[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11051-11074]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 337 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. 2354.

                              {time}  1856


                     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. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. Chaffetz (Acting Chair) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,

[[Page 11052]]

July 12, 2011, the bill had been read through page 24, line 23.


                Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Rehberg

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

       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,200,000) (increased by $2,200,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment directs $2.2 million of the 
Department of Energy's Fossil Energy Research Development budget to the 
Risk Based Data Management System.
  The Risk Based Data Management System is a State governmental agency-
based information system initiative to help States collect and 
aggregate essential oil, gas, and environmental compliance information, 
local geology data, base of freshwater data, well construction 
specifics, area production historical data, and information provided by 
companies applying for permits.
  This type of information system has resulted in better environmental 
protection; public disclosure of all chemicals; easier, cheaper, and 
faster environmental compliance for industry-enhanced State 
environmental enforcement. That's why my amendment is broadly supported 
by State environmental agencies, State regulators, the energy industry, 
and many in the environmental community.
  Providing this funding will allow for enhanced environmental 
protection and enhanced oil and gas production. It improves public 
disclosure of chemicals by providing funding for data systems where 
operators can disclose chemicals used on all procedures in any State.
  The amendment also strengthens State environmental regulation of oil 
and gas by providing funding for reviews of State environmental 
programs, including initiatives like the highly successful STRONGER, 
which is an organization that has done comprehensive reviews of State 
oil and gas agencies' administrative and regulatory operations using a 
multi-stakeholder team of three regulators, three environmental NGOs, 
and three industry representatives.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. The gentleman from Montana is a valued member of the Energy 
and Water subcommittee. His amendment will provide a reasonable amount 
of funding to continue work on the fossil energy Risk Based Data 
Management System. By more efficiently tracking and disseminating 
information, the system will help ensure that the environment is 
protected while reducing costs for industry, benefits for which I hope 
all sides can agree.
  I support the gentleman's amendment and urge Members to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend's 
amendment.
  Since we have been debating this bill, we have heard time and again 
that we must make tough decisions on what we choose to fund. My 
colleagues across the aisle, in particular, have made a point 
repeatedly that we should not be funding activities where industry can 
and should.
  This program deals with research and development to maximize the 
production capabilities of marginal wells and reservoirs. Certainly we 
can't argue about the merit of that; but it seems that as we talk about 
subsidies, particularly to a very profitable industry--oil and gas--we 
should be consistent. Compiling and maintaining a database on oil and 
gas wells at this level of detail I do not believe is the proper role 
of the Federal Government and is likely to be duplicative of what is 
currently being done in the industry.
  Further, it is my understanding that States and private industry have 
had a great deal of success fostering the recovery of oil and natural 
gas from marginal wells with similar initiatives. These State and 
industry initiatives have been successfully driven by an economic need 
to have pertinent information on hand when evaluating the economic 
viability or filing permit applications.
  Given that that process is working on a local and State level, I do 
not believe that we should rush for Federal Government involvement. It 
seems to me that we should be looking for smaller government wherever 
possible; and this gives us a chance today, in opposition to this 
amendment, to do it right.
  The gentleman makes the assertion that this system has resulted in 
public disclosure of all chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids. 
Texas has arguably one of the strongest--if not the strongest--
disclosure laws and is still far from a requirement to disclose ``all'' 
chemicals; and the database in question is also significantly weaker 
than Wyoming's regulation on public disclosure.
  Mr. Chairman, I do reluctantly, because of my friendship with the 
gentleman, strongly oppose his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with my colleague 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) about the issue of energy 
efficiency in buildings as it relates to funding for the Energy 
Information Administration.
  First let me say that I very much appreciate the committee's efforts 
with respect to the EIA and the overall bill. The EIA is an essential 
resource for the commercial building sector as they seek to improve 
energy efficiency and reduce energy costs.
  I want to clarify the intent of the committee direction for the EIA 
funding of the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, also 
known as CBECS. I recognize that the committee recommended an 
appropriation of $105 million for EIA in fiscal year 2012, roughly $9 
million above fiscal year 2011 levels.
  Unfortunately, the committee also included limiting language that I'm 
concerned about. Does the gentleman from New Jersey consider CBECS a 
priority for EIA?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois and agree 
that the Consumer Building Energy Consumption Survey is an important 
resource for the building sector. The bill provides an increase of $10 
million for the Energy Information Administration; and if funding is 
available, I expect that an update of the consumer building survey 
would be funded.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. As you know, 
I serve as cochair of the High Performance Building Caucus with 
Representative Russ Carnahan of Missouri. Many members of the High 
Performance Building Coalition have come to us to express their concern 
about an updated CBECS since the latest data is nearly a decade old.
  Substantial investments in the commercial building sector have been 
made since the last CBECS was published in 2003. The updated data is 
not only valuable to building owners looking to make improvements, but 
also necessary to inform the Annual Energy Outlook that we, in 
Congress, rely on.
  Finally, I would like to point out that the building renovation 
sector relies overwhelmingly on American-made goods for its work. In 
fact, over 90 percent of the manufacturing of furnaces,

[[Page 11053]]

insulation and ductwork is here in the United States. So by making this 
data available to commercial buildings through CBECS, we are directly 
supporting American jobs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. I thank may colleague, Mrs. Biggert, for her remarks 
and also want to address the important issue of CBECS funding and to 
engage in a colloquy with my colleague, Mr. Visclosky.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARNAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I also appreciate my colleague raising this important 
issue. I agree that the committee understands the importance of this 
program. The CBECS data is essential not just for Federal programs to 
reduce energy use like EPA's Energy Star for buildings and DOE's 
building technologies program, but for private sector efforts like the 
U.S. Green Building Council's lead rating system as well.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you.
  As you know, the committee report language states that the Energy 
Department is directed to fund all data collection, releases and 
reports on oil, natural gas, electricity, renewables and coal, all 
previously funded international energy statistics and all ongoing 
energy analysis efforts before allocating funding to the energy 
consumption surveys. Unfortunately, this language effectively excludes 
funding for the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, also 
known as CBECS.
  This is one of the few tools we have that provides a comprehensive 
assessment of how commercial buildings as diverse as offices, 
supermarkets and senior centers use energy.
  I want to thank the ranking member, I want to thank the chairman, and 
I want to thank my cochair of the High Performance Building Caucus, 
Mrs. Biggert, for their engagement on this issue. In fact, there was 
broad private sector support for continuing CBECS.
  At this point I would like to submit for the Record two letters that 
were submitted by private sector stakeholders to the Appropriations 
Committee in support of CBECS. I just want to read one sentence from a 
letter that I will be submitting for the Record: ``If funding is not 
provided, work on the 2011 CBECS data will likely not continue, and the 
government and industry will be forced to rely on data that is nearly a 
decade old, resulting in potential missed opportunities to increase 
building efficiency.''

                                                       ASHRAE,

                                         Atlanta, GA, May 5, 2011.
     Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen,
     Subcommittee Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
         Energy and Water Development.
     Rep. Peter J. ``Pete'' Visclosky,
     Subcommittee Ranking Democrat, House Appropriations 
         Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
     Re Fiscal Year 2012 Funding for the U.S. Energy Information 
         Administration's Commercial Building Energy Consumption 
         Survey.

       Dear Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Democrat Visclosky: 
     the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
     Conditioning Engineers Inc. (ASHRAE), founded in 1894, is an 
     international organization of over 52,000 members. ASHRAE 
     fulfills its mission of advancing heating, ventilation, air 
     conditioning and refrigeration to serve humanity and promote 
     a sustainable world through research, standards writing, 
     publishing and continuing education.
       Recently ASHRAE learned that, due to needed funding 
     reductions for fiscal year 2011, work on the 2011 edition of 
     the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Commercial 
     Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) has been halted.
       ASHRAE strongly urges you to include funding for CBECS in 
     the FY 2012 appropriations bills to allow work on the 2011 
     edition of the Survey to continue. This is especially 
     important, because the most recent (2007) CBECS data are 
     flawed and unusable. Currently, the latest version of CBECS 
     data is from 2003. If funding is not provided, work on the 
     2011 CBECS data will likely not continue, and the government 
     and industry will be forced to rely on data that is nearly a 
     decade old, resulting in potential missed opportunities to 
     increase building efficiency.
       The Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey is a 
     national sample survey that collects information on the stock 
     of U.S. commercial buildings, their energy-related building 
     characteristics, and their energy consumption and 
     expenditures. Commercial buildings include all buildings in 
     which at least half of the floorspace is used for a purpose 
     that is not residential, industrial, or agricultural, so they 
     include building types that might not traditionally be 
     considered ``commercial,'' such as schools, correctional 
     institutions, and buildings used for religious worship.
       Buildings consume 40 percent of energy in the United 
     States. Increasing the efficiency of buildings can decrease 
     the need for additional energy production, while expanding 
     current capacity; positively impacting U.S. economic and 
     national security.
       Information from CBECS plays a critical role in building 
     energy efficiency through the many federal and private sector 
     programs that use the Survey's data in their efforts to 
     establish benchmark levels and promote energy efficient 
     practices. These programs include: The ENERGY STAR Buildings 
     program; Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 
     for Existing Buildings; Green Globes'; ASHRAE's 
     Building Energy Quotient (BEQ) building energy labeling 
     program; and many others.
       For all of the reasons above, we respectfully request that 
     you continue funding for CBECS in fiscal year 2012 and future 
     years. Suspension of work on the 2011 Survey was done to help 
     alleviate our nation's deficit and debt issues, but has 
     serious adverse consequences for national building energy 
     efficiency efforts. We look forward to working with you to 
     remedy this matter for the benefit of all. Please feel free 
     to contact Mark Ames, ASHRAE Manager of Government Affairs.
           Personal regards,
                                                Lynn G. Bellenger,
     ASHRAE President 2010-2011.
                                  ____

       We are writing as representatives of the commercial real 
     estate industry and other energy efficiency stakeholders to 
     urge that the 2011 edition of the U.S. Energy Information 
     Administration's Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption 
     Survey (CBECS) be funded at $4 million for fiscal year 2012 
     (FY12) so that the on-going collection of energy data for the 
     commercial buildings sector can be resumed.
       CBECS provides critically important information to support 
     programs that promote energy efficiency in our nation's 
     commercial building stock. It is a national sample survey 
     that collects data on energy-related building characteristics 
     such as electricity consumption and expenditures. Information 
     from CBECS is the basis for many federal and private sector 
     energy efficiency and sustainability programs, including the 
     ENERGY STAR Buildings program, Leadership in Energy and 
     Environmental Design (LEED) for Existing Buildings, and other 
     building energy labeling platforms.
       For the real estate sector, these programs are the primary 
     benchmarking and information mechanism for energy efficiency 
     and sustainability. Business owners use them to compare their 
     buildings and make capital expenditure decisions, while 
     office tenants use ENERGY STAR and other programs to assess 
     the energy efficiency of buildings where they lease space. In 
     addition, there is growing pressure on the CBECS data set as 
     major U.S. cities have started to require ENERGY STAR ratings 
     (which are based on CBECS data) for government-owned and 
     large private sector buildings. Lack of robust CBECS data 
     will make the real estate sector's compliance with state and 
     local laws increasingly difficult.
       The market is currently using CBECS data from 2003, which 
     is the most recent dataset the Energy Information 
     Administration (EIA) has published. We understand that 
     problems from the 2007 CBECS data collection effort, which 
     caused it to be discarded, are being corrected by the EIA as 
     it prepares to undertake survey work this year. If funding is 
     not provided, work on the 2011 CBECS process will be 
     suspended. This will force companies, consumers, and 
     government stakeholders to rely on data that is nearly a 
     decade old and does not reflect the significant strides that 
     have been made in building technologies, operations, and 
     efficiencies that have occurred in this rapidly evolving 
     arena since the release of the 2003 data set. Opportunities 
     to increase building efficiency and upgrade our building 
     stock will be missed in the absence of more current and 
     reliable CBECS data. Further delay in collecting and 
     publishing new data will diminish the efficacy and 
     reliability of energy benchmarking systems that depend on 
     CBECS.
       Increasing the efficiency of buildings can decrease the 
     need for additional energy production, while expanding 
     current capacity, positively impacting the U.S. economy and 
     national security. We respectfully request that you continue 
     funding for CBECS at $4 million in FY12 and future years. 
     This is a small investment on a critically important

[[Page 11054]]

     piece of data infrastructure that will leverage significant 
     impacts.
           Sincerely,
         Ankrom Moisan Architects; Beck Architecture LLC; Biositu, 
           LLC; Building Owners and Managers Association 
           International (BOMA); Brandywine; Campbell Coyle 
           Holdings, LLC; Cannon Design; The City of New York; 
           Cook+Fox Architects; e4, inc.; Earth Day New York; 
           Energy Future Coalition; GGLO; Green Realty Trust, Inc; 
           Grubb & Ellis; HOK; Insight Real Estate, LLC; Institute 
           for Market Transformation; International Council of 
           Shopping Centers; Jones Lang LaSalle; Johnson Controls, 
           Inc.; Joseph Freed and Associates; Kirksey 
           Architecture.
         KMD Architects; Lake Flato Architects; Lord, Aeck & 
           Sargent Architecture; Mahlum; MEI Hotels Incorporated; 
           National Association of Home Builders (NAHB); Natural 
           Resources Defense Council (NRDC); National Roofing 
           Contractors Association (NRCA); Polyisocyanurate 
           Insulation Manufacturers Association; Real Estate Board 
           of New York (REBNY); Related; SERA Architects; 
           Servidyne; Simon Property Group; SmithGroup; Terrapin 
           Bright Green; The Durst Organization; The Real Estate 
           Roundtable (RER); Tishman Speyer; Transwestern; U.S. 
           Green Building Council (USGBC); Vornado Realty Trust; 
           Wight & Company.

  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. McKinley

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

       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $39,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $39,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman 
Frelinghuysen and the committee for their efforts in developing 
legislation that is intended to streamline processes and increase 
efficiency within the Department of Energy. Throughout this 
legislation, we can see intelligent savings that will result in less 
spending and more efficient use of tax dollars.
  However, I'm concerned that this legislation as written and reported 
will have the unintended consequence of destroying the National Energy 
Technology Laboratory's ability to manage approximately $19 billion in 
contracts and conduct the necessary research and development to advance 
safe natural gas drilling, clean coal technologies and energy 
independence.

