[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3409-H3432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 
5325, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McKinley). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 667 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5325.
  Will the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1413


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5325) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mr. Smith of Nebraska (Acting 
Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, 
June 1, 2012, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Broun) had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 
22, line 11.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 22, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $514,391,000)''.
       Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $514,391,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H3410]]

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, on Friday, I offered an amendment to 
eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the so-called renewable sector, and 
this amendment eliminates them to the nuclear sector, saving another 
half billion dollars.
  It does not affect the surcharges that electricity consumers have 
already paid for waste disposal or for military applications or the 
essential maintenance of our Nation's radiological facilities, but it 
relieves taxpayers from funding research and development that rightly 
rests with the nuclear industry, and requires that industry to compete 
with all other energy technologies to attract capital based on its own 
merit.
  On Friday, I expressed my skepticism of companies like Solyndra that 
have peddled technologies that just don't pencil out. Let me now 
declare my confidence in nuclear technology and in companies like 
General Electric and Westinghouse that have pioneered these 
technologies. But that is not an argument for taxpayers to underwrite 
their research and development departments.
  Whether Congress is skeptical of the technology or confident in it, 
we are not intellectually equipped or constitutionally authorized to 
choose winners and losers among various companies or technologies, or 
to substitute our judgment for that of individual investors. I realize 
these companies certainly won't turn down free money extracted from 
taxpayers, but I don't believe they actually need it. What's more, I 
imagine that they'll be better off when we stop telling them what 
designs to use by Federal fiat, and start allowing the licensing of any 
design submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that meets health 
and safety standards.
  This is the worst of both worlds for our constituents. We force them 
to pay for the R&D programs of these companies, and these companies 
then reap the profits. Let their investors risk their own money. Let 
their investors reap their own profits or losses, and leave the rest of 
us alone.
  That's called freedom. It works, and it's time that our Nation put it 
back to work.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. 
The amendment offered by our colleague would cut nuclear energy 
research and development activities by 70 percent. It would all but 
eliminate this very critical program to our Nation.
  Our bill provides the same funding level as last year, funding that 
is a critical part of our support for a balanced energy portfolio, 
protecting American manufacturing, and reducing reliance on foreign 
energy sources.
  Nuclear power generates 20 percent of our Nation's electricity. It 
will continue to play a large role in the future, as our constituents 
look for reliable, inexpensive, and clean energy.
  America invented nuclear power, but now other nations are mimicking 
our companies' designs and building them entirely within their own 
borders. We must drive the next generation of reactors, and that's what 
this program does, in addition to improving the reliability of our 
current nuclear fleet.
  Through simulations, cooperation with the industry, and advanced 
research, the program develops next-generation reactors, such as small 
modular reactors and high-temperature gas designs, that are inherently 
safe and have even more substantial safety margins than today's 
reactors.
  These new types of reactors can be wholly built here at home by 
American companies, by American workers. The gentleman's amendment 
would halt these efforts, lose the innovation and manufacturing edge 
overseas, and risk hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. I therefore 
oppose this amendment and urge the Members to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition, Mr. Chairman, and I also 
rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  Our country really does need a diversified energy portfolio. Nuclear 
is part of that. Almost a quarter of all of our electrical power today 
is generated through nuclear power. It is carbon free, and I do not 
think this is the time to withdraw research support.
  In light of, particularly, the tragedy in Japan, the safety of our 
existing fleet and progress as far as improved technologies is vital.
  And, again, I would add my voice to that in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1420

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

       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), 
     $554,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of such amount, $115,753,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 2014, for program direction: Provided further, 
     That for all programs funded under Fossil Energy 
     appropriations in this Act or any other Act, the Secretary of 
     Energy may vest fee title or other property interests 
     acquired under projects in any entity, including the United 
     States.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Hirono

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 22, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $133,400,000)''.
       Page 26, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $133,400,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hirono-Chu-Matsui-
Lee-Carnahan amendment. This amendment will increase the resources for 
the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E.
  In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a report titled, 
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That report called for the 
establishment of an Agency focused on energy. That Agency would be 
modeled after the famous Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or 
DARPA. Congress created ARPA-E in the 2007 America COMPETES Act. That 
legislation passed the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support.
  ARPA-E's purpose is to support research that helps Americans lead a 
21st-century clean-energy revolution. This is about generating new 
ideas and innovations that lead to new jobs, industries, and 
opportunities. Ideas and innovations are the hallmarks of America's 
economic success. Names like Benjamin Franklin, the Wright brothers, 
Thomas Edison, Akio Morita, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others are 
familiar to us all. They are familiar names across the globe. That's 
because their ideas led to cutting-edge technologies that were widely 
adopted and put to use, changing our lives and society for the better.
  Some of these bold innovations were far ahead of their time and often 
succeeded with government support. For example, few know that, without 
government contracts for airmail, our commercial aviation industry 
would not have become so successful. It was research supported by both 
U.S. Government labs and the private sector that gave us the Internet. 
Most famously, who can forget President John F. Kennedy's call to put a 
man on the Moon. While this effort was successful from a technological 
perspective, it

[[Page H3411]]

also captivated a generation of Americans, inspiring them to think big 
and think bold.
  It is vital to our Nation's future success that we reinvigorate the 
spirit of innovation. If we do, we can harness the talent of our 
Nation's people as we continue rebuilding our economy. That's why 
supporting ARPA-E is so important. ARPA-E awardees are developing the 
kinds of breakthroughs that will help us break free from the grip of 
foreign oil and fossil fuels. In the past year alone, ARPA-E has 
supported research into high-tech electric car batteries. ARPA-E has 
supported potential breakthroughs in energy-grid technology and algae-
based biofuels. These are ideas that could change how the U.S. 
produces, uses, and transmits energy.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us takes a different tack. It actually 
cuts funding for the research and innovation sponsored by ARPA-E. 
Instead, it gives even more resources for research into mature energy 
sources. Last year, fossil fuel R&D received $346 million. The bill 
before us provides $554 million for fossil fuel R&D. That is a $207 
million increase. ARPA-E, on the other hand, gets a $75 million cut in 
this bill.
  My friend Warren Bollmeier, who is the head of the Hawaii Renewable 
Energy Alliance, once told me:

       The path we need to take to energy independence is one 
     where we level the playing field for clean energy.

  We all agree that energy independence is a critical national 
priority. I think we can also agree that we need to take a broad-based 
approach to getting there. Responsible fossil fuel development must be 
part of this mix, but so should clean energy, which is what this 
amendment does.
  To increase the resources for ARPA-E, my amendment transfers some 
funds from the Fossil Fuel Research and Development programs. My 
amendment does not eliminate fossil fuel R&D. It would merely bring the 
funding level for this research to the amount requested by the 
administration. That number was nearly $420 million, and that's still 
an increase of $73 million from last year.
  We know that innovation equals job creation. In fact, in States 
across the country, we are seeing the advantages of investing in clean-
energy research, development, and deployment. We need to keep this 
forward momentum. In Hawaii, our clean-energy economy is growing. 
Private sector clean-energy jobs in Hawaii have grown to over 11,000 
jobs with double-digit growth expected in the coming year. These firms 
generate $1.2 billion for our State economy. These are jobs that keep 
money in our State and can't be outsourced.
  At this time of tight budgets, we need to balance our priorities and 
lay the groundwork for the future. My amendment moves us in that 
direction. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  My colleague's amendment would increase funding for ARPA-E to levels 
beyond what the program needs.
  Our bill provides $200 million for ARPA-E because of its focus on 
energy security, American manufacturing and competitiveness and 
research to address gas prices; but we have continuing concerns that 
this program must not intervene where private capital markets are 
already acting. It must not fund work redundant with other programs at 
the Department of Energy.
  ARPA-E is only 3 years old and is still proving itself. Given how we 
must spend tax dollars wisely, it would simply not be prudent to give 
this young program its highest funding level ever. This amendment 
would, unfortunately, do just that; therefore, I oppose it for that and 
for many other reasons.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I rise to join my colleagues in support of 
this amendment to restore funding to the Advanced Research Projects 
Agency for Energy, known as ARPA-E.
  In the report language for this bill, the committee's majority 
correctly notes that projects funded by ARPA-E ``are capable of 
significantly changing the energy sector to address our critical 
economic and energy security challenges.'' This Agency is funding 
research to advance more efficient power transmission, energy storage, 
transportation fuel alternatives, energy-efficient buildings, and so 
much more. So it is puzzling that the committee would then recommend 
reducing the funding for activities that promote American energy and 
independence by 27 percent compared to the current funding of 43 
percent below the President's reasonable request.
  It is thanks to our strategic investments in R&D that we have 
captured the full benefit of America's ideas and innovations through 
partnerships with the higher education community and the private 
sector. More than half of the Nation's economic growth since World War 
II can be traced to science-driven technology research and innovation 
that has stemmed from that partnership. It was central to our ability 
to capitalize in the space race in the 1960s.
  Since then, the magnitude of research supported by the Federal 
Government has actually grown and revolutionized health care, 
transportation, the digital economy and, yes, energy delivery and 
efficiency. For example, a Federal energy grant at Georgia Tech evolved 
into a private company, Suniva, that manufactures solar energy cells 
that are cost competitive with fossil fuels. In fact, the company 
technology was named the world's best commercially applied innovation 
in 2010. So it's unfortunate to see the majority continue a pattern of 
disinvestment in basic research, which typically yields a 2 1 return on 
investment. Cuts like this actually wind up costing our country in the 
long run.
  The real question is: Who is going to fill that gap if we start to 
retreat on this historic partnership? The answer: our foreign 
competitors. It's already happening, Mr. Chairman. More than half of 
U.S. patents were granted to foreign companies in 2009. China is now 
the world's leading high-tech exporter, and we rank 27th in the number 
of graduates with science or engineering degrees.
  On a related note, I would highlight another issue of which the 
majority is paying lip service to the need to address the shortage of 
American scientists and innovators. The report language correctly 
expresses concern with the long-term science, technology, engineering, 
and math workforce development pipeline, particularly for 
underrepresented minority students. Yet the majority then continues to 
underfund the very programs aimed at supporting strong teachers and 
scientists to recruit and train the next generation of innovators.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to invest more, not less, in these Federal 
research partnerships. I urge my colleagues to restore these vital 
funds so we can continue to nurture promising industries, provide 
entrepreneurs with skills and capital and allow American companies to 
be globally competitive and help American workers get jobs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very reluctant opposition to 
the gentlelady's amendment, as well as remarks issued by the gentleman 
from Virginia. I certainly appreciate their desire relative to the good 
work being done at ARPA E.
  The two points I would make in opposition is that, first of all, the 
gentlewoman was absolutely correct on the top-line figures for fossil 
fuel, but I do think they are somewhat misleading because there is a 
rescission contained within the bill for $187 million. The true 
reflection, as far as the relationship between current year spending 
and the proposal in the House bill, is for fiscal year 2012. Fossil 
fuel is at $534 million. The proposal in the subcommittee mark and the 
committee-reported bill is $554 million.
  Again, appreciating deeply the very good work and cultural change 
that is

[[Page H3412]]

taking place within the Department of Energy because of ARPA E, I would 
also point out that energy consumption today by fossil fuel is 
represented by about 83 percent of our utilization. We do need to 
continue to be focused on that huge segment of current use to be more 
efficient and to reduce our carbon footprint.
  Again, I would add my remarks to the chairman's, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment to increase 
the resources for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, or 
ARPA E.
  ARPA E invests in the success of our entrepreneurs by allowing them 
to innovate in high-reward energy projects. This critical investment 
turns ideas into new technologies, which create new companies and even 
whole industries. These companies start out as small businesses, which 
we know are the greatest drivers of our economy. ARPA E is exactly the 
kind of forward thinking we need to spur American innovation and create 
well-paying jobs in cutting-edge fields.
  ARPA E is also vital to achieving the kind of 21st century energy 
solutions America needs to increase our energy efficiency, lower 
consumer costs, and curb the damage to our environment. While other 
countries around the world are promoting these kinds of programs, we 
are letting ourselves fall behind.
  In the midst of one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, we are 
turning our backs on energy innovation, where we once led the way. This 
makes no sense, and it must stop. We should not be cutting ARPA E, we 
should be expanding it. That is exactly what this amendment will do.
  ARPA E gives universities, entrepreneurs, and other innovators 
resources to develop their ideas. It holds forums to bring researchers 
together to share expertise, and educate future innovators. Some 
research ARPA E has supported includes high-tech electric car 
batteries, breakthroughs in energy grid technologies, and algae-based 
biofuels. These developments hold the power to revolutionize the way 
America produces and consumes energy. This is not science-fiction; it 
is already science-fact. But it needs the support and vision of my 
colleagues in Congress in order to continue.
  In my home State of California we have ambitious energy standards 
that we need to work hard to meet in the next few years.
  The underlying bill increases research and development funds for 
fossil fuels by $207 million more than these programs received last 
year. We are going backwards.
  This amendment does not gut fossil fuels research and development, 
but it does bring funding levels in line with the President's request 
while increasing funding for ARPA E in line with the President's 
request.
  Let's stop going backwards; let's stop selling America short. 
Instead, let America do what it does best: innovate, grow, and lead.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Graves 
amendment.
  The Missouri River, the Nation's longest, is an important economic 
tool for not only the state of Missouri but the Nation as a whole. The 
river is critical to the local water supply, is home to a diverse 
ecosystem, and also serves residential and recreational roles. Due to 
our dependence on the River, three million acres along the river have 
been distorted or changed, causing natural habitats to disappear. 
Reinvigorating the river and its wildlife will not only benefit those 
who live along the river, but those who depend on its resources as 
well.
  I stand in strong support of the Missouri River Recovery Program, a 
program which serves to revitalize the Missouri River and allow native 
species populations to grow. Missouri needs this program to ensure that 
the future of the Missouri river ecosystem is one that is sustainable 
and affordable to maintain. This amendment does nothing to redirect 
funds for other means of flood control, but instead limits a program 
that is integral to the River's recovery. Without the funding this 
program needs, we risk programs that provide habitats and safety for 
federally listed endangered and threatened species. The maintenance and 
recovery of the Missouri River is vital to the millions of Americans 
impacted by the Missouri River basin. I urge my colleagues to consider 
the economic and environmental impact that a cut to funding for the 
Missouri River Recovery Program would have, and urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 22, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $554,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $115,753,000)''.
       Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $554,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this is the final amendment I'll offer 
to remove government from subsidizing energy companies. This one 
pertains to fossil fuel industries.
  The coal, oil, and natural gas industries are profitable and proven 
and have never had any trouble finding investors to pay for legitimate 
research.
  Once again, I pose the question: Why are taxpayers then being forced 
to subsidize research and development for energy companies that have 
every incentive to pay for it themselves if they actually believe it 
will bear fruit. If it pans out, these technologies have enormous 
economic value and will richly reward all of those who invest in them; 
and if they don't, taxpayers shouldn't be left holding the bag.
  Today, the fossil fuels industry has opened a new chapter of clean, 
cheap, and abundant natural gas recovery through horizontal drilling 
and hydraulic fracturing, a process developed almost entirely through 
private capital. Our dismal energy situation today is not because of 
not enough government. It is because of too much government, and the 
American people have finally figured that out.
  We have done enormous damage not only to our energy policy, but to 
our entire economy by subsidizing inefficiencies, hiding true costs, 
and slanting the competitive field. If left alone, prices convey an 
entire world of data. Embedded in the price at your local gas station 
is information on political conditions in the Middle East, refinery 
capacity in Benicia, bribery rates in Venezuela, and what the guy down 
the street is selling it for, to name just a few. Accurate prices are 
essential for consumers and investors to make rational decisions about 
the highest and best use of their dollars.
  When government interferes in these decisions through subsidies, it 
corrupts the data that is necessary to assure that every dollar in the 
economy is spent to its highest and best use. So it's not just the cost 
of these subsidies to taxpayers; it's the misallocation of resources 
that those subsidies cost. And that's perhaps the most serious drag of 
all on our economy.
  When government plays this game, risks are masked, inefficiencies go 
undetected and uncorrected, capital flows from productive to 
nonproductive use, and perhaps most dangerous of all in a free society, 
the government begins picking winners and losers. The productive sector 
becomes more and more beholden to government and less and less beholden 
to its own customers.
  I am told on generally reliable authority that this is what 
Republicans are supposed to believe in. This Republican House needs to 
be true to those beliefs and true to the voters who elected us because 
of those beliefs.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The Obama administration has not been shy 
about its desire to wipe out our Nation's use of fossil energy 
resources. Mining permits in Kentucky and eastern America have ground 
to a halt. Oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and our Outer 
Continental Shelf are stagnant, onerous regulations are shuttering 
power plants, and EPA officials have gone on the record expressing a 
desire to crucify the fossil industries, which have been the backbone 
of our energy security for decades and continue to today.
  And how does this administration propose to fill the gaping hole 
they've

