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For an additional amount for ``Flood Control and Coastal 
     Emergencies'', for expenses resulting from a major disaster 
     designation pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)) as 
     authorized by section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 
     U.S.C. 701n), for necessary expenses to prepare for flood, 
     hurricane and other natural disasters and support emergency 
     operations, repair and other activities in response to recent 
     natural disasters as authorized by law, $66,387,000, to 
     remain available until expended:  Provided, That the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works shall provide 
     a monthly report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing the 
     allocation and obligation of these funds, beginning not later 
     than 60 days after enactment of this Act:  Provided further, 
     That the amount in this paragraph is designated by Congress 
     as being for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise in support 
of the fiscal year 2012 energy and water development appropriations 
bill with my ranking member, the distinguished Senator Alexander, with 
whom I have had the great pleasure of working. I want to say this up 
front: It has been a pleasure to work with this particular ranking 
member. He is respected, he is credible, he is direct, and he is 
reasonable, which I have learned is an endangered species around here. 
So I very much appreciate that.
  This Energy and Water bill has an allocation of $31.625 billion, 
which is $57 million or .1 percent below last year's enacted levels and 
nearly $3 billion or 9.4 percent below the President's request. The 
$31.625 billion is split between security and nonsecurity funding, 
consistent with the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Budget Control Act 
established caps on discretionary spending over 10 years, with separate 
caps for security and nonsecurity spending. Now, this becomes relevant, 
as I will explain.
  The security allocation for energy and water is $11.05 billion. The 
$11.05 billion funds only four programs under the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, called NNSA: nuclear weapons, 
nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the Administrator.
  I would like to point out right up front that funding for the NNSA 
makes up a growing portion of this bill. Last year the NNSA made up 30 
percent of the total allocation. This year it has increased to 35 
percent. In addition, because of the Budget Control Act, a firewall is 
created between security and nonsecurity funding so we cannot transfer 
funding back and forth. No funding from the NNSA can be used to fund 
energy and water projects, and no funds from energy and water can be 
used to fund the National Nuclear Security Administration.
  While funding increases for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration to help advance national security priorities, it comes 
at the expense of water and energy projects in the rest of our bill. 
Our nonsecurity allocation, which funds the Corps of Engineers, the 
Bureau of Reclamation under the Department of the Interior, and the 
Department of Energy, is $20.575 billion. While our security allocation 
grew by $528 million or 5 percent, the nonsecurity allocation is $584 
million or 2.8 percent less than for fiscal year 2011 and $3.5 billion 
or 17 percent less than for fiscal year 2010. So we can see the crunch 
that is put on one part of the budget and the other part of our 
appropriations bill has actually expanded.
  As I mentioned, the security allocation is $11.05 billion, which is 
an increase of $528 million or 5 percent over fiscal year 2011. This is 
an increase of $1.163 billion or close to 12 percent for the security 
portion of this appropriations bill over fiscal year 2010.
  To clarify, NNSA is responsible for three primary national security 
missions: first, maintaining the safety, security, and reliability of 
the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile; second, responsibility for 
reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism through nonproliferation 
programs; and third, it designs and builds nuclear reactors for safe 
and effective nuclear propulsion for aircraft carriers and submarines 
in the U.S. Navy.
  Taking into account competing funding priorities for national 
security activities, I think this bill strikes as good a balance as it 
can between funding for nuclear weapons modernization and reducing the 
threat of nuclear proliferation. The Nuclear Weapons Program under the 
bill would see an increase of $294 million or 4.2 percent above fiscal 
year 2011. With $7.2 billion, the NNSA, which is the agency of concern, 
will be able to meet the highest priorities of the Nuclear Posture 
Review and modernization activities discussed during negotiations of 
the New START Treaty.
  These are three primary activities:
  First, funds will continue for life extension programs for the W76 
submarine-launched warhead, the B61 bomb, and the W78 intercontinental 
ballistic missile warhead.

[[Page S7405]]

  Second, funds allow for completing design work for two aging nuclear 
facilities that may need to be replaced to meet modern safety 
standards--one for handling plutonium at Los Alamos National Lab and 
the other for uranium at the Y-12 facility in Tennessee.
  Third, funds will maintain the science, technology, and engineering 
base to continue assessing the safety, security, and reliability of the 
nuclear weapons stockpile.
  The nonproliferation program would see an increase of $109 million or 
4.7 percent above fiscal year 2011. NNSA would stay on track to meet 
its goals to secure and remove the most vulnerable nuclear materials 
from around the world by the end of 2013. These are materials that 
could be used by terrorists to build nuclear devices. The United States 
has already removed 3,086 kilograms of highly enriched uranium--120 
nuclear weapons' worth of material--from dozens of countries.
  NNSA would also be able to continue deploying portal monitors at 
seaports and border crossings to detect nuclear smuggling and help 
countries increase security at nuclear facilities. The United States 
has installed radiation detection equipment at more than 399 sites 
across the world.
  Finally, the security allocation will be used to fund the naval 
reactors program that provides propulsion for the country's submarines 
and aircraft carriers. An increase of $141 million or 14.6 percent 
above fiscal year 2011 is directed to help design a nuclear reactor 
that will last 40 years for ballistic missile submarines, the most 
survivable leg of our nuclear deterrent.
  Turning to nonsecurity funding, as I mentioned earlier, our 
allocation is $20.575 billion--$584 million or 2.8 percent less than 
fiscal year 2011. With this significant decrease in funding, the bill 
focuses its limited nonsecurity funding on the highest priorities: 
critical water infrastructure projects and accelerating energy 
technology.
  Let me speak for a moment about water infrastructure. The Corps of 
Engineers would receive $4.864 billion. That is an increase of $7 
million or one-tenth of 1 percent, above fiscal year 2011 and $291 
million or 5.9 percent above the President's request. Here is why. I 
strongly believe the Corps of Engineers is responsible for such a wide 
array of projects--building, maintaining, repairing locks, levees, 
dams, dredging for waterway navigation. Devastating floods and 
hurricanes in the last few months that have damaged many communities 
across the United States are a stark reminder of why Corps of Engineers 
infrastructure projects remain such a high congressional priority.
  With a ban on congressionally directed projects--or, as they are not 
so fondly called, earmarks--Congress cannot direct needed funding to 
projects that may have been overlooked by the administration or to 
address emerging needs after the President's budget submission. The 
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request did not include more than 
100 studies and projects for navigation, flood control, and 
environmental restoration that the administration included in the 
fiscal year 2011 work plan. Without funding in 2012, these studies and 
projects will likely be suspended.
  I think that is important to keep in mind. While our bill does not 
fund any new projects, our bill provides $291 million above the 
President's request to support these ongoing studies and projects for 
the Corps that were either unfunded or underfunded in the President's 
budget request.
  The bill also provides the Department of the Interior $1.067 billion, 
which is $27 million or 2\1/2\ percent less than fiscal year 2011 but 
still $16 million or 1.4 percent more than the President's request. 
Funding for the Department of Interior includes the Bureau of 
Reclamation, which is responsible for oversight and operation of water 
projects related to irrigation, water supply, and hydroelectric power 
generation in the 17 Western States.
  Finally, the bill provides $1.045 billion in disaster relief 
funding--and I wish to speak about that--this is on top of our base 
allocation--to repair damaged Corps of Engineers owned, operated, or 
fixed infrastructure from flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri 
Rivers and other natural disasters.
  This level of funding covers damages the Corps identified when the 
committee reported this bill. As I mentioned during committee markup, 
we know this amount is insufficient based on the number and severity of 
natural disasters that have occurred this year. The Corps has updated 
their disaster needs. We will be working throughout the floor process 
to ensure that increased funding to address disaster recovery needs is 
provided. I think both the ranking member and I, our subcommittee, and 
the Appropriations Committee as a whole understand that responding to 
these disaster needs is of the highest priority.
  Regarding clean energy, the bill provides stable funding to support 
science, technology, and engineering programs to advance clean energy 
technologies. It provides the Office of Science $4.84 billion, the same 
as in 2011. The Office of Science conducts basic research in physics, 
chemistry, and biology to improve our understanding of energy and 
matter. New discoveries will advance energy technologies. Our bill 
focuses the limited resources of the Office of Science toward the 
highest priorities, which include material support, developing the next 
generation of biofuels, and maintaining the leadership of the United 
States in high-performance computing.

