Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2007

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 24, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Boy, there is more rhetoric on this floor about GNEP and what is going on there than I have heard in quite some time. The fact is the Federal Government has the responsibility under the Nuclear Policy Act to take care of the byproduct of this stuff. Those people who use energy that is partly produced by nuclear energy have been paying a tax in order that the Federal Government would build a repository and finally take control of this. If you want the byproduct, the waste product of nuclear waste to be handled by private companies and have them in control of it, then I think you are asking for big problems.

For years, I have been asking the Federal Government, the Department of Energy, to give us a vision of what they see as the future of energy development in this country and how we are going to supply the baseload needs in this country. GNEP is the first comprehensive forward-looking plan for nuclear energy development that I have seen come out of this or any administration in decades. It takes into consideration the entire fuel cycle, from the mining uranium to final disposition of spent fuel.

It will render civilian nuclear material unusable in nuclear weapons. I will repeat that: It will render civilian nuclear materials unusable in nuclear weapons. It will use much of the energy in the fuel rods that is left behind now. And GNEP promises to make Yucca Mountain the only repository our Nation will need for the final disposition of spent nuclear fuel.

If you believe that global warming is a problem, if you believe that we can't afford to shut down nuclear power plants today that contribute over 20 percent of our electricity, and I suspect much of it in Massachusetts, the gentleman's home State; if you believe that we can't shut that down and that it makes sense to provide our baseload with an emission-free type of energy, such as nuclear power, and if we don't pursue GNEP, then we better start looking and debating on this floor where we are going to put Yucca II, Yucca III, Yucca IV, and Yucca V, because that is what is going to happen.

The simple fact is, most Americans now support nuclear energy, and most Americans know that we can't meet our growing energy needs without it. I urge you to defeat this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill does in fact cut $49.7 million to State grants.

This cut was done for several reasons: to fund the higher congressional priorities that were cut by the administration; in reaction to a DOE IG report regarding the implementation of the program; and an assessment of what the grant program is adding to energy research and development, the mainstay of the DOE portfolio.

The IG report did say DOE does not know if the program is working. The IG report did say that States aren't sure what energy savings are coming from these State grants. The IG report did say that the States have large uncosted balances, and aren't spending the money that they do get in the grant and award process. The IG report did say energy savings proclaimed by proponents can't be tracked to State grants solely. They may be from other programs that we do support, like weatherization.

But I want you to know that the IG report did say that given the broad goals of the program, funds were being spent consistently. However, I would contend we ought to look at what the States can spend this money on and do: State employee salaries, travel and administrative supplies. In fact, of the States examined by the IG, 66 percent had administrative costs in excess of 29 percent to as high as 57 percent, but these are allowable under the grant statute.

Finally, I would contend that these grants may have served a useful purpose 20 years ago to raise the consciousness of energy efficiency and conservation. But, frankly, these services are not now in demand by the public, and our dollars are better suited for making the technologies available that are in demand, rather than feel-good ``coordination'' activities of this program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/