[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.
____________________