                              {time}  1910

  I shared my concerns with Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member 
Visclosky in a bipartisan letter signed by my colleagues Mike Doyle, 
Tim Murphy, and Mark Critz.
  America depends on fossil resources for 85 percent of our energy 
requirements, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. 
Coal is mined in 26 States in our country and used to generate 
electricity in 48 of the 50 States. However, without NETL's research 
into clean coal technology, hundreds of thousands of jobs across 
America are in jeopardy.
  The fossil fuel R&D program that is being cut in this bill is unique 
among the DOE programs because the program direction account includes 
funding for the operations, maintenance, and administration of the 
National Energy Technology Lab, along with salaries and benefits for 
all of the Federal researchers who work there. NETL is the only 
government owned, government operated national laboratory. OMB requires 
that all Federal costs be included in the program direction account.
  This amendment would restore the funding cut within Fossil Energy 
Research and Development to program direction in an effort to recognize 
the outstanding work being done by NETL and the unique manner in which 
the laboratory is funded and maintained.
  Mr. Chairman, these projects are in every State and almost every 
congressional district in the country. Virtually every one of my 
colleagues has a vested interest in this laboratory being funded 
sufficiently and effectively so we can complete these projects.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Your amendment would shift an additional $39 million within Fossil 
Energy Research and Development to program direction. I recognize the 
important role that the Fossil Energy Research and Development program 
plays in securing our energy future, especially when 70 percent of our 
energy comes from fossil sources. And I certainly recognize your strong 
advocacy as a gentleman from West Virginia, and the important role in 
fossil fuel that your State plays, providing such for the Nation.
  I also recognize the critical role scientists and their research at 
our national laboratories--including the one in your State, NETL--play 
in keeping our Nation in the lead in fossil energy technologies.
  Our bill demonstrates this support by funding Fossil Energy Research 
and Development at $32 billion above the fiscal year 2011 level. The 
bill also, however, increases the transparency of these programs by 
moving research and development out of program direction and into 
research programs. With that change included in the bill, the 
Department of Energy still has the authority to fund laboratory 
personnel doing valuable work at the national labs. However, 
recognizing my colleague's concerns, we would be happy to work with the 
gentleman as we move toward conference to ensure that salaries and 
expenses for ongoing activities are fully funded while increasing the 
transparency of ongoing research.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's remarks, and 
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

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

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

         For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $192,704,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                         SPR Petroleum Account

         Notwithstanding sections 161 and 167 of the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241, 6247), the Secretary of 
     Energy shall sell $500,000,000 in petroleum products from the 
     Reserve not later than March 1, 2012, and shall deposit any 
     proceeds from such sales in the General Fund of the Treasury: 
     Provided, That during fiscal year 2012 and hereafter, the 
     quantity of petroleum products sold from the Reserve under 
     the authority of this Act may only be replaced using the 
     authority provided in paragraph (a)(1) or (3) of section 160 
     of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6240(a)(1) or (3)): Provided further, That unobligated 
     balances in this account shall be available to cover the 
     costs of any sale under this Act.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

                    (including rescission of funds)

         For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve storage, operation, and management activities 
     pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 
     $10,119,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That amounts net of the purchase of 1 million barrels of 
     petroleum distillates in fiscal year 2011; costs related to 
     transportation, delivery, and storage; and sales of petroleum 
     distillate from the Reserve under section 182 of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6250a) are hereby 
     permanently rescinded: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     section 181 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6250), for fiscal year 2012 and hereafter, the Reserve 
     shall contain no more than 1 million barrels of petroleum 
     distillate.

                   Energy Information Administration

         For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $105,000,000, 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

[[Page 11055]]

     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, $213,121,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Matheson

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

       Page 27, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, in the report language from the committee 
report for this bill, the Appropriations Committee included some 
language talking about concern about the lack of remediation activity 
taking place around the country at various Department-sponsored 
facilities and small sites under the responsibility of the Department, 
and this is in terms of environmental cleanup for non-defense sites.
  I share that concern, and the committee report language talks about 
having the Department not later than November 15, 2011, give a detailed 
plan on remediating these small sites.
  Here is the issue. When you have some smaller sites that need to be 
cleaned up, you have your management infrastructure in place. We are 
spending money each year to maintain the management structure, but if 
you don't spend the money to actually do the cleanup, you just extend 
the life cycle of this project out year after year after year. I think 
if we focus on these projects and get them done by investing the funds 
to clean them up quickly, it is actually from a life-cycle basis better 
off for taxpayers.
  Now, this is a tough bill to find a pay-for because overall--and I 
applaud the fact that we looked at reducing spending in this bill--but 
my suggestion is a modest increase in the non-defense environmental 
cleanup account of $10 million, which will bring the funding level to 
what it was in the last fiscal year. That is paid for by reducing by 
$10 million the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons 
activity account, which had been plussed up $185 million in this bill.
  There are a few of these sites around the country. They are smaller. 
There are some sites that are larger. I am not directing where this 
money goes. I am just trying to put money into the non-defense 
environmental cleanup account, hoping that since the committee 
indicated in its report language that it wants the smaller sites to 
move on a faster basis, that this funding could help assist in that 
effort. In my opinion, this is in the taxpayers' interest to do this.
  Now, there are sites around the country. There happens to be one in 
my congressional district. It is in Moab, Utah. It is a facility where 
the Department of Energy has been cleaning up a radioactive tailings 
pile that is on the banks of the Colorado River. It is a pile where the 
environmental impact statement indicated that in the long term, it is a 
near certainty that this tailings pile would be flooded and flushed 
down the river. There are about 25 million users of this water 
downstream. There has been ongoing bipartisan agreement in the House of 
Representatives for years about the cleanup of this site.
  And this is just one, and I think there are others that also are 
mandatory as well. Again, my amendment cannot direct it to one 
particular site, but I am suggesting that increasing funding by $10 
million to bring the non-defense environmental cleanup account up to 
last year's level is a good thing to do. That's the purpose of the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman from Utah's amendment, but I salute his advocacy and passion 
for his purpose for being here this evening.
  This amendment seeks to funnel off defense funding that is needed for 
the modernization of our nuclear infrastructure. With a nearly $500 
million reduction to the request for weapons activities, this bill 
already takes opportunities to find savings with the account. Right now 
this bill provides for our defense requirements and is well balanced. 
Further reductions would unacceptably impact the ability to meet the 
goals of modernization and to support the nuclear security strategy set 
forth in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
  This bill takes a consistent approach to funding for environmental 
cleanup, providing a slightly lower but sustainable and stable funding 
stream to continue work at all the cleanup sites.
  It is not responsible to increase this account above what was 
requested for these activities, particularly at the expense of an 
important national defense program.
  I urge my colleagues to make defense a priority and to vote ``no'' 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 Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be 
postponed.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to ask my friend from New Jersey to engage in a 
colloquy. The purpose of it is to talk about the nuclear prototype.
  As you know, and as the ranking member knows and the full committee 
ranking member, Mr. Dicks, knows, the Ohio class nuclear submarine is a 
critical component of our country's national security and is one-third 
of our nuclear deterrence, along with bombers and nuclear missiles.
  These critical systems are aging and are close to the end of their 
lifecycle. As part of the Ohio replacement, or SSBN(X) program, we are 
looking at expanding the nuclear core so that the future nuclear 
ballistic submarines can have a core life expectancy of 40 years, over 
20 years.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for engaging 
this opportunity to call attention to the strong support this bill 
provides for the Office of Naval Reactors, which I am proud to say 
reflects bipartisan priorities.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.
  And I want to point out that the Ohio replacement nuclear reactor 
development program was identified specifically by line item within the 
Naval Reactor Section and allocated a full $121.3 million specifically 
for the SSBN(X) reactor program. This was done to ensure that the 
program be fully funded to the requirement amount without delay for FY 
2012.
  I want to just get assurance of the support of the committee for this 
program, and I yield to the gentleman regarding the committee's 
position on it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to join with my friends in support of 
this program. In doing so, we will be providing 100 percent 
clarification to this body and all agencies. The SSBN(X) development 
programs within Naval Reactors and the Department of Energy, along with 
associated programs directly related to the Ohio replacement program, 
are indeed fully funded to their requirement within this legislation.
  These funds have been allocated for a specified purpose: the 
development of a nuclear reactor prototype and all associated programs.

[[Page 11056]]


  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for that.
  Just to be abundantly sure, in order to ensure that there's no 
confusion within the Department of Energy and Naval Reactors, is it 
true that the prototype development for this new and complicated 
reactor system is fully funded to the required request?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. The level for Naval Reactors includes $121.3 
million to develop a new reactor design for the Ohio replacement and 
$99.5 million to refuel a prototype reactor in upstate New York that is 
associated with the development of the Ohio replacement.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.
  Then I am hearing that the subcommittee has fulfilled the body's 
intent to ensure all funding lines related to the SSBN(X) Ohio 
replacement nuclear program are allocated to the required amount.
  I thank the gentleman for his support and for Mr. Culberson's support 
and Mr. Dicks' support.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And Mr. Visclosky's as well.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And Mr. Visclosky's support as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed

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

       Page 27, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $41,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $21,000,000)''
       Page 35, line 15, after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an amendment that 
I asked my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support, and Mr. 
Higgins from the other side of the aisle has joined me on this 
amendment.
  With all due respect to the subcommittee chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, I believe this amendment is wise, that it is 
an appropriate amendment. And that is because what we are talking about 
here with my proposed amendment is taking $41 million in funding to 
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup--to take that money from multiple 
administrative accounts and utilize the money for in-the-field cleanup 
activity for sites such as that which exist in my district known as the 
West Valley Nuclear Demonstration Project in western New York.
  My hope is that by doing this amendment, we will stop money from 
being funneled more into the DC bureaucracy but rather be funneled and 
put out into the field and into the nuclear waste sites so that the 
sites can be remediated once and for all.
  The Department of Energy estimates that by making the investment now 
in nuclear site remediation, we will save our Nation hundreds of 
millions of dollars in the coming decades. If properly funded, the 
Department of Energy can complete phase one of the West Valley project 
in my congressional district by 2020. This alone is estimated to save 
taxpayers $120 million.
  For all of these reasons, I would ask both sides of the aisle to join 
us in our amendment and support this amendment allocating 
administrative dollars that are targeted to go to enhance bureaucracy 
in Washington, DC, and have those dollars deployed into our districts 
that qualify for nuclear waste cleanup remediation projects under this 
line, so that those nuclear waste sites are cleaned up once and for 
all, and we can actually get a bigger bang for the buck in these 
nuclear waste sites that need to be cleaned up.
  I ask that both parties on both sides of the aisle support our 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HIGGINS. I thank my colleague and friend Mr. Reed.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would 
provide an adequate level of funding for the Non-Defense Environmental 
Cleanup program.
  The Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program addresses the 
environmental legacy of former civilian and non-defense nuclear 
programs at sites across the country. The large quantity of hazardous 
and radioactive waste generated at these sites and the contamination 
that remains is one of our Nation's largest environmental liabilities.
  The Department of Energy has an obligation to clean up this nuclear 
waste and protect local communities against risk to human health, 
safety, and the environment. And Congress has an obligation to fund the 
program at a sufficient level to clean up these sites thoroughly and 
expeditiously. However, quite simply, the amount of money appropriated 
in this bill is insufficient to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, continuing to underfund the cleanup of these nuclear 
sites will delay and extend project schedules, cause commitments to 
State governments and local communities to be missed, and increase the 
overall costs in the long run.
  In my community of western New York, the West Valley site was 
established in the 1960s in response to a Federal call for efforts to 
commercialize the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from power 
reactors. The site ceased operations in 1972, and 600,000 gallons of 
high-level radioactive waste was left behind, posing a significant and 
enduring hazard.
  The land is highly erodible and contains streams that drain into Lake 
Erie. We have already seen a leak on the site level into a migrating 
plume of radioactive groundwater. The consequences would be 
environmentally and economically dire if this radioactive waste makes 
its way into the Great Lakes, the largest source of freshwater in the 
world with 20 percent of all the freshwater supply on Earth.

                              {time}  1930

  For the past four decades, the progress in cleaning up the waste at 
West Valley has been stymied by perennial funding shortfalls. The 
insufficient funding in this bill will extend the first phase of the 
cleanup from 10 to 14 years. With maintenance costs at $30 million a 
year, an additional 4 years means $120 million in Federal funding will 
be wasted, which could be avoided if we properly fund this cleanup.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot jeopardize the irreplaceable natural 
resources of the Great Lakes or of the communities and resources near 
the other nuclear sites across the country by continuing to underfund 
this important cleanup program. Congress needs to maintain its 
commitment to clean up these sites, and it needs to take proper steps 
to ensure that our communities and our environment remain safe for 
future generations.
  I am proud to work with my friend and colleague Mr. Reed on this 
important issue, and I urge support for this bipartisan amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I would 
like to recognize the strong advocacy of the two gentlemen from New 
York who just spoke--the gentleman from Buffalo as well as the 
gentleman from Corning.
  Our bill provides $213 million for non-defense environmental cleanup, 
only $6 million below the request, to provide for the environmental 
cleanup of a number of small sites, including the West Valley 
Demonstration Project in New York, Brookhaven and the gaseous diffusion 
plant sites.
  The total funding requirements of this account have come down as 
cleanup milestones have been accelerated ahead of schedule because of a 
large infusion of funding from the Recovery Act. This amendment goes 
beyond the

