Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, during the fifties and sixties, we were engaged in what was known as the cold war. We could not build nuclear weapons fast enough, and we surely built a lot of them. Beginning in the eighties and on into the nineties, we got a little more sane. We and Russia and others became somewhat more sane about what to do with our nuclear weapons, and we began to dismantle many of the nuclear weapons we had, as did Russia.

In the nineties, an agreement was reached between the United States and Russia on the disposition--that is, the ultimate disposition and disposal--of the unused, unnecessary plutonium that both the United States and Russia held in their various stockpiles. That was a good thing. You don't want this stuff lying around. You don't want people to get their hands on it, particularly terrorist organizations. So there was a common understanding between Russia and the United States on the disposal of this unused, unnecessary, and extraordinarily dangerous material. The United States undertook to do this in a facility in South Carolina known as the MOX facility, and we have been at it since the late nineties, putting together a facility.

It hasn't gone well. In fact, it has gone very, very badly; and in the recent last 2 or 3 years, the administration has decided that this is not going to work and that the facility as designed should be put in cold storage and there should be a new way of dealing with this issue.

This amendment would instruct the Department of Energy to undertake a very quick and, in my view, a very appropriate process of going out to those entities and businesses and others around this Nation that can find a way of disposing of this very dangerous plutonium, and do it quickly. It calls for a 6-month process in which the Department of Energy would ask for requests for proposals from qualified companies to dispose of this, including the company that presently does it, AREVA, a French company that is currently operating the facility, have them come forward with a redo of their proposal, can they do it, and other companies. I know of perhaps two that can come forward. Get this thing underway so we can once again carry out our commitment in a treaty with Russia to dispose of our plutonium material.

This does not negate the South Carolina facility. In fact, it would hold the South Carolina facility in place and probably lead to the continuation of that facility, perhaps in a new modality, to dispose of the plutonium. That is what it does. It short-circuits--that is, shortens--the time in which the Department of Energy is already moving to do this.

Under their present proposal, I would suggest it would probably be a decade before they decide what to do. But they need a kick in the pants, which this amendment does; get out there, go to the companies that know how to do this, and get it done. It is in the interest of the United States and in the interest of Russia to dispose of this unnecessary, unused plutonium. If we don't move forward this way, we are looking at a decade, in my estimation, a decade before the Department of Energy is willing to make a decision.

So that is what the amendment does. I suspect I am going to get a point of order here, but I would like all of us to consider the alternative of not doing this. If we don't take a program such as I am proposing here, we are going to wind up with this thing just lingering out there, a huge fight with South Carolina saying we want to go forward with AREVA; AREVA is not working; on and on and on.

So I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment and a foregoing of this point of order so we might, as the House of Representatives, take up this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I guess I don't understand the suggested ruling. We are spending a pile of money here. We are going to spend, I don't know, some $12 billion on the path we are on. The bill itself proposes to spend money to keep this project going. The administration says we can't go, it is not working, don't do it.

All my amendment does is to tell the Department of Energy, get on with what you need to do anyway; that is, figure out how to do this. It doesn't spend any more money. In fact, it would spend a whole lot less money than in the present drafting of this legislation, and it doesn't change law at all.

All it does is it directs the Department of Energy to do something, and it specifies how it should be done. That doesn't change law. Well, this whole thing is a law, so the bill itself changes law. So this simply directs how they should carry out their action for which they already have money.

Fine, avoid the issue. Let this thing linger, let it fester and rot, and do nothing. And wait 10 years with this plutonium there while the Department of Energy does what it does best which is to contemplate the future rather than getting things done.

Now we will take up the point of order, and this amendment would fail on a point of order. I would suggest to anybody who cares to listen, this issue has to be dealt with. This amendment does not select a winner or loser and it doesn't change the fundamental underlying law that we have put in place.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of this question.

I think it would be wise to really take a look at the language of the amendment. It basically says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the Bureau to terminate, to implement, administer, or enforce the termination. This is about the Bureau terminating. It simply says the Bureau cannot terminate the contract until this court case is settled.

Is it necessary? It really depends what the Bureau intends to do. I would suspect that the Bureau probably would not move to terminate, but they could, in which case chaos ensues.

There will be a settlement in this court case at some time in the future. We don't know when. It is a very complex case. It deals with biological opinions. It deals with the ESA. It deals with very complex biological circumstances of the fish in the delta. This amendment simply says the Bureau cannot terminate until the court case has been settled. That is it.

Is it necessary? Well, it could be necessary. Therefore, this simply puts in place a requirement that would avoid chaos in the Central Valley Project. That is it.

My colleagues with whom I normally stand side by side in protecting the rivers, I find myself on the opposite side because this amendment needs to be understood in its simplicity and in its potential importance. Therefore, I support the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I would hope my colleague from Idaho, after finishing the excellent explanation I have of this, would withdraw his point of order.

This is about an extraordinary opportunity that the United States has. We have been blessed with a very significant supply of natural gas. We have the technology to obtain that gas, and we also are now looking at the possibility or the reality of exporting that natural gas in the liquefied natural gas form. A facility is already licensed and is in the process of nearing construction on the Texas coast.

