[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 64 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2688-H2694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page H2689]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 25, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $239,749,000)''.
       Page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $239,749,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
address an imbalance in our efforts to promote the long-term economic 
security interests of the United States.
  This appropriations bill would underfund the Office of Science by 
almost $240 million below the President's request for the next fiscal 
year. My amendment would correct this by bringing the Office of Science 
account up to the President's request level.
  Investments in the DOE Office of Science and its laboratories have 
supported American innovation and discovery science at the forefront of 
the physical sciences and engineering.
  It is impossible and unwise to ignore the value of our national labs. 
They have helped answer fundamental questions on how the universe 
works, supported breakthroughs in fields as diverse as medicine and 
astronomy and developments in industry that drive our economy.
  Investments in our labs have led to the construction of accelerators 
and detectors that enable our scientists to discover new particles, 
including quarks and the Higgs boson, to help explain the nature of the 
universe in matter, energy, space, and time. Physicists have used their 
fundamental research to develop new technologies, including the PET 
scan, which is used every day to treat patients diagnosed with 
cancerous tumors.
  The Office of Science has also supported the training of scientists, 
mathematicians, and engineers for more than 60 years. We need to 
maintain a competitive advantage now more than ever.
  While the U.S. is reducing investments in Federal R&D, Europe and 
Asia have been increasing investments. In 1968, we spent 9.1 percent of 
the budget on research and development. Today, we are spending only 3.6 
percent. If this trend continues, it won't be long before China's 
investments in R&D will far outpace our own.
  The Office of Science is not only an important investment in our 
future, it is a valuable investment in our economy. Our national labs 
and the major user facilities housed at those labs are some of the 
greatest tools we have to offer researchers and industry. They are also 
important contractors to the local economy. The economic impacts of 
Argonne and Fermilab in Illinois are estimated to be more than $1.3 
billion annually.
  Those who seek to underfund and eliminate Federal programs often say 
that the private sector can do it better, but, when it comes to 
fundamental scientific research, that simply is not an option. The 
Office of Science is responsible for building and maintaining research 
facilities, which many private companies rely on but are far too big 
for any single business or university to develop.
  These user facilities, such as the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne 
National Laboratory, are a critical research tool to academics and 
industry alike. For example, Eli Lilly conducts nearly half of the 
research in their drug discovery portfolio at the Advanced Photon 
Source at Argonne, but the funding levels in this bill will threaten 
the Advanced Photon Source and other critical projects.
  At a time of ongoing economic stress, we must continue to develop the 
next generation of the American technical workforce. As other world 
powers are growing and challenging our position as the global leader in 
science and innovation, we cannot let the number of American scientists 
and researchers or the quality of their research facilities diminish. 
Bringing the Office of Science budget up to the President's request is 
crucial to maintaining that quality.
  I would also like to briefly discuss the offset, which is the NNSA 
weapons activities account. It is important for us to recognize that we 
need to strike the right balance between defending our country today 
and investing in scientific research for the future.

                              {time}  1545

  I would argue that maintaining an advantage as the global leader in 
science and technology makes us much more secure than amassing and 
maintaining excessive numbers of nuclear weapons.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today because we must continue to invest in 
American innovation and fully fund the research and development 
conducted through the DOE Office of Science.
  I understand that the majority party has the power to block that 
funding and that there will be a point of order pending against this 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         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), including the acquisition of real property or 
     facility construction or expansion, $150,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be derived from the Nuclear 
     Waste Fund: Provided, That of the amount provided under this 
     heading, $5,000,000 shall be made available to affected units 
     of local government, as defined in section 2(31) of the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(31)), to 
     support the Yucca Mountain geologic repository, as authorized 
     by such Act.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Titus

