[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.
____________________