[[Page H3413]]

left in our energy security? By throwing billions of taxpayer dollars 
down a black hole at pie-in-the-sky renewable pet projects like 
Solyndra.
  I agree with my colleagues that we must balance the expansion of 
conventional fuels--coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear--to provide 
energy today with investment into renewable energies to power our 
future. And that's exactly what the underlying bill seeks to do, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The funding provided for fossil energy research and development will 
support investments in carbon capture, carbon storage, and other 
advanced energy systems so our country can more efficiently use 
centuries worth of coal and natural gas already at our disposal. 
Meanwhile, we continue to support reasonable levels in the EERE account 
that have seen exponential increases in recent years.
  The President's energy strategy yields neither savvy investments for 
the taxpayer nor does it strengthen our energy security or our economy. 
Seen in tandem with the EPA's onerous utility regulations and 
deliberate delays to energy production permits, any cuts to fossil 
energy research are a part of a pincer movement designed to drive 
fossil energy from the marketplace. The results will be spiking energy 
costs, greater reliance on foreign sources of energy, and lost jobs.
  As a result, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, fossil energy research and development 
continues to evolve to reflect our Nation's key energy supply, 
security, and environmental needs. American fossil energy R&D takes 
place in our national energy technology laboratories throughout the 
country, including laboratories in Morgantown, West Virginia, and in 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
  Over the years, these two labs alone have produced thousands of jobs, 
billions of dollars in investment into local and State economies, and 
an incredible working relationship among WVU, Pitt, Carnegie Mellon, 
Penn State, and Virginia Tech.
  Just to point out the importance of fossil energy R&D funding to the 
gentleman's home State of California: in 2011, over 200 projects were 
developing in California. This research provided $1.6 billion in funds 
being brought into that State, along with over 7,600 jobs.

                              {time}  1440

  In Hawaii, there was over $36 million spent in research involving 
nearly 300 jobs. Fossil energy R&D has led the research that has 
significantly reduced acid rain, as well as in other advanced pollution 
controls and mercury emission reductions, and has led and/or conducted 
research that created technology used in 75 percent of our Nation's 
largest coal power plants.
  Today, fossil energy R&D continues to lead the Nation's efforts in 
carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization, and has led efforts in 
combustion and turbine R&D that led to substantial increases in power 
plant efficiencies and reductions in power plant emissions. Simply put, 
the research through this program focuses on developing affordable, 
safe, and clean mechanisms to enhance and utilize our domestic fossil 
energy resources in the most efficient manner.
  If this amendment passes, Congress will not be able to ensure our 
Nation of job security, job retention, growth, and the ability to meet 
our ever-increasing energy needs. Not only would this amendment destroy 
nearly 90,000 jobs, 2,100 research projects, and over $18 billion in 
investments, but would harm our educational institutions and the 
students, scientists, and professors who work in our national energy 
laboratories.
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to continue 
to support our domestic fossil energy initiatives.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for 
the very reasons I espoused briefly before relative to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 22, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, at a time when we should be 
working together to find ways to save taxpayer money and reduce the 
deficit, this bill proposes to waste millions of dollars on research 
into an inefficient and highly polluting energy extraction process 
known as oil shale. For 100 years, oil shale advocates and big energy 
companies have been selling us the promise of cheap energy through oil 
shale. Despite those efforts, no company has been able to deliver on 
that promise.
  It's time to end the sham and stop wasting taxpayer dollars. That's 
why this amendment, which I offer with my good friend Congressman Jared 
Polis of Colorado, would save $25 million and invest it in deficit 
reduction.
  Despite what some in the industry might claim, oil shale development 
won't produce affordable American energy or jobs. Mr. Chairman, just a 
few weeks ago, Interior Secretary Salazar pointed out that the House 
majority continues to confuse shale oil with oil shale, two completely 
different things.
  While they clearly sound similar, any undergraduate in geology can 
tell you that, in fact, one is a rock and the other is a liquid. Let me 
say that again so my colleagues understand. Oil shale, derived from a 
rock, is not to be confused with shale oil.
  While shale oil is experiencing a boom in development, oil shale 
technology simply doesn't exist, a fact recently confirmed by the 
Congressional Budget Office. The CBO estimated that implementing a 
commercial leasing program for oil shale on Federal lands under the 
PIONEERS Act would not generate revenue for at least 10 years.
  The amendment I'm offering with my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis) 
would simply eliminate the research and funding dollars designated in 
this bill for oil shale production. This is a simple commonsense 
amendment. Given the current budget constraints we hear so much about, 
we cannot continue to throw good money after bad for a nonexistent, 
uneconomic energy source. There is no sense in wasting $25 million in 
taxpayer dollars on oil shale research and development when there is no 
commercially viable technology to bake rock and turn it into synthetic 
oil.
  In addition to the technological and economic hurdles facing oil 
shale, oil shale threatens already scarce water supplies in the West. 
According to the Bureau of Land Management, industrial scale oil shale 
development could actually require as much as 150 percent of the amount 
of water Denver metro area consumes every year. That not only would 
threaten Denver and eastern agriculture in Colorado, but it would also 
throw a wrench in the delicate multistate agreements that govern the 
Colorado River and its use, which is already overtaxed.
  Simply put, every Colorado River State, from Colorado to California, 
should be concerned by this use of this money and water and support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we need more affordable American energy. Achieving that 
goal includes responsible oil and gas exploration, better use of 
technology to capitalize on all available resources,

[[Page H3414]]

and greater focus on the cleaner energy future from renewables such as 
solar and wind. Some might call it an all-of-the-above approach, but 
all of the above should not include things that science tells us aren't 
really viable and represent an unwise investment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the Polis-Connolly amendment. I ask 
for consideration of this issue that we, in fact, save $25 million and 
put it to deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  Our bill funds a truly all-of-the-above research approach for 
addressing future high gas prices by reducing oil imports, developing 
fuel alternatives, and reducing what Americans pay at the pump.
  The amendment would eliminate, as we've heard, $25 million in our 
bill for an oil shale research program, an important component of our 
comprehensive approach. The United States has an estimate of 2 trillion 
barrels of resources in oil shale deposits. For some perspective, 
that's more than 10 times larger than the United States' estimated 
proven and unproven oil reserves, and roughly as large as the entire 
world's proven oil reserves.
  But shale oil resources have been barely tapped worldwide because 
substantial environmental and technological hurdles prevent their 
extraction, and the fluctuating world oil prices prevent the sustained 
research needed to bring this resource to market.
  Our bill provides $25 million for an oil shale research program to 
develop the technologies that can make our vast reserves competitive 
and environmentally sustainable for decades or centuries. If 
successful, the program could change the game completely. It could 
prevent future high gas prices and substantially reduce our reliance on 
foreign oil.
  For these and many other reasons, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment--and I appreciate my 
colleague from Virginia for helping to bring it forward here today--
will help reduce the budget deficit by about $25 million.
  At a time when we all know we need to make some of the hard cuts to 
balance our budget, why not make some of the easy cuts? Oil shale, and 
the research that's reduced under this amendment, does not exist in any 
economically viable fashion. In fact, many of the corporations and 
companies that would have the most self-interest in developing oil 
shale have given it not even a second priority or a third priority--a 
distant, distant priority--and have cut back on much of the research 
because there simply is no economically viable way to produce oil 
shale.
  Again, at a time when we need to reexamine our priorities and we know 
that we need to balance our budget, why not save $25 million from a 
technology that doesn't exist and that we've already plowed billions of 
dollars of taxpayer money into.

                              {time}  1450

  We still contribute with our Federal resources with regard to any 
future potential that oil shale might have. There are several research 
leases in place and private companies continue to invest, although in 
decreasing amounts, in this technology.
  What I think anybody opposed to this amendment would need to convince 
us of is why it is a justifiable use of taxpayer funds to continue to 
pursue this boondoggle of a technology that we have already sunken 
billions of dollars into with zero return for taxpayers, with zero 
return for energy independence, and with zero return for reducing 
energy prices for our country.
  We in Colorado, and across the country, have a lot of reasonable 
concerns with regard to any potential future technology in terms of 
where the water is coming from and how and where it will be used. But 
fundamentally, for a prospective technology that is locally problematic 
in affected areas, why does this bill continue to invest good money 
after bad to continue to throw another $25 million down the billion-
dollar hole that has been pursued and talked about for over a century.
  The technology to, in an economically and viable way, extract oil 
shale simply does not exist. My amendment would save $25 million, 
reduce the deficit, allow private research to continue, and make sure 
that we continue an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence 
and reducing gas prices for our country.
  I urge strong support of the Connolly-Polis amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.
  Developing oil shale into a fuel source is very energy intensive. 
Both strip mining and in situ oil mining requires huge amounts of 
energy. In fact, more energy may go into developing the process than 
would be produced in the oil secured.
  Oil shale development is projected to have a dramatic effect also, as 
was mentioned during the debate, on water supplies. This water would 
further stress already overallocated water in the West. Oil shale 
development also poses a potentially serious threat to water quality. 
The process of transforming the kerogen in shale into oil leaves behind 
salts and numerous toxins, water-soluble chemicals that could leach 
into the groundwater that is the source of much of the region's surface 
water during the critical time when flow is lowest. Flushing these 
chemicals from the oil shale production zone, as several companies have 
proposed, would also create huge volumes of highly saline water that 
will require further treatment. The technical feasibility of isolating 
and treating contaminated groundwater has not been demonstrated.
  The proposed development of this resource will recreate major new 
demands on the energy grid as well. By some estimates, the new power 
plants needed to support a 1 million-barrel-per-day oil shale 
industry--and we believe that is the low end of DOE's projections--
could emit 105 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. That's about 
80 percent more than was released by all existing electric utility 
generating units in the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah in the 
year 2005.
  The spent shale that remains after processing is also not an easy 
problem, and it will not go away. It potentially represents between 90 
and 95 percent of the material that is mined. The Nation already has a 
legacy of sites that we cannot afford to adequately clean up today. We 
should not add to this legacy.
  While I have indicated during debate on this bill that I support a 
balanced approach to solving the Nation's energy issues, given the 
costs and environmental impacts of this particular source at this 
particular time, with our constrained resources, this is one 
alternative that should be foregone.
  Again, I strongly support the amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

       For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities, $14,909,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior 
     years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities.

                      Elk Hills School Lands Fund

       For necessary expenses in fulfilling the final payment 
     under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the United 
     States and

[[Page H3415]]

     the State of California on October 11, 1996, as authorized by 
     section 3415 of Public Law 104 106, $15,579,815, for payment 
     to the State of California for the State Teachers' Retirement 
     Fund, of which $15,579,815 shall be derived from the Elk 
     Hills School Lands Fund.