  Ms. TITUS. Madam 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 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $150,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman 
from Nevada and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. TITUS. Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today on behalf of the 
people of Nevada to ask my colleagues to reject the failed policies of 
the past and concentrate our efforts on real solutions to the Nation's 
energy challenges.
  The bill before us appropriates $150 million for the failed Yucca 
Mountain Nuclear Waste project. Taxpayer-funded junkets and photo ops 
cannot change the fact that this project has never been based on sound 
science but, instead, stems from targeted politics.
  After decades squandered and $15 billion wasted, we are no closer to 
a solution than when President Reagan signed the ``Screw Nevada'' bill 
in 1988. Yet, today, the House is set to consider legislation that will 
waste millions more on this failed project.
  Now, I have heard my colleagues say this is the law of the land. 
Well, the ACA is the law of the land, and that hasn't stopped them from 
trying to overturn it 57 times. Furthermore, it appears that although 
this is the so-called law of the land, the interpretation of that law 
is pretty flexible.
  I want to bring my colleagues' attention to a particular line in this 
bill that appropriates $5 million for units of local government to 
support Yucca Mountain. This simply creates a slush fund to pay off 
local governments in return for their support of this failed project.
  I don't anticipate that many of my colleagues are as familiar with 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as we are in Nevada, but the law clearly 
states that any benefits that the Federal Government may appropriate 
can only be provided through mutual agreement between the Federal 
Government and the State. Last time I checked, Republican Governor 
Brian Sandoval, not the House Appropriations Committee, is the chief 
executive of the State of Nevada, and he strongly opposes Yucca 
Mountain.
  Madam Chairman, I will submit for the Record an op-ed written by 
Governor Sandoval and former Governor Richard Bryan, titled ``Yucca 
Mountain: Unsafe site won't ever be safe for nuclear waste.''

[[Page H2690]]

             [Special to the Review-Journal, Apr. 12, 2015]

    Yucca Mountain: Unsafe Site Won't Ever Be Safe for Nuclear Waste

                 (By Brian Sandoval and Richard Bryan)

       Nevada Rep. Cresent Hardy, who joined a pro-Yucca Mountain 
     congressional site visit this past week, recently asked the 
     question, ``Is there a scenario in which Nevadans would 
     actually welcome nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain?'' 
     (``Time for Nevada to talk Yucca Mountain,'' March 22 Review-
     Journal).
       The answer to that question is an emphatic ``no'' for one 
     simple yet unavoidable reason: Because Yucca Mountain is an 
     unsafe place for storing or disposing deadly nuclear waste 
     and was selected for purely political reasons having nothing 
     to do with science or suitability. There is nothing for state 
     officials to negotiate. In fact, our leaders would be remiss 
     in their duty to protect the public and the environment to 
     entertain the notion that any amount of dollars could 
     possibly compensate for likely grievous and lethal harm from 
     siting a facility in such an unsafe location as Yucca 
     Mountain.
       From day one, science with respect to Yucca Mountain has 
     taken a back seat to Washington, D.C., power politics.
       In 1987, Congress ignored science completely and named 
     Yucca Mountain as the only site to be studied as a potential 
     repository in spite of its known serious flaws. Yucca was 
     picked not because it was the best site or even a safe one. 
     It was chosen solely because Nevada was the most politically 
     vulnerable state at the time. Sites in Texas, Louisiana, 
     Washington, and other states were dismissed out of hand 
     because their states were protected by powerful Washington, 
     D.C., politicians.
       As site characterization at Yucca progressed, every time 
     the science showed the site to be seriously flawed, the 
     Energy Department merely invented another engineering fix--
     like the metal waste packages that will have to remain intact 
     for 10,000 years or more, even though they've never been 
     built or tested; more than 11,000 titanium drip shields that 
     must be placed over the ``corrosion-resistant'' waste 
     packages (DOE does not plan to install them for 100 years or 
     more) in order to meet the radiation exposure criteria; and 
     manipulating the site's boundaries so the aquifer below Yucca 
     can be used to ``dilute'' the radiation that will inevitably 
     escape from the repository.
       And when even these ``fixes'' were not enough, the Energy 
     Department simply abandoned its own siting criteria 
     containing specific qualifying and disqualifying conditions 
     (that Yucca couldn't meet) and created a black box-like 
     assessment tool (called Total System Performance Assessment, 
     or TSPA) that allows the site's many flaws to be camouflaged 
     and rendered insignificant.
       The way to fix the nuclear waste disposal problem is not to 
     keep beating the dead horse that is Yucca Mountain, as Rep. 
     John Shimkus, R-Ill., appeared to be doing with the 
     promotional tour of the shut-down Yucca Mountain site last 
     week. A more constructive and fruitful approach would be to 
     move forward with new initiatives that rely on real science 
     to identify safe and suitable storage and disposal sites and 
     require states and local governments to give their consent to 
     any future nuclear waste siting efforts.
       Brian Sandoval, a Republican, is governor of Nevada. 
     Richard Bryan, a Democrat, is a former Nevada governor and 
     U.S. senator, and chairman of the Nevada Commission on 
     Nuclear Projects.