[[Page 11057]]

base funding needs and attempts to sustain the higher rate of cleanup 
under the Recovery Act. Understandably, they'd like to continue that. 
We know that the levels of spending in the Recovery Act cannot be 
sustained. We must transition these sites to a lower, stable and more 
sustainable level as the Recovery Act work is completed and those 
dollars are less. Further, this amendment seeks to decrease funding for 
our national security activities.
  This bill provides strong support for the nuclear security activities 
at the NNSA. It will take a skilled and talented workforce to 
successfully carry out these challenging and absolutely vital 
activities. Last year's lower level for the Office of Administration 
assumed that NNSA would use $20 million in existing prior year balances 
to help pay its personnel costs for the year. These balances are now 
used up, and funding must return to the base level requirements of $420 
million. This cut would result in layoffs, which would make it 
jeopardize NNSA's ability to carry out its nuclear security 
responsibilities.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's yielding, and would join 
in his opposition to the amendment, reluctantly, as the chairman 
indicated.
  I certainly do understand the concern of the two gentlemen who have 
offered the amendment, the concern regarding cleanup in the State of 
New York and elsewhere; and do share their concerns that we are not 
adequately investing and cleaning up contaminated communities where we 
do as the Federal Government have an obligation.
  I also do point out that, given the constraints faced by the 
subcommittee, I believe that the chairman has made wise choices, the 
best that he could, relative to the spreading of resources; and join in 
his opposition to the amendment. Obviously, we would like to continue 
to work together to see that adequate funding at some point is provided 
for these and other programs.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into 
a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, the Office of River Protection was created to put a 
focus on the 53 million gallons of wastes in the 177 underground tanks 
at Hanford in my district in Washington. These wastes are being 
retrieved from the tanks and are being prepared for the waste treatment 
plant where they will be vitrified and ultimately sent to Yucca 
Mountain.
  For years, DOE was clear that a steady, stable annual funding level 
of $690 million would allow for the successful completion and hot start 
of WTP. The department has, however, changed its mind and would prefer 
to front load funding. I have been clear that, even without increasing 
the total project cost, spending in excess of $690 million a year at 
the waste treatment plant now will have impacts on the funds available 
for other projects, including the work at the tank farms.
  The waste treatment plant is dependent on two critical elements aside 
from its own budget: first, a robust program at the tank farms to get 
the waste ready to feed WTP on time and, second, Yucca Mountain.
  I appreciate the provisions in this bill to help halt the 
administration's illegal shutdown of Yucca Mountain, and I ask that you 
work with me to ensure the correct balance of funding is provided when 
it comes to the waste treatment plant and the tank farms within the 
Office of River Protection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, it has been a pleasure to work with 
you and to have the opportunity firsthand to see some of the remarkable 
things that have been occurring in your congressional district in 
Washington State in terms of cleanup and the enormity of these problems 
that you're trying to address.
  Overall, we've seen some considerably poor planning for the 
Department of Energy's cleanup activities, including the very 
politically motivated termination of the Yucca Mountain project.
  My colleague understands his constituents well and how these issues 
impact the overall plan to clean up Hanford's tank waste, which is 
considerable. I support and salute his leadership. As we move into 
conference, I will work with you. I promise to do that to achieve the 
appropriate balance between the waste treatment plant and the tank 
farms so that these projects are properly coordinated.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman, and I appreciate his visiting Hanford.
  I appreciate the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for 
visiting Hanford; and of course, I appreciate the ranking member of the 
full committee, who had had a great deal of interest on this issue 
prior to my even coming to Congress.
  I appreciate the work that the committee has done in the past, 
because this is a project that has legal requirements. In these 
difficult times, I am very pleased with the work that you have done.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions, and other activities of title II of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954, and title X, subtitle A, of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992, $449,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 
     and not more than $150,000,000, to be derived from the 
     barter, transfer, or sale of uranium authorized under section 
     3112 of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-10) or 
     section 314 of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103), to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That proceeds from such 
     barter, transfer, or sale of uranium in excess of such amount 
     shall not be available until appropriated.

                                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 49 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance and 
     one bus, $4,800,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                  Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Holt

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

       Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $42,665,000)''.
       Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $42,665,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this bill H.R. 2354 reduces the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science from about $43 million below this year's 
level. My amendment would restore that funding so that the Office of 
Science can sustain its current operations.
  I know the subcommittee chair, my friend from New Jersey, and the 
ranking Democrat, my friend from Indiana, understand very well the 
importance of this office of the Department of Energy, and I know 
they've worked hard

[[Page 11058]]

to fit their bill into the budget constraints; but I must ask them to 
join me in taking another look at this office.
  Scientific research lies at the very heart of the national innovation 
system that keeps us competitive, that enhances our quality of life, 
that fuels our economy, and that improves our national security. The 
Office of Science is the Nation's primary sponsor of research in the 
physical sciences. Its funding helps maintain America's first-rate 
workforce of research scientists and engineers, who are working daily 
to address some of the greatest challenges and to push the boundaries 
of existing knowledge.
  Thousands of graduate students and early career scientists at 
hundreds of U.S. institutions, the next generation of America's 
scientific talent, depend on the support of the Office of Science for 
their research and training. In addition, the office maintains 
excellent, unique user facilities that are relied on by more than 
25,000 scientists from industry, academia and national laboratories to 
advance important research that creates jobs today and that could lead 
to entire industries tomorrow.
  The success of the Office of Science clearly shows the quality and 
the importance of the work supported there: MRI machines, PET scanners, 
new composite materials for military hardware and civilian motor 
vehicles, the use of medical and industrial isotopes, biofuel 
technologies, DNA sequencing technologies, battery technology for 
electric vehicles, artificial retinas, safer nuclear reactor designs, 
three-dimensional models of pathogens for vaccine development, tools to 
manufacture nano materials, better sensors--on and on.

                              {time}  1940

  The Office of Science has been the source of hundreds and hundreds of 
innovative technologies. Some have become the underpinnings of modern 
scientific disciplines and have revolutionized medicine and energy and 
military technology.
  The America COMPETES Act--passed in a very bipartisan vote here in 
Congress in 2007 and signed into law by President George Bush--
recognized that we have underfunded our basic research agencies for far 
too long, and it laid out a vision for doubling the funding at our 
research agencies, including the Office of Science. This law was 
reauthorized last year. The bill we are considering today woefully 
underfunds the office by this national goal.
  Matching last year's funding level with an additional $42.7 million, 
as my amendment would do, is the least we can do. Many dozens of 
organizations, universities, and companies have joined to advocate 
strongly for maintaining the current level of work for the Office of 
Science. My amendment is fully offset by transferring funding from the 
nuclear weapons account, which receives an additional $195 million in 
the underlying bill before us today.
  So let's get our priorities straight. Investments in our Federal 
science agencies and our national innovation infrastructure are not Big 
Government spending programs that we cannot afford; they are the 
minimum downpayments for our Nation's national security, public health, 
and economic vitality. All this talk down the street now about how 
we're going to grow, this is it. We cannot afford to postpone this 
research.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to salute my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt) for not only his career in science but, obviously, his focus as a 
Member of Congress on science and science research and so many areas.
  In order to increase funding for science research, his amendment 
decreases funding for weapons activities. Our Nation's defense relies 
on a reliable and effective nuclear deterrent, and these capabilities 
cannot be allowed to deteriorate.
  There is now a strong bipartisan consensus for the modernization of 
our nuclear stockpile. It is a critical national security priority and 
must be funded. With a reduction of nearly $500 million from the 
request, this bill has already made use of all available savings. 
Additional reductions would unacceptably impact our ability to support 
our Nation's nuclear security strategy.
  Further, the amendment would use these reductions to increase funding 
for science research. I am a strong supporter of the science program, 
he knows that. It leads to the breakthroughs in innovations that will 
make our Nation's energy sector self-sufficient and keep America 
competitive as a world leader of cutting-edge science. This is why we 
worked so hard, the ranking and I, to sustain funding for this program. 
But within the realities of today's fiscal constraints, which we all 
know, we cannot simply afford to add more funding to science research, 
especially when it means risking crucial national defense activities.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I rise to speak in favor of the Holt-Bishop amendment to 
support funding for the Department of Energy Office of Science. This is 
a vital investment in the Nation's future.
  We have tough decisions to make about where to make cuts. And 
certainly there is a lot of opportunity to cut things that aren't 
effective that we can't afford to continue with, but we don't want to 
cut things that are integral to our future. And an investment in 
science, in research and technology, that is the future of this 
country.
  We're not going to compete with the rest of the world on wages. We're 
not going to compete with the Third World on wages. We have to compete 
in the area of productivity. And we can't be the most productive nation 
on Earth unless we invest in science and technology.
  I have a letter here from the Energy Sciences Coalition in support of 
Mr. Holt and Mr. Bishop's efforts that talk about the need for 
scientific research, world-class user facilities, teams of skilled 
scientists and engineers that are funded by the Department of Energy 
Office of Science at universities and national labs around the country. 
Economic experts have asserted as much, crediting past investments in 
science and technology for up to half the growth in GDP in the 50 years 
following the end of World War II. At this time when we're being 
challenged by other nations for our leadership in science and 
technology, this is not the right time to disinvest from this vital 
research.
  The amendment by Mr. Holt and Mr. Bishop is supported by countless 
associations of physics and chemistry, countless universities and 
institutions of higher learning--my own University of California 
campuses at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Merced, Riverside, San Diego, San 
Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz, but also around the country, 
from the University of Chicago to U.S.C. to the University of Tennessee 
and the University of Virginia, all over the Nation, not to mention 
Princeton University. And why? Because these institutions of higher 
learning have been leading the way in path-breaking developments that 
have just boosted our economy and our understanding of energy and the 
world around us.
  So this is a vital investment in the future, and I urge support for 
my colleagues' amendment.
                                        Energy Sciences Coalition,


                            Task Force on American Innovation,

                                                      May 6, 2011.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: As members 
     of the Energy Sciences Coalition and the Task Force on 
     American Innovation, we write today to urge you to make 
     robust and sustained funding for the Department of Energy 
     (DOE) Office of Science a priority in the Fiscal Year 2012 
     Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
       We recognize the difficult challenges and choices you face 
     as you work to reduce the

[[Page 11059]]

     federal budget deficit, get the economy growing again, and 
     create jobs for the American people. However, to achieve 
     these goals, Congress must make strategic decisions and set 
     priorities when it comes to federal funding.
       We believe that the scientific research, unique world-class 
     user facilities, and teams of skilled scientists and 
     engineers funded by the Department of Energy Office of 
     Science at universities and national laboratories are 
     critical to long-term economic growth and job creation. 
     Economic experts have asserted as much, crediting past 
     investments in science and technology for up to half the 
     growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the 50 years 
     following the end of World War II. Yet today, other nations 
     such as China, India, and Europe are increasingly investing 
     in their scientific infrastructure and are challenging U.S. 
     leadership in areas such as supercomputing and energy 
     research with the goal of capitalizing on the many 
     technological advances and economic benefits that result from 
     scientific research.
       That is why we urge you to support the request of 
     Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Representative Rush 
     Holt (D-NJ) to the House Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Subcommittee to make strong and sustained 
     funding for the DOE Office of Science a priority in fiscal 
     year 2012. They articulate how important the DOE Office of 
     Science is to American industry and universities, how it is 
     unique from and complementary to the research efforts of 
     other federal research agencies, how it serves to educate the 
     next generation of scientists and engineers, and how research 
     funded by the DOE Office of Science has made our nation more 
     secure, healthy, competitive, and prosperous.
       In light of current budget constraints, and with an eye 
     toward creating jobs and strengthening the economy, we urge 
     you to sign the Biggert-Holt letter and support making 
     funding for the DOE Office of Science a priority in fiscal 
     year 2012.
           Sincerely,
         Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America 
           (ASTRA); American Association for the Advancement of 
           Science; American Chemical Society; American Institute 
           of Physics; American Mathematical Society; American 
           Physical Society; American Society of Agronomy; 
           American Society for Engineering Education; American 
           Society of Plant Biologists; Americans for Energy 
           Leadership; Arizona State University; ASME; Association 
           of American Universities; Association of Public and 
           Land-grant Universities; Battelle; Binghamton 
           University, State University of New York; Biophysical 
           Society; Business Roundtable; California Institute of 
           Technology; Cornell University.
         Council of Energy Research and Education Leaders; Council 
           of Graduate Schools; Cray Inc.; Crop Science Society of 
           America; Federation of American Societies for 
           Experimental Biology (FASEB); Florida State University; 
           General Atomics Corporation; Geological Society of 
           America; Harvard University; Iowa State University; 
           Jefferson Science Associates, LLC; Krell Institute; 
           Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Materials 
           Research Society; Michigan State University; NC State 
           University; Oak Ridge Associated Universities; Ohio 
           State University; Princeton University; Semiconductor 
           Equipment and Materials International.
         Semiconductor Research Corporation; Society for 
           Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM); 
           Semiconductor Industry Association; Soil Science 
           Society of America; South Dakota School of Mines and 
           Technology; Southeastern Universities Research 
           Association; SPIE, the International Society for Optics 
           and Photonics; Stanford University; Stony Brook 
           University, State University of New York; Tech-X; 
           University at Buffalo; University of California System; 
           University of California Berkeley; University of 
           California Davis; University of California Irvine; 
           UCLA.
         University of California Merced; University of California 
           Riverside; University of California San Diego; 
           University of California San Francisco; University of 
           California Santa Barbara; University of California 
           Santa Cruz; University of Central Florida; University 
           of Chicago; University of Cincinnati; University of 
           Pittsburgh; University of Southern California; 
           University of Tennessee; University of Texas at Austin; 
           University of Virginia; University of Wisconsin-
           Madison; Vanderbilt University; Washington University 
           in St. Louis.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in support of the gentlemen's amendment.
  While I have stated many times in committee as well as on floor 
debate that I applaud the chairman's bringing funding into the science 
account almost to where we were in fiscal year 2011 and have described 
it as a not insignificant achievement, adding these $43 million to 
bring it into parity with current year spending is not asking too much 
and, as the previous speakers have indicated, is very important to 
making an economic investment in knowledge and jobs that we so 
desperately need in the United States.
  In the committee report we indicate that, relative to the Office of 
Science, understanding that harnessing a scientific and technological 
ingenuity has long been at the core of the Nation's prosperity. We talk 
about that national prosperity linkage to scientific research and 
curiosity. I also, relative to the concerns the chairman expressed 
about the weapons account, think that that important priority will not 
be adversely impacted by the shift of funding called for in the 
amendment.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. The Holt-Bishop amendment would increase the 
Office of Science budget by $42.7 million, reducing the National 
Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activities program by the 
same amount, putting the Office of Science in line with the FY 2011-
enacted levels, protecting jobs and supporting American innovation 
through scientific discovery.
  The Office of Science is crucial to scientific innovation, which is a 
key component of American job creation and a cornerstone of our 
Nation's long-term strategy for economic growth.
  How many times have we heard Members of Congress from both sides of 
the aisle come to this floor and espouse the benefits of innovation on 
job creation? How many times have we heard from both the current 
President and past Presidents talk about moving our Nation forward into 
the 21st century where technology and scientific advancement will 
fortify our Nation's economic growth?
  The Office of Science within the Department of Energy, including our 
national laboratories, is one of the most powerful tools the Federal 
Government has at its disposal to promote scientific innovation, to 
support private industry advancements, to foster medical breakthroughs, 
and to gain a better understanding of the world around us.

