Skip to main content

The Story Told by Failed Amendments

house As we’re sure you know from Schoolhouse Rock, when a bill goes through committee, members can propose amendments to enhance this aspect or that of the given legislation. In the House, amendments are sent to the Rules Committee and accepted or rejected there, not in committee or on the floor. The Senate does it in committee and again in the full chamber, where it can become a bit of a free-for-all. (The amendment process is where a lot of pork can get into a bill, but also a lot of good refinements.)

In the process surrounding the 2010 Appropriations bill in the House, this is an opportunity for Republicans to get their priorities into mostly Democratic-written legislation (and also Democrats not on the Appropriations committee) – it was, of course, the other way around before 2006 – and hope the amendments are not then voted down by the Rules committee.

We’re not Congressional historians, but we suspect the element of show is important here, and most amendments from the opposition get voted down. But don’t quote us – we can’t say that this is really true.


With that preamble out of the way, let’s look at some of the nuclear-related amendments that were knocked down by the Rules committee. They’'ll give you a sense of where the nuclear argument is going, even if not quite getting codified yet.

We’ve listed the sponsor and amendment number.


Directs Department of Energy funds to Yucca Mountain. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)


Would prohibit funding from being used to administer the Department of Energy's "Yucca Mountain Youth Zone" website. [This one was withdrawn.] Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)


Would reduce funding for energy efficient building research by 5% and redirect that sum to the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.  Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.)


Would prohibit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from relicensing a nuclear power plant that has had one or more major leaks in buried pipes that are part of the plant's safety system during the last calendar year. Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.)


Would increase by $115,717,000 funding for D.O.E. Defense Environmental Cleanup, offset by a reduction in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.)


Would insert a sense of Congress that nuclear energy should be considered to be renewable energy for the purposes of any renewable portfolio standard. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)


Would strip all Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions from the bill. Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.)


Would strike section 310 of the bill, which adds Davis-Bacon requirements to the bill. Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.)


Would increase by $76 million funding for Nuclear Waste Disposal, offset by eliminating the Appalachian Regional Commission. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)


Would increase by $76 million, funding for D.O.E. nuclear energy activities, offset by eliminating the Appalachian Regional Commission. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)


Would prohibit funds from being used to collect funds for Nuclear Waste Fund if the President does not first publish in the Federal Register a notice certifying Yucca is the selected and permanently designated site for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.)


Would prevent funds from being used to terminate the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. Rep. Aaron Schrock (R-Ill.)


Revised Would increase funding for Nuclear Waste Disposal by $80 million, offset by a $1.5 million cut to Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), $1.5 million cut to Central Utah Project Completion Account, $1.8 million cut to Department of the Interior Policy and Administration, $23.573 million cut to Strategic Petroleum Reserve, $11.263 million cut to Energy Information Administration, $17.041 million cut to Department of Energy Departmental Administration, and a $24.6 million cut to FERC Salaries and Expenses. Rep. Aaron Schrock (R-Ill.)


Would provide $70 million for the Department of Energy's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, offset by reducing funding for the Office of Science by the same amount. Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.)


Would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to delay or terminate construction or permitting of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)

As you can see, there’s a bit of mischief here, but mostly reasonable items.They provide a sense of how future budgets might treat nuclear energy and some of the elements surrounding it, most particularly Yucca Mountain and the question of used nuclear fuel.

You can see what the Davis-Bacon Act is about here. Rep. Mack really doesn’t like this act and last month introduced with Rep. Steve King the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act. You can read about that here.

The two Democratic entries are minor: we suspect DOE will do something about the first without prompting and the second is an attempt to do away with Indian Point – Hillary Clinton took a run at this goal during her time in the Senate. We don’t know why the Appalachian Regional Commission is targeted for elimination by Rep. Neugebauer – nothing about it on his Web site.

Your House of Representatives.


Ruth Sponsler said…
The Davis-Bacon Act just means that Federal contractors can't get away with paying $7.25/h ($1160/month assuming 160 hours of work/month) in locations where the cost of rent for a small apartment is $1500/month.

In other words, if the cost of living in a region is so high that the prevailing wage is higher than the national average, contractors are required to meet the prevailing wage for the region.

This is primarily for projects in locations with high housing costs, such as California and the Boston-New York-Washington urban corridor. Chicago and Seattle would probably be affected also, because costs are pretty high in those cities. Las Vegas is expensive, but rural Nevada has lower housing costs.

Most parts of Florida actually have living costs only slightly above the national average, so I'm not sure why Rep. Connie Mack has his knickers in a knot about this issue, other than that he cares not about the needs of the worker-bees to be able to pay their rent or mortgage.

I think some of the Yucca Mtn. amendments are reasonable, but the thing against the Davis-Bacon act is not. It's just another swipe against hard-working Americans.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…