  Ms. TITUS. Also, the committee's report language sites that this hush 
money is provided for local governments that give ``formal consent.'' 
This raises yet another question about the intent of this section. The 
law does not outline any process for giving formal consent, so how 
would the newly bribed localities be able to provide that consent?
  If you are looking for consent, I urge you to support H.R. 1364, the 
Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act, which I introduced, along with my 
colleague Congressman Heck and Senators Reid and Heller. This 
bipartisan legislation sets out a formal consent process so that Nevada 
or Texas or New Mexico or any other State and affected local community 
or tribe that chooses to host a nuclear waste depository will have a 
process by which it can give consent for siting by the Federal 
Government. No community should have to face what we in Nevada have 
faced for the last few decades of having this pushed down our throat.
  Madam Chairman, I will also submit for the Record two articles 
outlining nuclear waste storage proposals that are supported in the 
State of Texas and the State of New Mexico.

                   [West Texas Radio, Feb. 13, 2015]

          Company Wants to Expand Nuclear Waste Site in Texas

                          (By Travis Bubenik)

       A Dallas-based company is looking to expand its nuclear 
     waste site in rural West Texas into a longer-term storage 
     site for high-level radioactive waste.
       Waste Control Specialists (WCS) is asking the federal 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve a new license to 
     expand its above-ground storage facility in Andrews County to 
     allow more radioactive types of waste.
       The company already stores ``low level'' waste--
     contaminated rags, tools and other equipment that have come 
     mostly from the national nuclear research lab in Los Alamos, 
     New Mexico.
       The site also served as a home for waste that was supposed 
     to wind up at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, 
     New Mexico, until that site was shuttered after a leak 
     contaminated workers there about a year ago.
       WCS now wants to store used fuel rods from nuclear power 
     plants across the country--a more radioactive form of waste.
       In theory, the waste would stay in West Texas temporarily--
     until the federal government comes up with a long-term 
     disposal plan--but it could be decades before that happens.
       ``Even though it is called an interim storage facility, 
     that storage period is a long time,'' says WCS President Rod 
     Baltzer. ``We think that's somewhere between 60 to 100 
     years.''
       Baltzer was in Washington, D.C. Monday talking to reporters 
     about the company's push to expand the facility.
       ``This wasn't initially something we intended to do when we 
     got out there, but we've been out there a long time, and 
     times have changed,'' he says.
       Those changes have riled some environmentalists in Texas.
       The Sierra Club has criticized the company for its track 
     record of slowly expanding its intentions for the West Texas 
     site. The environmental group says the company's misled 
     lawmakers and the public as it's sought to store more 
     radioactive types of waste through the years.
       Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director for the Sierra Club's 
     Lone Star Chapter, says he's watched with concern while the 
     company's plan for the site grew from storing low level waste 
     to larger quantities of the same waste.
       ``Now it turns out we are to become the nation's dumping 
     ground for all manner of dangerous highly toxic radioactive 
     waste,'' he says.
       WCS maintains it can store the waste safely, and that the 
     community in Andrews County has welcomed the idea.
       Baltzer says the company is fulfilling the Obama 
     Administration's call in 2013 for a ``consent-based'' 
     approach to transporting, storing and disposing of the 
     nation's nuclear waste.
       That strategy instructs the government to seek out 
     communities willing to house nuclear waste ``in expectation 
     of the economy activity that would result from the siting, 
     construction and operation of such a facility in their 
     communities.''
       For now, Andrews County appears to be that kind of place. 
     County Commissioners recently passed a resolution 
     enthusiastically backing the plan.
       If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gives WCS the green 
     light, the company says construction on the expanded facility 
     could be complete by the end of 2020.
                                  ____


               [From the Associated Press, Apr. 30, 2015]

        New Mexico Joins Race to Build Storage for Nuclear Waste

                        (By Susan Montoya Bryan)

