[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.
____________________