  Our bill continues to fund three hubs, which are research centers 
made up of scientists and engineers from the national labs, 
universities, and private industry to address a specific energy 
challenge. The three hubs focus on developing fuels that can be 
produced directly from sunlight, improving energy efficiency of 
existing buildings, and using modeling and simulation tools to improve 
the operation of nuclear reactors.
  Our bill also funds a new hub, the fourth hub, to improve batteries 
for electric vehicles and for storage of wind, solar, and other 
intermittent power sources--something which the ranking member was very 
much interested in and which I was very pleased to agree to.
  In addition to the Office of Science, the bill also provides $250 
million for ARPA-E, an increase of $70 million, or 39 percent. ARPA-E 
funds new and innovative energy technologies that would significantly 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon emissions.
  ARPA-E's goal is to demonstrate the feasibility of new technology and 
then find a private company to commercialize the technology. As a sign 
of early success in attracting private investment, last year ARPA-E 
awarded a startup company $750,000 to demonstrate its new innovative 
technology related to energy storage. An early demonstration of this 
startup's new technology has already attracted $12 million in private 
investment to help commercialize it. I think that is good news.
  While the government continues to invest in innovative energy 
technologies, nuclear energy continues to provide 20 percent of the 
Nation's electricity, but it is 70 percent of its carbon-free 
electricity. This, to me, is a stunning figure, that it is 20 percent 
of all power but 70 percent of carbon-free power.
  Currently, nuclear energy will continue to be an important source of 
energy for us in the future. However, I deeply believe that before we 
expand nuclear power in the United States, we must address our spent 
fuel situation in order to limit the government's liability from its 
failure to take this waste.
  Today, high-level nuclear spent fuels are stored at 74 locations most 
directly adjacent to an active reactor. The fuel remains in either 
spent fuel pools or dry casks meant to be temporary but, in reality, 
has been stored permanently. There is simply no place to put it.
  Today, to date, the U.S. Government has paid out $1 billion to the 
nuclear industry because of its failure to take custody of this fuel as 
required by law. Few people know this. This liability will grow to 
$15.4 billion by 2020 and another $500 million for each year of delay 
after 2020.
  My distinguished ranking member, we simply have to get cracking and 
find either regional repositories or a central waste repository where 
nuclear waste can be stored essentially forever. The United States is 
responsible for 65,000 tons of spent fuel at these 74

[[Page S7406]]

sites. This is enough material to cover one football field 20-feet 
deep. And our liability continues to grow. According to the blue ribbon 
commission, if no nuclear reactors are built and the existing fleet of 
104 reactors operate until the end of their licenses, the total 
inventory of spent fuel by 2050 would be 150,000 metric tons.
  That is 2\1/2\ times as much as we have now. The current absence of a 
spent fuel policy and repository to store spent nuclear fuel is 
unacceptable and unsustainable. For these reasons, this bill takes the 
first step in requiring the Department of Energy to create a strategy 
for spent fuel storage, including options for consolidating and storing 
spent fuel at one or more regional sites.
  With regard to funding for the nuclear energy program, the bill 
provides $584 million, which is a reduction of $142 million, or 24 
percent, available funding that will focus more on safety and the back 
end of the nuclear fuel cycle. For example, the bill provides $52 
million--that is an increase of $12 million from 2011--to accelerate 
development of new cladding materials for nuclear fuel that reduce the 
likelihood of meltdowns and hydrogen explosions, which were observed at 
Fukishima.
  I believe as more becomes available about what actually happened at 
Fukishima and the aftereffects of Fukishima, cladding material is going 
to become much more significant.
  In closing, I again thank my colleague and ranking member, Senator 
Alexander, for working with me in a cooperative and constructive manner 
to draft this bill. I believe we have developed a well-balanced and 
responsible bill that addresses the water, infrastructure, energy, and 
national security needs of this Nation.
  I hope every Senator can support the bill, and I hope we can conclude 
floor action in a timely manner.
  I yield the floor to my distinguished ranking member.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from California. She is a delight 
to work with. Without disparaging any other Member of the Senate, it is 
nice to work with former mayors or county executives or even Governors 
because we are accustomed to making decisions and talking directly and 
coming to a result. That is what we are able to do. Even when we 
disagree--which we sometimes do--Senator Feinstein and I are able to 
keep working on these issues and still try to come to a result. So it 
is a real privilege to work with Senator Feinstein. I thank her for her 
courtesy and diligence.
  Last week we spent an hour and a half on a very small part of this 
budget--actually, not even part of the budget but a related matter--
making sure we understood all sides of the issues. I don't think in the 
whole hour and a half there was ever a Republican or Democratic 
comment. We were trying to find out the right thing to do for our 
country, which I think is the goal of each of us.
  There is no need to repeat what the chairman said and said very 
accurately. I will summarize and comment on a few of the points. I will 
highlight the areas of agreement, which are, for the most part, a 
couple of areas where we have different points of view which we are 
still working on. She emphasized--and I thought it was important to 
emphasize--that except for disaster spending, this Energy and Water 
bill is slightly below the spending levels of last year. When we add in 
disaster funding, which I will talk about in a minute, it is above that 
level.
  There is no mandatory spending in the bill. Sometimes our bills get 
complicated by what we call automatic or mandatory spending. If it is 
included within an appropriations bill. Some of us wonder why, since we 
cannot do anything to change it in the appropriations process, but it 
is there. There is not any of that here. As the Senator emphasized, our 
bill is divided into two major parts--the security part or the defense 
part, and the nonsecurity part or the nondefense part. The security 
part is up; we are spending more. The reason for that is, in the first 
place, we asked the leaders of the committee to reallocate some money 
toward our subcommittee so we could try to, as much as we could, live 
up to our commitment to fund nuclear weapons modernization, an 
important issue that came up when the Senate ratified the new START 
treaty.
  In other words, the new START treaty was about limiting the number of 
nuclear weapons here and in Russia, making sure we could inspect what 
the Russians are doing and, at the same time, we wanted to make sure 
what we have left works. This is about making sure what we have works. 
We made a commitment to try to go to certain levels. We are moving in 
that direction. We have not gotten there yet, but that is one reason, 
perhaps the main reason, we spend more on the security part.
  On the nonsecurity part, as the Senator said, except for disaster 
spending, it is down. We are spending 3 percent less than we did 
before. I want to say a word about disaster funding. In the Budget 
Control Act, in August, a subject of great debate around here--one of 
the things done was to create a formula over the last 10 years that 
determines how much money we may be able to spend on disasters. The 
thought was that disaster spending, like other emergency spending, was 
getting out of control, and we need to think about it. Obviously, 
whenever there is a flood, hurricane, or other terrible disaster, we 
rush to help. But that is real money too, and it has to come from 
somewhere. This formula that was created says that during this fiscal 
year--the one about a month and a half old--that we may spend about 
$11.3 billion based on spending over the last 10 years. After that, we 
will have to reduce spending somewhere if we are going to spend more on 
disasters.
  With respect to disaster relief, our bill is part of that. It is in 
the Corps of Engineers. We moved quickly in our subcommittee and in the 
Appropriations Committee to deal with the epic flooding the Senator 
described on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers this past year, which, 
in some cases, exceeded the flood heights of the massive 1927 and 1933 
floods.
  To give an idea of how unusual these floods were, at our meeting of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee 3 weeks ago, 14 Senators in 
both parties came to the committee to say to the authorizing 
committee--the EPW Committee--we needed to do more to deal with the 
floods--14 Senators. I have never seen that many Senators testify 
before a committee before on behalf of any subject. That is how much we 
are concerned about it, and that is how much people in the areas 
affected are concerned about it.
  In the Appropriations Committee, we had a discussion about how much 
of that disaster funding to fund. We recommended $1.04 billion. There 
was an amendment by the Senator from Missouri that said it needs to be 
more because we know it will be more than that. We said, in a 
bipartisan way--I remember the chairman and ranking member said we 
don't have the estimates definite yet from the Corps of Engineers or 
from FEMA, so we are only going to fund those areas that are declared 
to be Presidential disasters, No. 1, and where we have definite 
estimates, No. 2. When we have more definite estimates of additional 
damage, we will recommend the funding.
  We defeated the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri with 
the promise that as real damage estimates come in, they will be met. 
Well, the Senator and I will be offering an amendment to address this 
increase. I want my colleagues to be aware of this because, 
particularly on our side of the aisle, we have had a good deal of 
discussion about funding for disasters.
  In the amendment we will be offering, part of the money fits within 
the formula we agreed to in the Budget Control Act. About $550 million 
will not, and we will have to find some other place in the budget to 
reduce spending in order to properly fund this disaster spending. I 
doubt if there is any Senator who would not want to fund that because 
this is spending to be prepared for the next disaster. This will be 
money for preparedness, sandbags. I can guarantee, if the Missouri and 
Mississippi Rivers flood next year, and sandbags are not available 
because we could not find the money somewhere else, there will be 28 
Senators at the next meeting of the EPW Committee, not just 14.
  So this is an urgent request. We are suggesting a way to reduce 
spending. So with the disaster funding, the only

