[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 64 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2685-H2688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016


                             General Leave

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 
2028.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Iowa). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Idaho?


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  April 30, 2015, on page H2685, the following appeared: The 
SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Indiana). Is there objection to
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro 
tempore (Mr. Young of Iowa). Is there objection to


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 223 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. 2028.
  Will the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1515


                     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. 2028) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2016, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Black (Acting Chair) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page H2686]]

  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
April 29, 2015, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) had been postponed, 
and the bill had been read through page 22, line 7.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck of Nevada

  Mr. HECK of Nevada. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 22, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
       Page 25, lines 13 and 16, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced to $0)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Nevada and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. HECK of Nevada. Madam Chair, my amendment builds on the 
committee's work to support scientific research and development within 
the Department of Energy.
  More than 30 years have elapsed since Congress passed the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act, and over that time, technology and scientific 
knowledge have evolved significantly. However, Congress still clings to 
outdated technology and policy prescriptions to address today's nuclear 
waste issues.
  The fact is that dumping our country's highly radioactive nuclear 
waste in a hole and hoping for the best is a 20th century solution. 
Instead, we must encourage the use of 21st century technology to 
address this issue. My amendment eliminates the money earmarked for the 
Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository and increases 
funding for the Nuclear Energy University Program within DOE's Office 
of Nuclear Energy so that we can better support our scientists and 
universities as they work to develop a 21st century solution to this 
problem.
  According to CBO, this amendment decreases budget authority by $75 
million and has no net impact on budget outlays. The Nuclear Energy 
University Program is authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Pursuant to these authorities, DOE's 
Office of Nuclear Energy allocates up to 20 percent of its R&D to 
university-based programs and mission-supporting R&D and related 
infrastructure improvements each year.
  The funds provided by my amendment will be used by the Office of 
Nuclear Energy to support the Nuclear Energy University Program and the 
efforts by our universities to research and develop ways to reduce the 
radiotoxicity of nuclear waste, better recycle and reuse spent nuclear 
fuel, and ultimately provide a 21st century solution to our nuclear 
waste problem.
  For instance, grants provided through the Nuclear Energy University 
Program to the University of Nevada-Las Vegas College of Sciences help 
support and maintain a world-class radiochemistry program at UNLV that 
is currently working to reduce the radiotoxicity of nuclear waste. In 
fact, the technology available to students at UNLV is so advanced that 
scientists working at the national laboratories often use the 
facilities at UNLV to conduct experiments in the field of 
radiochemistry.
  Strengthening and supporting the research and innovations already 
taking place at UNLV and other universities throughout the country to 
solve our Nation's nuclear waste problem is a much wiser investment of 
Federal resources than the flawed Yucca Mountain proposal. Instead of 
continuing the outdated, unworkable, one-State-must-lose-for-49-States-
to-win approach to this problem, why don't we invest in the development 
of research and technology that will allow every State to win?
  For Nevada and other States throughout the country, the 21st century 
solution proposed by this amendment has the potential to create 
countless new high-paying R&D jobs by utilizing existing regional 
technological capabilities. It is time we stopped subscribing to 20th 
century ideas that waste taxpayer resources by trying to sweep our 
nuclear waste problems under a very expensive rug and instead invest in 
American innovation and ingenuity to develop solutions that will make 
our country a leader in the field of nuclear energy once again.
  I urge my colleagues to embrace the future of nuclear waste disposal, 
support my amendment to help create jobs, and restore the United States 
role as a leader in science and technology development.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and 
him offering the amendment, and I appreciate his point of view and why 
he is offering it, but this amendment would eliminate $150 million in 
the bill for the Department of Energy to reorganize its adjudicatory 
response team and get the Yucca Mountain licensing process back on 
track and running.
  Yucca Mountain is the law of the land. You have to remember that. 
Yucca Mountain is the law of the land, even though the administration 
has failed to follow that law. It has seen overwhelming support in 
countless numbers of votes and countless numbers of times in the House 
and is the only permanent repository option we have on the table.
  This amendment would put in jeopardy the more than $15 billion--let 
me repeat that, the more than $15 billion--that has been spent so far 
on this program.
  Once the Yucca Mountain application is finished, all Members of this 
body and the Senate will have the opportunity to decide whether to move 
forward to construct and use the facility, but killing the process at 
this point, I think, is shortsighted, even though I understand the 
gentleman's concern.
  I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out 
     fossil energy research and development activities, under the 
     authority of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), 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), $605,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount $120,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2017, for program direction.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

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

       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $45,000,000)''.
       Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $45,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, my amendment is simple and straightforward. 
It is designed to reduce wasteful spending, which I think we all would 
like to do around here.
  This year Republican appropriators increased taxpayer-funded fossil 
fuel research and development by $45 million above the President's 
request. My amendment would simply reduce the funding for the Office of 
Fossil Energy by $45 million, down to the President's requested level, 
and then dedicate these funds to the spending reduction account, which 
is something that I think all of us want to do, given how much we talk 
about wasteful spending and deficit reduction around here.
  The five most profitable oil companies--Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, 
BP, ConocoPhillips--together made more than a trillion in profits last 
decade. A trillion dollars of profit; I think that is pretty good. 
Fossil fuels are reaping $550 billion a year in subsidies, four times 
the amount of $120 billion paid out in incentives for renewable energy. 
So fossil fuels are not getting the short shrift.