                      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.), $195,609,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve storage, operation, and management activities 
     pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 
     $10,119,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the unobligated balances from prior year 
     appropriations available under this heading, $6,000,000 is 
     hereby permanently rescinded: Provided further, That no 
     amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                   Energy Information Administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $100,000,000 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, $198,506,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Matheson

  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 25, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $9,600,000)''.
       Page 30, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $9,600,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MATHESON. This amendment would add $9.6 million to the Department 
of Energy's nondefense environmental cleanup account, thereby restoring 
the amount that was cut from the previous year for the small sites 
associated with this program. This will be offset by taking money from 
the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activities 
account, which in this bill right now has an increase of just over $298 
million relative to last year.
  The funding for the small sites in the nondefense environmental 
cleanup accounts supports activities across the country that address 
the legacy resulting from civilian nuclear energy research and uranium 
mining, and it is critical that the Department of Energy have the 
resources necessary to meet its obligation to clean contaminated sites 
across the country in a timely manner.
  I know it's tough to come up with these appropriations bills, and I 
think the committee has done a nice job of trying to balance many 
things. I acknowledge and I support the increase in funding for the 
NNSA weapons modernization efforts. I believe that directing a small 
portion of the $298 million increase over the FY 12 levels towards 
cleanup of small sites around the country is worth consideration here 
today.
  This is not an attack of the work of the NNSA, but rather an 
amendment to increase the efficiency of the small-site cleanup effort 
undertaken by the Department of Energy. The $9.6 million represents a 
fraction of 1 percent of the total funding of NNSA weapons activities 
that will be received in this bill.
  I think we want to do this funding and maintain this funding because 
it ensures the progress of these sites can continue. Let's remember 
these small sites are shovel-ready projects directly employing hundreds 
of people at various sites across the country.
  While this is for all sites, I'll talk about one location of which 
I'm familiar because it's in my congressional district, near Moab. It's 
a site that at one point had 16 million tons of radioactive material. 
It's on the banks of the Colorado River. During an environmental impact 
statement review it was determined that it was with an absolute 
certainty that at some point, if this pile is not moved, a flood event 
will flush this downstream. There are roughly 25 million users 
downstream of the Colorado River in Nevada, Arizona, and southern 
California.
  What I find interesting is if we're looking to reduce funding for 
these small projects, we end up increasing the proportion of what's 
left for fixed costs, for administrative costs. In the case of the 
project in Utah, the contract that was just let by the Department of 
Energy, 25 percent of all moneys were just on administrative costs; and 
that means that we're spending a significant portion not moving 
material.
  The thing about these small projects is there is an end in sight. We 
can get this done. We can knock this project out if we aggressively 
fund it, and I think on a lifecycle basis you actually are spending 
less taxpayer dollars if we adequately fund these small sites.
  My concern about funding of small-site remediation is not unique to 
me. In fact, the committee in its own report of this bill on page 100 
mentions this issue about small sites. It says:

       The committee remains concerned about the lack of 
     remediation activity taking place around the country at 
     various Department-sponsored facilities and small sites 
     classified as under the responsibility of the Department.

                              {time}  1500

  So I know we all care about this. I know we do. I'm just trying to 
point out, at least in my State we have one of these sites whereby 
shrinking of the funding I think we extend the life of this project for 
more years. I think we'll end up spending more taxpayer dollars on a 
life-cycle basis at the project as a result, and I would submit that it 
merits consideration to see if we can do this small plus-up in the 
environmental cleanup account for small sites.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, but I do appreciate my colleague's advocacy for removing 
uranium tailing at the former uranium ore processing facility in his 
congressional district, Moab, Utah, to protect the Colorado River and 
downstream water users.
  There has been, as I'm sure he'd admit, tremendous progress at this 
site, where work was accelerated with an influx of $100 million from 
the stimulus bill, or the Recovery Act.
  Our bill, for the record, fully funds the President's request for 
nondefense environmental cleanup. It provides $198 million to sustain 
ongoing cleanup projects. While this is a reduction from fiscal year 
2012, it is a reasonable one considering the need to reduce overall 
Federal spending in our bill. Within that amount, the amount of funding 
for the Moab project, which my colleague is particularly concerned 
about, is sustained at $31 million, the same amount as in fiscal year 
2012.
  This amendment increases funding over the request and over last 
year's level for Moab. While many sites like Moab are struggling to 
reduce cleanup work following the Recovery Act, we simply cannot 
maintain these highly elevated funding levels. As an offset, this 
amendment proposes to take resources from important national security 
activities. It unacceptably strikes funding for priority investments in 
our nuclear security enterprise which is both urgent and long overdue. 
Thus, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on his amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and rise in 
strong support of the gentleman's amendment. I certainly appreciate the 
concerns he has expressed about cleanup nationally, as well as the site 
illustrated in Utah, and share his concerns that we are not adequately 
investing in cleaning up contaminated communities where we have a 
national obligation.
  This amendment would make a cut of $9.6 million to the weapons 
program,

[[Page H3416]]

but I would point out to my colleagues that while I support the weapons 
complex and its modernization, this is a very slight change in funding, 
an account that has a $7.5 billion allocation and sees a $275 million 
increase for 2013 under the bill. And, therefore, I do think the 
gentleman has taken a very reasoned approach and strongly support his 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions, and other activities of title II of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954, and title X, subtitle A, of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992, $425,493,000 to be derived from the 
     Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 
     to remain available until expended.

                                Science

                    (including rescission of funds)

       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 25 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance and 
     one bus, $4,824,931,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of such amount, $185,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2014, for program direction: 
     Provided further, That of the unobligated balances from 
     appropriations available under this heading, $23,500,000 is 
     hereby permanently rescinded: Provided further, That no 
     amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

               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, $200,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of such amount, 
     $20,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2014, for 
     program direction.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 
     97-425, as amended (the ``NWPA''), $25,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be derived from the Nuclear 
     Waste Fund established in section 302(c) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 10222(c)), to be made available only to support the 
     Yucca Mountain license application: Provided, That not less 
     than $5,000,000 of funds made available under this heading 
     shall be made available only for assistance to affected units 
     of local government which have given formal consent to the 
     Secretary of Energy to host a high-level waste repository as 
     authorized by the NWPA.

         Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

       Such sums as are derived from amounts received from 
     borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005 under this heading in prior Acts, shall be 
     collected in accordance with section 502(7) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided, That, for 
     necessary administrative expenses to carry out this Loan 
     Guarantee program, $38,000,000 is appropriated, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2014: 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 2013 
     appropriation 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.

        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 September 30, 2014.

                      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, $230,783,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2014, 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 
     $108,188,000 in fiscal year 2013 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 2013, and any related appropriated 
     receipt account balances remaining from prior years' 
     miscellaneous revenues, so as to result in a final fiscal 
     year 2013 appropriation from the general fund estimated at 
     not more than $122,595,000.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shimkus

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 49, line 25, after the second dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
NRC, has adequate funds to resume licensing activities for the Yucca 
nuclear waste repository as called for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 
but it refuses to do so. The NRC claims it has the legal authority to 
ignore the law duly enacted by this Congress if the agency isn't given 
enough money to ``finish the job.''
  Under our Constitution, agencies are funded year to year. They are 
seldom, if ever, given enough money in 1 year to do everything the law 
tells them to do, especially for long-term projects. In 2008 when the 
Yucca Mountain licensing proceedings started, Congress appropriated NRC 
enough money to conduct the proceedings for that year. We sure didn't 
give it enough to complete the 3-year licensing proceeding. In 2009, we 
gave the NRC enough to carry out the proceeding for another year. The 
NRC didn't stop because it didn't have enough money to finish the job. 
In fact, NRC only stopped the licensing and refused to spend money 
appropriated for licensing based on the administration's policy 
decision that the site is no longer workable.
  Now, after being hauled into Federal court for ignoring a statutory 
duty to decide the license application in 3 years, the NRC claims it 
doesn't have to follow the law because, while it has plenty of money to 
resume the licensing process and move it forward, it doesn't have 
enough money to finish it.
  When we pass a law and tell an agency to do something and give it 
enough money to do a job during a given year, can the agency just thumb 
its nose and say, We're not going to do that job at all because 
Congress didn't give us enough money to finish the job next year?
  No agency has ever successfully told a court not to make it follow 
the law because in some future year it might not get enough money to do 
the job the law requires. Allowing NRC to cancel Yucca would 
unconstitutionally shift the balance of powers to executive agencies to 
evade congressionally mandated legal obligations.
  The Federal appellate court has made its displeasure with the NRC's 
legal position known. We need to do the same.
  This is an outrageous unilateral decision to stop Yucca and not spend 
funds specifically appropriated for licensing activities. No agency can 
ignore a statutory duty to proceed with a project based on a subjective 
determination that adequate funds may not be available to complete the 
project in the future. We need to send a clear message to every agency 
this isn't how our Constitution works.
  So on top of the over $10 million that the NRC has now to restart the 
licensing process, this amendment provides an additional $10 million in 
new funds so they can continue the process. The amendment is budget 
neutral and fully offset by taking funds from the DOE's departmental 
administration account.

[[Page H3417]]

We are asking DOE to do more with a little less by making modest cuts 
to an account for salaries and expenses.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment to fund the 
legally required licensing process for Yucca Mountain so that the NRC, 
an independent government agency, has funding necessary to finish their 
thorough, objective, and technical review. In doing so, the NRC, not 
political games, will determine whether Yucca Mountain would make a 
safe repository. Having spent 30 years and $15 billion of ratepayer 
money, the American people at least deserve to find out the answer to 
whether Yucca is safe.
  And whether you favor nuclear power or Yucca Mountain isn't the only 
issue. The core issue is whether laws we pass may be completely ignored 
by agencies if they think that some day they may not get enough money 
to finish the job. Allowing agencies to get away with this results in 
shifting more of our legislative powers to unelected agency 
bureaucrats.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the 
Shimkus amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong support of the Shimkus amendment, which 
will ensure that the NRC has the resources to carry out its 
responsibility with regard to the Nation's high-level waste repository 
at Yucca Mountain.
  I regret the position that the NRC has taken on this issue. On the 
Appropriations Committee, it is our belief that the Commission has 
adequate funds to resume licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain 
project as called for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

                              {time}  1710

  But the Commission simply has refused to act. The NRC claims it has 
the legal authority to ignore the law duly enacted by this Congress if 
the Agency isn't given enough money to ``finish the job.''
  Under our Constitution, agencies are funded year to year. They are 
seldom, if ever, given enough money in 1 year to do everything the law 
tells them to do, especially for long-term projects.
  In 2008, when the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding started, 
Congress appropriated sufficient funds to the NRC to conduct the 
proceeding for that fiscal year. In 2009, we gave NRC enough money to 
carry out those responsibilities for another year. The NRC didn't stop 
because it didn't have the entire amount of money to finish the job. In 
fact, the NRC only stopped the licensing and refused to spend money 
appropriated for licensing based on a unilateral policy decision that 
the site is no longer workable.
  Now, after being brought to Federal court for ignoring its statutory 
duty to decide the license application in 3 years, the NRC claimed--
astoundingly--that it does not have to follow the law because, while it 
has plenty of money to resume the licensing process and move it 
forward, it doesn't have every dollar in hand that would be required to 
complete the process.
  When Congress passes a law, appropriates money, and directs an agency 
to carry out an important government function during any given fiscal 
year, that agency cannot just thumb its nose and say we're not going to 
do that job at all because Congress didn't give us the money to do the 
following year's work. No agency has ever successfully told a court not 
to make it follow the law because in some future year it might not get 
enough money to do the job the law requires.
  Allowing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission such power to effectively 
cancel Yucca Mountain after Congress has enacted a law directing that 
it be accomplished would be an affront to the Constitution, and it 
would shift the balance of power to executive agencies to evade 
congressionally mandated legal obligations.
  The Federal appellate court has already made its displeasure with the 
NRC's legal position known. We need to do the same. The Shimkus 
amendment would assure that the Commission proceeds with the 
determination of whether Yucca Mountain is an appropriate location for 
a safe repository.
  The amendment is budget neutral--fully offset by redirecting funding 
from DOE's departmental administration account.
  I urge the adoption of the Shimkus amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the sponsor 
of this amendment, Mr. Shimkus, for bringing this amendment forward. 
And I want to thank the distinguished ranking member from my home State 
of Washington and the chairman of the subcommittee for their support 
also of this amendment.
  This is very serious business when the administration is absolutely 
ignoring statutory law that was passed by this Congress. As a matter of 
fact, going way back to 1995, this House has acted 32 different times, 
principally on these appropriation bills as they come forward, to 
address this issue. Generally, the issue is to not fund Yucca Mountain. 
Thirty-two times this House, since 1995, has said we are going to fund 
Yucca Mountain. So I think that the Congress--and certainly the House--
has well established what their position is.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The fact is that we passed a law that was signed by the 
President of the United States at that time. I can remember Congressman 
Udall was chair of the committee at that point. We passed a law that 
said do Yucca Mountain, and that law has not been repealed. That is 
still the law of the land.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, that is precisely the 
point. Both you and Mr. Shimkus made that point very well that needs to 
be repeated over and over: This is statutory law. And 32 different 
times it has been attempted to be modified on the House floor, and 32 
times it has been rejected since 1995.
  Let me put a personal note on this because I represent the Hanford 
area in central Washington. It was one of the three Manhattan Projects 
where we developed atomic weapons to win not only the Second World War 
but also the Cold War. The process of developing those atomic weapons 
created a tremendous amount of waste, and the State of Washington has a 
legal agreement with the Federal Government to clean up that waste. 
It's called the Tri-Party Agreement. But just to give you an idea of 
the scope of what needs to be cleaned up there, the waste in 
underground tanks at Hanford would fill this Chamber over 21 times with 
radioactive and/or hazardous waste. That's the waste that will 
eventually go to the repository after it is glassified.
  So I thank the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this amendment 
forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It's very, 
very important. This will be the 33rd time, I contend, that this House 
will have reaffirmed that Yucca should be the repository.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak very briefly to 
associate my remarks with Mr. Dicks, Dr. Hastings, and Mr. Shimkus. I 
want to thank them for bringing this amendment forward to increase 
funding for license for Yucca.
  This is a bipartisan effort. And it's not only bipartisan; the nexus 
is also support from authorizers and appropriators. So I'm highly 
appreciative of their initiative. I think it ought to be supported by 
all Members. I think we ought to move forward and send a message: we 
need to get Yucca open. This is a way to reclaim the $15 billion that's 
been put into that effort by keeping the license process open and above 
board.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H3418]]

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and rise in strong 
support of the gentleman from Illinois' amendment. I believe the debate 
on this has been very fruitful and will simply add my voice to theirs.
  I believe the administration and the Senate's ongoing attempts to 
shut this activity down are without scientific merit and are contrary, 
as has been said on the floor, to existing law and congressional 
direction.
  Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Federal Government 
has a responsibility to demonstrate its capability to meet its 
contractual obligation by addressing the spent fuel and other high-
level nuclear waste at permanently shutdown reactors.
  We need to ensure that the administration does not unilaterally 
dictate policy for nuclear waste disposal, and I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


         Amendment Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 
at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $16,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
to increase funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration's 
defense nonproliferation program by $16 million. This is a small 
restoration of funds, and it would restore the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative to our fiscal year '12 levels. It's really just a small 
increase in funds, but it will go a long way, in particular for the 
President's top national security priorities. The $16 million would 
come from the Department's administration account. Specifically, this 
$16 million transfer would restore half of the funds that had been cut 
from the Global Threat Reduction Initiative to counter the risk of 
nuclear terrorism.
  The danger that nuclear weapons and materials might spread to 
countries that are hostile to us or to terrorists who want to use these 
against us is one of the gravest dangers that we have to the United 
States. Nonproliferation programs are one of the least expensive ways, 
and they're critical for U.S. national security, and they must be a top 
priority. It's our line of first defense. It is the most cost-effective 
way to achieve the most urgent of goals, which is securing and reducing 
the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade material.

