While nothing is certain in Congress, particularly in an election year, both houses have moved relatively swiftly during the current appropriations process.
For the Energy Department, the House got things moving April 12, when its Appropriations energy and water subcommittee marked up a first draft of the fiscal 2017 spending legislation covering DOE. Since then, both the House and the Senate have moved their DOE spending proposals to the floors of their respective chambers.
Here’s what happened this week:
The Senate on Wednesday began floor debate on its version of the energy and water spending bill, but did not pass the measure. Floor debate was scheduled to resume at 5:30 p.m. Monday, with more votes on more proposed amendments. On Thursday, the Senate turned back a potentially poisonous amendment proposed by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.). The amendment, which called for defunding of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Rule and had nothing to do with DOE’s nuclear complex, on Wednesday drew a veto threat from the White House.
The House, meanwhile, on Tuesday approved its version of DOE’s fiscal 2017 budget for floor debate, although none was scheduled at press time Friday. Floor action in the House is slated to resume at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday. Before floor debate can begin in the House, the House Rules Committee must write the rules for debate — something it had not done at press time.
The table below shows where the House and Senate stand so far on proposed appropriations for DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. Once both chambers pass their respective bills, they will have to reconcile their differences in the conference process before presenting a unified bill for the president to sign.
| FISCAL 2017 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUDGET TRACKER (Figures in millions of $US and may not add up due to rounding) | FY 2016 Enacted | FY 2017 Request | vs 2016 | FY 2017 House Approps | vs 2016 | FY 2017 Senate Approps | vs 2016 |
| Defense Environmental Cleanup | 5289.7 | 5382.1 | 2% | 5227.0 | -1% | 5379.0 | 2% |
| Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup | 255.0 | 218.4 | -14% | 226.7 | -11% | 255.0 | 0% |
| Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund * | 673.8 | -100% | 698.5 | 4% | 717.7 | 7% | |
| USEC Fund | .0 | 673.8 | .0 | .0 | |||
| TOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT | 6218.5 | 6119.1 | -2% | 6152.2 | -1% | 6351.0 | 2% |
| DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL BREAKDOWN | FY 2016 Enacted | FY 2017 Request | vs 2016 | FY 2017 House Approps | vs 2016 | FY 2017 Senate Approps | vs 2016 |
| Closure Sites | 4.9 | 9.4 | 92% | 9.3 | 90% | 9.4 | 92% |
| Idaho | 396.0 | 362.1 | -9% | 382.1 | -4% | 362.1 | -9% |
| Oak Ridge | 239.1 | 198.2 | -17% | 218.3 | -9% | 263.2 | 10% |
| Richland | 922.6 | 716.8 | -22% | 754.8 | -18% | 839.8 | -9% |
| Office of River Protection | 1414.0 | 1487.5 | 5% | 1487.5 | 5% | 1500.0 | 6% |
| Savannah River Site | 1208.4 | 1297.5 | 7% | 1230.4 | 2% | 1268.7 | 5% |
| NNSA/Nevada | 251.3 | 260.4 | 4% | 256.4 | 2% | 270.4 | 8% |
| Waste Isolation Pilot Plant | 300.0 | 270.7 | -10% | 292.7 | -2% | 274.5 | -8% |
| Program Direction | 282.0 | 290.1 | 3% | 290.1 | 3% | 274.5 | -3% |
| Safeguards and Security | 236.6 | 256.0 | 8% | 256.0 | 8% | 256.0 | 8% |
| Technology Development | 20.0 | 30.0 | 50% | 20.0 | 0% | 30.0 | 50% |
| NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL BREAKDOWN | FY 2016 Enacted | FY 2017 Request | vs 2016 | FY 2017 House Approps | vs 2016 | FY 2017 Senate Approps | vs 2016 |
| Fast Flux Test Facility | 2.6 | 2.2 | -13% | 2.2 | -13% | 2.2 | -13% |
| Gaseous Diffusion Plants | 104.4 | 101.3 | -3% | 101.3 | -3% | 101.3 | -3% |
| Small Sites | 87.5 | 53.2 | -39% | 61.6 | -30% | 85.0 | -3% |
| West Valley | 59.2 | 61.6 | 4% | 61.6 | 4% | 66.4 | 12% |
| URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND BREAKDOWN* | FY 2016 Enacted | FY 2017 Request (Proposed USEC) | vs 2016 | FY 2017 House Approps | vs 2016 | FY 2017 Senate Approps | vs 2016 |
| Oak Ridge | 194.7 | 159.4 | -18% | 164.4 | -16% | 194.7 | 0% |
| Paducah | 199.9 | 205.5 | 3% | 205.5 | 3% | 205.5 | 3% |
| Portsmouth | 225.2 | 255.9 | 14% | 272.7 | 21% | 264.6 | 18% |
*For fiscal 2017, the White House proposes to pay for cleanup work at former uranium enrichment plants at DOE’s Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth sites by tapping into the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund (USEC). In the prior fiscal year, this work was funded through the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (UED&D).
In the table above, UED&D funding appropriated for fiscal 2016 is displayed next to the proposed USEC levels requested for 2017. Weapons Complex Monitor believes this gives the reader a clearer picture of the year-over-year funding adjustments the White House believes are necessary for cleanup of the three former uranium enrichment plants.
Neither the House nor the Senate agreed to let DOE use USEC funds. Federal law also currently does not allow DOE to spend USEC funds on uranium enrichment cleanup.
