Dave Hobson

Mr. HOBSON

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

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

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) for a colloquy.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition also to the gentleman's amendment. This is not personal between me and the gentleman, and I hope it wouldn't be when I get over too, because I am really opposed to this amendment, and I am really in support of the chairman on this, because this is something we have worked on for a long period of time. I know the administration and some Members, those from New Mexico, are not pleased with the cuts to the weapons program. I have heard from the other body, and they may claim these funding reductions somehow threaten our national security. I also recognize it is politically convenient to move money from a so-called bureaucracy in Washington to what is portrayed as a field- level purpose. Sorry, folks, but I don't buy either of these arguments, and I strongly believe this bill puts our nuclear weapons programs in the proper perspective. I have been a member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for the past 5 years, and I have personally visited every single nuclear weapons lab, plant and site in DOE's complex, and I honestly can't tell you how much our national security is protected, whether we fund the nuclear weapons account at $6.5 billion, $6 billion, or even $5.5 billion. And I certainly can't tell you what benefit we will gain by adding $192 million back to the weapons program and devastating NSA's management office, as the gentleman proposes. I also sit on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as does my chairman, and we both are all too aware of the funding shortfalls in the conventional defense area to believe that nuclear weapons are somehow a higher security priority. So after years of looking at this from virtually every angle, I can tell you definitively that what we need is a national strategy for nuclear weapons and a clearly defined set of military requirements that is derived from that strategy. Then, and only then, will NNSA be able to lay out what a modern weapons complex, capability of producing a specified number of reliable replacement warheads will look like. In the meantime, we have many nuclear nonproliferation priorities that need to be addressed. This will have real security benefits today, not at some weapons design lab tomorrow. This bill balances our national security needs by making the prudent recommendations on weapons we have discussed and by putting an additional $398 billion above the President's request towards defense nuclear nonproliferation activities. These funds will play down the risk of nuclear smuggling by improving programs such as the elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production; international nuclear materials production and cooperation; second line of defense and cooperation; MegaPorts; MegaAirports; and global coordination among domestic security agencies, such as DHS and foreign governments. Furthermore, these additional funds will support the implementation of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank, a priority for security experts ranging from National Security Advisor Steve Hadley to former Senator Sam Nunn to the leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Getting our national security priorities right is what this bill is about, and it is a rational approach I wholeheartedly support. But let's call it what it is. This amendment isn't really about national security. It is all about jobs at these DOE weapons facilities. In particular, the Los Alamos National Laboratory is in the gentleman's State of New Mexico. This lab has held a preeminent place at the Federal trough for years, and now fears the loss of jobs because of this bill's recommended funding levels. Los Alamos has the largest number of employees of any DOE field site, with employees who receive the highest level of compensation, and a lab that has the highest overhead rate of any DOE operation. All told, Los Alamos receives close to $2 billion a year from our bill, plus additional reimbursement of work from other agencies. And I cannot tell you what we get in return for that investment. I do know that Los Alamos has chronic management problems, and I can read a long litany of security failures, safety accidents and costs and schedule overruns brought to you by the 9,000 highly paid folks at Los Alamos. Don't let anyone tell you that these problems are a thing of the past. DOE just informed us this week of yet another