       Two rural New Mexico counties announced Wednesday they're 
     partnering with an international firm in the race to build an 
     interim storage facility to house spent nuclear fuel that has 
     been piling up at reactors around the nation.
       Officials from Lea and Eddy counties and Holtec 
     International gathered at the National Museum of Nuclear 
     Science and History in Albuquerque to outline their plans.
       John Heaton, a former state lawmaker and chairman of the 
     Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance, a consortium of city and county 
     governments, said there's no better place in the U.S. than 
     southeastern New Mexico to build such a facility since the 
     region is already home to a multibillion-dollar uranium 
     enrichment plant and the federal government's only 
     underground nuclear waste repository.
       Heaton acknowledged that in vetting the project, safety was 
     the top priority.
       The region is still rebounding from the indefinite closure 
     of the government's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, where a 
     chemical reaction inside a drum of waste resulted in a 
     radiation release in February 2014. The U.S. Department of 
     Energy has said it will take years and more than a half-
     billion dollars before the repository resumes full 
     operations.
       The proposed storage facility would be designed to handle 
     spent nuclear fuel from power plants, not the kind of 
     defense-related waste that was shipped to WIPP.
       Holtec CEO and President Kris Singh said his company has 
     spent more than a decade developing technology to ensure the 
     safe storage of spent fuel inside triple-lined stainless 
     steel casks that are capable of enduring the force of a 
     freight train collision or an earthquake.
       ``We became convinced that this is an extraordinary, safe 
     process that needs to occur in this country,'' Heaton said.
       Federal officials acknowledged that the future of nuclear 
     energy in the U.S. depends on the ability to manage and 
     dispose of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
     waste.
       In March, the DOE announced it would begin siting interim 
     storage sites as part of its plan to spur the use of nuclear 
     power and develop the transportation and storage 
     infrastructure needed to manage the waste.

[[Page H2691]]

       Some members of Congress have shown renewed interested in 
     the mothballed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada.
       In West Texas, Waste Control Specialists announced plans 
     earlier this year to build a temporary storage facility that 
     would eventually be capable of holding up to 40,000 metric 
     tons.
       Yucca Mountain was designed with a cap of 70,000 metric 
     tons. The proposed facility in southeastern New Mexico would 
     hold even more.
       The agreement between Holtec and the Eddy-Lea Energy 
     Alliance addresses the design, licensing, construction and 
     operation of an underground storage site on 32 acres between 
     the communities of Carlsbad and Hobbs.
       Holtec officials say the company expects to apply for a 
     permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission within a year. 
     State permits would also be required. Licensing could take 
     three years.
       ``It's a tough road to get any nuclear project off the 
     ground, otherwise we would have repositories and interim 
     storage facilities all over the country,'' Heaton said. ``We 
     have great partners and the will to get it done.''
       Gov. Susana Martinez weighed in earlier this month. She 
     sent a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz as a 
     preliminary endorsement of the proposal.
       Watchdogs have raised concerns, pointing to transportation 
     issues and the possibility that New Mexico could become a 
     permanent repository for such waste. Supporters said 
     Wednesday they would have to work with communities along the 
     transportation routes, just as they did when setting up the 
     network for shipping waste to WIPP.
       Holtec officials were reluctant to put a price tag on the 
     venture, but Heaton said it could involve anywhere from $200 
     million to $400 million in capital costs.
       The revenue the storage facility could bring in for the 
     counties and the state would ultimately depend on how big of 
     a share of the market Holtec could attract, Singh said.