[[Page S7407]]

thing that drives our total recommendations above last year's spending, 
we are, No. 1, staying within the cap created by the Budget Control 
Committee; and, No. 2, for the amount of money for the sandbags and 
other preparedness, we are going to recommend a way to reduce spending 
somewhere else in order to be prepared for the next flood.
  With respect to the security allocation, Senator Feinstein mentioned 
that one part of our budget has to do with national security and 
another has to do with nonsecurity. Most people, when they think of 
energy, don't think of the national security parts. It is among the 
most important national defense requirements we have. As she said, it 
includes modernizing all of our nuclear weapons to make sure they work. 
It includes trying to make sure they don't spread around the world. 
That stands up at the top--those two items--of our national defense 
posture.
  There was a letter that came from Members of the House of 
Representatives that seemed to be critical of the Senate for using 
``defense money given to water-related projects.'' I want to clear that 
up. There must have been some confusion on the other side of the 
Capitol because under the rules of the Budget Control Committee, we 
cannot use defense money for water projects, period. That is against 
the rules. Not only did we not do it, we could not do it if we wanted 
to. In fact, we came up with $100 million more for nuclear weapons 
modernization than the House did.
  So perhaps the House letter was sent to the wrong address. It should 
have been sent on that side of the Capitol and not sent to the Senate. 
We understand very well we should not be using defense money for water 
projects or water project money for defense money. We have not done 
that. We are not allowed to do that. We cannot cut weapons to fund 
water projects.
  Now, as I said earlier, as Senator Feinstein and I and Senators 
Cochran and Inouye all said, we would support the President's request 
for appropriate funding for nuclear weapons modernization, which is why 
Senator Feinstein and I asked our ranking member and chairman to 
allocate more money to the security side of our budget, and they did 
that.
  As a result of that, security spending for weapons activities is up 5 
percent--$100 million more than the House was able to provide for 
Energy and Water appropriations.
  It is the single largest percentage increase compared to all 
appropriations subcommittees with security spending in the budget. But 
it is still $400 million less than the President's full request and 
$400 million less than I would like to see spent on nuclear weapons 
modernization. I am concerned about that.
  I am committed to continue to work with the full committee, the 
House, and the administration to come as close as we possibly can to 
the President's number on nuclear weapons modernization. I want to make 
it clear that we have bent over backward to make it a top priority--or 
the top priority to begin with--and have had good cooperation from the 
senior members of our committee.
  Senator Feinstein has worked hard to put this bill together in a fair 
and accommodating manner. She mentioned the Office of Science and 
talked about clean energy. Recently, I was at one of our National 
Laboratories, Sandia in New Mexico. The Director of Science there 
reminded me that almost every major physical and biological invention 
of any importance in the United States since World War II has been 
funded by government-sponsored research--almost all through our 17 or 
18 National Laboratories or our 50 or 60 top research universities. 
These are our real secret weapons for job growth. It was out of the 
laboratories and out of this kind of government research that came the 
Internet, the Human Genome Project, nuclear power itself--whether it is 
nuclear weapons or the 104 civilian reactors or the 104 reactors that 
run our Navy ships--and stealth technology came of this. It is hard to 
think of any major invention or discovery in physical or biological 
sciences that didn't have some government-sponsored research. So when 
we talk about spending the same amount of money this year that we did 
last year for the Office of Science, we are talking about a major 
effort of any jobs bill that the Senate could possibly pass.

  If we are talking about jobs growth, this is a very big, important 
part of it. Low taxes is a part of it, fewer regulations, the right 
national labor relations policies are a part, but any progrowth plan 
for the United States has to include government-sponsored research. No 
other country in the world has anything like our 18 laboratories or our 
50 or 60 top research universities. If we want a high standard of 
living--you know, we still produce about 25 percent of all the money in 
the world--we would do well to invest every spare dollar we have there, 
as long as it is wisely spent. So as long as we are cutting over here, 
I am all for that. I don't want to see a situation where we have 
runaway entitlement spending and as a result of that we squeeze the 
inventions that give us the job growth we need.
  I made a speech at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2008 where I 
suggested we have a new Manhattan project for clean energy 
independence, focusing on electric cars and trucks, carbon capture, 
solar power, nuclear waste, advanced biofuels, green building fusion. I 
am a big supporter of research as an appropriate role for the Federal 
Government, and we will talk more, as we have time over the next 2 
days, I hope, about the wisdom of the proper priorities in spending. I 
would say yes to more for research and no to more for subsidies.
  The New York Times had a big article on Saturday where it talked 
about rich subsidies powering solar and wind projects, and these are 
for companies that can pay us back. These are extravagant subsidies, 
which I think are completely unnecessary, particularly at a budget time 
such as this. If we have any extra dollars, let's put them into the 
secret weapons at the research universities and the national 
laboratories and tackle the big challenges, such as the 500-mile 
battery for cars or finding a solar panel that is so cheap it is $1 per 
kilowatt installed.
  I agree with Senator Feinstein that Dr. Chu is on the right track 
with his energy remarks. I was suggesting in my remarks that we pick 
these grand challenges, such as used nuclear fuel, as one--what to do 
with it, where do we dispose of the waste. Dr. Chu is doing that, with 
batteries, with solar, with others, and I think it is a good way to 
concentrate the focus of the Federal Government and the Energy 
Department to solve the problems of rising gasoline prices, electricity 
prices, and do it in a way that helps clean the air.
  During our debate, I hope we have a chance to talk about more for 
research and less for permanent subsidies in the energy area, and I 
hope we have a way to talk about restraining entitlement spending so we 
can have sufficient funds to fund our secret weapons that have produced 
almost every major biological and physical discovery since World War 
II. We have broad support for that here. We passed the America COMPETES 
Act in 2007 which set a path for funding for sciences. We had 35 
Democrats and 35 Republicans as cosponsors of that bill. It was 
introduced by the Democratic leader and the Republican leader, and when 
we changed parties after an election, it was introduced by the 
Republican leader and the Democratic leader. So we have bipartisan 
support for that. We need to make sure it is part of the debate.
  The Corps of Engineers, the Senator talked about. Those are critical 
ideas. Those are the areas she and I agree on. I will spend a moment, 
if I may, on some areas where we have some more work to do before we 
have an agreement. One is in the area of nuclear power. Here is what I 
agree with her about nuclear power. One is that it is a remarkable 
statistic that 20 percent of our electricity is produced by one of our 
greatest inventions--nuclear power--and that it is 70 percent of our 
electricity without carbon but also without nitrogen or sulfur or 
mercury pollution.
  We had a big debate here in the Senate last week about clean air. 
Well, if all of our power were nuclear power, as almost all of it is in 
France, we wouldn't have a clean air debate because our powerplants 
wouldn't be producing any mercury or producing any nitrogen or sulfur 
oxides as well as carbon. So nuclear is a remarkable advantage for the 
United States and one which we should continue to take advantage of.