[[Page H2687]]

  Air pollution from fossil fuels costs money. Nationwide the hidden 
health costs of electricity generated by fossil fuels adds up to as 
much as $886 billion annually, or about 6 percent of gross domestic 
product. I am from Minnesota, and I live in north Minneapolis, and I 
can tell you, Madam Chair, that children there suffer greater rates of 
asthma than the rest of the State, partially as a result of emissions 
from vehicles that run on fossil fuels.
  Climate change costs money, too. Climate change will make our 
electricity costs go up. Greenhouse-gas-driven changes in temperature 
will likely increase demand for electricity. This will make it 
necessary for construction of up to 95 gigawatts of new power 
generation over the next 5 to 25 years.
  Residential and commercial ratepayers will pay up to $12 billion more 
per year, and people living in coastal communities could pay as much as 
$35 billion a year within the next 15 years because of sea level rise 
and hurricane activity.
  Conclusion: let's lower the deficit; let's cut wasteful spending; 
let's stop wasting taxpayer money on dirty fossil fuel resources that 
cost all of us a lot more in the long term.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is almost humorous to listen to someone 
who wants to reduce the deficit and put this money into the deficit 
reduction account but then complains that we are following 
sequestration, and it is just too low and too crazy, and we need to do 
away with sequestration. We need to be able to spend more money.
  The reality is, it is not that it is the deficit reduction account; 
it is that it is out of the fossil fuel program, which is more than 
what the President recommended. The administration has priorities, and 
Congress has priorities. This bill reflects the priorities of the 
subcommittee and the full committee that brought it to the floor. The 
amendment would reduce funding for the fossil energy account by $45 
million in favor of deficit spending.
  Fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas provide nearly 85 
percent of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses. Fossil 
fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas provide nearly 85 percent of 
the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and will continue 
to provide for the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable 
future.
  The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions to the 
fossil energy program, particularly the drastic cuts to the coal 
program, which is cut by $31 million in the budget request, and instead 
funds these programs at $605 million, a $34 million increase over last 
year. With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil Energy will 
target research into how water can be more efficiently used in power 
plants, how coal can be used to produce electric power through fuel 
cells, and how to efficiently capture and store carbon from our 
abundant natural resources.
  This amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures we use 
our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. 
Let me repeat. Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, 
provide nearly 85 percent of the energy used by our Nation's homes and 
businesses, and will continue to provide for the majority of our energy 
needs in the foreseeable future.
  Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do 
so.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, do I have time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, surely my friend and I can join together on 
the spending reduction account on this particular measure. It is not 
that much money in the scope of this big event. The fact is, we should 
all be trying to reduce the deficit where we can, particularly when we 
are talking about industries that have combined profits of a trillion 
dollars. A trillion.
  I do not think my constituents in the Fifth Congressional District of 
Minnesota need to foot the bill for R&D for Exxon Mobil, Shell, 
Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips. I think they should pay their own R&D 
if they are banking money like that. I think they are doing just fine, 
and they don't need more of the average taxpayer's dough.
  Let me also say that we are already giving the fossil fuel industry 
$550 billion a year in subsidies. Isn't that enough? Can't they live 
with a little less, given that they are making a trillion dollars in 
combined profits? We are giving them $550 billion in subsidies, and 
they want more, and they just cannot possibly do with $45 million less 
than we are giving them already?
  I have got to tell you, I have just got a feeling that if they don't 
get this extra money, they will be fine. I feel ConocoPhillips and 
Chevron will somehow make it if they don't get our American taxpayers' 
$45 million.

                              {time}  1530

  I urge a very strong ``yes'' in favor of this amendment for deficit 
reduction and to end a little bit of corporate welfare.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. The reality is ExxonMobil, all of the other companies 
you named, don't get this money. This money goes into research, 
research that fuels 85 percent of the electrical needs in this 
country--research.
  Now, you could also say: If you are going to do that, why not take 
away all the money that goes into renewable energy research? Why not 
take away all the money that goes into wind power or into solar power 
or into nuclear power or into any of the other research that we do?
  It is just that some people can't fathom the fact that 85 percent--
that is getting close to 100--but 85 percent of our energy is produced 
by fossil fuel. While the gentleman talks about deficit reduction, the 
reality is I think he just wants to take some money out of the fossil 
fuel research account.
  I will be interested, being so interested in deficit reduction, how 
the vote comes later on with the Republican budget that will be before 
the House later on, so I will be watching that very closely.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, 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 Minnesota 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary to carry out 
     naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities, 
     $17,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, unobligated 
     funds remaining from prior years shall be available for all 
     naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve facility development and operations and 
     program management activities pursuant to the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $212,030,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for Northeast 
     Home Heating Oil Reserve storage, operation, and management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $7,600,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                   Energy Information Administration