  Ms. TITUS. So I would say, Madam Chairman, instead of wasting tens of 
millions of dollars more on an unworkable solution, let's, instead, 
meet our fiduciary obligations to future generations. At the same time, 
let us commit to moving forward on a new policy to address the Nation's 
nuclear waste, one that relies on a consent-based system that doesn't 
force waste on communities like mine, which is the recommendation of 
the Blue Ribbon Commission.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message 
that Congress will not continue to move backwards but will take serious 
action to address our Nation's nuclear waste policy.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I understand the lady's passion for 
this, but some of the rhetoric, quite frankly, isn't accurate.
  When she calls it a failed policy, it is only a failed policy 
politically because this administration came into office on a promise 
of not doing Yucca Mountain because they needed electoral votes from 
the State of Nevada. That is the reality.
  The fact is we have spent over $15 billion on this project, and the 
fact is it is the law of the land. Until you change that law of the 
land, it remains the law of the land.
  Whether it is safe or not, I don't know. I am not a scientist. But 
what I do know is there has been 52--I think it is 52--National Academy 
of Sciences studies on all sorts of aspects. This is the most studied 
piece of earth on the Earth. In fact, I have suggested during a hearing 
with the Department that if we ultimately decide not to do Yucca 
Mountain, they shouldn't close that down because they are going to need 
a space that big to put all the papers from the studies that we have 
done on Yucca Mountain. That is the reality.
  I think we all understand my colleague's opposition to Yucca 
Mountain. I don't blame her. I know she is from Nevada. But I can't 
support this amendment. 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 up and 
running. Otherwise, more than $15 billion which has been spent on this 
program will truly be wasted.
  Once that application is finished, all Members of this body, 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, would be very shortsighted. I 
therefore urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TITUS. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comments made by my 
colleague, but he does not address the points I make about how this 
amendment looks at provisions of the bill that are contrary to the new 
proposal.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. There is no point in throwing good money after 
bad. American taxpayers deserve a wiser expenditure of their dollars. 
Nevadans deserve to be heard on this issue, and those areas that want 
to have a site in their State or their community deserve a chance to be 
considered.
  I thank you, and I urge, strongly, a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), the vice chairman of the 
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the 
Appropriations Committee and the chairman for acting to impose greater 
discipline on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  We know that the future of nuclear power in the United States depends 
on having a credible nuclear safety regulator and depends on the 
industry continuing to perform at a high level of safety. We feel 
strongly that the agency must continue its core mission of protecting 
the public health and safety, but the NRC must do so in a manner that 
does not add to the economic headwinds that the industry faces.
  Thanks to the scientific breakthroughs and renewed interest in 
nuclear energy, our Nation has an incredible opportunity to develop new 
sources of power that can provide affordable and reliable energy. I 
hope that the NRC can work with industry to seize these opportunities, 
while fulfilling its mission to ensure public safety.
  I support the committee's direction to require the NRC's rulemaking 
process to be commission-driven in order to provide greater discipline, 
transparency, efficiency, and accountability.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary in carrying out 
     the activities authorized by section 5012 of the America 
     COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69), $280,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of such amount 
     $28,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for 
     program direction.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam 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 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of Mr. Schiff of 
California and Mr. Polis of Colorado, which would increase funding for 
the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy, also known as ARPA-E. Mr. 
Schiff offered this same exact amendment last year, and it passed the 
House with bipartisan support. I hope the House will vote in support of 
it again.
  Like the House's mark last year, the underlying bill this year 
provides $280

[[Page H2692]]

million for ARPA-E, which is $45 million below the President's request. 
This amendment would increase funding for ARPA-E by $20 million, with 
the offset taken from the Department administration.
  I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for providing at least level funding for ARPA-E this year, 
which is a substantial improvement from last year, which cut the 
program by as much as 80 percent over previous years.
  However, I think that rather than providing flat funding, we should 
be stepping up our commitment to a potentially game-changing research 
program, and that is exactly what this amendment does.
  This is a very modest investment for an agency whose work is helping 
to reshape our economy. While the amendment would leave us still short 
of where the funding should be and where it is in the President's 
budget, passing it would send a strong signal that there is bipartisan 
support for this kind of research.
  Started in 2009, ARPA-E is a revolutionary program that advances 
high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early for 
private sector investment. ARPA-E projects have the potential to 
radically improve U.S. economic security, national security, and 
environmental well-being as well.
  ARPA-E empowers America's energy researchers with funding, technical 
assistance, and market readiness. ARPA-E is modeled after the highly 
successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which 
has produced groundbreaking inventions for the Department of Defense 
and the Nation, perhaps most notably the Internet itself. A key element 
of both Agencies is that managers are limited to fixed terms, so new 
blood continuously revitalizes this research portfolio.
  As we cut spending to return the budget to balance, we must not 
weaken those programs that are vital to our economic future and 
national security, and ARPA-E is such an agency. Even if we can't make 
the investment that the President has called for in his budget, let's 
be sure that we don't hinder an agency that is pointing the way to a 
more energy-secure future.
  Energy is a national security issue; it is an economic imperative; it 
is a health concern; and it is an environmental necessity. Investing 
wisely in this type of research going on at ARPA-E is exactly the 
direction we should be going as a nation.
  We want to lead the energy revolution. We don't want to see this 
advantage go to China or anywhere else in the world. If we are serious 
about staying at the forefront of the energy revolution, we must 
continue to fully invest in the kind of cutting-edge work that ARPA-E 
performs. By providing the funding I am recommending today, we will 
send a clear signal of the seriousness of our intent to remain world 
leaders in energy.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim time reluctantly. I happen to be 
one who thinks the ARPA-E does some good work. My biggest problem is 
that, as I said last night on either the first or second amendment that 
was offered to this bill, they took money out of departmental 
administration to fund something, and then another one to take money 
out of departmental administration. So far we have taken out about $50 
million out of a $245 million budget for the departmental 
administration.
  It is easy to vote that way because who wants to pay for the 
administrative costs? Yet we are going to have to deal with that when 
we get into conference to make sure that they have adequate funding in 
the Department for the administrative work.