[[Page S7408]]

  I am disappointed we do not fund in this bill the first steps of a 
several-year program to jump-start the small nuclear reactor program. 
This is not just our idea. France, Russia, Brazil, and other countries 
around the world are working on this. There are 60 countries that want 
to introduce nuclear energy onto their grid for the first time. We have 
the phenomenon like South Korea building a nuclear powerplant for the 
United Arab Emirates. So if we don't do it, that doesn't mean no one 
will do it; it just means we will be at the back of the line with an 
invention we invented and that today produces 20 percent of our 
electricity and 70 percent of our clean electricity.
  Now, the ``it'' we are talking about are these smaller reactors. We 
already produce a lot of small reactors for the more than 100 Navy 
vessels, but they are of a little different kind. But small reactors 
that might be 100 to 300 megawatts would be cheaper, they would be made 
in the United States, and they could be put together like LEGO blocks 
would. They could be hauled back and forth from wherever they were 
produced to different places. They might be especially useful on a 
military base or around a national laboratory, where you don't need 
1,200 new megawatts of electricity. And they might be better for an 
investor-owned utility to buy, because they would only have to spend 
one-fourth or one-fifth or one-sixth as much money. The big reactors we 
now build are $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion, $8 billion or more. 
Quite a big number. So the President and Dr. Chu have recommended we 
move ahead with the small reactor program. The House of Representatives 
agrees, I agree, and we are trying to work a way out here where we can 
join that parade--in fact, lead the parade.

  I think the way to do it is to take seriously Senator Feinstein's 
concern about used nuclear fuel. She is exactly right, we have 
blindfolds on our eyes if we think it is responsible for us to move 
ahead producing so much nuclear power--even if it is just a football 
field 20 feet deep--without a permanent place to put the spent fuel. It 
is safe to keep it there, in my opinion. And not just mine. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and Secretary Chu, the President's Nobel prize-
winning Energy Secretary, say it is safe for 100 years. But what that 
says to me is that it is safe while we figure out the right way to 
dispose of it. I am convinced our scientists can figure out an even 
better way of disposing of it than France does, for example, which 
reprocesses nuclear fuel and then stores it there. I suspect we will be 
able, in the next 10 or 15 years, to figure out a way to recycle, reuse 
nuclear fuel, and reduce the waste by 95 percent. But we will still 
need a permanent place to store it.
  What I am committed to do, working with Senator Feinstein--and I am 
delighted she has this intense level of interest--and Senators Bingaman 
and Murkowski, the ranking members of the Energy Committee, is trying 
to create an inexorable process toward a result on finding a proper 
place to store used nuclear fuel. I hope we can do that within a year. 
That doesn't mean we will have all the decisions made, but it means we 
could have, I believe, a process established that will produce a 
result.
  I am hoping at the same time we can move ahead with small nuclear 
reactors, because by 2020, the idea is we would only have two or three. 
And between now and then, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would need 
this help in creating the proper license and approving the design and 
working through all the things one has to do. It is going to have to do 
that anyway, because someone will bring one over from Korea or France 
or Russia or Brazil and they will apply for a license in the United 
States and we will be using their reactors instead of ours.
  Another area of disagreement is there are some provisions in the 
bill, which I won't go into at great length, but I don't think they 
belong in an appropriations bill, with all respect. They are based on 
several recommendations of the 90-day commission created by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. Since our bill was reported, the NRC has taken 
several steps to prioritize their recommendations.
  Of the five representations that are in language in our bill, the 
Commission only considered one to be of that urgent a priority. It is 
going to do the rest of them in the regular order of things. I think we 
should let our experts do their job. Perhaps this calls attention to 
the importance of it, but I would rather let the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission do its job and us to concentrate our efforts on finding a 
place to put used nuclear fuel.
  One other area I suspect within the next few days we will have a 
discussion about is the subsidy cost for renewable energy projects, but 
I think I will delay that until we have an opportunity to discuss it on 
the floor, and to have some discussions about the loan guarantee 
program, which hasn't worked as intended. The loan guarantee program 
was supposed to help put a priority on certain forms of energy and loan 
monies to companies that could pay it back, not to companies that 
couldn't pay it back. Apparently, that has been an issue.
  There is also a provision in the bill about requiring grantees of the 
Department of Energy to change lightbulbs in their factories if they do 
not meet the standards for the new lightbulbs. This will be costly, it 
is inconsistent with current law, and I hope we can remove it as the 
bill moves forward.
  In a bill this large and this important, I think Chairman Feinstein 
and other members of the subcommittee and the full committee have come 
up with a good result, a result about which there is a consensus 
between us, with very few areas of disagreement, a result that is below 
last year's spending level, except for disaster spending, and a result 
that gives a special emphasis to nuclear weapons modernization that we 
are committed to and that the President asked for and that does better 
than the House number but still doesn't reach, I will acknowledge, 
where I had hoped we could go.
  It has been a great privilege to work with Chairman Feinstein. I like 
the idea that we have an appropriations bill on the floor. This is the 
basic work of government. We ought to do this before we do anything 
else. If we can't have an appropriations bill to fund the basic work of 
government, people might say, can you do anything at all? So we have 
done our part, we have the bill here, and I thank the majority leader 
for bringing it up. I hope our colleagues will give us the chance to 
move forward the bill this week, to bring their amendments to the 
floor, debate on them, have a final vote, and pass it into law and do 
something we can be proud of.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator. Once 
again, it has been a great pleasure to work with him. I do think we 
have a lot of this bill in common, but we do have some points of 
difference, and I want to say a little bit about my point of 
difference.
  I very much want to leave a world for my grandchildren where there is 
not danger from nuclear weapons or nuclear fuels, and today I don't 
believe I can say we have achieved that. The ranking member was 
correct, the head of the NRC did testify in his view the hot rods were 
safe for 100 years in those spent fuel pools. Well, you know, there 
were problems with spent fuel pools at Fukushima. I think, as life goes 
on, we are going to see more of that.
  We know cladding has to be improved. We know that, perhaps, the 
design basis of a new nuclear reactor has to meet events which are not 
necessarily predicted. Who would have thought a 47-foot tsunami would 
hit Fukushima? But it happened.
  I am in California. We are in the ring of fire. Sure enough, there 
have been earthquakes in the southern tip of South America, in Asia, in 
Christchurch, New Zealand, going right around. These have been very 
large earthquakes, approaching 9, and the concern is, what happens 
next. So I think safety is a very real problem, and I think as we 
appropriate monies we should be concerned with safety.
  Spent fuel pools were designed to harbor hot rods for a relatively 
short period of time. The rods can be moved 5 to 7 years out, and then 
they are generally moved into passive storage and the dry casks. The 
dry casks, it was thought, would be transported to repositories--either 
permanent repositories or repositories on a regional basis--under the 
supervision of the Federal Government.