                              {time}  1520

  The funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative specifically 
supports securing vulnerable nuclear material around the world in 4 
years, in order to prevent this deadly material from falling into the 
hands of terrorists who are intent on doing us harm.
  And let me give you a specific example of why this is so important. 
Increasing the funds would help accelerate the conversion of research 
reactors and the removal of vulnerable highly enriched uranium. The 
need to accelerate those important efforts can be seen, for example, in 
the example of Belarus, which had enough HEU for several nuclear 
weapons, and agreed, in 2010, to give up this material.
  Now, the NNSA cleaned out a portion of that material; but in 2011, 
Belarus reneged on its agreement because it was angry at the imposition 
of U.S. sanctions on that regime. There is still a significant amount 
of highly enriched uranium that sits there in Belarus. It could have 
been cleaned out by the NNSA if it had had 5 more months before Belarus 
said no. This illustrates why it's so important for us to put the money 
in to go and clean these places up before people decide or new regimes 
come in and all of a sudden we can't get to what is very dangerous 
materials for us.
  We can't squander the opportunities to move forward on this urgent 
priority. The 9/11 Commission and the Nuclear Posture Commission noted 
that the addressing of this issue is important. This is a grave danger, 
with the Nuclear Posture Commission warning that ``the urgency arises 
from the imminent danger of nuclear terrorism if we pass a tipping 
point in nuclear proliferation.''
  I urge support for a very modest increase of $16 million that will 
significantly help us reduce the dangerous delays to these very 
important nonproliferation programs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment. Though less than last year's level, the $2.3 
billion provided for defense nuclear nonproliferation already shows 
very strong support of our committee for nonproliferation.
  Our bill fully funds the core nonproliferation programs to secure 
vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in 4 years. In fact, it 
goes further and provides an additional $28 million above the request 
for the international programs under what's called the Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative.
  While I appreciate our colleague's support for these activities, 
there's simply no reason to provide even more funding. The 
international activities have been clearly laid out in the 4-year plan, 
which peaked in 2011. These activities are supposed to ramp down as we 
accomplish more and more projects abroad. The President's budget 
reflects that planned ramp-down.
  This additional funding would just likely sit there unexpended. The 
National Nuclear Security Agency already has considerable problems 
getting other countries to follow through with agreements. The 
Government Accountability Office has confirmed that half of all the 
funding we provide each year is not spent. To use the words I heard a 
few minutes ago: the money is sitting there.
  This additional funding is simply not needed, and I ask the Members 
to reject this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment 
and commend her for crafting it.
  As I pointed out in earlier remarks, I do appreciate the chairman's 
efforts, as well as the members of the subcommittee and full committee, 
to increase money set aside for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. 
In fact, the chairman was responsible for adding $17 million above the 
administration's current request.
  However, I do believe that more can be done and that the Sanchez 
amendment, by adding $16 million to the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative, would get us very close to our current year appropriated 
level.
  I believe, as a Nation, our greatest security threat is not a 
launched attack by another nation-state, but the use of nuclear weapons 
or materials in an act of terror. And given that particular threat, I 
do believe every dollar counts and every dollar of these $16 million 
count. I would ask my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H3419]]

the gentlewoman from California will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Welch

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 29, line 10, insert before the period at the end the 
     following:

     : Provided  further, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading, such sums as may be necessary shall be 
     available to the Secretary of Energy to comply with the 
     Department's energy management requirements under section 
     543(f)(7) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 
     U.S.C. 8253(f)(7))

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, Representative Gardner of Colorado and I 
offered this amendment. He's the lead sponsor, but his plane is late, 
and I'm standing in in his place as a cosponsor.
  Previous legislation by this Congress required our governmental 
Agencies to do an energy audit, and the reason behind that energy audit 
was that it would lead to energy savings. There are firms that can do 
energy-saving contracts at no expense to the taxpayer, no expense 
whatsoever to the Federal Government.
  The point of this amendment is to have the Department of Energy and 
other government Agencies that have already been directed to do the 
energy audit to get on with it, and the reason we want to have it done 
yesterday is so that we can begin today achieving savings for the 
American taxpayer.
  There's a lot of debate in Congress among us as to what makes 
sensible energy policy. But there is immense consensus that whatever 
energy policy you favor, saving energy, using less rather than more, 
saving taxpayer dollars is a wise thing to do in every single policy 
that might be advanced by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  So the point of the amendment that Mr. Gardner and I offer is 
basically to say to the Federal Government that, hey, let's audit the 
energy use in our buildings. Let's take practical steps to save money. 
Let's use a tool that costs taxpayers no money and guarantees that 
they'll save money, and let's get on with it.
  Mr. Chairman, we seek support for this amendment. But before I yield, 
I do want to mention one aspect of the bill to which I am opposed and 
that I'm speaking on my own here, not with my cosponsor, and that's a 
rider in the bill.
  Section 433 lays out a roadmap for designing increasingly energy-
efficient new buildings. And the provision has a clause in it that will 
drive advances in building energy efficiency, deep retrofits and 
savings in taxpayer dollars, while reducing carbon pollution and 
leading by example. DOE is working to develop rules that implement 
section 433 in a workable and flexible manner, but the funding rider 
would block that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have no objection to the amendment. We think 
it's a good way to enact it. It's a commonsense approach, and we have 
no objection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $43,468,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2014.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and 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, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one ambulance, $7,577,341,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the unobligated 
     balances from prior year appropriations available under this 
     heading, $65,000,000 is hereby permanently rescinded: 
     Provided further, That no amounts may be rescinded from 
     amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the 
     Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 30, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $298,221,000)''.
       Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $298,221,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes on his amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. POLIS. The Polis-Markey amendment would reduce the funding for 
unneeded nuclear weapons programs by $298 million in order to reduce 
the budget deficit.
  At a time of decisions, at a time of choices, we need to ask 
ourselves: How much is enough with regard to nuclear defense?
  These programs included in this amendment have consistently been over 
budget and ineffectual. We simply shouldn't be increasing funding for 
them--yes, actually increasing funding for them. This amendment simply 
eliminates the increase at a time when we should be focused on deficit 
reduction.
  We all agree that we need to stop wasteful government spending. 
Congress has to justify every penny it spends to the taxpayers, the 
American people, the global markets. There just isn't any justification 
for spending an additional $300 million, on top of prior year 
appropriations, on weapons programs that aren't needed and aren't 
suited to our current conflicts in the war on terror.
  This account funds programs like the B61 Life Extension Program. This 
program to modify nuclear bombs was originally set to cost $32.5 
million and be completed in 2012. Since then, it has ballooned to $4 
billion and won't be completed until 2022. At the time that this 
nuclear warhead is finished, if it's even finished by 2022, it might 
not even have a mission or a delivery vehicle. Then there is the W78 
Life Extension Program, which would create yet another nuclear warhead. 
This boondoggle was originally set to cost $26 million, and now it has 
cost over $5 billion.
  Why would this Congress approve yet another taxpayer bailout of 
failed nuclear weapons technology?
  Finally, there is a uranium processing facility which was supposed to 
manufacture components for nuclear warheads. This project was supposed 
to cost $1.5 billion. Now it has cost over $6.5 billion, and it is 4 
years behind schedule.
  Frankly, American taxpayers can't afford a Congress that keeps 
throwing good money after bad on these unnecessary nuclear weapons 
programs. Now, I'm sure the other side will talk about how we need to 
maintain our nuclear arsenal. This amendment isn't about that. If this 
amendment passes, the bill still appropriates over $7 billion for 
nuclear weapon activities. In reality, it makes no sense to increase 
spending on nuclear weapons when we've agreed to responsibly reduce our 
nuclear stockpile.
  This is no longer the era of the Cold War where we have another 
nation-state gearing a large percentage of their GNP toward competing 
with us on the nuclear weapons front. We are and will remain, even with 
the passage of this amendment, the global leader on both developing and 
deploying nuclear weapons technology. This simply isn't a responsible 
way to govern, and it reduces our national security to spend more money 
than we can afford on national security. To borrow it from countries 
like China makes our Nation less secure, not more secure.
  I would urge the House to listen to the experts, who are telling us 
not to throw good money after bad. Let's get our budget under control. 
Let's get our budget on the right track by spending money on programs 
that are proven to

[[Page H3420]]

protect our country, not on boondoggles that continue to cost taxpayers 
year after year after year without increasing our security. We need to 
make hard choices to get our country back on the path to fiscal sanity. 
Well, this Polis-Markey amendment is an easy choice.
  Vote for the Polis-Markey amendment and against spending hundreds of 
millions of additional dollars on redundant and unneeded nuclear 
weapons technology on top of the $7 billion base included in this bill, 
which already allows us to be the unchallenged global leader in 
developing and deploying nuclear weapons. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
Polis-Markey amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Assuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons 
stockpile is the most critical national security issue in our Energy 
and Water bill. The Secretary of Energy must certify to the President 
that our nuclear stockpile is reliable. It's absolutely essential that 
these funds be put in the bill and kept in the bill.
  With years of level funding, we have put off for too long the type of 
investments that are needed to sustain our nuclear capability as our 
stockpile ages. That's why the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded 
that additional funding was essential to ensure that our infrastructure 
is adequately maintained and that our warheads receive the 
refurbishments they need to remain reliable and effective. There has 
also been strong bipartisan support for carrying out the recommended 
increases in modernization funding.

  This amendment unacceptably strikes funding for these priority 
investments, which are both urgent and long overdue. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to make defense a priority and to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I rise in support of the Polis amendment. He and I are 
introducing this amendment so that we can, once again, demonstrate the 
lack of compatibility of the priorities of this budget to the overall 
well-being of our country.
  The Cold War ended 20 years ago. We won. Since that time, there has 
been a dramatic reduction in the number of nuclear weapons that both 
the United States and the former Soviet Union deploy. That number 
continues to drop. Yet, here in this budget, there is additional 
profligate spending on new nuclear weapons programs, on weapons 
modernization. Well, let me just say this, ladies and gentlemen:
  Each nuclear submarine that the United States has has 96 
independently targetable nuclear warheads. That means that every single 
nuclear commander of a submarine in the United States can destroy the 
entire country of Russia, can destroy the entire country of China--each 
American nuclear submarine commander--and neither Russia nor China 
knows where those submarines are. We should be proud of ourselves. We 
are 10-feet tall compared to the Russians, compared to the Chinese.
  By the way, any problems that we have with Iran or with Syria in 
terms of Russian support for them or Chinese support for them have 
nothing to do with our nuclear weapons capability. That's not 
influencing them one way or the other. If we needed to ever drop a 
nuclear bomb on any one of our enemies--let's just say we had a war 
with Iran--and after the nuclear sub commanders in the United States 
Navy were to send one nuclear weapon towards Tehran, what would the 
next target be?
  What are we doing out here? Why are we talking about additional 
nuclear weapons in the 21st century? Why are we talking about cutting 
Medicare, cutting Medicaid, cutting programs for poor children, cutting 
nutrition programs for poor children, and at the same time saying that 
we need more nuclear weapons?
  This is a wayback machine. It's a Cold War time machine that 
basically says that the inexorable investment of political capital 
already made continues to drive the investments of the future; that we 
aren't going to step back and reevaluate that we won the Cold War; that 
we're not going to have a nuclear war with Russia; that we're not going 
to have a nuclear war with China; that we are 10 feet tall. Even if all 
there is is parity, each country understands that it's a total 
annihilation to use these weapons.
  Let's save this money. Vote ``aye'' on the Polis amendment. Send a 
signal to the world. Send a signal to our own people that at least we 
can find some expenditure in the defense budget which we can cut and 
which is not related to our national security. That's all that we ask 
from you: that please, on one vote, on the nuclear weapons issue, where 
we don't need new weapons, that there is a vote for sanity, that there 
is a vote that we send as a signal to the rest of the world and to our 
own people that we understand that that nuclear arms race is over. Vote 
``aye'' on the Polis amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentlemen from Colorado and Massachusetts.
  I do believe, given the work of the subcommittee, that the dollars 
that are contained in it represent an attempt to ensure that, looking 
down the road with the hopeful ratification of the New START Treaty, we 
will be consistent with those funding levels that will be required.