security screwup at Los Alamos, and this is after a number of others. Given this track record, do we really believe adding another $192 million will improve security? I would argue our national security might actually be improved by cutting 1,800 jobs from a facility that can't seem to manage sensitive information. We would have a lot less people to watch. The bottom line is that gutting the office of the NNSA Administrator by reducing its funding by almost half will undermine any chance of the NNSA actually managing the weapons and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Does the gentleman expect us to believe that jobs in New Mexico are more important than the overall national management of these sensitive national security programs? So I am, you can tell, opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I believe the priorities are misguided. The weapons program has no clear strategy of a way forward. And this bill report addresses the shortcomings with its prudent funding recommendations and bold direction. I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I wish to associate myself with the chairman's comments. I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. And while they say miracles never cease, this is living proof. Despite my frustrations with the leadership of the Department of Energy, and they are great, I am rising to oppose the gentlewoman's motion to cut the DOE's Departmental Administration and make a case for why they need the level requested by the President. For too long, DOE has been stuck in a quagmire of mismanagement, operating devoid of leadership and vision. But cutting funds that are critical to the successful management of our Nation's energy programs, especially at such a critical time in terms of our energy security, I think is a foolish time to do that. A cut of close to $30 million to this account will cost far more in terms of our Nation's energy needs than the good message it might send. So don't be misled by the gentlewoman's argument that cutting $28 million in discretionary funds in this account will reduce the deficit. It might. But I think it will do the opposite. It will undermine DOE's efforts to oversee climate change research, improve the use of renewable energy, and provide national scientific leadership. But DOE, I hope, is listening today and gets the message. They need to get their act together, and I agree with the fact that they don't have their act together. But I don't think this is the way to get their attention at this moment. But if I thought it was, I would agree with the gentlewoman, because I believe the intent here is more than just to cut the deficit. It is to wake them up to get some reasonable management in that quagmire that is over there and just answers to the other body's needs all the time for additional spending. So it is unfortunate, but I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Nevada's amendment, as he might expect and as his colleague might expect. At some point we all have to go beyond parochial politics and do the right thing for the entire Nation. This is a NIMBY approach: ``not in my backyard.'' Under any scenario you might imagine, from the construction of new nuclear power plants to shutting down all existing plants tomorrow, from continuing with the once-through fuel to cycle to beginning to recycle our spent nuclear fuel, we will need the first repository at Yucca Mountain. If we pursue recycling, we can avoid the need to build eight more Yucca Mountains, but we still need that first repository. The Federal Government has a statutory and contractual obligation, already adjudicated in the courts. It is costing us money by not getting it operational on Yucca Mountain. But this is not solely a question about what to do with commercial spent fuel. One-tenth of Yucca's capacity by weight, and up to one- third of its capacity by volume, is dedicated to defense spent fuel and high-level waste. Without Yucca Mountain this material will stay put in places like Hanford, Idaho, Savannah River, and West Valley. Many of these sites already have enforceable cleanup agreements requiring these materials to be shipped off to the geologic repository. I would like to think we don't need a repository, but we do need a repository. We need it now, not 100 years. We need to move forward with this. And my real desire is that we won't have to build eight of them someplace and certainly not in Nevada. But we have got to finish this one off. It is a waste of taxpayers' money not to do it. I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation based on that understanding.