[[Page S7409]]

  I always felt that affecting that was an extraordinary challenge for 
us and particularly when I learned we were being fined an egregious 
amount of money because we can't do that every year. So my view is, we 
have to get cracking and move that on, and the five things we have in 
the bill I think all take us to a much safer place with respect to 
nuclear activities.
  With respect to the small modular nuclear reactors, what they are is 
essentially less than 300 megawatts modular small actors. I understand 
there are still problems with the cladding. But what was asked for was 
$192 million, not alone but a proposal to essentially subsidize up to 
50 percent of the licensing costs of financial and technically viable 
corporations. These aren't small corporations; they are big 
corporations, and the Department would have to pick two winners for the 
subsidy. That would leave at least five American companies out. This is 
a restricted bid. It doesn't include everybody. It includes only one 
kind of reactor--light water reactor. Who knows. Maybe others of the 
five are as viable.
  So firms not receiving assistance would be substantially 
disadvantaged. The likely winners include these companies: Babcock and 
Wilcox, I have nothing against them, 2010 revenues exceeding $2.6 
billion--can't they afford their own licensing certification fees?--and 
Westinghouse, owned by the Japanese conglomerate Toshiba, which has $64 
billion in assets and more than 200,000 employees.
  In other sectors, we don't invest Federal dollars to help profitable 
private companies obtain safety licenses. We don't help Ford comply 
with crash test regulations, nor do we pay for Boeing to obtain FAA 
certification. So before we commit these moneys, we should seriously 
evaluate whether any company would change its decision about pursuing a 
license because of this.
  So I am kind of at a different point in looking at subsidies. I think 
most subsidies by the Federal Government should just go, wherever they 
are--oil, gas, nuclear, ag, you name it--at a time when we should not 
be subsidizing private industry.
  There is also a fundamental contradiction in the nuclear industry's 
argument for funding small modular reactor licensing. On one hand, the 
industry argues that the market will be enormous, and we can't afford 
to fall behind international competitors. On the other hand, these same 
industry experts argue they will not develop and license a product 
unless government pays them to apply for an NRC license. They argue 
that the United States must provide each firm with more than $200 
million to motivate them to pursue this business.
  The bottom line, the small modular reactor cannot be both a massive 
economic opportunity, with the potential to change the way we power our 
economy, and an opportunity that industry will not pursue unless the 
government pays them to do that.
  So I have real questions about funding this item. We will have more 
to say about it as this goes on. I know it is popular. If there were a 
spent fuel policy, if we knew we were going to go for regional 
repositories, that there was some limit to the storage of fuel at a 
site--74 sites now, and with advanced modular reactors this is more 
because many people think the only way this can be cost competitive is 
you have to group these two together. So in a given site, you would 
have five or six small reactors, but you would have the same spent fuel 
problem. It seems to me we need a place to put spent fuel. I am not 
opposed to nuclear if we can properly take care of its waste.
  I wanted to respond when my distinguished ranking member raised this. 
We have had one meeting with the chairman of the Energy Committee, the 
ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senator Alexander, and myself 
to discuss how to proceed toward a nuclear storage policy. I think we 
need to continue this. We are going to ask the Secretary in to talk 
with us in December, and Senator Alexander has been great in doing 
this--put forward a little agenda of how to proceed toward this so I 
know he is, in fact, in good faith suggesting it, and I do. He has 
always been a straight shooter.
  But it is just very hard for me to go ahead and say, OK, we are going 
to promote a whole new class of nuclear reactors when we don't have a 
place to dispose of hot spent fuels that will be hot and dangerous for 
literally hundreds of years. If we can move fast, I am all for it.
  I know the Senator wants to respond, and I welcome the debate.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator. I am not going to respond at 
great length because I want to eventually find us in agreement about 
this, but I appreciate it. Your points are very important and very good 
points.
  On safety and nuclear power, I think it is always important to start 
off by pointing out that a nuclear reactor is a big, complex operation 
and obviously there is some risk to it. But nuclear power has the best 
safety record of any form of energy production in the United States. 
There has never been a death in connection with any 1 of our 104 
civilian reactors. There hasn't been one with the more than 100 Navy 
reactors where we have sailors actually living on top of reactors. We 
have all heard about Three Mile Island, which is the most important 
nuclear accident we have had in the United States, but no one was even 
hurt in Three Mile Island.
  I see the Senator from Pennsylvania is presiding today. When I say 
that to people around the country, they say: What do you mean no one 
was hurt at Three Mile Island? No one was hurt. There have been tests 
on families who lived around there, and no one was even hurt either 
from any kind of explosion or from radioactivity at a later time.
  So we always have to look for better ways to be safe, but we have 
that safe record. We do have the Chairman of the NRC saying this used 
fuel is stored safely for 100 years, and we have our scientists telling 
us in 10 or 15 years we can find a way to recycle. Within that time, we 
ought to find a place to put it. We have a place to put it if we could 
go ahead with Yucca Mountain, but that has been stopped for a variety 
of reasons, some of them political. Let us say they are all principled. 
But for whatever reason, it is stuck.
  The other thing I would say is, there is a certain urgency about 
this. As the Senator said, 20 percent of our electricity is nuclear 
power, 70 percent of our clean energy. What if we didn't have that 20 
percent? We don't have to look far to see. In Japan they have shut down 
temporarily enough of their reactors as a result of Fukushima to be 
without 20 percent of their electricity. What have they been doing? 
Their car manufacturers have been working on the weekends. That is 5 
million workers in Japan. Temperatures are turned to 82 during the 
summer heat; 22,000 people have been brought into the hospitals from 
heat stroke. The Emperor and Empress are wandering around the Imperial 
Palace with candlesticks and flashlights.
  We don't want the United States of America like that. This is an 
important part of our ability to create jobs and to have lots of low-
cost electricity. We use 25 percent of all the energy in the world in 
the United States.
  As far as subsidies go, after we get through finding a place to put 
used nuclear fuel, maybe this is the second area on which the Senator 
from California and I can work which would be to do something about 
energy subsidies. Estimates are the Federal Government probably spends 
about $20 billion a year on energy subsidies of one kind or another.
  The Energy Information Administration did a study 3 years ago on 
where that money goes, and this is where it goes: Subsidies for wind 
dwarf everything else. It is not Big Oil, it is big wind, $18.82 per 
megawatt hour subsidy for wind turbines; $3.67 for solar; $1.36 for 
landfill gas; 67 cents per megawatt hour for hydroelectric; 18 cents 
for biomass; 12 cents for coal; and almost 0 for nuclear.
  It is often cited the insurance program the nuclear powerplants have 
as a subsidy. It is a Federal law that never has cost the taxpayer a 
penny. It simply requires all the nuclear operators to put in, I 
believe, $11 billion or $12 billion per reactor in case there is an 
incident. They all share in the result, which might be a pretty good 
way to do with oil producers that are drilling in the gulf, make them 
all worry about each other's plant and not just their own. So I believe 
nuclear power is safe.
  As far as subsidies go, I would like to move some of those subsidies 
into the energy research column and maybe into the reduce the debt 
column.

[[Page S7410]]

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
New York Times article.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 11, 2011]

            A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search

                  (By Eric Lipton and Clifford Krauss)