                              {time}  1540

  While a world without nuclear weapons would be my preference and 
while the U.S. must maintain its deterrent capability today, we should 
also maintain the capabilities necessary to ensure that they are safe 
and effective.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts rightfully asked are there any 
savings that we can see under the defense accounts, whether at the 
Department of Defense or the Department of Energy. And I would point 
out one of the eliminations in this year's budget are moneys for the 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility.
  So I would again emphasize to my colleagues that the subcommittee try 
to look at this account with great specificity to remove those items 
that were not necessary and to spend our tax dollars wisely.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear 
     nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one passenger motor vehicle for replacement 
     only, $2,283,024,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the unobligated balances from prior year 
     appropriations available under this heading, $7,000,000 is 
     hereby permanently rescinded: Provided further, That no 
     amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H3421]]


       Page 30, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this is very straightforward.
  This amendment would strike the $100 million from the nuclear 
nonproliferation account which has been earmarked by the committee for 
a bailout of a failing uranium enrichment company. This $100 million 
could then be put toward deficit reduction.
  This has nothing to do with taking away money from national security 
and everything to do with ending bailouts to a failed business model. 
Twenty years ago, two decades ago, this Congress created by charter the 
United States Enrichment Corporation, believing USEC could better run 
the uranium enrichment facilities than the government itself. But after 
two decades, you look at the situation and realize it ain't happening 
and Congress was wrong.
  Since its inception, USEC has squandered billions of dollars in 
Federal bailouts, running its operations to near insolvency because of 
poor decisions and--dare I say--corporate incompetency. Yearly, USEC 
comes to Congress and the executive branch--hat in hand--begging for 
millions of dollars in bailout money to continue operation sites that 
are technologically out of date. It is time that the Federal Government 
ended the endless bailouts to this enterprise.
  Moreover, USEC has been a bad-faith actor in negotiations with the 
uranium mining industry which provides the needed raw materials that 
are enriched at these facilities. You always ask yourself on these 
deals who is the winner and who is the loser. We always say Congress 
shouldn't pick winners and losers. They clearly are. USEC is the 
winner. The losers are the uranium miners that populate the western 
United States.
  What motivation does USEC have to negotiate in good faith when it 
knows if it doesn't get everything it wants from the miners, it simply 
goes to the Department of Energy, gets a handout, and then time and 
time again they either get direct-cash payments or they get spent 
uranium tails? So they have no reason to negotiate with our miners in 
the western United States.
  The Department of Energy has a longstanding agreement with the 
uranium mining industry not to dump any more than 10 percent of the 
market's worth of uranium in handouts to USEC at any given time; yet it 
becomes increasingly clear that the Department of Energy is willing to 
ignore that agreement and provide the bailout that USEC desires.
  This betrayal of the mining industry threatens thousands of jobs 
across the western United States--Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Illinois, 
and Wyoming to name a few. Moreover, arguments that USEC is the only 
facility that can supply tritium to the Department of Defense ignores 
the plain language of the Washington treaty and the U.S.-India Nuclear 
Agreement. The Department of Energy has in its possession enough highly 
enriched uranium and tritium to last for at least 15 years, costing 
hundreds of millions of dollars less than the continued bailouts of 
USEC that the country is currently obligated to.
  It is time for this Congress to stand up and stop the continual 
bailouts of a failed business model. Propping up one company at the 
expense of American workers is not how this body should be operating. 
Let's end the bailout, return the money to the Treasury, pay down our 
deficit.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, a mention was made of 
congressional earmarks. There are no congressional earmarks in the 
Energy and Water bill. This is a Presidential priority, but this is not 
a congressional earmark.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  After Congress privatized the United States Enrichment Corporation in 
1996, we quickly learned that it couldn't survive in the private sector 
without continued and repeated bailouts to the tune of billions of 
dollars. We've given it free centrifuge technology. We've given it free 
uranium that it enriches and then sells at below-market prices, 
undercutting its competitors. We've paid to clean up its radioactive 
messes. We have assumed its liabilities.
  And what has happened to these investments? The entire company is 
worth less than the $100 million contained in this bill that's the next 
gift that the Congress is giving to this company. Adam Smith is 
spinning in his grave so rapidly right now that he would qualify as a 
new energy source. That's how violative of free-market principles this 
continued subsidy of this company is, knowing that there are other 
companies that can provide the same resource without the government 
subsidies.
  Even after the Department of Energy's recent announcement of another 
gift of free uranium to USEC, Standard & Poor's downgraded it to junk-
bond status. Who invests in something that has already achieved junk-
bond status with the exception of the United States Congress? That's 
what we're voting on here today, funding of a company that is now in 
junk-bond status. And JPMorgan, the company's creditor, now directly 
controls every penny USEC spends because it felt the company could not 
manage its own precarious finances.
  When I asked the Treasury Department whether government support for 
the company put taxpayers at risk, it said yes and that extreme care 
should be taken before offering any exposure to the taxpayer. But are 
we following the Treasury Department's advice? No. The Department of 
Energy has approved hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of subsidies 
for this company and is about to approve another $82 million bailout in 
the coming days. And Congress has acceded to pressure to insert even 
more money in no fewer than three pieces of legislation that are 
currently pending, including the $100 million contained in this bill.
  We've been told this bailout is only about getting the tritium we 
need for our nuclear weapons, but this is just not true. The treaty 
that governs uranium enrichment technology does not prevent other 
companies from doing this work. Even if it did, there are even 
additional alternatives. When DOE examined its tritium options, it 
found that down-blending surplus highly enriched uranium that it 
already has would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars less 
than obtaining the services from this company.
  This amendment is supported by a coalition that spans the political 
horizon that makes it possible for Mr. Burgess--a very conservative 
Member from Texas--to join with a very liberal Congressman from 
Massachusetts in agreeing that the pragmatic center here has lost its 
bearings. It has lost touch with the free-market principles. And at 
least if we're going to subsidize something, let's see that it's not 
already reached junk-bond status and we're continuing to pour good 
money after bad.
  This is something that in my opinion is unacceptable. The Department 
of Energy has already given $44 million for this program this year, and 
it is about to provide another $82 million as it prepares to buy the 
centrifuges that have yet to be demonstrated to work properly. That's 
right, $126 million that will buy centrifuges from a company whose 
total value is now less than $90 million.

                              {time}  1550

  As part of the deal, the taxpayers also have to assume liability for 
the company's nuclear waste.
  We should not be throwing good money after bad. This is $100 million 
that should not be wasted. Please support the Burgess-Markey amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition 
to the Burgess-Markey amendment.

[[Page H3422]]

  Put simply, if this amendment passes, our national security is at 
risk. The appropriation that this amendment seeks to strike is vital to 
ensure that America has a domestic source of uranium enrichment. 
According to U.S. law and nonproliferation treaties that the United 
States is signatory to, we must have a domestic source of uranium. 
International agreements prevent us from purchasing enriched uranium 
from foreign-owned companies for military purposes.
  If the Burgess-Markey amendment passes, the U.S. would no longer have 
a domestic source of enrichment and would instead be reliant on a 
foreign-owned company that has many red flags in its past for uranium 
enrichment.
  This amendment is a rerun of a similar attempt by Mr. Markey and our 
colleague from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) during the debate of the 2013 
National Defense Authorization Act a few weeks ago to strip the 
authorizing language for this uranium research, development, and 
demonstration program. That amendment failed by an overwhelming vote of 
121 300. Nothing--I repeat, nothing--has changed in the last few weeks 
since that vote and today.
  Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues are claiming that the RD&D 
program is some type of congressional earmark, but this is simply not 
true. The President of the United States requested the authorization 
and funding for the RD&D program in his budget request because the 
President has determined it is necessary for our national security.
  Now, I may still be a freshman, but I know enough that, in order to 
be a congressional earmark, a Member of Congress would need to make the 
request for the program. That didn't happen.
  Furthermore, in the NDAA legislation, Chairman McKeon added a 
provision to ensure that taxpayers are protected by requiring any 
company that participates in the RD&D program to put up their 
intellectual property rights as collateral. The IP rights are worth 
billions of dollars and far outweigh any amount of money that the 
Federal Government might put towards this program.
  So to call this an earmark or a bailout is just simply not true.
  The sponsors of this amendment have also tried to confuse Members by 
saying that we can satisfy our national security needs by down-blending 
existing uranium. While we may be able to do this in the near term, 
this argument is shortsighted at best.
  What happens when the government runs out of inventory to down-blend 
and we no longer have a domestic capability to enrich uranium? The 
other side doesn't seem to have a good response for that question 
because they know the answer, and the answer is that we need to go 
forward with the RD&D program to ensure we have a domestic source in 
the future.
  It seems some would rather ignore the long-term national security 
implications of having a domestic source of uranium enrichment. The 
fact is, if this amendment passes, our nuclear national security could 
be at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I will once again remind my colleagues that this 
amendment attempts to achieve the same goal that the failed Pearce-
Markey amendment did a few weeks ago, and we already know that 
amendment failed by a very wide margin. I urge my colleagues to defeat 
this amendment to ensure that our national nuclear security is not 
outsourced to a foreign-owned company.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition, and, to be honest with 
you, I don't know about conservatives from Texas or liberals from 
Massachusetts. I'm from Gary, Indiana, and I am here simply to ask my 
colleagues to not flush $100 million down a drain. That would be my 
technical argument. And I want to thank the gentleman from Texas and I 
want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this 
amendment.
  I also want to thank the subcommittee chair for reducing the 
administration's original request that was $150 million for USEC, which 
is the United States Enrichment Corporation, to $100 million that is 
contained in this bill.

  I must tell you, I have serious disagreement with the committee mark 
on this and do believe this amendment needs to be adopted. The people 
of this country work too hard for the tax dollars they send to us to 
flush this $100 million down a drain.
  In 2008, when this company applied for a loan guarantee, DOE required 
USEC to produce a track record of running these centrifuges for a time 
sufficient to prove that they could be commercialized. This, we were 
told, would be sufficient to prove the technology. It was not.
  Further, I would point out that in 2010, $45 million in accounting 
exchange, an exchange for liability for enrichment services, was 
provided to the company, essentially forgiving them $45 million of 
liability. This fiscal year 12, $44 million in additional dollars in 
exchange, relieving the company of liability that is now on the 
taxpayers' book, was put forward.
  There is a proposal on the table, separate from this bill and 
separate from this amendment, to do that exchange of liability for 
enrichment services a third time for another $82 million because the 
company needs it. The question during subcommittee consideration of 
this issue that was addressed to the Department of Energy is: What 
happens to the taxpayers? What happens to this country if the cost of 
cleaning up those tailings exceeds the liability that was given a 
company. That is what happens if it's not $44 million. What if it's not 
$45 million? What if it's not $82 million? What if it's $100 million? 
We eat it. We eat it, and that's wrong. That is wrong, and people ought 
to adopt this amendment.
  Several months ago, the claim was that just in another 2 years, just 
another 2 years and just another $300 million would prove the 
technology. Now, now today, the Department is saying this program would 
make progress, not prove the technology. They would make progress 
towards proving the technology.
  It was mentioned that on May 15 the company was downgraded by 
Standard & Poor's. Last month USEC was warned that it was in danger of 
being delisted by the New York Stock Exchange. Delisting would mean 
that the company stock would essentially be reduced to speculative 
penny stock status, reducing the market for the company's shares.
  Last month, the Department announced again this very complicated deal 
relative to the tailings. This deal takes the most compelling argument 
away from funding USEC's American Centrifuge Project, because last 
month USEC, the Department, Energy Northwest, and TVA agreed to keep 
the enrichment plant USEC operates, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant, in operation for another year by re-enriching uranium tailings.
  The point I would make is that the transfer of these tailings results 
in enough U.S. origin low-enriched uranium for 15 years. In addition, 
the National Nuclear Security Administration can access the mixed oxide 
facilities for backup low-enrichment uranium for an additional 4\1/2\ 
years.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), talked about the long term. 
That is the long term. That's two decades from now. And the technology 
that USEC is using today is 20 years old, and the National Nuclear 
Security Administration has not evaluated alternatives, but it has the 
time to do so.
  Again, we need to make a decision here. The decision ought to be to 
adopt this amendment and to save the taxpayers $100 million.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Burgess-Markey 
amendment.
  With all due respect to my friend from Ohio who said that this is a 
national security issue, the Department of the Navy has said they have 
enough material to last them through 2050.

                              {time}  1600

  We have plenty of time to start from scratch to bid the project out.

[[Page H3423]]