Mr. HOBSON. I don't think they want a new rule. I think the point is they don't want to go back to Rules again to bring the supplemental material back into the bill at the later date, and that is basically the earmark provision of the bill. Am I correct?

Mr. HOBSON. Well, I don't think they want a new rule. I think they just want the understanding that there will be the provision that comes forth with the supplemental material coming into the bill. That was the understanding I thought was reached in the UC. Am I correct?

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I need a point of clarification on the amendment here on the UC. It's my understanding that this says that no amendment to the bill will be offered except the following; but that there will be another UC later that will come forward that will allow the additional supplemental, to allow that to come into the bill at a later date. Am I correct on that?

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, most of the $142 million proposed as an increase in the account would support research and development of carbon capture and sequestration technology. No matter what energy future one believes in, fossil fuels will play a significant role. This increase would fund the R&D that we've simply got to do to isolate the carbon and store it to reduce emissions.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).

Mr. HOBSON. Taking back my time, I would point out to the gentleman from Florida that we do have the capability, and we do understand Generation 3, 3\1/2\. Where we need to go is beyond that and look at Gen IV. That's what we're trying to do in the bill now, and that's why we oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. I yield.

Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana to answer the question.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The bill includes a $33 million cut to Nuclear Power 2010. While that level may be difficult for some to accept, I fully support it. Nuclear Power 2010 was designed to facilitate industry decisions to build and operate new nuclear power plants in the U.S. And that would be great for America. We need a dramatic increase in reliable, safe baseload energy; and I would much rather see it come from nuclear energy than from coal plants. Unfortunately, most of the funding that we have provided for Nuclear Power 2010 doesn't go to help industry figure out our untested regulatory process or to identify new sites for plants. Most of the funding in this account has been provided to support the work of reactor designers. There is little uncertainty about reactor design. It doesn't need our support through this program. And there's really no such thing as struggling mom-and-pop reactor design teams. But I do know that we must continue to support design for the next generation of reactors. This bill does just that. It increases our support to the Gen IV nuclear design program by $79 million. That's where nuclear R&D should be funded, not from Nuclear Power 2010. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment. I yield additional time to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the amendment to reduce funding for the Corps of Engineers operation and maintenance account. I confess that I don't understand this amendment beyond its superficial attempt to reduce bottom-line spending. This country has already expended billions of dollars in our water resources infrastructure. Much of that infrastructure is quite old and needs major rehab. I would invite any of the Members around that want to go and look, go look at the dams and the locks and the rivers that we have and look at the aging infrastructure that is there. As any responsible homeowner knows, much of critical maintenance is penny-wise and pound-foolish if you put it off. The same maxim applies to our Nation's water resources infrastructure, though with a much larger role at stake. And if we get it wrong, much more than just dollars are at stake. A large part of the failures that caused such a devastating loss of life and property in New Orleans came from inadequately maintained flood control projects. We cannot afford to make this mistake again. Even the President said we have got to increase O&M. The President dramatically increased O&M. What I hear from everybody here is, well, they're always right down there. Well, they're not always right down there. They have never put the right amounts in this bill to begin with when it comes to energy and water, especially the water side. So I oppose this amendment. Cutting funding for operation and maintenance for the Corps of Engineers is foolish and irresponsible at this time.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. There are no new projects in this bill because there are no new projects proposed in the bill at this point. There could be later. I would hope not. And I want to tell you, we also in the past took out the President's new starts too, not just the Congress's. We took out the President's.

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

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of the amendment to reduce funding for the Corps of Engineers construction account. And let me give you some perspective on this. This account is already chronically underfunded by the administration, and it has been in the past. And there's already a backlog of several billion dollars of Corps construction projects. Projects already underway, I'm going to talk about one here, just to give you an example of what happens, such as the Olmsted Lock and Dam, wind up costing far more and taking far longer to complete because of funding constraints in this account. The subcommittee is trying to do the responsible thing by dedicating sufficient funds to address this backlog. Our priority is on completing projects that are already underway and limiting new starts. And I can tell you there were a lot of Members when I was chairman that got really ticked off at me, especially new Members, because they had new starts and we wouldn't do them because we said we've got to finish what we've got before we go on to other things. The Olmsted Dam, an example. It was supposed to be completed in 20 years and for a cost of $700 million. Because we didn't do it and fund it right, and money was taken and put into other accounts, that's now grown to $1.5 billion to finish this very needed dam on the Ohio River. And the project still isn't done. We don't have the money to fund all that they could use on this project in any one year. Part of the problem is that this Congress, over the years, keeps adding projects to our account, and then we don't fund them, or we fund them partially, and the cost goes up. I think it would be irresponsible, at this point, with the things that we've put into effect, to stop new starts, to complete projects and get them finished and stop this cost growth, to take this money out now. Frankly, this is one account where I think we could have used more money over the years and we could have done a better job. He is right when we talk about Sacramento. Sacramento, those levees were built years ago, some of them by farmers, some of them by we don't know who. And they haven't been maintained to the degree they should be maintained. And it's a problem waiting to happen. We're trying to take responsible steps, but we've run into the red tape and stuff. The Corps is trying. We've tried to do some things with the Corps. We're continuing to improve the Corps. Frankly, 4 years ago when I became chairman, there were a lot of things wrong with the Corps that we've made right. I think the Corps is doing a much better job today. They've got a lot of new management techniques that we're using that they weren't doing in the past. I'll give you an example. When I became chairman I asked to see their vision for this country and the waterways. They didn't have one. We asked them, What is your 5-year development plan for the waterways of this country? They didn't have one. But they do now. Now is not the time to stop them, because under Chairman Visclosky, and previously, we've started to do the right thing to stop this cost increase and to get this under control. And frankly, if we would take this amendment, we would do great damage to the infrastructure or the future infrastructure of this country. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.