                              {time}  1950

  I am proud to represent Brookhaven National Laboratory, a Department 
of Energy lab and one of the largest employers in my district. BNL is 
also ground zero for many of the scientific discoveries and innovations 
that have expanded our understanding of physics and nature, many of 
which have a direct link to developing new materials for industry, more 
effective drugs, and better fuels, the intellectual capital that 
private industry thrives upon.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Republican policies embodied 
within H.R. 1 would have slashed $1.1 billion from the Office of 
Science, choking off Federal investment in basic research that is key 
to our Nation's long-term competitiveness. These draconian cuts would 
have impacted each DOE national lab with a 30 percent cut to every 
science facility and program from the FY 2011 request level. The number 
of jobs that would have been eliminated as a result of H.R. 1 is 
estimated to be close to 10,000 in the Office of Science. How can any 
reasonable person argue that laying off thousands of the most highly 
trained, highly skilled scientists the world has to offer moves this 
Nation forward?
  The Holt-Bishop amendment would hold the Office of Science spending 
at FY 2011 levels. This is the minimum level of appropriation required 
for this Nation to remain at the cutting edge of scientific innovation, 
which is essential to our economic competitiveness which, in turn, is 
directly linked to what ought to be our number one priority in this 
Congress--job creation. I encourage my colleagues to support the Holt-
Bishop amendment.

[[Page 11060]]

  I will also be including in the Record a list of the 2010 Fortune 100 
companies which delineates those companies relying upon Office of 
Science facilities to deliver their products.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Royce

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

       Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would decrease the allocation 
of the Department of Science and the Department of Energy budget by $10 
million. And let me give you an example of what $10 million is used 
for, by way of example, in this department. There's $10 million for 
appropriating money to methane hydrate research and development.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I was once a capital projects manager and I 
understand the impulse to invest in technologies that are going to have 
a payback, that are going to provide a return. But to do that, not only 
do you have to be able to figure out whether or not it's possible to 
get that payback, but it has to be a viable alternative when compared 
against other competing alternatives. And that's what I want to speak 
to here.
  The government here in the U.S. has already spent $155 million on 
research and development commercialization for this technology, for 
methane hydrate, over the last 5 years. Taxpayers do not need to 
subsidize the gas hydrate industry to find equivalent alternatives to 
replace oil. We are at $100-a-barrel oil. There is already enough 
financial incentive in the commercial market to research methane 
hydrate if it, in fact, were a viable energy option. I just have to 
tell you, no one has tried to extract methane hydrates in a commercial 
way because it is not economical.
  Think about this for a moment: It is only found in the Arctic. It is 
only found offshore. It's essentially methane gas compressed under 
high-pressure conditions at great depths. And basically the point here 
would be, you'd liquify it.
  The reality is there are real hazards of developing gas hydrates. And 
because it's such an incredibly hazardous substance, I can't foresee 
gas drilling and production operations adopting this scenario, 
especially when you consider all of the other fossil fuels that would 
be utilized first before such a technology would ever be deployed. 
You've got oil shale. You've got oil sands, tar sands. You've got the 
existing conventional deposits of oil under capped wells.
  Now, with every one of these challenges, a solution could be found 
much more economically in terms of extracting energy than you would 
ever find by producing energy from natural gas in this particular 
methodology. So the government has spent 10 years researching and 
developing ways to extract methane hydrates. We are still at a very 
primitive phase.
  As I have shared with you, it is very hazardous if we were ever to 
deploy such a technology. There is a long list of alternatives which we 
certainly would go through first before we ever got to this. So it is 
time to eliminate the funding that can be appropriated toward methane 
hydrate research and development and use that more productively.
  And let me make one other observation about this. We are in a 
situation now where we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. 
When we identify an area of the budget where we can make these types of 
savings, we should be cognizant of the fact that this type of 
borrowing, this sheer amount of borrowing has an impact not only on job 
creation, on economic growth, but also basically on the long-term 
solvency of the government.
  If we're running up debt at these levels and we find areas in the 
budget to slice off these sums, we can bring down that deficit. The 
impact on the market is such that the market sees us ratcheting down 
expenditures to come back into compliance with economic reality. And as 
a consequence of that, we avoid some of the adverse impacts that come 
with the overborrowing--as I indicated, 40 cents on every dollar--the 
overborrowing that is creating the kind of uncertainty in this economy 
today in which employers are reluctant to go out and hire, in which the 
impacts are not just felt in the jobless rates that we just saw climb 
up here in the United States but are also filled in the way in which we 
are perceived internationally in terms of our capacity to deal with our 
debt.
  Now is the time to make some commonsense decisions here, and here is 
$10 million that can be saved.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman 
from California, but I do recognize and agree with his view in terms of 
the economy but not the purpose for which he rises.
  My colleague's amendment would eliminate methane hydrates research at 
the Department of Energy. This is a good example of a program that 
would not be otherwise funded by the private sector and has the 
potential to make a significant contribution to our Nation's energy 
needs.
  Vast quantities of methane gas are stuck in frozen deposits deep at 
the bottom of the ocean and in the Arctic permafrost. Some of these 
deposits may evaporate over time and escape into the atmosphere. If we 
can understand how to use these resources rather than letting the 
methane float away into the air, we could tap a vast new natural gas 
resource and prevent large quantities of methane from entering the 
atmosphere.
  The research for this is too risky for industry to do. The science is 
too difficult for there to be an economic return. That is a proper role 
of government, research the private sector cannot do that can 
substantially reduce our dependence on foreign imports while inventing 
new science and technology that puts America in the lead.
  I, therefore, respectfully rise to oppose the amendment and urge 
other Members to do so as well.
  I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding, and would join him 
in his opposition to the amendment.
  I would make a general observation. The gentleman's amendment would 
cut $10 million from the Office of Science. When you look at a $4 
billion budget, your first impression might be it is of little 
consequence as far as the overall scientific research in this country. 
But I would point out that in fiscal year 2010 the account was for 
$4.904 billion. In fiscal year 2011 it was reduced to $4.842 billion. 
For, prospectively, 2012 it's reduced another 43. The gentleman's 
amendment would increase that reduction by almost 25 percent for the 
coming fiscal year. And I do think it is time to say ``no,'' and let us 
apply ourselves to serious scientific research.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and appreciate the chairman 
yielding.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, when I was just listening to my

[[Page 11061]]

colleague on the other side talking about this is a small amount of 
money, I just did a town hall meeting in Thomson, Georgia, just 
recently. A lady there got up and said to me, ``Dr. Broun, a million 
dollars is a lot of money.'' And we here in Congress talk as if a 
million dollars, or even a billion dollars, is not a lot of money, and 
it is to the citizens of this country.
  We cannot continue down this road of, as Mr. Royce was saying, of 
borrowing 40 cents on every dollar that the Federal Government spends. 
It's creating tremendous uncertainty out there in the economic world. 
And this debt is going to be crushing to us.
  I believe we are in an economic emergency. So cutting $10 million for 
a project, though it might be interesting--I am a scientist, I am a 
physician, I have a science background--there are a lot of things that 
would be interesting to research and interesting things to do. But just 
like a business when it gets overextended, what's it do? It lowers its 
borrowing limit. Then it starts trying to work out that debt. Then it 
starts looking at every expense that it has, every corner of its 
expenses, and tries to cut expenses. Besides that, then they start 
looking at revenue.
  Now, my Democratic colleagues and the President want to raise taxes 
to increase the revenue, but that actually is a tax that will drive 
away jobs. In fact, I have got a lot of businesses, small as well as 
large, in my district that tell me the tax burden today is so high that 
they are not hiring new people. And increasing taxes on small business 
is going to further drive away jobs from this country.
  So cutting $10 million may not sound like a lot to Members of 
Congress, but I am going to support this amendment. I urge its 
adoption.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Broun. I will only take a minute here to 
close.
  You know, I am also for pure research in science. I am for scientific 
research where we can drive progress in the United States. But as I 
shared with you earlier, I am a former capital projects manager, and 
one of the things you learn is to identify those projects which have 
some ability conceptually to have a return on investment. All right? 
When you run into a project which is not only on the face of it 
uneconomical, but one which is hazardous, and on top of that you see a 
listing of all the ways in which you would extract energy at much less 
cost than you would ever get to this, and it would be the very last 
resort on the list, you would not keep that on your list of capital 
projects to entertain. And I can tell you this. If you were constricted 
in your budget, especially if you were going out and borrowing 40 
percent on the dollar for your budget, you would certainly take this 
off the list of capital projects that you would commit to.
  So I commit to you, it is only logical at this point that we pass 
this amendment and we incrementally at least make progress where we 
know we can on reducing the borrowing and send back a little vote of 
confidence to the market that all of us here, when we see an 
opportunity, are going to shave back Federal expenditures in areas 
where there cannot possibly be a return on that investment for the 
taxpayers of the United States.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I again want to say that 
Members of Congress should do what I am doing, and I believe it's very 
critical for us to do so. I have supported over $5 billion worth of 
cuts in the appropriations bills that we've seen thus far.
  We are in an economic emergency as a Nation. Creating jobs in the 
private sector and putting our country back on good economic course and 
creating a stronger economy and creating more taxpayers by creating 
those jobs out in the private sector is what is absolutely critical for 
the future of this Nation. So even though this may sound like a meager 
amount of money to some Members of Congress, $10 million is still a lot 
of money, and I support the amendment. I applaud Mr. Royce for bringing 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``reduced 
     by $820,488,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $820,488,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts funding within 
the Department of Energy's Office of Science, transferring more than 
$820 million to the spending reduction account. Contained within this 
$820 million reduction are some of the most egregious examples of 
government waste imaginable, such as $47 million for undetermined 
upgrades--undetermined upgrades--$20 million for the energy innovation 
hub for batteries, $4 million for energy efficient-enabling materials, 
and almost $9 million for the experimental program to stimulate 
competitive research.
  In my extensions, I will list a whole lot of other egregious examples 
of government waste that this amendment will cut. These are just some 
of the many examples of duplicative, wasteful examples within the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science that are funded by taxpayer 
dollars that would be cut by this amendment.
  While I believe the Federal Government does have a role in vital 
basic science research, I do not believe the Federal Government should 
be spending scarce taxpayers' dollars on every type of research 
imaginable or suggested here in Congress. Much of the research done in 
the agency should be done in the private sector.
  Tough fiscal decisions have to be made, and they have to be made 
right now. We have put off bringing discipline to the budget and 
appropriations process far too long. Members of Congress need to look 
far and wide through every single nook, cranny, and corner of the 
Federal expenditures and cut wasteful, duplicative spending. And this 
is just an amendment that will cut over $820 million of those kinds of 
projects that we just cannot afford.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  My amendment cuts funding within the Department of Energy's Office of 
Science, transferring $820,488,000 dollars to the spending reduction 
account.
  Contained within this $820,488,000 reduction are some of the most 
egregious examples of government waste: $20 million for Energy 
Innovation Hub for Batteries; $24.3 million for Fuels from sunlight 
Energy Hub; $547,075,000 for Biological and Environmental Research; $8 
million for Solar Electricity from Photovoltaics; $16 million for 
Carbon capture and sequestration; $8 million for Advanced solid-state 
lighting; $4 million for Energy Efficient--Enabling Materials; $10 
million for Methane hydrates; $47 million for Undetermined upgrades; 
$15 million for Energy systems simulation--internal combustion engine; 
$8.52 million for Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research; $4 million for Physical behaviors of materials--
Photovoltaics; 52,741,000 for Chemical sciences, biosciences and geo 
sciences--Solar Photochemistry; $43,003,000.00 for Chemical sciences, 
biosciences and geo sciences--Geosciences; and $12,849,000 for 
Workforce development.
  While I believe the federal government does have a role in vital 
basic science research, I do not believe the federal government should 
be spending scarce taxpayer dollars on all types of research. Much of 
the research done in the agency should be done in the private sector.
  Tough fiscal decisions have to be made now! We have put off for too 
long bringing discipline to the budget and appropriations process.

[[Page 11062]]

  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Energy and Water bill makes available a very limited amount of 
funding for activities which are Federal responsibilities, activities 
such as basic science research and development. This is very early 
stage work which the private sector simply has no profit incentive to 
invest in. It funds cutting-edge research that will be the foundation 
of technology in future decades. This science research leads to the 
breakthroughs in innovation that will make our Nation's energy sector 
self-sufficient and keep America competitive as the world leader of 
science innovation.