  If the contention of our friends is that we must have a U.S. company 
that produces this material, then start the bid process today. We have 
until 2050. USEC has attempted for over 30 years to develop a 
centrifuge--and has yet to do it. They've had over $5 billion given to 
them. If they get this bailout, then they're going to continue 
operations with the request for another $2 billion.
  At which point are we, the designated representatives of the people, 
going to stand and say that other people can do that? Right now, the 
Department of Energy is saying the only scientists in the country that 
we can fund are at USEC. I sincerely disagree with them. I do not 
believe that we should have foreign-owned corporations providing this 
material, but we have plenty of time now if we start.
  We're told that we do not have the intellectual property if we 
somehow take the funds away, if we don't give them. What intellectual 
property is available when the company has spent $5 billion to create 
38 machines, six of which have had catastrophic failures? One split the 
case, which stops the whole program because that would cause a leak of 
radioactive material.
  It is time for the Congress simply to say what they want to go to bid 
and allow the best bidder in the Nation, the best developer, the best 
minds in the Nation, to come together and develop what we want. Stop 
funding a failed corporation that was at risk a month ago of being 
pulled off of the New York Stock Exchange, that has been downgraded. 
USEC had 90 percent of the world market. They had 90 percent of the 
U.S. market when they were given the company and privatized. They were 
given a billion dollars worth of tails. A billion dollars worth of 
product and 90 percent of market share, and they have squandered that 
market share down to 10 percent.
  Several years ago, they put those tails on the open market and 
collapsed the uranium market. What valuable company sells the raw 
materials out the backdoor that they are given and collapses the world 
market? That's the company that I'm saying in the Burgess-Markey 
amendment simply doesn't get bailed out. The head of that company last 
year paid himself $5 million.
  Taxpayer bailout dollars are going to pay the executives of this 
company elaborate salaries when they're not producing anything. If the 
company were as good at producing centrifuges as it is getting 
government handouts, they would have long ago succeeded in developing 
the capacity to make centrifuges. Other countries, other companies, 
other nations have centrifuges by the hundreds of thousands operating--
and this Nation, after $5 billion, has 38 that don't operate.
  Just stop the games. Stop the bailout.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5325) 
making appropriations for energy and water development and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during 
further consideration of H.R. 5325 in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to House Resolution 667, no further amendment to the bill may 
be offered except: pro forma amendments offered at any point in the 
reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate; 
amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, 10, 17, 
and 18; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding an across-the-board 
reduction; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding section 1705 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia 
limiting funds for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy; an 
amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia regarding Advanced Research Projects 
Agency-Energy awards with expected Technology Readiness Levels; an 
amendment by Mr. Chabot regarding funding levels in title IV of the 
bill; an amendment by Mr. Cleaver limiting funds relating to the 
Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack 
regarding the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; an amendment by Mr. 
DeFazio regarding section 9.104(d) of title 48, Code of Federal 
Regulations, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by 
Mr. Denham regarding section 10011(b) of Public Law 111 11; an 
amendment by Mr. Engel limiting funds for new light duty vehicles, 
which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Flake 
regarding an across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mr. Flake 
limiting funds for the Wind Powering America initiative; an amendment 
by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Batteries and Electric Drive 
Technology program; an amendment by Mr. Flores limiting funds to 
enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007; an amendment by Mr. Fortenberry regarding funding levels for 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; an amendment by Mr. Fortenberry 
limiting funds for the proposed rule ``Energy Conservation Program: 
Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power 
Supplies''; an amendment by Mr. Frelinghuysen regarding funding levels; 
amendments en bloc by Mr. Frelinghuysen consisting of amendments 
specified in this order not earlier disposed of; an amendment by Mr. 
Gardner regarding energy management requirements under the National 
Energy Conservation Policy Act; an amendment by Mr. Gohmert regarding 
Department of Energy construction, purchase, or lease in the District 
of Columbia; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding funding 
for Corps of Engineers Operation and maintenance; two amendments by Ms. 
Jackson Lee of Texas regarding funding levels for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding 
funding levels for Corps of Engineers Construction; an amendment by Ms. 
Jackson Lee of Texas limiting funds for Department of Energy; Energy 
Programs; Science an amendment by Mr. Jordan limiting funds for title 
17 loan guarantees; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding 
subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code; an 
amendment by Mr. Kucinich regarding section 1703 of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005; an amendment by Mr. Landry limiting funds relating to 
mitigation methodology, referred to as the ``Modified Charleston 
Method''; an amendment by Mr. Landry regarding section 801 of the 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. 
Luetkemeyer limiting funds for the study conducted pursuant to section 
5018(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007; an amendment 
by Mr. Luetkemeyer limiting funds for the study authorized in section 
108 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2009; an amendment by Mr. Lujan regarding funding 
levels for Defense Environmental Cleanup; an amendment by Mrs. Lummis 
regarding uranium; an amendment by Mr. McIntyre limiting funds to plan 
for termination of periodic nourishment for water resource development 
projects; an amendment by Mr. Mulvaney regarding an across-the-board 
reduction; an amendment by Mr. Pearce regarding funding levels for 
Defense Environmental Cleanup; an amendment by Mr. Polis regarding 
funding levels for Weapons Activities, which shall be debatable for 20 
minutes; an amendment by Mr. Reed regarding funding levels for Non-
Defense Environmental Cleanup; an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher limiting 
funds for the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center; an amendment by 
Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California regarding funding levels for Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation, which shall be debatable

[[Page H3424]]

for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Schock regarding a prohibition on 
the planting of row crops; an amendment by Mr. Schweikert regarding 
title 10, Code of Federal Regulations; an amendment by Mr. Stearns 
regarding funding levels for Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy; 
an amendment by Mr. Stearns limiting funds to subordinate interest in 
any loan guarantee; an amendment by Mr. Stearns limiting funds for 
purchase of light duty vehicles; and an amendment by Mr. Tipton 
limiting funds to conduct surveys; and further that each such amendment 
may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, 
or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Congressional 
Record or a designee, shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall 
not be subject to amendment except that the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations (or their respective 
designees) each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of 
debate; and further that except as otherwise specified, each amendment 
shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent; and further that an amendment shall be 
considered to fit the description stated in this request if it 
addresses in whole or in part the object described.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  Mr. PEARCE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, we have a 
discussion that needs to take place before we make a decision, and I 
see the gentlelady coming onto the floor. So if we can take just a 
moment to discuss, there is an amendment we would like to be made in 
order, and I need to visit with the gentlelady, if I can.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 667 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5325.
  Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1613


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5325) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry (Acting Chair) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 9 offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) had been postponed and the bill had 
been read through page 31, line 8.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment may 
be offered except those specified in the previous order, which is at 
the desk.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 30, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $17,319,000) (increased by $17,319,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank both the chairman 
and the ranking member of the subcommittee for the opportunity to 
discuss an important problem in our Nation's nuclear security 
infrastructure and for their support of this amendment.
  The amendment would reduce funding for the mixed oxide fuel program 
at the Department of Energy by approximately $17 million and redirect 
it to the National Nuclear Security Administration's Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative. Such a redirection of funds would provide for 
greater security and be a wiser investment of taxpayer dollars.
  If there is one thing we can all agree on, Mr. Chairman, it is that 
dollars are scarce in Washington. And with this in mind, I'm concerned 
about the amount of money that has been spent on the mixed oxide fuel 
program, known as MOX, at the DOE.
  Under an agreement signed by the United States and Russia in 2000, 
both countries agreed to dispose of excess weapons-grade plutonium by 
blending it with uranium to create mixed oxide fuel. The intent was to 
use it as a fuel in civilian nuclear reactors. Subsequently, the 
Department of Energy spent billions on the mixed oxide fuel project. 
The fuel is intended for a market segment that has yet to emerge, and 
according to a report from the Government Accountability Office, the 
Department of Energy has had to consider offering subsidies to attract 
potential customers for the fuel. The most optimistic estimates predict 
that the mixed oxide production facility will begin operating 6 years 
behind schedule.
  Another problem is that the mixed oxide fuel project poses a new 
nuclear nonproliferation risk as MOX fuel can be separated into 
weapons-grade nuclear material. In addition, the Russians have not 
lived up to their treaty obligations. They have fallen behind on their 
own MOX production schedule. As a result, the United States has had to 
step in and provide our own designs for the MOX plant to jump-start 
Russia's.
  As a cofounder of the House Nuclear Security Caucus, Mr. Chairman, I 
feel confident that the funding removed from the mixed oxide fuel 
program will be put to much better use protecting our Nation through 
the global threat reduction initiative.
  By the end of the current year, the global threat reduction 
initiative will have converted or shut down 81 research reactors, 
removed over 3,400 kilograms of vulnerable nuclear material, and 
secured nearly 1,400 buildings containing radiological materials. There 
are other important global threat reduction initiatives as well that 
could use additional funding.
  We should be proud of our work as a country in our nuclear security 
efforts, but it is abundantly clear that the mixed oxide fuel program 
is not the most productive use of our constituents' taxpayer dollars. 
The persistence of nuclear threats demands that we retain the highest 
sense of vigilance and agility when it comes to our own nuclear 
security, and for that reason, I urge the adoption of this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from New Jersey rise in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the previous order of the House, the time is 
controlled by the Member offering the amendment and a Member opposed to 
the amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
support of the gentleman's amendment and recognize his advocacy for 
nonproliferation.
  I share my colleague's concerns about the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's management of the MOX fuel fabrication facility 
project. The latest Department of Energy report indicates that the MOX 
facility could take months, if not years, to complete and will exceed 
the current baseline cost by as much as $1.4 billion due to continued 
construction problems and creeping scope. So I'm pleased to support the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek to control time in opposition 
to the amendment?
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. The reason Mr. Fortenberry and I are making this

[[Page H3425]]

amendment is that it would address a wrongheaded plan by the Department 
of Energy to build a facility to produce dangerous, highly radioactive 
nuclear fuel that no one actually wants to buy.

                              {time}  1620

  The Department wants to take uranium and plutonium from dismantled 
nuclear bombs and make fuel for commercial nuclear reactors.
  This plan will cost taxpayers $2 billion. It is a nuclear bomb 
budget-buster. It is the most expensive way to boil water that has ever 
been proposed on the planet. It is also unnecessary--no electric 
utility in the United States wants to buy this fuel. It is also a 
serious threat to human health. The MOX--the mixed oxide plutonium 
fuel--is actually more dangerous than existing commercial nuclear fuel. 
And in the event of a nuclear disaster, the releases from a MOX fuels 
reactor will cause between 39 and 131 percent more fatalities than a 
traditional fuel nuclear reactor.
  MOX is a reverse Field of Dreams. If you build it, they will not 
come. The utility industry is not going to arrive. Instead, it is a 
nightmare that will leave future generations to safeguard a dangerous 
fuel with no buyers.
  I congratulate the gentleman, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             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, $1,086,635,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of such amount, 
     $43,212,000 shall be available until September 30, 2014, for 
     program direction.

                      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, $400,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2014.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pearce

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 31, line 23, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $88,923,000)''.
       Page 32, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $88,923,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today which transfers funds from 
the Office of the NNSA Administrator and into the Defense Environmental 
Management Fund, a program which funds the cleanup of radioactive 
waste. This program is important to our defensive mission, our 
environment, and public safety.
  The Defense Environmental Management Program has demonstrated success 
in solid waste disposition, soil and groundwater remediation, and 
facility decontamination and decommissioning, and will continue to do 
so with sufficient funding.
  I would like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member 
Visclosky for their hard work on this bill and for prioritizing this 
issue particularly. Unfortunately, the budget request from the White 
House did not accurately reflect the monetary needs to fully fund the 
project contained in the EM program. My amendment would simply put back 
$40 million into the Environmental Management Program, which would 
provide much needed relief to the already constrained budgets for these 
projects.
  As we accelerate the permanent disposal of radioactive waste, we 
decrease downstream the long-term cost for security, storage, and 
providing a better, safer environment into the future.
  Many of the storage sites that currently exist for radioactive waste 
sit aboveground and are threatened by tornados, earthquakes, and 
wildfires. As I'm sure most of you have seen this week, New Mexico is 
susceptible to wildfires that can be started at any moment, get out of 
control extremely quickly, and rage out of control for days.
  Los Alamos is located in a forest area and is highly vulnerable. In 
fact, just a little less than 1 year ago, the Las Conchas fire burned 
around 150,000 acres of thick pine woodlands in the Santa Fe National 
Forest, which surrounds the lab complex in the adjacent town of Los 
Alamos. At one point, the leading edge of the fire was as close as 50 
feet from the grounds, which contain thousands of outdoor drums of 
plutonium-contaminated waste. Until this week, the Las Conchas fire was 
the largest in New Mexico's history.
  There is a similar story from the year 2000, the Sierra Grande fire. 
As a result, just this January, DOE and the New Mexico Environment 
Department entered into a consent order framework agreement to 
expeditiously address the highest risk waste at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. The waste amounts to 3,706 cubic meters of non-cemented 
aboveground waste, and the agreement calls for the removal of this 
waste by June 30, 2014. This amendment will allow LANL to meet 
groundwater and surface water requirements, as well as ensure the 
health and safety of the New Mexico residents who live closest to the 
lab.
  While the overall bill dedicates funding to LANL for this project, it 
still falls short of what is needed. Without full funding, projects 
like removal of the highest risk waste at LANL are in jeopardy.
  Finally, I am transferring this fund out of the Office of the 
Administrator for NNSA. These funds are needed more in the field and 
less in Washington, which, as we know, could go on a strict diet.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition 
reluctantly.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman from New Mexico's amendment.
  The bill before the committee provides a total of $4.9 billion for 
defense environmental cleanup activities at the Department of Energy. 
This funding sustains thousands of cleanup jobs, and I thank my 
colleague for his deep concern about supporting these programs and 
meeting our cleanup commitments.
  Our bill makes several difficult choices to achieve our deficit-
reduction goals, providing the necessary increases for our nuclear 
security programs while making targeted reductions to activities which 
can be deferred.
  This amendment seeks to partially reverse that priority setting that 
we put in place. It targets vital nuclear security programs and shifts 
funds to non-security environmental cleanup that should be ramped back. 
The cleanup programs received an infusion of $6 billion from the 
Recovery Act--AKA, the stimulus--accelerating the scope of work and 
pace of cleanup at those sites. And while I would like to express my 
support for the cleanup, we cannot sustain that stimulus-level funding 
that we had so in the past.
  The funding for Los Alamos--which my colleague is particularly 
concerned about, is extremely knowledgeable about, and is very, very 
concerned about--will actually increase by 45 percent, or $30 million, 
over last year's level. The 1.7 reduction to defense cleanup is a 
reasonable one in our bill.
  Recently, we've been informed by the Department of Energy that the 
Department of Energy may miss a number of its cleanup milestones 
because they had been relying on receiving large funding increases year 
after year, an assumption that was overly optimistic in any budget 
environment. We cannot continue to shovel in funding to make

[[Page H3426]]

up for poor planning. Instead, the Department needs to work 
constructively with its stakeholders to establish reasonable and 
sustainable plans for remediating these sites, which will still take 
another 20 to 30 years.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico.
  I deeply respect his concern with the oversight of the programs under 
NNSA, and I agree that there are some areas of oversight that need to 
be strengthened. I cannot support any further cuts, however, to the 
Office of the Administrator.
  As written, the bill already reduces funding for the Administrator's 
Office by $10 million from this year's enacted level. This amendment 
would compound that cut by $89 million. At the same time, NNSA has 
already received an increase of $275 million when compared to current 
year spending. I'm concerned that any further reductions to the 
Administrator's Office would hamper the ability of NNSA to plan and 
oversee its core mission areas.
  I would like to work with the chairman and the gentleman from New 
Mexico to address the concerns expressed, and to ensure that NNSA 
properly maintains and cleans up its sites in New Mexico and throughout 
the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional comments, and would 
yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Lujan