       Washington.--Halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, 
     on a former cattle ranch and gypsum mine, NRG Energy is 
     building an engineering marvel: a compound of nearly a 
     million solar panels that will produce enough electricity to 
     power about 100,000 homes.
       The project is also a marvel in another, less obvious way: 
     Taxpayers and ratepayers are providing subsidies worth almost 
     as much as the entire $1.6 billion cost of the project. 
     Similar subsidy packages have been given to 15 other solar- 
     and wind-power electric plants since 2009.
       The government support--which includes loan guarantees, 
     cash grants and contracts that require electric customers to 
     pay higher rates--largely eliminated the risk to the private 
     investors and almost guaranteed them large profits for years 
     to come. The beneficiaries include financial firms like 
     Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like General 
     Electric, utilities like Exelon and NRG--even Google.
       A great deal of attention has been focused on Solyndra, a 
     start-up that received $528 million in federal loans to 
     develop cutting-edge solar technology before it went 
     bankrupt, but nearly 90 percent of the $16 billion in clean-
     energy loans guaranteed by the federal government since 2009 
     went to subsidize these lower-risk power plants, which in 
     many cases were backed by big companies with vast resources.
       When the Obama administration and Congress expanded the 
     clean-energy incentives in 2009, a gold-rush mentality took 
     over.
       As NRG's chief executive, David W. Crane, put it to Wall 
     Street analysts early this year, the government's largess was 
     a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and ``we intend to do as 
     much of this business as we can get our hands on.'' NRG, 
     along with partners, ultimately secured $5.2 billion in 
     federal loan guarantees plus hundreds of millions in other 
     subsidies for four large solar projects.
       ``I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 
     years in the power industry that involved less risk than 
     these projects,'' he said in a recent interview. ``It is just 
     filling the desert with panels.''
       From 2007 to 2010, federal subsidies jumped to $14.7 
     billion from $5.1 billion, according to a recent study.
       Most of the surge came from the economic stimulus bill, 
     which was passed in 2009 and financed an Energy Department 
     loan guarantee program and a separate Treasury Department 
     grant program that were promoted as important in creating 
     green jobs.
       States like California sweetened the pot by offering their 
     own tax breaks and by approving long-term power-purchase 
     contracts that, while promoting clean energy, will also 
     require ratepayers to pay billions of dollars more for 
     electricity for as long as two decades. The federal loan 
     guarantee program expired on Sept. 30. The Treasury grant 
     program is scheduled to expire at the end of December, 
     although the energy industry is lobbying Congress to extend 
     it. But other subsidies will remain.
       The windfall for the industry over the last three years 
     raises questions of whether the Obama administration and 
     state governments went too far in their support of solar and 
     wind power projects, some of which would have been built 
     anyway, according to the companies involved.
       Obama administration officials argue that the incentives, 
     which began on a large scale late in the Bush administration 
     but were expanded by the stimulus legislation, make economic 
     and environmental sense. Beyond the short-term increase in 
     construction hiring, they say, the cleaner air and lower 
     carbon emissions will benefit the country for decades.
       ``Subsidies and government support have been part of many 
     key industries in U.S. history--railroads, oil, gas and coal, 
     aviation,'' said Damien LaVera, an Energy Department 
     spokesman.


                              A Case Study

       NRG's California Valley Solar Ranch project is a case study 
     in the banquet of government subsidies available to the 
     owners of a renewable-energy plant.
       The first subsidy is for construction. The plant is 
     expected to cost $1.6 billion to build, with key components 
     made by SunPower at factories in California and Asia. In late 
     September, the Energy Department agreed to guarantee a $1.2 
     billion construction loan, with the Treasury Department 
     lending the money at an exceptionally low interest rate of 
     about 3.5 percent, compared with the 7 percent that 
     executives said they would otherwise have had to pay.
       That support alone is worth about $205 million to NRG over 
     the life of the loan, according to an analysis performed for 
     The New York Times by Booz & Company, a strategic consulting 
     firm that regularly performs such studies for private 
     investors.
       When construction is complete, NRG is eligible to receive a 
     $430 million check from the Treasury Department--part of a 
     change made in 2009 that allows clean-energy projects to 
     receive 30 percent of their cost as a cash grant upfront 
     instead of taking other tax breaks gradually over several 
     years.
       Californians are also making a big contribution. Under a 
     state law passed to encourage the construction of more solar 
     projects, NRG will not have to pay property taxes to San Luis 
     Obispo County on its solar panels, saving it an estimated $14 
     million a year.
       Assisted by another state law, which mandates that 
     California utilities buy 33 percent of their power from 
     clean-energy sources by 2020, the project's developers struck 
     lucrative contracts with the local utility, Pacific Gas & 
     Electric, to buy the plant's power for 25 years.
       P.G.& E., and ultimately its electric customers, will pay 
     NRG $150 to $180 a megawatt-hour, according to a person 
     familiar with the project, who asked not to be identified 
     because the price information was confidential. At the time 
     the contract was awarded, that was about 50 percent more than 
     the expected market cost of electricity in California from a 
     newly built gas-powered plant, state officials said.
       While neither state regulators nor the companies will 
     divulge all the details, the extra cost to ratepayers amounts 
     to a $462 million subsidy, according to Booz, which 
     calculated the present value of the higher rates over the 
     life of the contracts.
       Additional depreciation tax breaks for renewable energy 
     plants could save the company an additional $110 million, 
     according to Christopher Dann, the Booz analyst who examined 
     the project.
       The total value of all those subsidies in today's dollars 
     is about $1.4 billion, leading to an expected rate of return 
     of 25 percent for the project's equity investors, according 
     to Booz.
       Mr. Crane of NRG disputed the Booz estimate, saying that 
     the company's return on equity was ``in the midteens.''
       NRG, which initially is investing about $400 million of its 
     own money in the project, expects to get all of its equity 
     back in two to five years, according to a statement it made 
     in August to Wall Street analysts.
       By 2015, NRG expects to be earning at least $300 million a 
     year in profits from all of its solar projects combined, 
     making these investments some of the more lucrative pieces in 
     its sprawling portfolio, which includes dozens of power 
     plants fueled by coal, natural gas and oil.
       NRG is not the only company gobbling up subsidies. At least 
     10 of the 16 solar or wind electricity generation projects 
     that secured Energy Department loan guarantees intend to also 
     take the Treasury Department grant, and all but two of the 
     projects have long-term agreements to sell almost all of 
     their power, according to a survey of the companies by The 
     Times.
       These projects, in almost all cases, benefit from 
     legislation that has been passed in about 30 states that 
     pushes local utility companies to buy a significant share of 
     their power from renewable sources, like solar or wind power. 
     These mandates often have resulted in contracts with above-
     market rates for the project developers, and a guarantee of a 
     steady revenue stream.
       ``It is like building a hotel, where you know in advance 
     you are going to have 100 percent room occupancy for 25 
     years,'' said Kevin Smith, chief executive of SolarReserve. 
     His Nevada solar project has secured a 25-year power-purchase 
     agreement with the state's largest utility and a $737 million 
     Energy Department loan guarantee and is on track to receive a 
     $200 million Treasury grant.
       Because the purchase mandates can drive up electricity 
     rates significantly, some states, including New Jersey and 
     Colorado, are considering softening the requirements on 
     utilities.
       Brookfield Asset Management, a giant Canadian investment 
     firm, will receive so many subsidies for a New Hampshire wind 
     farm that they are worth 46 percent to 80 percent of the $229 
     million price of the project, when measured in today's 
     dollars, according to analyses for The Times performed by 
     Booz and two other two industry financial experts. (The wide 
     range reflects a disagreement between the experts on the 
     future price of electricity in New Hampshire.)
       Richard Legault, the chief executive of Brookfield 
     Renewable Power, the division that oversees the Granite 
     Reliable project in New Hampshire, declined to discuss his 
     profit expectations in detail, but said the project might not 
     have happened without government assistance.
       ``When everything has come together, it is a good 
     investment for Brookfield, it is no doubt,'' Mr. Legault 
     said. ``We are quite happy with it.'' (Brookfield is also the 
     owner of the small park in Manhattan that is home to the 
     Occupy Wall Street protesters.)
       Even companies whose business has little to do with energy 
     or finance, like the Internet giant Google, benefit from the 
     public subsidies. Google has invested in several renewable 
     energy projects, including a giant solar plant in the 
     California desert and a wind farm in Oregon, in part to get 
     federal tax breaks that it can use to offset its profits from 
     Web advertising.
       Industry executives and other supporters of the subsidies 
     say that the public money was vital to the projects, in part 
     because financing for renewable energy projects dried up 
     during the recession. They also note that more traditional 
     energy sectors, like oil and natural gas, get heavy subsidies 
     of their own. For example, in the 2010 fiscal year, the oil 
     and gas producers got federal tax breaks of $2.7 billion, 
     according to an analysis by the Energy Information 
     Administration.

