Dave Hobson

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's support of this important program, and I share his goal in this field. I am disappointed that the Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request did not preserve the increases that this subcommittee provided for this purpose during the past 2 fiscal years. Because of the Department's disregard for congressional intent, the committee provides $30 million of the increase for the Center of Competition Science at Oak Ridge National Laboratory which was selected competitively to build this leadership-class supercomputer. The committee expects the Department to make full use of this laboratory industry capability. Finally, I agree with the gentleman of the importance of this effort and encourage the Department of Energy to make the necessary budget requests in the future to continue this very important effort.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the gentleman's understanding is correct.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOBSON. The gentleman's understanding is correct.

Mr. HOBSON. I do not see any reason for the Secretary to consider making a private site, or a site on tribal land, into a DOE site for interim storage. My intent is for the Secretary to evaluate storage options at existing DOE sites.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 2419, pursuant to House Resolution 291, the amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and considered as the original text for purpose of further amendment.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not support the gentleman's amendment transferring all of the funds proposed for our spent fuel recycling initiative. Our bill, and the administration's budget request, includes $750 million for the Advanced Fuel Recycle Initiative under the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. Among other activities, this program funds research into advanced reprocessing technologies that can avoid some of the shortcomings of existing technologies. Specifically, there are new reprocessing technologies that have the potential to minimize the waste streams of radioactive waste products and also minimize and eliminate the presence of separated plutonium. This country would be foolish to ignore the potential benefits of new technologies. Our bill adds $5 million to this research and directs the Secretary to make recommendations by fiscal year 2007 on advanced reprocessing technologies suitable for implementation in the United States. We also direct that the Secretary establish a competitive process for selecting one or more sites for integrated spent fuel recycling facilities. After running through a nuclear reactor, spent nuclear fuel still contains 97 percent of its energy value, yet we continue to plan to bury the spent fuel underground rather than recycle it, as other countries do very successfully. The current Yucca Mountain repository will be full to its authorized capacity by the year 2010. If we do not look to recycle our spent fuel, then DOE should start tomorrow to expand Yucca Mountain repository or select a second site. In the near term, we direct the Secretary to begin moving spent fuel away from reactive sites and into interim storage at one or more DOE sites. I believe it is essential that the government demonstrate that it will comply with the requirement to begin accepting spent fuel from the reactor sites and begin to move it on the path to disposal in the repository. I strongly oppose living in the past. We have to move to the future. We have to get back into this business. This is safe, this is responsible, and it is the way this country should move forward and not live in the past. Use new technology. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think I need to respond to a couple of comments that were made. First of all, we did not say to put anything in the interim; we said it is a site that should be looked at with all of the other sites. Second of all, this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and I might suggest that if you look around the world, about the only place in the world who has nuclear power that is not reprocessing is us. Everybody else, the French, the Japanese, they are building a plant; the Brits have a plant. Everybody else in the world has stepped up and said, we are going to take care of this waste; we are not going to just bury it in the ground, and we are going to keep using it over and over again. I think it is time for us to look at this policy and change this old, old policy, especially if we have new technology that does not leave us with the type of nuclear weapons-grade plutonium left over, and that is what we believe we are developing. So I think this is a responsible part of the bill and we should move forward and vote the amendment down.

Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HOBSON. That is correct.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for coming forth with this. I understand that red tide blooms are harmful, and a scientific approach, we need to learn more about these ocean events that are an appropriate use of research and development funds. In fact, I was personally involved last Congress in securing the funding that we talked about so we can learn ways to fight red tide. Funds in excess of the budget requests have been provided for worthy research and development activity such as this. And I would hope, since I my grandchildren are residents of Florida, I hope we can get on and get rid of red tide one of these days, and especially as I get older. It affects older people and I visit there, so I want to get rid of it too.

Mr. HOBSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest a couple of things to the gentleman if I might. First of all, if you look at this bill, for the first time in the last couple of years there have been no new starts in this bill going out of the House. And I have limited the number. Even when we have gotten done with the bill, I think we only did five new starts last year. We are trying to get control of this. We have even looked at, sometimes the administration has had new starts and we have taken them out. We have tried to limit the number of earmarks. The number of earmarks for Members' projects this year is down substantially over past years. Frankly, the administration did a better job this year of addressing some of the concerns of Members and of the overall program. I think the gentleman would also be pleased to note that in this bill, for the first time, we are requiring a 5-year development plan for the Corps of Engineers, for example, and the Department of Energy. In that process, when we get that, similar to what we did in the military construction when I chaired that committee, we will, over a period of time, begin to get control of the situation, so that if they do not fit within the 5-year plan, then these projects are not going to be in there. But we do not have that plan in place today. We are trying to make it in place. And I think it is going to make for better, more responsible use of taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. HOBSON. I share the gentlewoman's views on the importance of university research. The committee expects the Nuclear Energy Research Programs to set aside a portion of their funds for university research. The committee will be monitoring the programs, as I am sure you will also, to be sure that the funding is continuing in support of the university research.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HOBSON. I would be happy to.

Mr. HOBSON. I appreciate the concerns that you have expressed and, frankly, it would be my pleasure to work with you going forward to perfect these provisions as we move into conference.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I share the frustration of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) over how the Department has proposed to fund the International Fusion Project at the expense of domestic fusion research, and I will support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).