Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to let my colleagues know what a privilege it is to work with Mr. Hobson on the critical issues included in the Energy and Water Development…
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to let my colleagues know what a privilege it is to work with Mr. Hobson on the critical issues included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Mr. Hobson is a superb chairman, and I deeply appreciate his vision and even-handed approach to the work of our subcommittee. I also deeply appreciate the splendid work done by each member of the subcommittee. We have an exceptional membership.
I also would want to acknowledge the fine staff that supports both the majority and the minority: Kevin Cook, Taunja Berquam, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Tracey LaTurner, Dixon Butler, Kenny Kraft, Tony Digiovanni, Debbie Willis and Peder Maarbjerg of my staff. These are all exceptional individuals, and I would point out to the general membership that we will lose Peder Maarbjerg who is my associate staff. He has done not only fine work for myself but for the last several years made an exceptional contribution to the committee and to this country with his very good work.
The bill itself does a good job of allocating scarce resources for sustaining the water infrastructure of our country, maintenance of our strategic deterrent, protecting our Nation from nuclear terrorism, continuing U.S. research leadership, particularly in the physical sciences, and developing energy technology to help us reverse a growing dependence on imported oil.
I will be joining my chairman in support of the bill.
Last year should have served as a major eye-opener as regards the protection of our communities and fellow citizens from the ravages of flooding. Hurricane Katrina may come to rank with the 1927 Mississippi flood as a seminal event in the corps' long history. The corps' responsibilities are multiple, and we should remember that.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a tool in our hands, and we must make good use of it and keep it sharp. Last year, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act began a major program of reforming the financial practices of the corps. This year, we try to continue that process; and I hope that no one will hamper that effort by striking section 102 of the bill.
As usual, there are unintended consequences of such a major reform; and this has been a particular concern of those Members whose projects could not use appropriated funds in past years but are now ready to go and look for restoration of these funds. The bill makes a start at solving this problem by allocating $55 million specifically to fund repayment of donor projects.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like to follow up on the chairman's remarks.
Plutonium, highly enriched uranium and some highly radioactive products of nuclear fission in the hands of terrorists pose the greatest threat to the United States and its people. Accordingly, the recommendation before the committee increases funding for those elements of defense nuclear nonproliferation at DOE that truly address this issue. This bill correctly shifts money that should not be spent on MOX plants to other areas where the funds can be used now to enhance U.S. security.
The Russians will not proceed with their MOX plant unless it is fully funded by other countries in the G-8 at a cost of $2.5 billion. Pledges to date have not passed $800 million. The Russians have stressed to the chairman, as he has pointed out, and myself that they are still fully committed to destroying 34 metric tons of their surplus plutonium. To do so, they are interested in pursuing less expensive approaches in partnership with us and funding 50 percent of the cost themselves.
When it comes to energy policy, the committee's allocation forces our bill to be hundreds of millions of dollars below needed levels. While I applaud the significant increases for biofuels and solar, even in these areas, the budget forces choices between pursuing rapid commercialization of current technology and demonstrating new ones. With the support of Chairman Hobson, conservation technology investments were increased in the full committee resulting in full funding for solid-state lighting, one of the most promising technologies for saving energy; and for the request of the Governor's Ethanol Coalition for development of E-85 infrastructure.
However, I remain concerned that the Clean Coal Power Initiative will have to wait one or more additional years before issuing its next solicitation for research proposals. The Department of Energy has argued that it is too late to include new technologies in the FutureGen demonstration plant, but given the abundance of domestic coal as an energy source, I believe we will be seeking new technologies to improve our use of coal for many years to come.
Our country needs a robust mix of energy sources so that we can adapt rapidly to changes in the world's markets. We as a Nation can innovate our way out of the current energy crisis, but I fear that we are letting a false sense of economy prevent this from happening at the pace required.
Last year, in an effort to move the country forward in developing nuclear power as a domestic source of energy that does not emit greenhouse gases, the Congress provided funds to pursue a competitive process for choosing sites for the integrated reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including interim storage. We as a subcommittee also worked to accelerate the opening of the Yucca Mountain permanent high- level radioactive waste repository, but without success. The administration has responded with a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, and I would like to emphasize the concerns about GNEP expressed in our committee's report.
I do not know whether GNEP will truly help the future of nuclear power. I do know that any benefits from GNEP for the American people are 15 years or more in the future, but the benefits to the DOE labs, whose directors came to Washington for a recent Senate event, might be very immediate.
I appreciate the chairman's supporting a restrained funding level for this program that will provide funds for work to refine the ideas included in the GNEP concept. I believe that the level in this bill is the correct level and will oppose any efforts to make further cuts in this area. Our subcommittee will work with the authorizing committees to ensure that the costs and plans for dealing with the waste that GNEP will generate are understood and are accounted for.
Members should note that the bill requires DOE to submit its GNEP plans to peer review by the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Engineering.
One cannot discuss the issues of spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste without reiterating that Yucca Mountain is essential as a permanent high-level radioactive waste repository. We must continue to support its opening and not give up, even though its opening has been delayed until at least 2017. Through GNEP, we may redefine the waste stream in the future. The character of much of the waste may change, and change so as to lessen the long-term radioactive activity of the waste. But we have today waste of known character awaiting permanent disposal. Of course, I speak of the waste generated by the creation and maintenance of our nuclear deterrent, a deterrent from which we have all benefited.
Last year's cuts to the science account at DOE were estimated to reduce support for 2,200 researchers. This year's funding will increase support for 2,600 researchers. This type of oscillation, however, does not attract bright minds to the research areas DOE sponsors, and a new increase of only 400 researchers over 2 years is hardly a major step forward. But it is a step forward, and I would stress to my colleagues and to the administration that further major increases will be required to support the physical sciences at the level befitting our Nation and its desire for continued economic growth and world leadership.
The bill provides for more staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to enable it to handle an anticipated increase in license applications for new nuclear plants. I also foresee additional regulatory responsibilities for the NRC.
For example, I see the need for NRC to become involved in issues of nuclear safety at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. At many sites, the Department of Energy self-regulates on nuclear safety, and I consider this a foolish approach, even when the Department has the best of intentions. We do not let the private sector self-regulate in matters of nuclear safety, and we should end this practice at DOE as soon as is practical.
So I think you can see how many critical areas for our Nation are included within the scope of the energy and water bill. Again, despite the funding limitations imposed upon the subcommittee, I take comfort from the many excellent decisions embodied in it and from the good that will be accomplished by the people's money we provide for these many programs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.