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out 
     the activities of the Energy Information Administration, 
     $117,000,000, 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, $229,193,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out 
     uranium enrichment

[[Page H2688]]

     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, $625,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 
     to remain available until expended, of which $32,959,000 
     shall be available in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                                Science

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for science activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or 
     expansion, and purchase of not more than 17 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance and 
     one bus, $5,100,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of such amount, $181,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2017, for program direction.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, 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 $2,500,000)''.
       Page 51, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an important amendment that 
ensures that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is appropriately funded 
to meet its core mission. The NRC's work is vital to the energy picture 
of our Nation, and safety remains and always will be the number one 
priority.
  The NRC is funded in two ways: 10 percent of its budget comes from 
appropriated funds from the taxpayers; and, secondly, 90 percent of the 
fees are collected from the nuclear industry.
  While I am a strong supporter of nuclear power and safety, the NRC 
budget has grown dramatically in the last decade from $669 million per 
year in 2005 to the current level of over $1 billion this year. Herein 
lies the problem.
  This chart lays out the picture that we face today with the NRC. 
Under the NRC's 2005 budget, there were 3,108 employees responsible for 
oversight on 104 reactors and the review of 1,500 licensing actions. In 
their fiscal year 2016 budget request of $1.032 billion, the NRC called 
for 3,754 employees to oversee 100 reactors and review 900 licensing 
actions.
  In summary, the number of reactors has gone down by 4 percent; the 
number of licensing actions has gone down by 40 percent; the number of 
employees has gone up by 21 percent, and the budget has grown by 54 
percent.
  Madam Chair, only in Washington does the staff and the cost grow 
while the workload goes down. The historical increases in both funding 
and staff resources occurred in anticipation of new reactors being 
built under a nuclear renaissance for our country.
  Unfortunately, due to increasing bureaucratic red tape and other 
market conditions, the work never materialized; thus, a shrinking 
nuclear industry has faced an ever-growing regulator over the past 10 
years. Only in Washington, as I said before, does the bureaucracy grow 
while the workload shrinks.
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission even admits that it needs to 
downsize. In its February 2015 report entitled, ``Project Aim 2020,'' 
they said the same thing. Additionally, the NRC has 60 rulemakings 
underway, and they are collecting additional fees from existing 
reactors to make up for lost licensing revenue. These fees are 
ultimately paid by hard-working American families in their electricity 
bills.
  My amendment is simple. It reduces funding by $25 million, or about 
2.5 percent, and would right-size the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
meet its core mission and safely regulate our existing nuclear fleet.
  The industry share of support, or 90 percent of that, would be 
reduced by $22.5 million, and the Federal share of $2.5 would be 
redirected to basic research in DOE's Office of Science in order to 
develop future American energy solutions.
  Madam Chair, in the last few minutes, I have had the opportunity to 
have great discussions with Chairman Simpson, and I am confident that 
he is aware of this issue and has taken steps to do this. He said he 
would work with me in the future to continue addressing this issue. I 
am raising this today, but I will be withdrawing my amendment.
  I would like to thank Chairman Simpson for his efforts to address 
this issue and for agreeing to work with me on the issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I am 
not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I want to thank the gentleman for being dogged on this 
issue. We share his concern. We had a great hearing with all the 
commissioners of the NRC. They also understand this concern. It was the 
Aim Project 2020 that they put together that realized that they have 
too many staff and they need to reduce it. They want to do it in a 
responsible way.
  In the full committee, we adopted an amendment to reduce their budget 
by $25 million. That is in addition to the fact that they had carryover 
fund that they could have spent last year that they won't have 
available this year.
  Their budget is going down; whether it is the right amount or not, we 
don't know yet, but we are going to keep on this because we want them 
to reestablish their credibility in the world. They need to do that 
because they are a regulatory agency that is very important, and they 
do incredibly important work.
  We are going to be holding hearings again on this next year when we 
do their budget to make sure they are following through on their 
commitment to reduce their size and scope, particularly the rulemaking 
authority that they have got out there. Many people believe they are 
writing far too many rules, and some believe it is because they have 
too many employees.
  I appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment and the discussion 
and offering to withdraw the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would just say to the offerer of the amendment from 
Texas that I come from a part of the country where the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission did not do its job for a long time.
  I appreciate what you are attempting to do, and all I would say is, 
coming from a region where we have serious infractions that put human 
life at risk more than once, as you look at that budget and try to 
improve it, do not assume whatever levels of regulation existed in fact 
were appropriate because, in many cases, they were shortchanged and 
inadequate.
  As you move forward in this important arena, I would urge you to look 
at the places in the country where mistakes happened and figure out why 
and then direct resources to where they are most important in this very 
important technology.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Rokita) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________