                              {time}  2010

  This is why we work so hard to sustain funding for this program. 
Blindly cutting it will not only cut hundreds of more jobs around the 
country; it will put at risk our Nation's competitive edge in 
intellectual property and potentially set back our country's energy 
future.
  I must oppose this amendment and ask other Members to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. The Department of Energy owns world-class facilities 
and researchers, and we should be taking full advantage of these 
facilities and not cut this account to where we are not able to use the 
capital fixed assets we have for this significant request in a 
reduction in funding.
  I would point out to my colleagues, in 2006 President Bush made a 
commitment to double the budget for the Office of Science over a 
decade. The commitment to double funding for research and development 
by President Bush in science and technology was a response to stark 
warnings from a group of government experts and business leaders that 
warned in their report, known as ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' 
that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our 
economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are 
gathering strength.
  I would certainly share the gentleman's concern about some of the 
myriad programs and ensuring that they do communicate with one another. 
He had mentioned the hubs. I had been critical of hubs in my past 
comments.
  He has talked about management. I have been very critical of the 
Department of Energy as far as their project management.
  But I would also point out that in relative terms, I believe that the 
Office of Science, and particularly given the leadership under 
President Bush by Dr. Orbach, who is now at the University of Texas, 
has done a very good job in getting a handle on the Department, 
improving its management skills and trying to do their very best as far 
as the expenditure of these funds.
  For those reasons I do, again, strongly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  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), $25,000,000, to remain available until expended, and 
     to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck

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

       Page 28, amend lines 16 through 19 to read as follows:
       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purpose of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 
     97-425), including the acquisition of real property or 
     facility construction or expansion, $25,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended and to be derived from the Nuclear 
     Waste Fund: Provided, That $2,500,000 shall be provided to 
     the State of Nevada to conduct appropriate activities 
     pursuant to that Act: Provided further, That $2,500,000 shall 
     be provided to the affected units of local government, as 
     defined in Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, to conduct 
     appropriate activities pursuant to the Act: Provided further, 
     That the distribution of the funds shall follow the current 
     formula used by the affected units of local government: 
     Provided further, That $20,000,000 shall be provided for the 
     purpose of research and development in the areas of fuel 
     recycling and accelerator transmutation technology.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, Thomas Jefferson said: ``Laws and 
institutions must go hand-in-hand with the progress of the human 
mind.''
  As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries 
are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with 
the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep 
pace with the times.
  Almost 30 years have elapsed since this Congress passed the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act; and over that time, technology and scientific 
knowledge have evolved and, indeed, new discoveries made, truths 
discovered, and opinions changed.
  But for some reason, Congress still clings to technology from a 
bygone era to address today's nuclear waste issues.
  The fact is, sticking our country's nuclear waste in a hole in the 
ground for long-term storage is a 20th-century solution. Instead, we 
should encourage the use of a 21st-century technology.
  My amendment redirects money from the nuclear waste fund and 
designated from Yucca Mountain licensing and waste storage into the 
development of a 21st-century solution, a fuel recycling and 
accelerated transmutation program. This program would significantly 
reduce the toxicity of nuclear waste and retrieve additional energy 
from the material through radio chemistry and subcritical transmutation 
using accelerator technology.
  Perhaps more important for Nevada, the site of Yucca Mountain and the 
State with the highest unemployment rate in the country, is the fact 
that this 21st-century solution has the potential to create in a single 
generation no less than 10,000 new direct research and development jobs 
utilizing existing regional technology capabilities.
  My amendment also provides continued oversight funding for the State 
of Nevada and the affected units of local government as they have 
received resources to oversee the Yucca program since its inception. 
Even during the most recent continuing resolution passed by this body 
only a few short months ago, funding through the Department of Energy 
continued to provide these resources.
  The U.S. continues falling behind developed and developing countries 
in fully funding and implementing these types of projects, 21st-century 
solutions that are critical to maintaining our Nation's economic and 
technological superiority.
  I urge my colleagues to embrace the future of nuclear waste disposal 
and support this amendment so that this institution may go hand in hand 
with the progress of the human mind and with the change of 
circumstances this institution also advances to keep pace with the 
times.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of 
order, and I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 11063]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I oppose the amendment, but certainly I recognize 
Dr. Heck's leadership on this issue, and I know of what he speaks and 
how proud he is of his State and how determined he is relative to the 
Yucca Mountain project.
  I just want you to know, having been to that site at one point in 
time and seeing the substantial investment there, of course, from many 
other people's perspective, including mine, that substantial investment 
at some point ought to be realized.
  So, understandably, we appreciate and understand where you are coming 
from, and we respect your dedication to your own State's welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment 
attempts to secure additional funding for the State of Nevada. It also 
attempts to stipulate policies for research and development for the 
back end of the fuel cycle, which should properly be authorized before 
they are funded from this account.
  This committee and Members, and many Members, have taken a strong 
position against the administration's Yucca Mountain policy that's well 
known.
  The future of our nuclear waste policy, of course, deserves more 
consideration than this amendment and perhaps this evening would 
afford.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2020


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
on an appropriations bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The gentleman from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that during your 
deliberation on the point of order that you consider the fact that in 
the second session of the 111th Congress, a similar provision was 
passed by this body in H.R. 5866.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--energy

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities 
     authorized by section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act (42 
     U.S.C. 16538), $100,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

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

       Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $79,640,000)''.
       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $79,640,000)''.

  Mr. SCHIFF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous 
consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, my amendment as offered by my colleagues, 
Representative Bass and Representative Fudge, would simply restore 
ARPA-E funding to the fiscal year 2011 level of $179.6 million.
  ARPA-E was created in 2009 to bring the kind of innovative thinking 
that is well known at DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, to the energy sector. That includes a focus on high-risk, high-
reward R&D and a quick-moving culture made up of experts who stay for 
just a few years to ensure that new ideas are continually being brought 
forward. Unlike some government agencies, its philosophy, much like a 
tech start-up, is to hire the best technical staff and then hire the 
managers and leadership that can get the best out of them.
  This reinvention of the way that government does business is 
something that we should be encouraging. A leaner approach adopted from 
the private sector, with a more agile leadership and the mandate to cut 
underperforming research avenues, is exactly what the Department of 
Energy needs. The American Energy Innovation Council, made up of CEOs 
and chairmen of some of America's biggest companies, including Bill 
Gates, Norm Augustine and Jeff Immelt, have proposed spending $1 
billion a year on ARPA-E, seeing it as a vital part of our energy 
future. This bill provides just $100 million, so they endorsed a 
version of this amendment in the Appropriations Committee.
  I recognize that we have a serious deficit problem as a member of the 
Blue Dog Coalition, and we need to deal with it. But as we make the 
difficult choices to do that, I don't believe that as we emerge from a 
recession that we should cut the innovative research that makes America 
great and has fueled our economic growth for generations.
  Energy is not just an economic issue, of course. It is also a 
national security issue. Some of our ARPA-E's research may help us cut 
down on fuel convoys in Afghanistan, and every bit of energy 
independence protects us from even higher energy prices driven by 
either instability in the Middle East or skyrocketing demand from 
China.
  More than 50 universities, venture capital firms and professional 
societies--the Association of American Universities and the Association 
of Public and Land-grant Universities--have signed a letter in support 
of increasing ARPA-E funding. They and I hope that we will provide the 
funds that ARPA-E needs to continue to do the research that will change 
our world, not today, but tomorrow and for decades to come.
  This amendment offsets the increase with a cut to the departmental 
administration account. As many people have noted, the Department of 
Energy has a serious management problem, and perhaps cutting this 
account will send a message that a new approach is needed.
  But this invests in our future. Energy is a national security issue, 
it's an economic imperative, it's a health issue, and it's an 
environmental issue; and to invest in this kind of cutting-edge 
research in a reinvention-of-government kind of an agency is exactly 
the direction we should go. It's a proven approach that has been proven 
in the Defense Department with DARPA. It can work here in Energy. It's 
off to a very promising start, developing new battery technologies 
where we can lead the development of new batteries for electric 
vehicles for another generation.
  I was very moved by a speech from a CEO of Google about a year ago, 
and he talked about how the revolution in energy that is just beginning 
will dwarf the revolution we have just come through in 
telecommunications because energy is a far bigger sector of our 
economy. We want to lead that energy revolution. If we do, the benefits 
to our economic development will be enormous, just as they were in 
terms of the telecommunications revolution. We don't want to see this 
leadership go to China, India or any other nation. But if we're serious 
about it, we need to invest in cutting-edge research. That's exactly 
what ARPA-E does.
  I urge this Congress not to cut back on the Nation's future, but to 
support the innovative work being done by ARPA-E.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 11064]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment.
  My colleague's amendment would add funding to ARPA-E which receives 
$100 million in our bill. Our bill, which reduces funding to nearly the 
2006 levels--may I repeat, 2006 levels--fulfills our top responsibility 
of reducing government spending while focusing funding on a small set 
of top priorities.
  In addition to national defense and water infrastructure, our top 
priorities include research to keep Americans competitive in science, 
innovation and the development of intellectual property.
  ARPA-E is a relatively new program--today we're discussing only its 
second regular fiscal year appropriation--that offers industry, 
university and laboratory grants for high-risk energy innovations. 
ARPA-E is getting positive early reviews for its strong management and 
ability to execute on its mission to drive innovation and keep American 
companies competitive.
  However, I share many of my colleagues' concerns about this program. 
ARPA-E must not intervene where capital private markets are already 
acting, and it must not be redundant with other programs at the 
Department.
  In fact, ARPA-E is still a young program, and it is prudent to 
provide a lower level of funding while it is still maturing as a 
program and demonstrating its ability to address congressional 
concerns, especially when the bill has so many important priorities 
competing for scarce funding. This prudent approach is especially 
warranted when the bill has so many important priorities competing.
  While I support the goal of this new program, I cannot support any 
additional funding at this time. Further, this amendment makes an 
unrealistic cut to the Department's salaries and expenses. We cannot 
cut departmental oversight by 35 percent and expect the efficient use 
of taxpayer dollars and more oversight and more management 
responsibilities. For these reasons and many more, I must oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment and move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. A minute or two ago, I was in the 
Cloakroom and I drew up the Web site for ARPA-E, and it says at the 
top: ``Disruptive and innovative approaches to technology.'' What a 
wonderful thought, that a government agency can be disruptive and 
innovative at the same time.
  Billions of dollars have been spent on coal, on oil research, on wind 
and solar, on biomass and conservation and the FreedomCAR. I got 
involved in the alternative energy business way back in the late 
seventies when I was a staffer when ERDA was created. We had a real 
energy crisis in this Nation as we do today. And yet we're really not 
anywhere nearly as far along this path as we need to be.
  Now, someone in the Congress, in the Department of Energy, had the 
good idea of taking all these ideas for research and creating an entity 
that would be devoted to giving individuals and inventors, people with 
good ideas, that little spark that they need to turn those ideas into 
reality.
  The first time they went out for solicitations, they got some 3,500 
to 4,000 short, 7-page letters describing ideas. This is a program that 
leverages a relatively small amount of research dollars into an 
enormous potential benefit not only to America but to the world.

                              {time}  2030

  But within our boundaries here, we have the objective of lessening 
our dependence on foreign energy, of cleaning up our environment, of 
creating jobs and new economies for Americans. Given the fact that we 
have spent literally billions on the research and development in 
traditional energy resources, all we are asking to do in this amendment 
is to get the level up to last year, $71 million over the suggested 
appropriation of $100 million; $71 million. All that to support an 
agency that, using their own words, provides a fresh look, a flexible, 
efficient way to find new ideas to solve very serious problems in 
America.
  I hope that the Congress will support Mr. Schiff's amendment to add 
this $71 million to keep this program strong, active, and moving 
forward because I think it has the potential to do more than any other 
research program in alternative energy can do today. I urge support of 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have spoken 
on a number of occasions this evening about the need to invest in 
research. In this instance, there is a school of thought that I would 
not argue, that ARPA-E has shown some promise as a new organizational 
model at the Department of Energy. But as I have stated, debating this 
point in the past, I am troubled that the vigor at the Department that 
has led to ARPA and this new idea, singular, has largely been absent 
when it comes to addressing the systemic management and communication 
problems in other existing applied programs.
  The Department had a great idea that I support in creating energy 
frontier research centers. That began in 2009, and we now have 46 
energy frontier research centers doing good work. We now have energy 
innovation hubs. We have a hub for energy-efficient building systems. 
We have a hub for fuels; a sunlight hub. We have a hub for modeling and 
simulation. There is a request approved in this bill for a hub for 
batteries and storage. A hub for critical materials.
  The Department of Energy in 2007 had an idea that we should have a 
bioenergy research center system, and we now have three. We have the 
Joint Bioenergy Institute in Berkeley, California. We have the Great 
Lakes Bioenergy Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin. We have the 
Bioenergy Science Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
  In 1997, the Department of Energy had an idea. We should have a Joint 
Genome Institute. It was established, and now we have one in Walnut 
Creek, California.
  We have what has been described to me as the gems of the intellectual 
power of the United States of America in the various laboratories that 
I have not even enumerated in my remarks.
  Again, given the allocation we have had, there have been cuts to the 
underlying accounts in science and EERE that provide funding for many 
of these research centers. I think before we proceed along the lines 
established in this amendment, we need to make sure that the Department 
understands what their allocation of resources are for what they have 
and what they historically have had to make sure that there is good 
communication, and to make sure that the promise of ARPA is met as we 
proceed down this road before again we start making additional 
significant investments.
  So I do understand and appreciate what the gentleman wants to do 
here. I do support this research to create this knowledge, but it is 
time to ensure that the Department is managing properly and having 
proper communication between all of these other centers first. For that 
reason, I object to the gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank my colleague from California 
for allowing me to join him in offering this very important bipartisan 
amendment.
  As we are discussing fiscal issues and trying to make responsible 
spending cuts, I'm confused as to why ARPA-E is even on the table. It 
is one of the most effective and efficiently run programs in the 
Federal Government. It is an example of what we are doing right. An 
example of a place where we not only should be investing in scientific 
research, but where we need to be investing.
  Let's look at the internet. We all know that the internet is a 
product of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. 
DARPA was established in 1958 in response to the Soviet launch of 
Sputnik. Back then, Congress knew that it was government's role

[[Page 11065]]

to address what was not only a matter of national security, but also 
pride.
  Now, let's look at the energy industry today. We have lost our 
technological lead, we are no longer number one in innovation, our 
competitors are rapidly outpacing us in advanced energy fields. Worst 
of all, we're addicted to foreign oil. Moreover, we are consuming more 
energy than we are producing, and it is not sustainable.
  No matter what combination of sources you think is the answer, 
there's no arguing the energy crisis in this country is today's 
Sputnik. Yet instead of working together to make sure that future 
generations will have electricity, we're voting to ban efficiency 
standards for light bulbs. Where are our priorities?
  Most of us know, and all of us should know, that we cannot rely the 
private sector to invest in basic research. Companies need to make 
profits, and they need to minimize risk. Basic research is risky. 
However, the return on investment is often smaller compared to the 
return to the economy as a whole. That's why it's the role of 
government to make these investments, especially now, as we are coming 
out of a recession.
  Google recently released a comprehensive report which examined the 
potential impact of what breakthroughs in energy technology could mean 
for the United States. They found that certain key innovations could: 
grow the U.S. economy by over 155 billion dollars in GDP per year; 
create over 1.1 million new jobs; save consumers over 942 dollars per 
year; reduce U.S. oil consumption by over 1.1 billion barrels per year.
  ARPA-E will allow us to make the breakthroughs needed for these 
outcomes. If anything, we should be increasing funding for this vital 
program.
  Take, for example, one of the projects that Case Western Reserve 
University is working on in Northeast Ohio. It involves high-power 
titanate capacitors for power electronics. This project will develop 
novel capacitors for power electronics in the hybrid electric vehicle 
and consumer electronics markets. The capacitors are designed with 
metallic glass that allows spontaneous self-repair. This self-repair 
allows the devices to be driven to higher voltages and thereby achieve 
higher energy density. The market for capacitors in power applications 
is 1.6 billion dollars per year.
  Research like this is what will make this country prosperous again. 
We cannot afford to cut this program, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

       Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, for the cost of loan guarantees for renewable energy or 
     efficient end-use energy technologies under section 1703 of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005, $160,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     in this section are in addition to those provided in any 
     other Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 
     1703(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, funds 
     appropriated for the cost of loan guarantees are also 
     available for projects for which an application has been 
     submitted to the Department of Energy prior to February 24, 
     2011, in whole or in part, for a loan guarantee under 1705 of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005:  Provided further, That an 
     additional amount for necessary administrative expenses to 
     carry out this Loan Guarantee program, $38,000,000 is 
     appropriated, to remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That $38,000,000 of the fees collected pursuant to 
     section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 shall be 
     credited as offsetting collections to this account to cover 
     administrative expenses and shall remain available until 
     expended, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2012 
     appropriations from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $0: Provided further, That fees collected under section 
     1702(h) in excess of the amount appropriated for 
     administrative expenses shall not be available until 
     appropriated: Provided further, That for amounts collected 
     pursuant to section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 
     2005, the source of such payment received from borrowers is 
     not a loan or other debt obligation that is guaranteed by the 
     Federal Government: Provided further, That none of the loan 
     guarantee authority made available in this paragraph shall be 
     available for commitments to guarantee loans for any projects 
     where funds, personnel, or property (tangible or intangible) 
     of any Federal agency, instrumentality, personnel or 
     affiliated entity are expected to be used (directly or 
     indirectly) through acquisitions, contracts, demonstrations, 
     exchanges, grants, incentives, leases, procurements, sales, 
     other transaction authority, or other arrangements, to 
     support the project or to obtain goods or services from the 
     project: Provided further, That the previous proviso shall 
     not be interpreted as precluding the use of the loan 
     guarantee authority in this paragraph for commitments to 
     guarantee loans for projects as a result of such projects 
     benefiting from (1) otherwise allowable Federal income tax 
     benefits; (2) being located on Federal land pursuant to a 
     lease or right-of-way agreement for which all consideration 
     for all uses is (A) paid exclusively in cash, (B) deposited 
     in the Treasury as offsetting receipts, and (C) equal to the 
     fair market value as determined by the head of the relevant 
     Federal agency; (3) Federal insurance programs, including 
     under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210; commonly known as the ``Price-Anderson Act''); or (4) 
     for electric generation projects, use of transmission 
     facilities owned or operated by a Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority that have 
     been authorized, approved, and financed independent of the 
     project receiving the guarantee: Provided further, That none 
     of the loan guarantee authority made available in this 
     paragraph shall be available for any project unless the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget has certified 
     in advance in writing that the loan guarantee and the project 
     comply with the provisions under this paragraph.

        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

       For administrative expenses in carrying out the Advanced 
     Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $6,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


            Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       Page 31, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates funding 
for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, 
transferring $6 million to the spending reduction account.
  Mr. Chairman, I am 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry 
producing more fuel-efficient automobiles. However, there is simply no 
good reason that the Federal Government should be subsidizing billion-
dollar companies at a time when our Nation is broke.
  Over the past few years, we have seen the automobile industry receive 
an unprecedented amount of government assistance. We have seen an 
industry bailout, the market distorting Cash for Clunkers program, and 
many more subsidies, all done with little regard for taxpayers' money. 
It is time that we begin to reverse this disturbing trend and let the 
automobile industry succeed or fail on its own merits. We have to stop 
these kinds of subsidies, particularly in these hard times when our 
Nation is in economic emergency. I urge support of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose this amendment. I'm strongly in 
favor of a thriving domestic automotive industry, but I'm sure the 
gentleman knows I have also been critical of the slow pace with which 
the Department has implemented this program.
  In the Homeland Security bill, we trimmed out $1.5 billion for this 
program, which has been sitting unused since 2009. We have put it 
toward flood assistance, where there was a true emergency purpose. But 
we left adequate funding to cover applications already in the pipeline. 
Cutting those off midstream would put at risk, I believe, thousands of 
jobs, and literally billions of dollars of private sector investment.
  Understandably, I know where the gentleman is coming from, but I urge 
opposition to his amendment.

[[Page 11066]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The 
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program supports the 
development of innovation and advanced technologies that create energy 
jobs and reduce our Nation's dependence on oil.
  I believe that this is an energy issue in its truest form as far as 
reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Another observation I would 
make: If the amendment is adopted, it would ensure that we would have 
no oversight, no oversight of the loans that the Department has already 
issued, ensuring that both Congress and the administration would, 
therefore, abdicate their responsibility to protect and ensure that 
taxpayer dollars are used in the manner they were intended and that the 
recipients follow through on the conditions of those loans.
  For these reasons and reasons espoused by my chairman, I again am 
opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  2040

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Departmental Administration

         For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and official reception and representation expenses 
     not to exceed $30,000, $221,514,000, to remain available 
     until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to 
     cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
     others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 
     Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases 
     in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same 
     or greater amount, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for 
     miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $111,883,000 in 
     fiscal year 2012 may be retained and used for operating 
     expenses within this account, and may remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by 
     the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during 2012, 
     and any related appropriated receipt account balances 
     remaining from prior years' miscellaneous revenues, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2012 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $109,631,000.


            Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the 
operating budget of the Office of the Energy Secretary by 50 percent, 
transferring $2.5 million to the spending reduction account.
  I've spent a considerable amount of time on the floor of the House 
during the FY 2012 appropriations process working to find spending cuts 
across every level of the Federal Government and across nearly every 
agency. I understand the challenges that the Secretary of Energy faces 
and the enormity of the Department that he is tasked with overseeing. 
But even the Department of Energy must do its part to reduce the 
deficit.
  We've got to cut wherever we can. The future of our Nation depends 
upon it. Our children and grandchildren's future depends upon it. We're 
broke as a Nation. We have to look into every nook, cranny, and corner 
of the Federal expenditures and find wherever we can reduce 
expenditures, and this is my attempt to continue to do so.
  I urge support of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, if Dr. Broun is insistent, I must 
say that I want to thank him for his amendment and I am willing to 
accept it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

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

       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $35,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $35,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the 
Department of Energy administration account by $35 million and increase 
the Global Threat Reduction Initiative by a $35 million amount as well.
  As cofounder of the House Nuclear Security Caucus, together with my 
colleague Mr. Schiff, I am deeply concerned about the potential nuclear 
security threats and vulnerabilities, and I am committed to 
strengthening momentum on efforts to secure fissile materials and 
prevent the proliferation and misuse of sensitive nuclear materials and 
technologies here and around the world.
  I also want to thank Representative Sanchez for her longstanding 
commitment to this important issue as well.
  Mr. Chairman, nuclear terrorism is a threat so serious in its 
consequences that we often shrink from even contemplating it. But 
ignoring the problem is not an option. There are some relatively 
straightforward steps that we can take to reduce our vulnerabilities, 
and one of these is to strengthen the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative.
  To date, this important program has converted or verified the 
shutdown of 76 out of 200 highly enriched uranium research reactors to 
be converted or verified as shut down by the year 2022. The program has 
removed 3,085 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and plutonium from 
42 countries. The program has eliminated all highly enriched uranium 
from 19 countries and plans to eliminate all of it from an additional 
nine countries by December of 2013.
  These countries--the 19 it was removed from--include Brazil, 
Colombia, Latvia, Portugal, South Korea, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, 
Thailand, Greece, the Philippines, Slovenia, Sweden, Romania, Libya, 
Turkey, Taiwan, Chile, and Serbia.
  In addition, the program has also overseen the removal of 960 
kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Mr. Chairman, that's enough for 
38 nuclear weapons, and this is since 2009.
  It is vital that we work together to transcend any differences in 
this body to prevent our world from sleepwalking to utter disaster. We 
are at a crossroads. The technical advances that have enabled 
transnational communication and cooperation for progress have also 
enabled and benefited individuals and groups bound by ideologies that 
threaten the very foundations of civil society and government. I 
consider it our collective mission to ensure that we succeed in 
controlling nuclear technology and materials to leave a stable global 
environment for generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and Representative 
Sanchez in supporting this important amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 11067]]


  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
and salute the gentleman for his knowledge. He serves on the 
authorizing committee, and we can't argue against the statistics that 
he has proposed.
  I should say for the record that our bill strongly supports our 
nuclear security strategy. It fully funds the 4-year effort to lock 
down nuclear materials around the world and increases funding for our 
other international security efforts, such as enforcing export controls 
and promoting nuclear safeguards.
  With that, I am happy to yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman for yielding and supporting 
the amendment.
  I certainly appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment. I think 
it's very, very important. Certainly I think the most serious threat 
confronting this Nation is that of nuclear terrorism.
  Again, I appreciate the gentleman's work on the issue day in and day 
out, offering the amendment, as well as those who support it. I rise in 
support of it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank 
Representative Fortenberry for working with me along with 
Representative Larsen and Garamendi in order to offer this important 
amendment.
  This amendment is a small restoration of funds in response to a $468 
million cut to defense nonproliferation programs in this bill--
equivalent to an 18% reduction in funding.
  The $35 million would come from the Departmental Administrative 
account.
  This transfer of funding will contribute to reducing the risk of 
nuclear terrorism.
  The danger that nuclear materials or weapons might spread to 
countries hostile to the United States or to terrorists is one of the 
gravest dangers to the United States--nonproliferation programs are 
critical to U.S. national security and must be a top priority.
  The funding for Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) 
specifically supports securing vulnerable nuclear material around the 
world in 4 years, in order to prevent this deadly material from falling 
into the hands of terrorists intent on doing us harm.
  Nonproliferation programs are the most cost-effective way to achieve 
these urgent goals and objectives.
  Last year at the Nuclear Security summit which brought together 
nearly 50 heads of state in Washington, President Obama secured 
significant commitments from countries willing to give up their nuclear 
weapons-usable material.
  The United States must follow through on its international 
commitments to help remove and secure these materials.
  Failing to do so will jeopardize the effort to secure these materials 
in 4 years, result in unacceptable delays and complicate further 
negotiations with countries who have vulnerable nuclear bomb-grade 
materials.
  Specifically, a $35 million increase would prevent delays of at least 
1 year to Highly Enriched Uranium reactor conversions in Poland, 
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ghana, and Nigeria.
  Reactor conversions are directly linked to removal of bomb-grade 
material: removals of vulnerable material from these sites that cannot 
take place until the reactors are converted.
  These countries are among the NNSA's highest priorities to secure 
material, convert research reactors and remove vulnerable HEU.
  These funds would also expedite by 1 year the development of a new 
low enriched uranium fuel for the conversion of 6 U.S. High Performance 
Research reactors that currently use approximately 150 kilograms--6 
nuclear weapons' worth--of highly enriched uranium annually.
  The $35 million will help not only the U.S. fuel development program 
but also our R&D efforts with Russia for conversion of their high 
performance reactors that need this same new type of high density fuel.
  Over 70 research reactors that should be shut down or converted are 
in Russia, and there has been recent progress on converting at least 6 
reactors.
  We are right at the cusp of success in addressing these dangerous 
Russian reactors.
  Cuts to funds now would send a bad message and squander an important 
opportunity to move forward and pursue cost sharing on some of the 
remaining reactors.
  The 9-11 Commission and of the Nuclear Posture Commission noted the 
urgency of addressing this grave danger, with the Nuclear Posture 
Commission warning that ``The urgency arises from the imminent danger 
of nuclear terrorism if we pass a tipping point in nuclear 
proliferation.''
  I urge support for this modest increase of $35 million that will help 
address the risk of delays to the most urgent efforts for removing and 
securing vulnerable materials, stemming from FY11 appropriations cuts.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the 
Fortenberry amendment to increase funding for the NNSA Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation program.
  This amendment, which I cosponsored, provides a $35 million increase 
to the nonproliferation account. Unfortunately, this increase 
represents only a small percentage of the $463 million in cuts to 
nonproliferation in the bill.
  Nonproliferation efforts are vital to our national security. These 
programs ensure that loose nuclear material is secured and prevent 
nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of hostile countries or 
terrorists. To implement drastic budget cuts does very real damage to 
the progress we are making toward these goals.
  Just last year at the Nuclear Summit, President Obama gained the 
agreement from several countries to work with the U.S. in securing 
nuclear weapons-grade material. Through the NNSA Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative, we will work with nations like Poland, Ghana, 
Nigeria, Kazakhstan and others to remove highly enriched uranium and to 
convert their reactors.
  There is no question: taking these steps is very much in the national 
security of the U.S. There are those who would do anything to gain and 
use this material to do significant harm to our troops and our country.
  I am supportive of this amendment, but it represents only a step 
toward the resources that are necessary for this important program.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shimkus

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

       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 20, after the second dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 25, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  First of all, I want to thank my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee. I don't come down to the floor often. This is a special 
occasion and a special time to bring focus on Yucca Mountain.
  As the investigation continues into the shutdown of Yucca Mountain, 
we have heard over and over again that the licensing application should 
move forward and let the science speak for itself.
  The $10 million provided in the bill is a start but too low for the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do anything functional toward 
reviewing the licensing application. In fact, just a few years ago, 
they were receiving nearly $60 million for these efforts.
  In addition, the Shimkus-Inslee amendment--it didn't officially get 
recorded that way, but that was our intent, that Jay Inslee, my friend 
from Washington State, would join me. The amendment adds $10 million to 
continue the Yucca Mountain license application. There is $10 million 
in the bill, and my amendment would take it to $20 million.
  Our amendment is budget neutral and fully offset by taking funds from 
the DOE's departmental administration account. We are asking DOE to do 
more with less by making modest cuts to an account for salaries and 
expenses. And, again, I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for 
helping us find a way to move in this direction. Again I want to thank 
my colleague Mr. Inslee for supporting this amendment.
  I have had a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk to 
me about

[[Page 11068]]

when are we going to have a vote on the floor to show our support for 
what we have done? What we have done historically, in 1982 the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act was passed, 30 years, countless different 
administrations on both sides of the aisle, different control of the 
Chamber here, both parties.