  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 31, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $21,899,000)''.
       Page 32, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $21,899,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Mexico and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is similar to that of my friend 
from New Mexico. It would simply increase funding for the Defense 
Environmental Cleanup Act, specifically the NNSA labs, by just under 
$22 million to bring it up to the level of the President's request and 
decrease funding for the NNSA Office of the Administrator by the same 
amount.
  I offer this amendment because, to put it simply, it's a more 
effective use of taxpayer funds for NNSA to remove dangerous toxic 
waste from their lab's property than it is to maintain the current 
levels of redundant oversight bureaucracy.
  Last June, the Las Conchas fire burned 150,000 acres in my district 
in New Mexico and encircled Los Alamos National Laboratory. Had the 
fire burned contaminated areas on the lab property, a plume of toxic 
smoke would have threatened the health of everyone in its path. The lab 
has promised to clean these areas, many of which contain waste from, if 
you can believe this, Mr. Chairman, the Manhattan Project and Cold War 
weapons programs; but Congress must also fulfill its obligation to 
appropriate funds for the cleanup.
  While the NNSA labs have pressing environmental issues that demand 
our attention, there has been increasing evidence that paring back the 
NNSA's Office of the Administrator could actually make the Agency and 
its labs more cost effective and productive. A recent report by the 
National Academies of NNSA's management of its laboratories concluded 
that the NNSA's oversight had become inefficient and a distraction from 
the labs' vital mission.
  Following a series of hearings, the House Armed Services Committee 
added provisions to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act that 
this body passed a few weeks ago to change NNSA's approach and reduce 
its personnel. This amendment is consistent with these provisions. If 
there are going to be fewer authorized NNSA personnel, then NNSA's 
funding should reflect that.
  My budget-neutral amendment reduces outlays by $3 million next fiscal 
year by simply moving funds from the NSA regulatory arm to a place 
where they put boots on the ground and support cleanup.
  And while I very much appreciate the work of the chairman and the 
ranking member and the entire committee in this for their commitment to 
cleanup, it's my hope, Mr. Chairman, that I be able to emphasize to our 
distinguished leaders managing the floor of the dire situation that 
needs attention in New Mexico and around the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico, as I did Mr. Pearce, 
for his continued advocacy for the cleanup at Los Alamos. The committee 
is well aware of the increasing vulnerability of above-ground 
radioactive waste being stored at Los Alamos, and share the Members' 
concerns. As a result, our bill strongly supports accelerating the 
cleanup efforts there, providing a total of $215 million for cleanup at 
the site.
  The bill increases funding $30 million, or 45 percent above the 
Fiscal Year 2012 level. That makes the increase for Los Alamos the 
largest site expenditure increase across all the cleanups in our bill. 
But understandably, of course, you'd like more.
  We look forward to working with the Member to see what we could do to 
be of additional assistance.
  I would be happy to yield to the ranking member for any comments he 
would make.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding and would add my 
words to his and would want to work with the gentleman, as well as the 
former speaker from New Mexico. They have a very serious problem 
they're trying to address.
  My concern is with problems we have with management at the 
Department, and this would, I think, complicate that problem, given the 
increase that NNSA has. But, again, I understand what the gentleman is 
trying to do and would like to work with him and the chair.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one ambulance and one fire truck for 
     replacement only, $4,930,078,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount, $315,607,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2014, for program direction: 
     Provided further, That of the unobligated balances from prior 
     year appropriations available under this heading, $10,000,000 
     is hereby permanently rescinded: Provided further, That no 
     amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were designated

[[Page H3427]]

     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                        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, 
     $813,364,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of such amount, $114,858,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 2014, for program direction.

                     POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATION

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93 454, are approved for 
     construction of, or participating in the construction of, a 
     high voltage line from Bonneville's high voltage system to 
     the service areas of requirements customers located within 
     Bonneville's service area in southern Idaho, southern 
     Montana, and western Wyoming; and such line may extend to, 
     and interconnect in, the Pacific Northwest with lines between 
     the Pacific Northwest and the Pacific Southwest, and for John 
     Day Reprogramming and Construction, the Columbia River Basin 
     White Sturgeon Hatchery, and Kelt Reconditioning and 
     Reproductive Success Evaluation Research, and, in addition, 
     for official reception and representation expenses in an 
     amount not to exceed $7,000: Provided, That during fiscal 
     year 2013, no new direct loan obligations may be made.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition, and would yield, at this 
point in time, to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Indiana very much.
  I just rise to briefly talk about light bulbs, because I know it's a 
subject of great interest to all of the Members, and I know that there 
is going to be an effort by some Republican Members later on tonight to 
repeal the new light bulb efficiency laws. And I just rise to do a 
little bit of an explanation of what has happened.
  Five years ago a law passed here on the floor of the House, and it 
became law. And that law said that these old light bulbs, these light 
bulbs that Thomas Alva Edison invented and people really love, they had 
to be made 28 percent more efficient in order to be sold in the United 
States. They really hadn't been made much more efficient.
  And a lot of people, they really love old light bulbs. They don't 
want their automobiles to look the same way they did 50 years ago. They 
don't want their television sets to look the same way they did 50 
years, they don't want their cell phones to look the same way they did 
15 years ago; but they really want their light bulbs to look the same, 
many people.
  And so here's what the American lighting industry did: Sylvania and 
General Electric, they make the same light bulb now. It gives off the 
same color, looks the same. Grandma had this light bulb in her house 
that gave off that warm glow that you remember from when you visited 
Grandma. Well, the new one gives off the same warm glow, except for 
this, that over the life of this new light bulb, you save $5 over what 
Grandma had to pay to the electric company to keep it on. You save five 
bucks because it's so much more efficient.
  Now, it seems to me that we shouldn't be trying to repeal a law like 
that that reduces the amount of electricity that every American needs 
to use in their home. And by the way, times every light bulb in your 
home over the course of a year, you're going to save $100 to $160 every 
year. Same light bulb. It's on the market today. You can go out and buy 
it. You don't have to hoard it.
  I know some people are hoarding the old light bulbs that are 28 
percent less efficient, and that's their right. They can do that. But 
you can go to the department store and buy the same light bulb, same 
looking light bulb, and save $5 over the life of that light bulb giving 
off the same amount of light.
  Now, I'm not saying that you have to go out and buy one of these 
squiggly deals. Now, if you do go out and buy one of these squiggly 
deals, you actually have 78 percent more efficiency and you save even 
more money if you buy one of these. But no one's saying you have to. 
You can use the same old light bulb. It's in the store today. Nothing 
got banned in terms of the old light bulb technology. It's still the 
same incandescent light bulb that Grandma used, except it's 28 percent 
more efficient.
  And I'm definitely not saying you've got to buy one of these new jobs 
which are in the stores as well. This only saves you $130 over the 
course of the 20-year life of this light bulb. In fact, increasingly, 
what's going to happen is that when people move, in addition to packing 
up their television sets and their sofas, they're going to be packing 
up their light bulbs because these things save you money, $130 per 
light bulb over the course of this light bulb.
  But, again, you don't have to buy this if you don't like the way it 
looks. You don't have to buy one of these squiggly deals because you 
don't like the way it looks. You can go to the store and just buy the 
same light bulb that your grandma bought, that your great grandma 
bought, because this thing goes back, really, to the beginning of the 
20th century. And you can have the exact same feel, look in your living 
room, in your kitchen, in your bedrooms.

                              {time}  1640

  Again, I just wanted to make this very clear to all of the Members, 
because in the course of the debate today, we're going to have this 
discussion, but I have no idea why you would want to ban something 
that's 28 percent more efficient. Refrigerators are more efficient than 
they were 50 years ago; automobiles are; there has been a dramatic 
reduction in the cost of making a phone call on a cell phone; and now 
light bulbs are in the same category, but they look exactly the same.
  I am just, again, making the point so that later on in the day, as we 
perhaps have a roll call on this, that Members can understand what 
they're voting for.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's illuminating comments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary 
     services, pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power 
     area, and including official reception and representation 
     expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500, $8,732,000, 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 $8,732,000 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 2013 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $87,696,000 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, $44,200,000, 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 $32,308,000 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

[[Page H3428]]

     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 2013 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $11,892,000: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $41,000,000 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; $291,920,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $281,702,000 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 $195,790,000 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 2013 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $96,130,000, of which $85,912,000 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 $242,858,000 
     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, 
     $5,555,000, 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 $5,335,000 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 2013 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 2013 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 2013 so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 2013 appropriation from 
     the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made 
     available by this title for the Department of Energy shall be 
     used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity 
     or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar 
     arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for 
     Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a 
     program, project, or activity if the program, project, or 
     activity has not been funded by Congress.
       (b) The Department of Energy may not, with respect to any 
     program, project, or activity that uses budget authority made 
     available in this title under the heading ``Department of 
     Energy--Energy Programs'', enter into a multi-year contract, 
     award a multi-year grant, or enter into a multi-year 
     cooperative agreement unless:
       (1) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is funded 
     for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time 
     of award; or
       (2) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement includes 
     a clause conditioning the Federal Government's obligation on 
     the availability of future-year budget authority and the 
     Secretary notifies the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate at least 14 days in 
     advance.
       (c) Except as provided in subsections (d), (e), and (f), 
     the amounts made available by this title shall be expended as 
     authorized by law for the projects and activities specified 
     in the ``Bill'' column in the ``Department of Energy'' table 
     or the text included under the heading ``Title III--
     Department of Energy'' in the report of the Committee on 
     Appropriations accompanying this Act.
       (d) The amounts made available by this title may be 
     reprogrammed for any program, project, or activity, and the 
     Department shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate at least 30 days 
     prior to the use of any proposed reprogramming which would 
     cause any program, project, or activity funding level to 
     increase or decrease by more than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, 
     whichever is less, during the time period covered by this 
     Act.
       (e) None of the funds provided in this title shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates, initiates, or eliminates a program, project, 
     or activity;
       (2) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act; or
       (3) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
       (f)(1) The Secretary of Energy may waive any requirement or 
     restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds 
     made available for the Department of Energy if compliance 
     with such requirement or restriction would pose a substantial 
     risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national 
     security.
       (2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of any waiver under paragraph (1) as soon as 
     practicable, but not later than 3 days after the date of the 
     activity to which a requirement or restriction would 
     otherwise have applied. Such notice shall include an 
     explanation of the substantial risk under paragraph (1) that 
     permitted such waiver.
       Sec. 302.  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. 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 2013 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.
       Sec. 304.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used for the construction of facilities classified 
     as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830 
     unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of 
     Health, Safety, and Security to ensure the project is in 
     compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
       Sec. 305.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to approve a Critical Decision-2 or Critical 
     Decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any 
     successive departmental guidance, for construction projects 
     where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a 
     separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the 
     project for that critical decision.
       Sec. 306.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to make a grant allocation, discretionary grant 
     award, discretionary contract award, or Other Transaction 
     Agreement, or to issue a letter of intent, totaling in excess 
     of $1,000,000, or to announce publicly the intention to make 
     such an allocation, award, or Agreement, or to issue such a 
     letter, including a contract covered by the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary of Energy 
     notifies the

[[Page H3429]]

     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives at least 3 full business days in advance of 
     making such an allocation, award, or Agreement, or issuing 
     such a letter: Provided, That if the Secretary of Energy 
     determines that compliance with this section would pose a 
     substantial risk to human life, health, or safety, an 
     allocation, award, or Agreement may be made, or a letter may 
     be issued, without advance notification, and the Secretary 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives not later than 5 full 
     business days after the date on which such an allocation, 
     award, or Agreement is made or letter issued: Provided 
     further, That the notification shall include the recipient of 
     the award, the amount of the award, the fiscal year for which 
     the funds for the award were appropriated, and the account 
     and program from which the funds are being drawn, the title 
     of the award, and a brief description of the activity for 
     which the award is made.
       Sec. 307.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     subsequent Act for fiscal year 2013 or any fiscal year 
     hereafter may be used to pay the salaries of Department of 
     Energy employees to carry out section 407 of division A of 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
       Sec. 308.  Section 20320(c) of division B of Public Law 109 
     289, as added by Public Law 110 5, is amended by striking 
     ``an annual review'' and inserting ``a review every 3 
     years''.
       Sec. 309.  Not later than June 30, 2013, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations a tritium and enriched uranium management plan 
     that provides:
        (a) An assessment of the national security demand for 
     tritium through 2060;
       (b) An assessment of the national security demand for low 
     and highly enriched uranium through 2060;
       (c) A description of the Department of Energy's plan to 
     provide adequate amounts of tritium for national security 
     purposes through 2060, including the derivation of adequate 
     supplies of enriched uranium and its use;
       (d) An analysis of planned and alternative tritium 
     production technologies, including weapons dismantlement;
       (e) An analysis of planned and alternative enriched uranium 
     production technologies, including down-blending, which are 
     available to meet the supply needs for national security 
     programs through 2060.
       Sec. 310.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for uranium transactions that do not conform to the 
     excess uranium inventory management plan submitted pursuant 
     to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012.
       Sec. 311.  No funds within this Act shall be expended to 
     promulgate the final rule pursuant to Section 433 of the 
     Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110 
     140 (Dec. 19, 2007) (codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec.  6834) and no 
     funds shall be used to implement any final rule implementing 
     Section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
     2007, Pub. L. No. 110 140 (Dec. 19, 2007) (codified at 42 
     U.S.C. Sec.  6834).
       Sec. 312.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     or funds available in the Bonneville Power Administration 
     Fund may be used by the Department of Energy for any new 
     program, project, or activity required by or otherwise 
     proposed in the memorandum from Steven Chu, Secretary of 
     Energy, to the Power Marketing Administrators with the 
     subject line ``Power Marketing Administrations' Role'' and 
     dated March 16, 2012.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title III be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that portion of the 
bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     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, notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, and 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, $75,317,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 47, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $75,317,000)''.
       Page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $11,677,000)''.
       Page 48, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,679,000)''.
       Page 49, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,425,000)''.
       Page 49, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $250,000)''.
        Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $99,348,000)''.