[[Page S7411]]

       ``These programs just level the playing field for what oil 
     and gas and nuclear industries have enjoyed for the last 50 
     years,'' said Rhone Resch, president of Solar Energy 
     Industries Association. ``Do you have to provide more policy 
     support and funding initially? Absolutely. But the result is 
     more energy security, clean energy and domestic jobs.''
       Michael E. Webber, associate director of the Center for 
     International Energy and Environmental Policy at the 
     University of Texas, Austin, said renewable energy subsidies 
     were a worthy investment. ``It is a form of corporate welfare 
     that is consistent with other social goals like job creation, 
     clean air and boosting a domestic source of energy,'' he 
     said.


                           Overflowing Breaks

       Obama administration officials said the subsidies were 
     intended to help renewable-energy plants that were jumbo-
     sized or used innovative technology, both potential obstacles 
     to getting private financing. But even proponents of the 
     subsidies say the administration may have gone overboard.
       Concerns that the government was being too generous reached 
     all the way to President Obama. In an October 2010 memo 
     prepared for the president, Lawrence H. Summers, then his top 
     economic adviser; Carol M. Browner, then his adviser on 
     energy matters; and Ronald A. Klain, then the vice 
     president's chief of staff, expressed discomfort with the 
     ``double dipping'' that was starting to take place. They said 
     investors had little ``skin in the game.''
       Officials involved in reviewing the loan applications said 
     that Treasury Department officials pressed the Energy 
     Department to respond to these concerns.
       Officials at both agencies declined to discuss the 
     anticipated financial returns of the clean-energy projects 
     the federal government has agreed to guarantee, saying the 
     information was confidential.
       But Energy Department officials said they had carefully 
     evaluated every project to try to calculate how much money 
     the developers and investors stood to make. ``They were 
     rejected, if they looked too rich or too risky,'' Mr. LaVera, 
     the Energy Department spokesman said.
       In at least one instance--NRG's Agua Caliente solar project 
     in Yuma County, Ariz.--the Energy Department demanded that 
     the company agree not to apply for a Treasury grant it was 
     legally entitled to receive. The government was concerned the 
     extra subsidy would result in excessive profit, NRG 
     executives confirmed.
       In other cases, the agency required that companies use most 
     of the Treasury grants that they would get when construction 
     was complete to pay down part of the government-guaranteed 
     construction loans instead of cashing out the equity 
     investors.
       ``The private sector really has more skin in the game than 
     the public realizes,'' said Andy Katell, a spokesman for GE 
     Energy Financial Services, which like Goldman Sachs, Morgan 
     Stanley and other financial firms has large investments in 
     several of these projects.
       But there is no doubt that the deals are lucrative for the 
     companies involved.
       G.E., for example, lobbied Congress in 2009 to help expand 
     the subsidy programs, and it now profits from every aspect of 
     the boom in renewable-power plant construction.
       It is also an investor in one solar and one wind project 
     that have secured about $2 billion in federal loan guarantees 
     and expects to collect nearly $1 billion in Treasury grants. 
     The company has also won hundreds of millions of dollars in 
     contracts to sell its turbines to wind plants built with 
     public subsidies.
       Mr. Katell said G.E. and other companies were simply 
     ``playing ball'' under the rules set by Congress and the 
     Obama administration to promote the industry. ``It is good 
     for the country, and good for our company,'' he said.
       Satya Kumar, an analyst at Credit Suisse who specializes in 
     renewable energy companies, said there was no question the 
     country would see real benefits from the surge in renewable 
     energy projects.
       ``But the industry could have done a lot more solar for a 
     lot less price, in terms of subsidy,'' he said.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I was reading in the New York Times on Saturday: Rich 
subsidies powering solar and wind projects; big rise in company aid; 
companies are virtually assured of profits. This is the New York Times. 
This isn't the conservative Washington, DC, Journal saying this. It is 
a very thorough article that talks about something I have been 
concerned about for a long time. It said:

       Taxpayers and ratepayers are providing subsidies worth 
     almost as much as the entire $1.6 billion cost of a solar 
     plant halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco on a 
     former cattle ranch.

  It quotes the head of NRG, a very substantial company, saying:

       I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 
     years in the power industry that involved less risk than 
     these projects. It is just filling the desert with panels.
       From 2007 to 2010, Federal subsidies jumped to $14.7 
     billion from $5.1 billion, according to a recent study.

  It goes on and on.
  My own research shows, the Joint Tax Committee said that over the 
next 10 years taxpayer funding for wind--which our energy secretary 
testified is a mature technology--will cost the taxpayers $26 billion 
over the next 10 years. Wouldn't that money be better spent on energy 
research for clean energy, for finding ways to deal with used nuclear 
fuel, for getting a 500-mile battery, for getting an installed dollar 
kilowatt or reducing the debt at a time when we are borrowing 40 cents 
of every $1 we spend?
  So I am absolutely committed to working with Senator Feinstein on 
finding a way to deal with the problem of used nuclear fuel. We 
urgently need to do that. We are fortunate it is safe where it is while 
we do that, and I hope we can find a way to agree that over the next 
few years we can move ahead so we at least get started on small modular 
reactors.
  I am also willing to work with the chairman or anyone else, any other 
Senator who is willing to take a good, hard look at energy substitutes 
of all kinds and say, OK, let's take look at our own positions on that, 
especially in light of the budget deficit, and let's take that money 
and put some of it into energy research so we can get up to where we 
need to be and use the rest of it to reduce the debt.
  So this is a good discussion and one I look forward to continuing, 
and I am delighted to have a chance to continue it with someone I 
respect as much as the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, I wish to thank the distinguished ranking 
member. I believe that completes the opening statements on the bill.
  I notice the distinguished Senator is on the floor. So if it is 
agreeable with Senator Alexander, we can yield at this time to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I didn't come to interrupt opening 
statements. I guess they are completed. I do have a point that is 
directly related to this particular appropriations bill which I would 
like to discuss, and I am going to offer to put forward an amendment as 
a consequence of this.
  I am glad the chairwoman and the ranking member are here so I can put 
this on the Record, and they are familiar with what I am going to do.
  This is a matter that is important both to my State of Indiana and, I 
believe, the Federal Government's involvement in subsidizing or loan 
guarantees or other support for various energy development projects.
  All of us, I think, are concerned over the situation with Solyndra, 
where a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy to 
construct a solar panel manufacturing facility has now gone bust, and 
the taxpayer is on the hook for over $\1/2\ billion of loan guarantee 
and money that is lost to the taxpayer. That money likely will never be 
repaid. However, my concern goes beyond Solyndra. I didn't come here to 
talk about Solyndra. But there is a similar situation that may be 
occurring and I want to raise this issue because it goes, again, to 
decisions that are being made by the Department's energy renewal 
offices relative to loans to private entities and loan guarantees to 
private entities.
  This particular situation involves the Advanced Technology Vehicles 
Manufacturing, or ATVM, Loan Program. Some of those loans are going to 
what may turn out to be viable improvements in our ability to lighten 
vehicles, to increase mileage, to provide for alternative sources of 
fuel. I think that is still up in the air and still to be determined. 
But this particular program I want to talk about involves a program 
that I am not sure fits within the proper category. Earlier this year 
the Department issued a nearly three-quarters--$730 million--
conditional loan commitment to Severstal North America under the ATVM 
program. Let me read from the Department's press release.

       The funding will support the modernization of [Severstal's] 
     existing facilities in Dearborn, MI, in addition to the 
     design, manufacture and construction of new facilities to 
     produce the next generation of automotive advanced high-
     strength steel. The Severstal project has the potential to 
     significantly increase the supply of this advanced high 
     strength steel in North America as demand continues to grow 
     for fuel efficient vehicles.

  Continuing the release:

       An increased supply for this breakthrough technology steel 
     will help U.S. automotive

[[Page S7412]]

     manufacturers meet the pending and future design, weight and 
     safety requirements of advanced technology vehicles. 
     Severstal estimates the project will generate over 2,500 
     construction jobs and over 260 permanent manufacturing jobs.

