Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out just one other thing. The Federal Reserve, not exactly a left-wing pinko, Democratic institution. They have just completed their second study of wealth in this country; and what that showed is that in the 1980's we saw the richest one-half of 1 percent of American families increase their share of national wealth from 24 to 31 percent of the total national wealth. They increased their wealth by $2 trillion, more than twice as much as the national debt went up during that same period. And yet they want to give them more. They want to cut back on programs for working people to give tax cuts to people who make $200,000 a year, and then they want to defend themselves as defenders of the middle class? What a joke.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. OBEY. Which raises taxes for lower-income people. I say to my colleagues, you're real friends of the working folks; aren't you?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 25.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a vote against this rule. There are a lot of things in this rule that I would like to protect. But not at the expense of waiving points of order so that the action that Congress took last year on the California Desert Act can be, by fiat of the Committee on Appropriations' will, reversed. I also do not think that we ought to reverse the Outer Banks Protection Act. I just do not think that we ought to be asked to pay the price for being asked to pay in terms of ignoring our responsibilities to the environment in order to pass this rule. I think if Members are genuinely interested in having a bipartisan approach and a bipartisan rule, they will quit using the appropriations process to accomplish an idiological agenda that would not be possible under normal parliamentary circumstances. I would urge strongly a vote against this rule. We can do better.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the House for their support on the last vote, and I would ask that they continue that support for the next two amendments. This amendment simply cuts $18 million from the nuclear technology research and development program. Mr. Chairman, last year the Congress voted decisively to kill the advanced liquid metal reactor program. It was judged to be too costly at $3.3 billion, and the technology too questionable to continue. The Department of Energy, which has never been able to end a program on its own, sought and received approval from the subcommittee to reprogram $21 million to terminate this program. After receiving approval for this reprogramming, the department reneged on its commitment, terminated only a few people with buyouts, and sought $37 million more in fiscal 1996 to continue to pay the people affected while searching for a new mission for them. [[Page H 6807]] One part of DOE claimed the concept of nuclear fuel reprocessing technology may be a potential treatment for DOE spent fuel, but internal documents from another entity of DOE show that there is no consensus within the department on the use of this technology and, in fact, DOE's waste managers have developed plans for spent fuel which do not involve reprocessing. In fact, their preference is to obtain approval to haul spent fuel in canisters and dispose of it directly in a repository. Opponents of my amendment are sending around a Dear Colleague saying that this program will actually save taxpayers' dollars. But, in fact, the National Academy of Science's report yesterday, on page 412, states that the pyro processing approach would require substantial additional engineering development and construction of major new facilities, and I am quoting now, including what would amount to a sizable liquid metal reactor fuel reprocessing plant to provide feed material, and it would produce a waste form that has not been characterized at all for long-term deposition, and it would probably be unsuitable for emplacement in Yucca Mountain. All of this is, it strikes our panel. They went on to say, As a prescription for long delays and big investments in pursuit of a program for which satisfactory approaches are much closer at hand. It would, therefore appear that the jury is still out, at minimum, on the position of the National Academy of Sciences on the issue of electro refining of spent nuclear fuel. It would also appear that the agenda of those who advocate this funding is to keep alive the possibility of reviving the advanced liquid metal reactor program or a hybrid of it. What is really going on here is that the Department of Energy is seeking funds to keep Argonne National Labs in Idaho and Chicago going until somebody figures out a new mission for them. The Department of Energy was singled out for elimination in the House budget, but the inability of this committee to recommend the termination of this tiny program, I think, is a perfect illustration of the difficulty that people seem to have in going from the general to the specific, when it comes to budget cutting. How on Earth are we to take seriously all of the rhetoric about the necessity to abolish the Energy Department, if you cannot even abolish this tiny little program which most unbiased people recognize is a waste of money and a turkey? Now, what made matters worse is that the committee added $8 million to the original subcommittee mark at the time we met in full committee at the request of the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell]. Now, I have great respect for the gentleman, and I have great respect for the people whom he is trying to defend. But I can recall many an occasion when he has come to this floor saying we should be knocking out congressional pork in other peoples' districts. Well, this is, to me, an example of congressional pork which has no justification. It is an agency and a program in search of a mission. We ought to save this money. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I certainly hope so.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that certainly would be my hope and expectation. We are being asked to go into a markup at this point at 8 p.m., and it seems to me if we are going to have an appropriation subcommittee markup we should not have to be in two places at the same time, so I see no reason for us to continue the session this evening.

