Dave Hobson

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am opposed to the amendment to increase funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. I am very supportive of the nuclear nonproliferation programs in this bill. We provide a significant additional funds for nonproliferation programs aimed at securing nuclear weapons and weapons grade nuclear material in Russia where the threat is really real. We have been there, we have seen it. However, as I have said many times since taking over the chairmanship of this subcommittee, I view with great skepticism the large increases that are proposed by the National Nuclear Security Administration, particularly when these new initiatives are proposed outside the regular annual budget and appropriations process. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative announcement at a press conference in May is a perfect example. All of the individual programs that compromise this initiative are in the nonproliferation budget that we have funded in this bill. These are not activities that are being left out of the Department of Energy's nonproliferation budgets. They are funded at the President's request. I believe we wrote a fair and balanced bill in the nuclear nonproliferation program very well. I do not support changes that are proposed in this amendment. Let me close by saying I support the nonproliferation programs targeted in this amendment. As we prepare for conference, I will work with the interested members to address their concerns, but I reluctantly urge a no vote on the amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment. I know there are a lot of things that one may or may not like in this bill, but we started off with the concept in this bill that we would not do any new starts, no new studies, and there were a number of things where we tried to cut back on because our funds were very limited. And, frankly, the bill we got out of the Committee on the Budget would not have allowed us to do many of the things we did for Members because we were about $400 million short. But due to some shifting around in the Committee on Appropriations, thanks to the staff and the Members, we were able to come up with some money to help Members. So we have done that. Now, even though this looks like a small amount of money, when you add it up, it is a big amount of money and it has a lot of negative effect on a lot of projects. Further cuts would just exacerbate the problems we have tried to do in this finely-tuned bill, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I strenuously oppose this approach to the bill. Part of the problem we have is there is no other vehicle where we can do this. This is a very difficult time in our country. We do not have a nuclear repository available in this country to accept the waste that we have today around the country. To go to the folly, the folly of granting new licenses when we do not have any place to take the material that is in Illinois and move it somewhere and to start granting licenses without a plan in place is not good policy. I do not like having to include this kind of language in this bill, but I think it is important to include it to send a message that the repository is important. The repository is important to the future of this country and the nuclear industry in this country. If we do not start taking a stand on this, then we are going to get things out of whack in this country to the point where we have an even more problem and more costly problem. Right now, many States in this country cannot move their material. They are under lawsuits, there are all kinds of problems. This bill, because of some other problems, does not move forward even in my judgment enough to getting that repository going. So, therefore, this language is put in to send a message. I think taking it out sends absolutely the wrong message in this country and it should be retained in this bill.

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I have not agreed totally with my ranking member, and I understand the chairman's point of order, but we have carried this in our bill for a number of years. We think it has been very productive to carry this in our bill. As far as I know, in the past it has not been challenged and to do so now I think sends the wrong messages. But I understand the Chairman's feeling that this is legislating on appropriation bills. I think sometimes that may be necessary. Maybe we ought to figure out a better way to work with him.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOBSON

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

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have been very generous to a lot of the accounts in here. Some of the accounts we have taken money away from that are being stripped out here. I would oppose this amendment. Nonproliferation is very important. Over the years we have continued to fund nonproliferation, even sometimes when the accounts were carried very high. I think this amendment is not meritorious at this time; and, therefore, I oppose the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I agree. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her support and her inquiry. I would assure her that nothing in the bill or the report would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from returning funds to donor projects. In fact, as the gentlewoman has observed, the bill report includes language that specifically instructs the corps to be as diligent in returning funds as it has been in reprogramming them. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her inquiry and hope this clarification has worked to address her concerns. The ranking member and I have undertaken a very strong look at the reprogrammings in the Corps of Engineers, much more so than in past years, and we are making them report to us, and we are signing off on them, and we are watching these much more diligently than we had been in the past, and we think it will work out much better in the future.

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

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would just like to state that I appreciate the amendment offered by my colleague from Colorado. I happen to agree with the gentleman about this agency. I think it is one of the biggest pork- barrel projects we have here. When I was on the Committee on the Budget with John Kasich, we tried to do away with this. However, there are a lot of people that like to give their Governors the ability to do these pork-barrel projects; and, therefore, I do not think this amendment will pass, even though I would probably vote for it. So I appreciate the gentleman withdrawing his amendment. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask for approval of the amendment. This restores the language for one year in the bill.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of the bill through page 42, line 6 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to oppose the amendment to increase funding for the renewable energy program. Everything we did in the major renewable accounts, with the exception of the hydrogen program, which were reduced because the Department ignored congressional guidance on competition and cost sharing, is at or above the President's budget request. While I am supportive of the renewable energy programs, there are many other areas of the bill I would have included additional funds, if possible. However, the committee's allocation was tight and we had to make some tough decisions. I believe we wrote a fair and balanced bill, and the renewable energy programs did very well. I might point out that I have already taken a hard line in our committee with the nuclear weapons computer programs, and additional major reductions, I do not think, are helpful or necessary at this time. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.