                              {time}  2050

  This has been our consistent policy for 30 years. Now, with Japan and 
Fukushima Daiichi and part of the problem being high-level nuclear 
waste stored in pools, we have to have a centralized location. This 
amendment says let us finish the science to get to the final permit, 
and let that science be the judge. It's providing the money.
  But I will tell you that we have high-level nuclear waste all over 
this country, and we need it in one centralized location. It has been 
our policy that that would be Yucca Mountain--an isolated area in 
Nevada, in the desert, 90 miles from Las Vegas. It's underneath a 
mountain, in the desert, in one of the most arid places in this 
country. If we can't store it there, we really can't store it anywhere. 
As you've heard from my colleagues already this evening, it is stored 
in locations we should not have it.
  Again, I really want to thank the Appropriations Committee for 
helping me through this process. We need a vote. I will call for a 
vote.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois and the 
committee for helping us find a solution to this problem.
  There are really a couple of reasons for this amendment:
  One, there really is a national interest here. We've got 75,000 
metric tons of nuclear waste at 80 sites in 45 States. This is a 
national interest, a national bill, and is an appropriation we need to 
get done.
  Two, my State is particularly acute at the Hanford site, a place 
where we fought World War II and the Cold War, and now we are preparing 
nuclear waste to go to Yucca Mountain--nuclear waste that, essentially, 
will be all dressed up with no place to go if we don't finish this 
project.
  This is a very small step forward, but I do think it's important, not 
just for the $10 million that will help us move forward on the 
scientific assessment of this, but the fact that it will be another 
statement by this House of why we need to move forward. We made that 
statement in 1987. We made that statement in 2002. We made it again in 
2007. This is the way to do it in the appropriations system. It is an 
important statement to make. We've got to continue to push this ball 
uphill until this job gets done.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Shimkus' 
and Mr. Inslee's amendment, and I congratulate them on bringing this 
very important amendment to the floor in this appropriations bill.
  Just across the Savannah River from my district is the Savannah River 
site. I've been over there very many times, and I am very concerned 
about the storage of nuclear materials that are there on the site, and 
that's happening all over this country. We hear people talk about this 
as nuclear waste, but I don't view it that way. In fact, there is a 
tremendous amount of energy in the fuel rods and in the nuclear 
material that's being stored at facilities all over this country. We 
just don't know how to utilize it, and we're just beginning that 
process.
  Some of these fast reactors, small modular reactors, would burn up a 
lot of this nuclear material and would provide energy that is 
drastically needed. Yet, Mr. Chairman, one man from Nevada--a staffer, 
who left from being on staff in the U.S. Senate and went to the 
administration--has, what I consider to be, illegally closed up Yucca 
Mountain. This administration has illegally closed up Yucca Mountain.
  This facility has been studied at great lengths. I'm on the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee, and am the Subcommittee chairman for 
Investigations and Oversight. We've looked at this. We've had hearings. 
In fact, I just recently had a group of people from our local area, the 
Augusta area--and North Augusta, in the South Carolina area of Aiken 
County, where SRS is--testify about what's going on and about Yucca 
Mountain.
  It is critical that we as a Congress do what the law requires. We 
need a central repository. We need somewhere we can store this 
material, not as waste, but we need a repository so that this material 
can be set in a safe, scientifically studied area that won't harm 
anybody. Yucca fits all of those categories. It's the only place in 
this country that does. We can store this material until we can utilize 
it.
  We need to be energy independent as a Nation. Nuclear energy is going 
to be one of the keys of an all-of-the-above energy policy. We, on our 
side, have been fighting for that, and I know some Democrats are very 
supportive of nuclear energy, as I am. I am an ardent supporter of 
nuclear energy, and I think it's absolutely critical in order for us to 
go forward. Yucca Mountain has to be a part of that formula, and we 
cannot close it up. We've spent billions of taxpayer dollars on this 
facility. One man, because he doesn't want it in his backyard, has 
prompted this administration to close it up. We've got to open it up.
  So I congratulate Mr. Inslee and particularly my dear friend John 
Shimkus from Illinois for bringing this amendment to the floor. We need 
to support it. We need to have a vote on it so that we can show how 
important this is to Members of Congress. I congratulate them, and I 
wholeheartedly support it, and hope other Members of Congress will 
support it, too.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I strongly support, Mr. Chairman, the Shimkus-
Inslee amendment.
  This administration's Yucca Mountain policy has been, at best, 
irresponsible with the taxpayers' time and treasure. Most Members in 
this room have voted many times in support of this project. For years, 
we supported it as the law of the land, and ensured that the scientific 
review process continued so we could understand how good the site was.
  Despite more than the $15 billion already spent on the site or the 
more than $16 billion in potential fines that the taxpayer is facing 
because the administration has not fulfilled its responsibility to take 
spent fuel off the hands of so many utilities, this administration has 
persisted in a backroom political deal to shut down the project. Yet, 
despite the administration's best efforts to hide from the public the 
inconvenient facts, we now know that the science does support Yucca 
Mountain as a long-term geological repository. The NRC's review, which 
was virtually complete when the administration pulled the plug, 
apparently shows that the site can safely store the fuel for thousands 
and thousands of years if that is necessary.
  Even in the face of this, the administration hasn't changed its 
position. We can only keep the pressure on and trust that good policy 
and good science will eventually overcome bad politics. We need to 
finish the Yucca Mountain license application so that we as a Nation 
can take into account all of the facts as we determine the future of 
nuclear energy in this country.
  I want to thank the gentlemen, both Mr. Inslee and Mr. Shimkus--
members of the authorizing committee.
  I had an opportunity, as an observer, to attend Mr. Shimkus' 
subcommittee. May I say I was impressed by how the gentleman from 
Illinois questioned the NRC commissioners, and particularly the 
chairman, on some of the very questions the gentleman from Illinois and 
other Members have raised.

[[Page 11069]]

  I want to commend you for your vigor and for your astuteness and for 
coming to the floor with this very important amendment.
  I would be happy to yield, unless he cares to have his own time, to 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's yielding. I would just add 
two brief comments in support of the amendment and of the chairman's 
remarks.
  The administration's attempts to shut this activity down, I believe, 
are without scientific merit, and are contrary to existing law and 
congressional direction.
  I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to 
demonstrate its capability to meet its contractual obligation under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act by addressing the spent fuel and other high-
level nuclear waste at permanently shutdown reactors.
  So, again, I will join in support of the amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman.
  We're going to keep Yucca Mountain open, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2100

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $41,774,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, the purchase of not 
     to exceed one ambulance and one aircraft; $7,131,993,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of such 
     amount not more than $139,281,000 may be made available for 
     the B-61 Life Extension Program until the Administrator for 
     Nuclear Security submits to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate the outcome of 
     its Phase 6.2a design definition and cost study: Provided 
     further, That of the unobligated balances available under 
     this heading, $40,332,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided 
     further, That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that 
     were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear 
     nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one passenger motor vehicle for replacement 
     only, $2,086,770,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the unobligated balances available under 
     this heading, $30,000,000 are hereby rescinded; Provided 
     further, That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that 
     were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                             Naval Reactors

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval 
     reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or 
     otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment, 
     facilities, and facility expansion, $1,030,600,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      Office of the Administrator

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator 
     in the National Nuclear Security Administration, including 
     official reception and representation expenses not to exceed 
     $12,000, $420,000,000, to remain available until expended.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one ambulance and one fire truck for 
     replacement only, $4,937,619,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense, 
     other defense activities, and classified activities, in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, and the purchase of not to exceed 10 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only, $814,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     the Kootenai River Native Fish Conservation Aquaculture 
     Program, Lolo Creek Permanent Weir Facility, and Improving 
     Anadromous Fish production on the Warm Springs Reservation, 
     and, in addition, for official reception and representation 
     expenses in an amount not to exceed $3,000. During fiscal 
     year 2012, no new direct loan obligations may be made from 
     such Fund.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary 
     services pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power 
     area, $8,428,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1944, up to $8,428,000 collected 
     by the Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of 
     power and related services shall be credited to this account 
     as discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available 
     until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual 
     expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses 
     shall be reduced as collections are received during the 
     fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2012 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $100,162,000 collected by the Southeastern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to 
     recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further, 
     That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, for construction and acquisition of transmission 
     lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, and for 
     administrative expenses, including official reception and 
     representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 in 
     carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 
     U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power 
     Administration, $45,010,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), 
     up to $33,118,000 collected by the Southwestern Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern 
     Power Administration:

[[Page 11070]]

     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual 
     expenses shall be reduced as collections are received during 
     the fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2012 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $11,892,000: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $40,000,000 collected by the Southwestern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to 
     recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further, 
     That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area 
                          Power Administration

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7152), and other related activities including conservation 
     and renewable resources programs as authorized, including 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $1,500; $285,900,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $278,856,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the 
     Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a), 
     up to $189,932,000 collected by the Western Area Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area 
     Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2012 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $95,968,000, of which $88,924,000 is derived 
     from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That of the 
     amount herein appropriated, not more than $3,375,000 is for 
     deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Account pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $306,541,000 
     collected by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant 
     to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project 
     Act of 1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses 
     shall be credited to this account as offsetting collections, 
     to remain available until expended for the sole purpose of 
     making purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided 
     further, That for purposes of this appropriation, annual 
     expenses means expenditures that are generally recovered in 
     the same year that they are incurred (excluding purchase 
     power and wheeling expenses).

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $4,169,000, to remain available until expended, and to be 
     derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 
     Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in 
     section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255) as 
     amended: Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of 
     that Act and of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $3,949,000 collected by 
     the Western Area Power Administration from the sale of power 
     and related services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall 
     be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric 
     facilities of these Dams and associated Western Area Power 
     Administration activities: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2012 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $220,000: Provided further, That for purposes 
     of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures 
     that are generally recovered in the same year that they are 
     incurred.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and 
     representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, $304,600,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $304,600,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 2012 shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall be 
     reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2012 so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 2012 appropriation from 
     the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made 
     available in this title for the Department of Energy shall be 
     used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity 
     or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar 
     arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for 
     Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a 
     program, project, or activity if the program, project, or 
     activity has not been funded by Congress.
       (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Department 
     of Energy may not, with respect to any program, project, or 
     activity that uses budget authority made available in this 
     title under the heading "Department of Energy--Energy 
     Programs", enter into a contract, award a grant, or enter 
     into a cooperative agreement that obligates the Government in 
     excess of the budget authority available under such heading 
     for such purpose, or that is properly chargeable to budget 
     authority of a future fiscal year before such budget 
     authority is available, regardless of whether the contract, 
     grant, or cooperative agreement includes a clause 
     conditioning the Government's obligation on the availability 
     of such budget authority.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to major 
     capital projects.
       (c) Except as provided in this section, the amounts made 
     available by this Act for the Department of Energy shall be 
     expended as authorized by law for the projects and activities 
     specified in the text and the ``Bill'' column in the 
     ``Comparative Statement of New Budget (Obligational) 
     Authority for 2011 and Budget Requests and Amounts 
     Recommended in the Bill for 2012'' included under the heading 
     ``Title III--Department of Energy'' in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     to accompany this Act.
       (d) None of the funds provided in this title shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act;
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
       (5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
       (6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by 
     more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
       (e) The Secretary of Energy and the Administrator for 
     Nuclear Security may jointly waive the restrictions under 
     subsection (a) and subsection (d) on a case-by-case basis by 
     certifying to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the national 
     security interest to do so.
       Sec. 302.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used--
       (1) to augment the funds made available for obligation by 
     this Act for severance payments and other benefits and 
     community assistance grants under section 4604 of the Atomic 
     Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2704) unless the Department of 
     Energy submits a reprogramming request to the appropriate 
     congressional committees; or
       (2) to provide enhanced severance payments or other 
     benefits for employees of the Department of Energy under 
     section 4604; or
       (3) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan 
     that covers employees of the Department of Energy.
       Sec. 303.  The unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be available to the 
     same appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with 
     funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter 
     may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
     originally enacted.
       Sec. 304.  None of the funds in this or any other Act for 
     the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration may 
     be used to enter into any agreement to perform energy 
     efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville 
     service territory, with the exception of services provided 
     internationally, including services provided on a 
     reimbursable basis, unless the Administrator certifies in 
     advance that such services are not available from private 
     sector businesses.
       Sec. 305.  When the Department of Energy makes a user 
     facility available to universities or other potential users, 
     or seeks input from universities or other potential users 
     regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a user 
     facility or a proposed user facility, the Department shall 
     ensure broad public notice of such availability or such need 
     for input to universities and other potential users. When the 
     Department of Energy considers the participation of a 
     university or other potential user as a formal partner in the 
     establishment or operation of a