                              {time}  1600

  So at some point in time, I have to say I can't support continuing to 
take money out of the departmental administration in order to fund a 
variety of programs, even though some of them may be very worthwhile.
  And while I, myself, am not opposed to ARPA-E and think they do some 
good work, the reality is, you have to balance this bill.
  We have got ARPA-E down $266 million from what it was last year and 
substantially below what the President requested, but we had other 
priorities that we had to fund. And the other thing I had to consider 
is that the Science and Technology Committee--that is, the authorizing 
committee that does much of this work--has marked up a bill in their 
committee that substantially reduces the overall funding authorization 
for ARPA-E. So that causes me some concern.
  While I may or may not agree with their markup--I don't know; we will 
see when that hits the floor--that is the reason that I am going to 
oppose this amendment.
  Other than that, I understand what the gentleman is trying to do and 
the concern that many people have for the decrease in funding in ARPA-
E.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. 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 California 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

       Such sums as are derived from amounts received from 
     borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b) 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, $42,000,000 is appropriated, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2017: Provided further, That 
     $25,000,000 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 2016 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $17,000,000: Provided further, That fees collected under 
     section 1702(h) in excess of the amount appropriated for 
     administrative expenses shall not be available until 
     appropriated: Provided further, That the Department of Energy 
     shall not subordinate any loan obligation to other financing 
     in violation of section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
     or subordinate any Guaranteed Obligation to any loan or other 
     debt obligations in violation of section 609.10 of title 10, 
     Code of Federal Regulations.

        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

       For Department of Energy administrative expenses necessary 
     in carrying out the Advanced Technology Vehicles 
     Manufacturing Loan Program, $6,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2017.

                      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.), $247,420,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and official reception and representation expenses 
     not to exceed $30,000, 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: Provided further, 
     That moneys received by the Department for miscellaneous 
     revenues estimated to total $117,171,000 in fiscal year 2016 
     may be retained and used for operating expenses within this 
     account, 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 as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $130,249,000: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount made available 
     under this heading, $31,297,000 is for Energy Policy and 
     Systems Analysis.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

       Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.