  That is the end of the Department's press release.
  The Department of Energy makes it sound as though this loan to 
Severstal will promote a completely new breakthrough technology. The 
problem is, this simply is not true. In fact, six companies already 
manufacture the advanced high-strength steel that Severstal is seeking 
to receive a loan to help produce. Three of those companies have 
production facilities in my home State of Indiana: Arcelor Mittal, 
Steel Dynamics, and U.S. Steel.
  Evidence shows that the market for this type of steel is strong and 
robust in the United States, with multiple producers already 
manufacturing these high-technology products. In fact, I am told that 
this high-strength steel has been manufactured in the United States 
since the 1980s, and the current capacity for this steel actually 
surpasses current demand. All of this information should be available 
to the Energy Department for their consideration as to whether they 
should go forward with this loan, but the Department spokesperson is 
quoted as saying that advanced high-strength steel is ``in short 
supply.''
  This begs the question as to whether the administration has seriously 
conducted any type of market analysis before deciding to award this 
loan. Did the Department research what advanced high-strength steel 
products are already in the marketplace and whether a taxpayer loan was 
even needed? Based on the Department's public comments it seems 
unlikely that the administration made any estimates of current and 
future capacity in the United States for the production of this steel 
or talked to any steel producers outside of Severstal.
  I think a legitimate question is: What is the impact of this loan? 
Should it be finalized? Subsidizing Severstal to produce a product 
already being manufactured would undercut competitors because 
Severstal, of course, will have lower costs due to the nearly $\3/4\ 
billion loan guarantee.
  There is also no job creation here that fits the description of what 
the Department indicated would be the case with new jobs. Given the 
state of supply and demand, any new jobs created at Severstal would 
come at a cost to other producers, creating, at best, a net zero job 
gain. That means job losses in Indiana and Pennsylvania where the high-
strength steel already is manufactured.
  Moreover, the Department claims that ``over 2,500 construction jobs'' 
would be created by the issuance of the loan. That claim is dubious at 
best, since most of the plant construction is already manufactured. 
Moreover, the Department claims that Severstal's own documents claim 
that two of the three required lines will be finished by December 2011. 
Only an annealing line valued at one-third of the amount of the loan is 
awaiting final approval, and the Department's own Web site states, 
``Loans will not be available on a retroactive basis.''
  Here we have a situation where the Department's own release and 
justification of the loan states a number of construction jobs to be 
put in place when the construction is virtually finished. Second, when 
most of the completion includes, with one exception, what only amounts 
to one-third of the loan that is being asked for, it makes you wonder 
why the loan is two-thirds greater than that.
  We have to ask the question, is it proper to give a company nearly 
$\3/4\ billion for facilities that have already been built and for 
production of a product that is already manufactured and in excess 
supply in the United States--particularly for two States that are 
impacted by this, the State of Indiana and the State of Pennsylvania? 
Here we are back in a situation where the Federal Government is picking 
winners and losers in a fully functioning and growing product market.
  Based on these concerns, I sent a letter to the Department of Energy 
Secretary Chu in August, seeking answers to a number of these questions 
I have been raising. Unfortunately the Department sent back a very 
nonresponsive reply that did not address any of my concerns.
  As a result, I believe it is necessary to call on the inspector 
general of the Department of Energy to investigate the Severstal loan 
and report back to Congress his findings. American taxpayers deserve to 
know what is happening with our tax dollars and the hardworking 
employees of other steel companies manufacturing the same steel deserve 
to know why the Department of Energy is attempting to undercut their 
job security by subsidizing a competitor.

  Today I am introducing an amendment to the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill that would direct the Energy Department's inspector 
general to submit a report to Congress on the conditional loan 
agreement currently in place to Severstal. Such a report by the 
inspector general can help clarify why or why not this conditional loan 
to Severstal should be granted. The Department needs to be more 
transparent and forthcoming with how it is using taxpayers' dollars. We 
need to learn lessons from the disaster that is Solyndra and the cost 
to the taxpayer. The last thing the Department of Energy, this 
administration, or this Congress needs to do is to authorize a nearly 
$\3/4\ billion loan for a product that is already being manufactured by 
domestic steel suppliers and is not needed. We need that determination. 
That is why I am offering this amendment.
  Mr. President, if time permits, I wish also to step aside from the 
current topic to briefly discuss another matter. I do not want to 
exceed the time limitation that might be in place. It appears I can go 
forward with that without a problem.
  Mr. President, I also want to discuss the subject of a vote last week 
by UNESCO, the United Nations Education and Scientific Cultural 
Organization, to grant membership to the Palestinian Authority even 
though it is not a recognized country. UNESCO should not have the 
authority to do so, but through a vote in the United Nations it did 
just that. The United States has been an on-and-off supporter of 
UNESCO. There has been a lot of controversy with UNESCO over its lack 
of effectiveness and the cost to the taxpayer. It has resulted in 
questions as to whether we should continue funding that organization. 
We currently support that.
  This action that has been taken to admit the Palestinian Authority as 
a member state is, I submit, completely misguided and deeply damaging. 
UNESCO's decision has further dimmed prospects for a negotiated peace 
in the Middle East. My fear is that this step--which the Palestinians 
mistakenly regard as a success--will encourage them to press for 
membership in other U.N. bodies as well. Doing so will harm Israel, 
harm the Palestinians' own interests, harm the U.N. agencies involved, 
and harm our own national interests. As a consequence of this, the 
United States is obligated under law to terminate all funding for 
UNESCO and any other U.N. body that admits the Palestinian Authority. 
Public law 101-246, which passed in 1990, states that: ``no funds 
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be 
available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof 
which accords the Palestinian Liberation Organization [the PLO] the 
same standing as member states.''
  That is the law. That is what has been enacted through votes in this 
body and signed by Presidents of the United States. In 1994, Congress 
passed Public Law 103-236, which prohibits ``voluntary or assessed 
contribution to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which 
grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that 
does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood,'' 
which the PLO does not have. The Senate, on a vote codifying these 
laws--or reaffirming them, I should say--passed this legislation 92 to 
8, indicating that this clearly should be a noncontroversial and 
nonpartisan issue, clearly, a 92-to-8 vote.
  The reason I am speaking here today is despite our legal obligation 
to suspend funding as a result of UNESCO's latest action, there has 
been some speculation that it may be possible to find alternative ways 
to financially support U.N. agencies such as UNESCO that have taken 
this step of admitting the Palestinians as a member. That

[[Page S7413]]

would be a total mistake. I want to reiterate the fact that it would be 
a violation of the law.
  Therefore, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill that serves 
as an emphatic restatement of that law, making its consequences more 
certain.
  Furthermore, I am introducing this language as an amendment to the 
current appropriations bill, that will clarify that no taxpayer dollars 
can be used to fund UNESCO. We must slam the door on any speculation of 
any kind of backdoor financial support for the United Nations agencies 
that grant membership to Palestine. This bill is exactly that. There is 
no reason why this purposeful reinstatement of existing law should not 
have bipartisan support. The threat to prospects for negotiated, just, 
and lasting peace that is posed by this recent Palestinian tactic is 
more tangible now than in the past. Our determination to discourage 
such a dangerous tactic should be stronger than ever.

  I ask that my colleagues join in support of this legislation that 
makes it clear to UNESCO, the United Nations, Israel, the Palestinian 
Authority, and clear to the rest of the world that the United States 
will not tolerate attempts to admit the Palestinian Authority and 
undercut negotiated peace efforts in the Middle East.
  I am hoping we will have a vote on this to once again reaffirm our 
determined commitment to live by the laws we have passed and to not 
allow an agency of the United Nations or any part of the United Nations 
be used to grant statesmanship and nationhood to an entity that has not 
qualified for that. I hope this reaffirmation will also put to rest any 
speculation or any attempts to circumvent the laws that exist on the 
books.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________