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

Mr. OBEY. Half an hour, with three speakers on each side?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pending amendment. Mr. Chairman, as the previous speaker indicated, this is a bipartisan amendment. It is being offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and by myself, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], and by the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther]. This amendment, as has already been indicated, cuts $20 million in the bill for the gas turbine modular helium reactor. This program is a prime example of the continuation of corporate welfare for a mature segment of the nuclear industry for a program with questionable technology. Mr. Chairman, as was pointed out, the Committee on Science recently voted 23 to 15 to kill the program, despite the support of the Chairman of that committee. No funds have been requested for this program by the President for 3 years in a row. That is fiscal 1994, 1995, and 1996. And yet somehow Congress finds room, within a brutal budget for working people, to allocate funds for this program. Over the past 30 years, taxpayers have been asked to spend 900 million smackeroos on gas-cooled reactor programs. And what do we have to show for it? Absolutely zip. Mr. Chairman, as was indicated previously, the only commercial version ever built was in Colorado. That operation had the worst operating record of any nuclear facility. It was shut down in 1990, after it operated at only 14 percent of capacity. And despite the claims of the proponents of this technology about a new design and 50 percent private sector match, the technology is still not proven. The real question is simply whether we are going to continue to fund this program at an eventual cost of $5.3 billion. I would hope not. I would point out there has not been a nuclear power plant successfully licensed in this country since 1974. The nuclear industry itself is lukewarm to this particular type of reactor, and, third, even nuclear advocates admit that there are no utility orders for this type of plant based on this technology that would be placed before the year 2010. So it seems to me this is a little premature. I would simply say that this Congress appears to be all too willing to cut Medicare, all too willing to cut education, all too willing to cut job training programs, all too willing to cut other science, all too willing to cut anything that benefits directly the working people of this country, but when it comes to hardware items, whether it is the F-22, which we do not need until the year 2014, whether it is this or whether it is several other reactor technologies in the bill, evidently the Congress feels comfortable in funding and providing funds for that. I think that represents misplaced priorities. [[Page H 6798]] I would urge you to vote for this amendment. Turn down this project. Save some money, leave a few table scraps for programs that affect the welfare of working people. This is a turkey. It is a boondoggle. It is unaffordable. It is not needed. We ought to kill it and kill it right now.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make four points once again. After the Congress voted to end the advanced liquid metal reactor program, the agency asked Congress for money to terminate that program and to begin to lay off people at the labs associated with that program. [[Page H 6809]] After they got permission from the Congress to do it, the agency then decided they wanted to change their mind. They asked for $37 million to continue employing 900 people at these labs who were going to be doing work on that project. They asked to continue to employ them rather than to terminate them. Yet they do not have any new mission. That seems to me to be a very big waste of money. Second, DOE claims that reprocessing technology might be a treatment that can be used for disposing of spent fuel. But the fact is that internal documents in that very same agency show that there is no consensus within that agency on the subject, and they show that in fact their planners are proceeding ahead under the assumption that their plans for dealing with spent fuel will not involve reprocessing. Third, I will read once again from the report of the National Academy of Sciences released just yesterday entitled ``Plutonium Disposition Reactor Related Options,'' page 412. It says, ``The pyro processing approach would require substantial additional engineering development and construction of major new facilities, and it would produce a waste form that has not been characterized at all for long-term disposition, and it would probably be unsuitable for emplacement in Yucca Mountain,'' which has just been mentioned. They go on to say, ``All of this strikes our panel as a prescription for long delays and big investments in pursuit of a problem for which satisfactory approaches are much closer at hand.'' In plain English, it seems to me that says Don't waste the money. Now, the last point I would simply make is that if you voted for the budget resolution which called for the abolition of the Energy Department, then you have no logical choice, it seems to me, but to vote to end this program. Why on Earth should the country believe that you are serious about abolishing thee Department of Energy if you cannot even vote to abolish a program which the Energy Department itself decided they had to close down and asked permission from the Congress in fact to do so? So if you voted for the budget resolution, which called for the abolition of that department, then how on Earth can you not follow through by voting to abolish some of the tiny programs which that department runs, programs which obviously right now are just spinning their wheels, spending money in search of a mission? Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to defend the taxpayer rather than a piece of pork. I urge Members to vote for this amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Surely. I have no objection.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 23.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would like to follow up and express my agreement with the comments just made by the gentleman from Kentucky. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that I think everyone on this floor is concerned about decent treatment of refugees. Certainly everyone in the subcommittee has demonstrated that over a lifetime. However, I do want to suggest that there is a certain aspect to this amendment that bothers me, because what it in essence is saying is, ``Look, let us take in every possible refugee.'' But when it comes to actually paying for the administration of those programs, they expect somebody else to perform a magic loaves and fishes miracle in order to produce the resources to run those programs in an efficient way. In the real world, things do not work like that. It just seems to me that whether we are asking the State Department to perform miracles with no resources, or whether in fact we are asking local communities who we have largely abandoned to take refugees without having the Federal Government meet its fair share of the cost for retraining and educating and resettling those refugees so that the full burden does not fall on local taxpayers, we have the same sort of unreality here. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is going to accept the amendment. I understand why. However, that does not mean that this amendment does not have significant problems, both in equity and in practicality. I would say we are going to have to do a lot of work in conference to fix it up, because frankly, in its present form, I simply do not agree with it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is really in essence a bipartisan motion. I understand it will be accepted by the committee. It simply clarifies that funds for basic education included under the children's fund may only be used for basic education programs for children. Other basic education programs for adults must be funded through other accounts. The motion has bipartisan support, and I would urge adoption of the recommital motion.