This amendment would actually replicate what was passed by the House of Representatives in 2006 and became law with President George W. Bush's signature, which basically said that if we are going to import natural gas, it must be imported on an American-flagged ship.

We will soon be exporting liquefied natural gas, and this is the only step available to me in this forum to replicate what we did in 2006. Now we would at least take a step towards making sure that natural gas is exported on American-flagged ships.

This is a big deal for the maritime industry of America. This is a big, big deal. Because if we fail to take steps along the way to secure the maritime industry, we will see it disappear.

We have the Jones Act, and that is good, but the Jones Act has only held the very minimum. It is 82 ships now. Forty years ago, we had 1,000 ships operating under the American flag, with American sailors and mariners.

If we allow this amendment to go into place, it would simply require that the Department of Energy put in front of other applications those applications that have utilized American-flagged ships in the export of their liquefied natural gas.

It sounds to me to be the right thing to do if you care about America. If you don't give a hoot about American sailors and American ships and the American maritime industry, then brush this aside with the point of order.

Idaho isn't on the coast, but Idaho cares deeply, deeply about the export of American grain on American ships for programs such as Food for Peace and the Jones Act.

This amendment would begin to secure the American maritime industry by simply saying to the Department of Energy: If you are going to approve an LNG export facility, then put first in line that export facility that is going to utilize American sailors, American crews, and American ships. If you care about this Nation's maritime industry, then you ought to be supporting this amendment and my next one, which goes in the same direction.

So I would ask my colleague from Idaho, who controls this debate at this moment, to put aside his point of order and allow the House of Representatives to have a vote on whether they care--all 435 of us--about the American maritime industry and this one little step in providing an opportunity for American-made ships, American sailors, American crews, and the American maritime industry to survive in a very hostile environment, where other countries, like China, and others, subsidize their maritime industry and have literally decimated the American maritime industry.

Let's support Americans. Let's support our industry. Let's have this amendment come to a vote on the floor and let us all see whether we stand with the American Shipbuilding Council and the Navy League and others who do support this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, before we go to the point of order dance, which we seem to be pretty good at, I want to explain why this is an important step. It is not as strong as the previous issue I raised, but it is, nonetheless, a very, very important step in the process of how we are going to export our liquefied natural gas.

As I said earlier, the United States is blessed with a very significant amount of natural gas. Many people raise the question about whether we should export it at all. That question is interesting, but moot because we are going to export it.

We have already had one facility that has been approved and will be soon exporting gas. The question that this amendment addresses is: Will that gas be exported on American ships, with American flags, with American sailors?

As I said with regard to the previous amendment that I brought up, this issue has already been resolved with regard to the importation of natural gas. We are now talking about the exportation of natural gas, and therefore, we would simply do the same thing we do with import--do it on American ships, with American sailors, with the American flag.

There is a reason for that. I explained that earlier. It has to do with our maritime industry. It has to do with the safety of those ships. Let me just tell you that these ships carry an extraordinary amount of natural gas, and should there be an incident, then it could be extraordinarily dangerous in our ports. That is why the original law in 2006 was put in place.

All this amendment does is to set small criteria for what already happens. The Department of Energy does consult with MARAD. They already do the consultation.

This simply says: in that consultation, consider the American flagging of these ships. It doesn't set a requirement. It doesn't set new law. It simply says: when you consult, Mr. Secretary of Energy, with MARAD, then consider the American flagging of these ships. That is it--nothing more.

I have got to tell you that this is important stuff, and that is why the Navy League and that is why the Shipbuilders Council and, as I said, others--I don't have their letters with me today--have said in their letter--and I will read this paragraph--that one proposed amendment would require the Department of Energy, DOE, to consult with MARAD on the availability of U.S.-flagged vessels in processing applications for the export of liquefied natural gas, LNG.

That is it. They support this. Why? Because they see the opportunity for the maritime industry to do in the export what is required in the import. That is it. How this could be ruled out of order, I don't understand, but when that opportunity comes, I intend to take that up also.

Why don't we vote? As Members of this House, why don't we vote on whether we support our maritime industry or not?

I yield the remaining time to my colleague from the great State of Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, keeping in mind your admonition that I speak to the point of order and not to the underlying amendment, I don't believe this changes any existing law; although, the entire bill changes existing law.

This amendment speaks to one part of what already takes place, and that is that the Department of Energy does consult with MARAD on this subject matter. This amendment simply says that the Department, in that consultation, shall consider the issue of availability of American-flagged crude-LNG tankers. It doesn't say you can't go forward. You can go forward. It doesn't say anything about that. It simply says that, in that consultation, take into account this simple issue.

With regard to the point of order, the amendment that preceded my attempt with this amendment did, in fact, change law, but it was not ruled out of order.

Now, I accept the fact that I can't have it my way. In fact, I am one of seven children, and I have never really had it my way. But this is not a substantive or even a minor change in law compared to what preceded this amendment.

Okay. I know I am going to lose this one, but I am not going to give up on this issue. I appreciate the support of the chair on building American LNG tankers, and we will bring that to the appropriate committee at the appropriate time.

In the meantime, Madam Chair, I think you are about to make a ruling.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source