[[Page 11071]]

     user facility, the Department shall employ full and open 
     competition in selecting such a partner. For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``user facility'' includes, but is not 
     limited to: (1) a user facility as described in section 
     2203(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     13503(a)(2)); (2) a National Nuclear Security Administration 
     Defense Programs Technology Deployment Center/User Facility; 
     and (3) any other Departmental facility designated by the 
     Department as a user facility.
       Sec. 306.  Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or 
     made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2012 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
       Sec. 307. (a) In any fiscal year in which the Secretary of 
     Energy determines that additional funds are needed to 
     reimburse the costs of defined benefit pension plans for 
     contractor employees, the Secretary may transfer not more 
     than 1 percent of an appropriation made available in this or 
     any subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
     Act to any other appropriation made available to the 
     Secretary by such Act for such reimbursement.
       (b) Where the Secretary recovers the costs of defined 
     benefit pension plans for contractor employees through 
     charges for the indirect costs of research and activities at 
     facilities of the Department of Energy, if the indirect costs 
     attributable to defined benefit pension plan costs in a 
     fiscal year are more than charges in fiscal year 2008, the 
     Secretary shall carry out a transfer of funds under this 
     section.
       (c) In carrying out a transfer under this section, the 
     Secretary shall use each appropriation made available to the 
     Department in that fiscal year as a source for the transfer, 
     and shall reduce each appropriation by an equal percentage, 
     except that appropriations for which the Secretary determines 
     there exists a need for additional funds for pension plan 
     costs in that fiscal year, as well as appropriations made 
     available for the Power Marketing Administrations, the loan 
     guarantee program under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act 
     of 2005, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, shall 
     not be subject to this requirement.
       (d) Each January, the Secretary shall report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate on the state of defined benefit pension plan 
     liabilities in the Department for the preceding year.
       (e) This transfer authority does not apply to supplemental 
     appropriations, and is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority provided in this or any other Act. The authority 
     provided under this section shall expire on September 30, 
     2015.
       (f) The Secretary shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in writing not less than 30 days in advance of each transfer 
     authorized by this section.
       Sec. 308.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used for the construction of facilities classified 
     as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830 
     unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of 
     Health, Safety, and Security to ensure the project is in 
     compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
       Sec. 309.  Plant or construction projects for which amounts 
     are made available under this and subsequent appropriation 
     Acts with an estimated cost of less than $10,000,000 are 
     considered for purposes of section 4703 of the Atomic Energy 
     Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2743) as a plant project for which the 
     approved total estimated cost does not exceed the minor 
     construction threshold and for purposes of section 4704(d) of 
     such Act (50 U.S.C. 2744(d)) as a construction project with 
     an estimated cost of less than a minor construction 
     threshold.
       Sec. 310.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical 
     decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any 
     successive departmental guidance, for construction projects 
     where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a 
     separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the 
     project for that critical decision.
       Sec. 311.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to make a grant allocation, discretionary grant 
     award, discretionary contract award, or Other Transaction 
     Agreement, or to issue a letter of intent, totaling in excess 
     of $1,000,000, or to announce publicly the intention to make 
     such an allocation, award, or Agreement, or to issue such a 
     letter, including a contract covered by the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary of Energy 
     notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives at least 3 full business days in 
     advance of making such an allocation, award, or Agreement, or 
     issuing such a letter: Provided, That if the Secretary of 
     Energy determines that compliance with this section would 
     pose a substantial risk to human life, health, or safety, an 
     allocation, award, or Agreement may be made, or a letter may 
     be issued, without advance notification, and the Secretary 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives not later than 5 full 
     business days after the date on which such an allocation, 
     award, or Agreement is made or letter issued.
       Sec. 312.  None of the funds made available by this title 
     may be used to make a final or conditional loan guarantee 
     award unless the Secretary of Energy provides notification of 
     the award, including the proposed subsidy cost, to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives at least three full business days in advance 
     of such award.
       Sec. 313.  None of the funds included in this title for the 
     Department of Energy shall be made available to initiate, 
     administer, promulgate, or enforce any ``significant 
     regulatory action'' as defined by Executive Order 12866 
     unless the Committee on Appropriations has been notified not 
     later than 30 days before the issuance of such action.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, for 
     necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the 
     Alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment 
     of the Federal share of the administrative expenses of the 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $68,400,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $29,130,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                        Delta Regional Authority

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and 
     to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta 
     Regional Authority Act of 2000, as amended, notwithstanding 
     sections 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, 
     $11,700,000, to remain available until expended.

                           Denali Commission

       For expenses of the Denali Commission including the 
     purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
     equipment as necessary and other expenses, $10,700,000, to 
     remain available until expended, notwithstanding the 
     limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998 (title III of division C of Public Law 
     105-277): Provided, That funds shall be available for 
     construction projects in an amount not to exceed 80 percent 
     of total project cost for distressed communities, as defined 
     in the subsection (c) added to section 307 of such Act by 
     section 701 of Title VII of the provisions of H.R. 3424 
     (106th Congress) enacted into law in section 1000(a)(4) of 
     Public Law 106-113 (113 STAT. 1501A-280), and an amount not 
     to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.

                  Northern Border Regional Commission

       For necessary expenses of the Northern Border Regional 
     Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle 
     V of title 40, United States Code, $1,350,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall 
     be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding 
     section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

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


            Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       Page 54, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $250,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $250,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Southeast Crescent Regional 
Commission is a Federal-State partnership intended to address the 
economic needs of the southeastern United States, and the Lord really 
knows that we have some economic needs in that area. In fact, in my 
district, we have counties that unemployment approaches or exceeds 25 
percent. But contained within the FY12 Energy and Water appropriations 
bill is $250,000 in funding for this commission. My amendment 
eliminates funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, 
transferring the $250,000 to the spending reduction account.
  Some of you may ask: Why go after such a small amount as $250,000? 
Mr.

[[Page 11072]]

Chairman, here we see a Federal commission conducting work that would 
be better managed by a State agency. This entity is so small that it's 
hard to even find information on how the commission spends hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars. In fact, we can't even find a Web site for this 
commission. We need to look for spending cuts across every level of the 
Federal Government, even if that means finding cuts in the smallest of 
Federal bureaucracies.
  For generations, Americans have been told by Members across the aisle 
that more government, more bureaucracy, and more Federal spending are 
the answers to all of their problems. We're losing our liberty because 
of that kind of philosophy. This line of thinking has removed many of 
our liberties that our Founders intended for us to have. Congress must 
make every effort to roll back the Big Government mentality in 
Washington and allow States to manage their own affairs. Zeroing out 
funding for this commission would be a good step in sending government 
powers back to the States and the people.
  I urge support of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission includes all of the 
counties from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida that are not already served by the 
ARC or the DRA. Though relatively new, this regional commission is 
intended to address planning and coordination on regional investments 
and targeting resources to those communities with the greatest needs.
  Many of these areas covered by this commission suffer from high 
unemployment--10 percent in South Carolina, one of the highest in the 
Nation. Marion County in South Carolina has 19 percent unemployment. 
The county has seen both textile and manufacturing jobs disappear, and 
this economic predicament is similar in much of the area covered by the 
commission.
  As we have seen with ARC investments, investment in regional 
commissions can go toward area development and technical assistance 
goals such as increasing job opportunities, improving employability, 
and strengthening basic infrastructure.
  The conventional wisdom among economists has long been that regional 
approaches can be valuable in addressing developmental situations that 
cannot be addressed simply through local policies. For example, to help 
people in one jurisdiction to find jobs, one may have to create jobs 
for them in a neighboring growth center.
  In recent years regional approaches have gained greater support, 
hence the relative newness of the Southeast Crescent Regional 
Commission, in part because of increased global competition that rural 
communities face.

                              {time}  2110

  When people think of the First Congressional District that I 
represent, because we produce more steel in one congressional district 
than any State in the United States of America, they also miss the fact 
that one of the counties I have the privilege of representing has 9,000 
people in it, another has 14,000 people, another has 23,000. There are 
very rural areas that are also economically stressed and do not have 
those centers of gravity and need that type of tension to try to 
generate some new economic opportunity and jobs, which is why, just 
from my practical experience with the rural counties I have, I do 
believe it is important to continue to work with the commission; and 
that is why I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Please tell me what this commission does. We've looked and looked, 
and we can't find a Web site for them. We can't find anything for them. 
This is my district, what we are talking about. I represent the 
northeast corner of the State of Georgia. In fact, we worked very 
strongly, my staff and I, with the Appalachian Regional Commission, the 
ARC, that the gentleman just mentioned. But we can't find even a Web 
site for this commission. And just having a commission for the sake of 
a commission, even though this would be considered a small amount of 
money, $250,000, to me is a lot of money. And if we add little bits of 
money together, after a while, then we get into bigger and bigger 
funds.
  So I think we need to start looking at getting rid of duplicative 
commissions, duplicative functions of the Federal Government. And this 
is just one--because my staff and I looked to try to find what this 
commission does, what this $250,000 is expended on. We couldn't find 
it.
  I'm for economic development. In fact, in those counties in northeast 
Georgia that I represent, we do have a tremendous unemployment rate. In 
some of those counties, we have 20, 25 percent, maybe even higher, 
underemployment and unemployment rates. So I am extremely, extremely 
cognizant of the need for developing jobs for these areas. But I'm also 
very cognizant that we are in an economic emergency as a Nation; and 
wherever we can save money, I would like to do so.
  I don't know what this commission does. I can't find anything about 
it. So if the gentleman would please tell me, I would be eager to know.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Well, if I could reclaim my time, relative to the 
gentleman's congressional district, I can't speak specifically, except 
to note, again, the commission is relatively new; the dollar amounts, 
relative to the Federal budget, are modest; and we're talking about 
seven States. Perhaps the real value here is that they are spread a bit 
thin and obviously do not have at this point in time a program in the 
gentleman's district.
  But I don't think that that was warranted, given the breadth of their 
responsibilities over seven States, to argue against their demise. So, 
again, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition of the Broun 
amendment to the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
that would transfer $250,000 from the Southeast Crescent Regional 
Commission to the Budget Reduction Account. At a time of high 
unemployment and slow growth, the last thing Congress should be doing 
is killing engines for job creation.
  Commissions similar to the Southeast Crescent Regional are a proven 
tool to help bring vital economic development to some of the poorest 
and most underserved parts of the country. Even before the financial 
crisis, many regions in the Southeast Crescent were suffering from job 
loss, generational problems of poverty and low economic development. 
Many of the counties in the Southeast Crescent, including those in 
states like Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Florida suffer from a high rate of poverty, below 
average income, and chronic unemployment. Since the economic recession, 
these rates have only gotten worse.
  The Southeastern Crescent Regional Commission is based on the 
successful models of the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Delta 
Regional Authority. The Appalachian Regional Commission in its 50-year 
history has successfully reduced the number of counties suffering from 
chronic poverty from 295 to 120--a reduction in high-poverty counties 
by almost 60 percent.
  The Southeastern Crescent Regional Commission will help to leverage 
Federal, state, local and private investments to create jobs and 
eradicate unemployment. Therefore, I vehemently oppose the Broun 
amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page 11073]]

the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     in carrying out the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act 
     of 1974 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, including official 
     representation expenses (not to exceed $25,000), 
     $1,027,240,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the amount appropriated herein, not more than 
     $7,500,000 may be made available for salaries and other 
     support costs for the Office of the Commission: Provided, 
     That of the amount appropriated herein, $10,000,000 shall be 
     used to continue the Yucca Mountain license application, to 
     be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided further, 
     That revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and 
     other services and collections estimated at $890,713,000 in 
     fiscal year 2012 shall be retained and used for necessary 
     salaries and expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 
     2012 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2012 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $136,527,000: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated under this 
     heading, $10,000,000 shall be for university research and 
     development in areas relevant to their respective 
     organization's mission, and $5,000,000 shall be for a Nuclear 
     Science and Engineering Grant Program that will support 
     multiyear projects that do not align with programmatic 
     missions but are critical to maintaining the discipline of 
     nuclear science and engineering.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $10,860,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $9,774,000 in fiscal year 2012 shall be retained and be 
     available until expended, for necessary salaries and expenses 
     in this account, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues 
     received during fiscal year 2012 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2012 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $1,086,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by section 5051 of Public Law 
     100-203, $3,400,000 to be derived from the Nuclear Waste 
     Fund, and to remain available until expended.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

       For necessary expenses for the Office of the Federal 
     Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects 
     pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004, 
     $4,032,000: Provided, That any fees, charges, or commissions 
     received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law 110-140 in 
     fiscal year 2012 in excess of $4,683,000 shall not be 
     available for obligation until appropriated in a subsequent 
     Act of Congress.

                GENERAL PROVISION, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Sec. 401. (a) None of the funds provided in this title for 
     ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Salaries and Expenses'' 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that ---
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act; or
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
       (b) The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may 
     not terminate any project, program, or activity without the 
     approval of a majority vote of the Commissioners of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission approving such action.
       (c) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may waive the 
     restriction on reprogramming under subsection (a) on a case-
     by-case basis by certifying to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that such action is required to address national security or 
     imminent risks to public safety. Each such waiver 
     certification shall include a letter from the Chairman of the 
     Commission that a majority of Commissioners of the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission have voted and approved the 
     reprogramming waiver certification.
       (d) Except as provided in this section, the amounts made 
     available for ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Salaries and 
     Expenses'' shall be expended as authorized by law for the 
     projects and activities specified in the text and table under 
     that heading in the report of the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives to accompany this Act.

      TITLE V--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF

             (including rescission and transfers of funds)

       Sec. 501. (a) Effective on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the unobligated balance of funds in excess of 
     $1,028,684,400 made available for ``Department of 
     Transportation--Federal Railroad Administration--Capital 
     Assistance for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity 
     Passenger Rail Service'' by title XII of Public Law 111-5 is 
     hereby rescinded, and the remaining amount is hereby 
     transferred to and merged with the following accounts of the 
     Corps of Engineers--Civil in the following amounts for fiscal 
     year 2011, to remain available until expended, for emergency 
     expenses for repair of damage caused by the storm and flood 
     events occurring in 2011:
       (1) ``Construction'', $376,000.
       (2) ``Mississippi River and Tributaries'', $589,505,000.
       (3) ``Operation and Maintenance'', $204,927,000.
       (4) ``Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies'', 
     $233,876,400.
       (b) With respect to each amount transferred in subsection 
     (a), the Chief of Engineers, acting through the Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, shall provide, at a 
     minimum, a weekly report to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate detailing the 
     allocation and obligation of such amount, beginning not later 
     than one week after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Each amount transferred in subsection (a) is designated 
     as an emergency pursuant to section 3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 
     (112th Congress).

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence 
     congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
     matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to 
     Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
       Sec. 602.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided, in this Act 
     or any other appropriation Act.
       Sec. 603.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated by any covered 
     executive agency in contravention of the certification 
     requirement of section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 
     1996, as included in the revisions to the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation pursuant to such section.
       Sec. 604.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to conduct closure of adjudicatory functions, 
     technical review, or support activities associated with the 
     Yucca Mountain geologic repository license application until 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reverses ASLB decision LBP-
     10-11, or for actions that irrevocably remove the possibility 
     that Yucca Mountain may be a repository option in the future.
       Sec. 605.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be expended for any new hire by any Federal agency funded 
     in this Act that is not verified through the E-Verify Program 
     established under section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note).
       Sec. 606.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that was convicted (or had an officer or agent of such 
     corporation acting on behalf of the corporation convicted) of 
     a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the 
     preceding 24 months.
       Sec. 607.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, 
     for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been 
     exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a 
     timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority 
     responsible for collecting the tax liability.

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 608.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Broun of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House

[[Page 11074]]

on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
under consideration the bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for 
energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________