[[Page H2693]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, let me begin by thanking Chairman 
Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for the work that they have done, a 
very challenging and popular appropriations when it comes to energy and 
water and also the issues of the environment.
  I have a very simple amendment that reinforces our commitment to 
communities from rural America to urban America, from hamlets and 
villages to large urban centers. And it simply emphasizes a quality of 
life: for all Americans to have a good, clean environment; to reduce 
asthma in children; to help senior citizens; and to have a good quality 
of life in their sunset years, in their older homes, in older 
communities, of which I represent, is an important funding necessity 
for this Nation.
  I want to emphasize the work that has been done and remind my 
colleagues--for those of us who had the privilege of being here--that 
President Clinton issued an executive order directing Federal agencies 
to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health 
environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations, which 
covered rural America, which oftentimes experienced the impact of the 
environment.
  We have worked over the years to improve their quality of life, and 
today I ask that we continue to do so.
  In particular, I want to refer to a project in Houston, Texas, called 
the CAS site. That site was attempted to be cleaned up. It is in an 
older neighborhood, Madam Chair. Senior citizens own their homes. They 
have been there for a long time.
  There have been a lot of machinations about this entity that is 
espousing chemicals, leaking chemicals because it is old and closed 
down and abandoned. And we had to call upon the environmental justice 
sector in the Federal Government to provide the leverage to help these 
senior citizens, people who did not want to move from their homes.
  I walked those streets, went into the backyards of senior citizens 
and saw the seepage coming out of the ground and, as well, coming in 
from the property on the back side.
  Environmental justice is a good thing, and it is through those 
efforts that we are working with the EPA to give hope to these citizens 
that they can stay in their homes.
  I live in the energy capital of the world. It is a job-creator. But 
on occasions, in the midst of our wetlands and our areas of pristine, 
if you will, environmental assets, we have some ups and downs.
  Just recently, I flew over the Houston port at the time of a spillage 
that was impacting some of our most environmentally important areas, 
including wetlands and areas that are protected or are important to the 
environment and to the quality of life.
  So I am asking that the Jackson Lee amendment be accepted for the 
importance of providing for the continued support of environmental 
justice and equality for areas that are both urban and rural.
  Let me finish by making this statement, Madam Chair.
  This is an important cause because, as we look at the funds that are 
dealing with environmental justice, they increase youth involvement 
through science, technology, engineering, and math. They also help to 
promote clean energy, weatherization, cleanup, asset revitalization, 
and they help my constituents and the constituents of so many in this 
body whose older neighborhoods are sometimes impacted by older entities 
that are left behind in the neighborhood where seniors continue to 
live. I want to be able to walk those neighborhoods and make sure that 
my seniors can stay in their homes--small frame homes--and make sure 
that as they stay in their frame homes, that they will have the quality 
of life that all of us would like.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member. This is a 
tough job to do. And I would like to emphasize the importance of the 
funding for environmental justice and helping to continue, if you will, 
to put focus and emphasis on quality of life for homeowners, seniors, 
and people living in rural America and urban America.
  Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member 
Kaptur for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their 
commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and 
resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
  My amendment increases funding for DOE departmental administration by 
$1,000,000 which should be used to enhance the Department's 
Environmental Justice Program activities.
  Madam Chair, the Environmental Justice Program is an essential tool 
in the effort to improve the lives of low-income and minority 
communities as well as the environment at large.
  Twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued 
Executive Order 12898, directing Federal agencies to identify and 
address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income 
populations.
  A healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community 
which fosters personal and economic growth.
  Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities, Minority-Serving Institutions, Tribal 
Colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting 
sustainability and growth of the community and environment.
  The funding of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority 
groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the 
environment and the continued preservation of their homes.
  Through education about the importance of environmental 
sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and 
how citizens can improve their surroundings.


      IMPORTANCE OF DOE'S ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

  Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase 
youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy, 
weatherization, clean-up, and asset revitalization. These improvements 
would provide protection to our most vulnerable groups.
  This program provides better access to technology for underserved 
communities. Together, the Department of Energy and Department of 
Agriculture have distributed over 5,000 computers to low-income 
populations.
  The Community Leaders Institute is another vital component of the 
Environmental Justice Program. It ensures that those in leadership 
positions understand what is happening in their communities and can 
therefore make informed decisions in regards to their communities.
  In addition to promoting environmental sustainability, CLI also 
brings important factors including public health and economic 
development into the discussion for community leaders.
  The CLI program has been expanded to better serve Native Americans 
and Alaska Natives, which is a prime example of how various other 
minority groups can be assisted as well.
  Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also 
benefited by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, 
and other related subjects.
  The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority 
institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The 
DOE also works to increase low-income and minority access to STEM 
fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find 
employment.
  Since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has also funded 175 energy 
projects amounting to over $41.8 million in order to help tribes invest 
in renewable sources of energy.
  With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can provide clean 
energy options to our most underserved communities and help improve 
their environments, which will yield better health outcomes and greater 
public awareness.
  In fiscal year 2013, the environmental justice program was not 
funded.
  For fiscal year 2016, we ask that money be appropriated for the 
continuation of this vital initiative.
  We must help our low-income and minority communities and ensure 
equality for those who are most vulnerable in our country.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment 
for the Environmental Justice Program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978,

[[Page H2694]]

     $46,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $8,713,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That $92,000,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2017, for program 
     direction.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Yoder) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Black, 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. 2028) 
making appropriations for energy and water development and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________