  Mr. CHABOT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I introduced this amendment because it is 
high time that we take our debt and our deficit seriously. We no longer 
can afford to go on with politics as usual and continue to subsidize 
wasteful spending programs and policies that redistribute wealth and 
that really have zero economic impact.
  These supposed economic development programs that are referred to in 
my amendment are anything but that. Instead, they're really wasteful 
programs that the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has found 
to be duplicative. In other words, there are other bills and there are 
other programs that do exactly the same things. These are wasted tax 
dollars that do the same things over and over again. Really, they have 
no track record of success.
  In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office and White House Office of 
Management and Budget found that the Denali Commission, the Appalachian 
Regional Commission, and the Delta Regional Authority had 29 
duplicative programs--not one, not 10, not a dozen--29 that do 
essentially the same thing. Furthermore, Citizens Against Government 
Waste has found that the Denali Commission duplicates several programs 
in the Labor Department.
  Last year, the GAO released a report detailing Federal programs that 
overlap and provide similar services as a supplement to its report, the 
title of which is ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in 
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.'' In this 
report, the GAO revealed the names of 80 Federal economic development 
programs administered by four different agencies.
  Surely, my colleagues in the House do not favor paying twice for the 
same program. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the decision to continue the funding 
for these regional commissions will do exactly that unless we eliminate 
them, which is what I am suggesting that we do by this amendment.
  The taxpayers are fed up with the frivolous spending of our Federal 
Government. It's time that we identify wasteful programs--that's what 
we are doing here--and cut them. Numerous agencies and organizations 
have plainly stated and repeatedly recommended the dismantling of these 
types of programs. Congress ought to listen and heed these requests, 
and that's what I'm suggesting that we do in this particular 
legislation.
  I am suggesting in here programs that affect my own area. I'm not 
just saying let's go into other areas around the country. The 
Appalachian area is an area of the country that I represent, the same 
general area. I'm saying let's not just do it in Alaska or out West or 
somewhere else. We ought to do it right at home and in my district as 
well. So that's what I'm suggesting is that we eliminate these 
programs. As I indicated, it's supported by Citizens Against Government 
Waste, and there are a number of other budget-cutting types of 
organizations that are in favor of this, so I would recommend my 
colleagues support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Appalachia confronts a combination of 
challenges that few other parts of the country face: mountainous 
terrain and isolation, a dispersed population, inadequate 
infrastructure, a lack of financial and human resources, and a weak 
track record in applying for and receiving assistance from other 
Federal programs.

[[Page H3430]]

  For decades, Appalachia has experienced an economic lag. Even during 
years of economic expansion, employment growth in this 13 State region 
was significantly lower than the Nation's as a whole. Even with ARC's 
funding, in fiscal '09, Appalachia received 33 percent fewer Federal 
expenditures per capita than the Nation. It's clear ARC programs do not 
duplicate other Federal programs. Instead, they extend the reach of 
those programs. In the last 5 years, every dollar of ARC investment 
yielded $10 of private sector investment. Clearly, ARC is an effective 
and efficient steward of the taxpayer dollar, targeting these funds 
where they are needed the most.
  As a result, 125,000 households were served by infrastructure. Nearly 
140,000 jobs were created or retained. And 100,000 students received 
vital job training skills. In addition, completing the Appalachian 
Development Highway System is expected to generate some $5 billion in 
annual economic benefit for the entire country by 2035.
  But perhaps just as important as ARC's winning investment strategies 
is its working knowledge of the communities served. When storms ripped 
through rural Kentucky last March, leveling entire towns and 
particularly devastating the community of West Liberty, ARC was one of 
the first agencies on the ground to support and coordinate the State, 
local, and Federal response.
  Largely because of ARC, these communities have a sense of hope for a 
successful rebuild and restoration. The Appalachian Regional Commission 
is uniquely qualified to administer these much-needed and targeted 
Federal investments to close the economic gap between Appalachia and 
the rest of the Nation and bring the region's 420 counties and 25 
million people into the Nation's economic mainstream.
  We must uphold our commitment to the American people to reduce the 
size and scope of government while maintaining the funding for proven 
effective programs like ARC that create jobs and keep the economy 
moving. I am confident ARC will continue its strong legacy of creating 
jobs and positive change in areas of the country which have been 
bypassed by opportunity. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left of my 5 
minutes?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman had 2 minutes, but yielded back his 
time.
  Mr. CHABOT. I think I reserved.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to 
reclaim his time?
  Mr. CHABOT. I do.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. I will be brief.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for our distinguished 
chairman. He speaks with great wisdom on many, many occasions, and I'm 
sure he did on this occasion as well. However, I would just reiterate a 
couple of things.
  Number one, we did adopt a ban on earmarks, which I think was the 
right thing to do. It was really a proclamation to the American people 
that we are serious about stopping wasteful spending. However, in 
essence, when we have these types of things, they are really giant 
earmarks to certain areas of the country.

                              {time}  1650

  They do go through scrutiny, so it is unlike an earmark in some 
areas. But nonetheless, these are benefiting certain parts of the 
country at the expense of other parts of the country, similarly to what 
an earmark does. I just think they are really bad policy, and as I 
indicated, duplicative in many instances. So we have different programs 
doing exactly the same thing, and we're really wasting dollars.
  Prudence says that we must reduce spending and must pay down our 
debt. We have to do it. If we're going to do it, this is the type of 
thing we really have to cut, and this would go towards deficit 
reduction. We have got a $13 trillion deficit. We need to start working 
on it. I just think this is one way to attempt to do that.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I would note that it's the responsibility 
for providing aid in supporting local and regional development type 
things. It's the States and local governments--not the Federal 
Government--that ought to be funding these types of things. They are 
closer to the people, and they are closer to monitoring the situation. 
It ought not to be the Federal Government doing these types of things.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask 
unanimous consent to consider the amendment out of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to considering the amendment at 
this point?
  Hearing none, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 25, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $36,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 23, after the second dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $18,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment in a 
bipartisan fashion with my colleague, Mr. Higgins from New York.
  What we're looking to do here, Mr. Chairman, is amend the proposal 
before the committee to restore $36 million in funding to non-defense 
environmental cleanup. Mr. Chairman, last year, a similar amendment 
passed the House with total votes of 261 people in favor of the 
proposed amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the dire fiscal situation that we find 
ourselves in America today. What I have proposed here is putting that 
$36 million out into the field to deal with nuclear waste and nuclear 
waste cleanup sites across America. I have one of those nuclear waste 
sites in my district, the West Valley Demonstration Project in western 
New York that abuts where Mr. Higgins' district is located.
  What we're trying to do is take that $36 million that is otherwise 
going to be used in the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C., for 
administrative purposes here, and allocate that money out to the field, 
to the sites where it can be best utilized to clean up these nuclear 
waste facilities and make sure that the threat of nuclear waste to all 
of our citizens is completely remediated and taken care of so that we 
do not have to deal with this year after year after year.
  There are numerous reports out that show that by cleaning these 
facilities up sooner than later, we can potentially save hundreds of 
millions of dollars. So to me, at this point in time, this amendment 
makes sense. It recognizes the fiscal situation we find ourselves in in 
America and takes care of a true public safety threat to all citizens 
of our great country.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
the amendment.
  Our bill fully funds the request for non-defense environmental 
cleanup at $198 million. I know my colleagues from New York State--Mr. 
Reed and Mr. Higgins--are particularly concerned about the West Valley 
site in New York, and we respect their views and that they know their 
districts and their State well.
  But this bill provides the full amount requested for the project in 
the President's budget. While below last year's

[[Page H3431]]

level, it's a reasonable reduction given the need to reduce overall 
Federal spending in our bill. But this amendment proposes to increase 
funding 18 percent over the amount of our request. This would be an 
unbalanced approach considering the reduction to other sites in the 
bill, and there are many sites in different congressional districts, a 
number of which have much higher hazard activities taking place. And 
that is not to minimize what's happening at this site.
  We've prepared--in a bipartisan way--a balanced bill, one that 
prioritizes available funding to address the highest risk activities 
first while ensuring progress at lower risk sites, that that progress 
continues, albeit at a smaller pace. We simply cannot sustain the high 
levels of spending at every location and must make the hard choices to 
extend time lines where the risks are lower.
  As an offset, the amendment would eliminate the salaries of 
approximately 100 employees who are engaged in carrying out vital 
security activities, as well as the salaries of up to another 100 
employees who are carrying out a variety of, I think, critically 
important energy and science programs at the Department of Energy.
  I know their heart is in the right place. I know that they want to do 
more things to clean up the site in their home State, but I reluctantly 
oppose their amendment for the reasons that I've outlined.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my 
colleague from New York (Mr. Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
bipartisan amendment to provide adequate funding for the non-defense 
environmental cleanup program.
  One of the most important roles of government is to protect public 
health and safety. However, the amount of money appropriated in this 
bill is insufficient to do one of these most important areas. Our 
amendment ensures that nuclear cleanup sites get the funding they need 
to protect surrounding communities from radioactive contamination.
  In my community and that of Mr. Reed's in western New York, the West 
Valley Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Plant was established in the 1960s in 
response to a Federal call to commercialize the reprocessing of spent 
nuclear fuel from power reactors. Just a few years ago, the site ceased 
operation, and more than 600,000 gallons of high-level radioactive 
waste was left behind, posing a significant and enduring hazard. This 
site, prone to erosion, contains streams that drain into Lake Erie, 
located just 30 miles away. We have already seen a leak on the site 
develop into a plume of radioactive groundwater. If this radioactive 
waste makes its way into the Great Lakes, the largest source of surface 
fresh water in the world, the environmental and economic implications 
would be devastating. Without question, this hazardous and radioactive 
waste and the contamination that remains is one of our Nation's largest 
environmental liabilities.
  Mr. Chairman, in these cleanup efforts, time is money. Failing to 
adequately fund the non-defense environmental cleanup program 
decelerates cleanup efforts. For the past four decades, progress in 
cleaning up West Valley has been delayed by legal disputes and funding 
shortfalls. For West Valley, this means $30 million in added 
maintenance costs per year. In the current budgetary climate, it is 
more important than ever that the Federal Government use taxpayers' 
money most efficiently.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot jeopardize the irreplaceable natural 
resources of the Great Lakes or the communities and resources near 
other nuclear sites across this Nation by continuing to underfund this 
cleanup program.

                              {time}  1700

  I'm proud to work with my friend and colleague, Mr. Reed, on this 
important issue, and I urge support on this bipartisan amendment to 
ensure we finish the job.
  Mr. REED. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 56, line 24, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

                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, $29,415,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2014.

                        Delta Regional Authority

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and 
     to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta 
     Regional Authority Act of 2000, as amended, notwithstanding 
     sections 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, 
     $11,677,000, to remain available until expended.

                           Denali Commission

       For expenses of the Denali Commission including the 
     purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
     equipment as necessary and other expenses, $10,679,000, 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.

                  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, $1,425,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall 
     be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding 
     section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

       For necessary expenses of the Southeast Crescent Regional 
     Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle 
     V of title 40, United States Code, $250,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                     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), $1,038,800,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, not more 
     than $9,500,000 may be made available for salaries, travel, 
     and other support costs for the Office of the Commission, of 
     which, notwithstanding section 201(a)(2)(c) of the Energy 
     Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5841(a)(2)(c)), the use 
     and expenditure shall only be approved by a majority vote of 
     the Commission: Provided further, That revenues from 
     licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and 
     collections estimated at $911,772,000 in fiscal year 2013 
     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 2013 so as to result in 
     a final fiscal year 2013 appropriation estimated at not more 
     than $127,028,000: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for 
     university research and development in areas relevant to 
     their respective organization's mission, and $5,000,000 shall 
     be for a Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program that 
     will support multiyear projects that do not align with 
     programmatic missions but are critical to maintaining the 
     discipline of nuclear science and engineering.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $11,020,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2014: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $9,918,000 in fiscal year 2013 shall be retained and be 
     available until September 30, 2014, 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

[[Page H3432]]

     fiscal year 2013 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2013 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $1,102,000.

                  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 
     established in section 302(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     10222(c)) 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: Provided, That any fees, charges, or commissions 
     received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law 110 140 in 
     fiscal year 2013 in excess of $2,000,000 shall not be 
     available for obligation until appropriated in a subsequent 
     Act of Congress.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Sec. 401. (a) None of the funds provided for ``Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission--Salaries and Expenses'' in this Act or 
     prior Acts shall be available for obligation or expenditure 
     through a reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act; or
       (2) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
       (b) The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may 
     not terminate any program, project, or activity without the 
     approval of a majority vote of the Commissioners of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission approving such action.
       (c) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may waive the 
     restriction on reprogramming under subsection (a) on a case-
     by-case basis by certifying to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that such action is required to address national security or 
     imminent risks to public safety. Each such waiver 
     certification shall include a letter from the Chairman of the 
     Commission that a majority of Commissioners of the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission have voted and approved the 
     reprogramming waiver certification.
       Sec. 402.  The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 1 
     day after the Chairman begins performing functions under the 
     authority of section 3 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980, 
     or after a member of the Commission who was delegated 
     emergency functions under subsection (b) of that section 
     begins performing those functions. Such notification shall 
     include an explanation of the circumstances warranting the 
     exercise of such authority. The Chairman shall report to the 
     Committees, not less frequently than once each week, on the 
     actions taken by the Chairman, or a delegated member of the 
     Commission, under such authority, until the authority is 
     relinquished. The Chairman shall notify the Committees not 
     later than 1 day after such authority is relinquished. The 
     Chairman shall submit the report required by section 3(d) of 
     the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 to the Committees not 
     later than 1 day after it was submitted to the Commission.

                      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.
       Sec. 503.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be expended for any new hire by any Federal agency funded 
     in this Act that is not verified through the E-Verify Program 
     as described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note).
       Sec. 504.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to any corporation 
     that was convicted (or had an officer or agent of such 
     corporation acting on behalf of the corporation convicted) of 
     a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the 
     preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of 
     the conviction, unless the agency has considered suspension 
     or debarment of the corporation, or such officer or agent, 
     and made a determination that this further action is not 
     necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
       Sec. 505.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 
     assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies 
     have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being 
     paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the 
     authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where 
     the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, 
     unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of 
     the corporation and made a determination that this further 
     action is not necessary to protect the interests of the 
     Government.
       Sec. 506.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of 
     February 11, 1994 (``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
     Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
     Populations'').
       Sec. 507.  No funds made available by this Act may be used 
     to pay for mitigation associated with the removal of Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission Project number 2342.
       Sec. 508.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to conduct closure of adjudicatory functions, 
     technical review, or support activities associated with the 
     Yucca Mountain geologic repository license application, or 
     for actions that irrevocably remove the possibility that 
     Yucca Mountain may be a repository option in the future.

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 509.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fortenberry, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
5325) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________