[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 25, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1091-E1092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. HEATHER WILSON

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 24, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2419) making 
     appropriations for energy and water development for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out 
certain things about H.R. 2419 that leave me troubled. I am quite 
concerned by significant reductions made in critical programs that are 
necessary for our nation to maintain a credible long-term nuclear 
deterrent. The appropriations for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) related to weapons activities was $6.63B in FY 
2005. That amount was reduced to $6.18B by the committee, a reduction 
of almost $0.5B, or nearly 10%.
  The Advanced Strategic Computing (ASC) Campaign has made great 
advances over the past 10 years. We are now able to model things with 
more fidelity than ever before. This modeling is used to certify the 
reliability of our nuclear stockpile without nuclear testing. The ASC 
Campaign was funded last year at a level of $698M. The administration 
request for FY06 is only $661M--a reduction of $37M over last year's 
levels. The administration's request was further reduced by the 
appropriations committee from $661M to $501M, coupled with nearly $22M 
of earmarks out of the $501M for extraneous projects, results in a 
final budget of less than 70% of last year's budget.
  These reductions come at the same time we are asking our nation's 
nuclear laboratories to recertify our nuclear weapon stockpile with 
science and computing rather than nuclear testing. The committee states 
that its ``recommendation recognizes the Department's inability to 
achieve the promises of Stockpile Stewardship effort and redirects ASCI 
funding to maintain current life extension production capabilities 
pending the initiation of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.'' 
One cannot remove funds from the Advanced Strategic Computing program 
to fund the Reliable Replacement Warhead program--not expected to yield 
fruit for a number of years--and expect the labs to continue to certify 
our stockpile. These programs are not substitutes for each other.

  Once again the committee has removed all funding for the Robust 
Nuclear Earth Penetrator Study. This is a worth while study, designed 
to answer whether or not a nuclear earth penetrator is even feasible as 
a means of holding Deeply Buried Hardened Targets (DBHTs) at risk. It 
is my understanding that this study will now move to the Department of 
Defense and outside of the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations subcommittee.
  Inconsistent reductions and increases seem to have been made to the 
infrastructure construction projects for NNSA. The $55M administration 
request for the Chemistry Matallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) 
Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory was zeroed out. On the other 
hand the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility Y-12 National 
Security Complex recommended funding at a level of $81M, an increase of 
$11M over the request. The committee's reasoning zeroing ``the CMRR 
facility should be delayed until the Department determines the long-
term plan for developing the responsive infrastructure required to 
maintain the nation's existing nuclear stockpile and support 
replacement production anticipated for the RRW initiative.'' It is my 
understanding that this determination will be made by the Secretary of 
Energy's Advisory Board subcommittee which is due to report out in 
June. The committee claims that its ``recommendation does not prejudge 
the outcome of the SEAB's subcommittee's assessment of

[[Page E1092]]

the NNSA weapons complex.'' However, if the committee does not want to 
prejudge the outcome of the SEAB's study, it would seem more 
appropriate to only put a hold on the CMRR funds until the SEAB study 
has reported its findings. There is considerable use to be made of the 
CMRR in supporting the general science mission of the laboratory as 
well. It is not a facility to only support manufacturing as the 
committee suggests. We should not expect our critical nuclear 
laboratories to be held up to the safety and security standard that are 
set by industry if we do not provide for ways to update sorely needed 
facilities around the nuclear weapons complex.
  I find particularly troubling the reductions made to and restrictions 
placed upon the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) and 
like programs within DOE. Section 311 of the Bill limits the amount of 
LDRD funding to $250M. This is in comparison to the $400M in FY2005. 
This will severely restrict fundamental R&D that is so vital to our DOE 
complex in meeting the needs of national security.
  Section 312 of the bill is particularly troublesome since it subjects 
funds already subjected to overhead rates to those same rates yet 
again. LDRD funds have historically been used as indirect funds since 
they are redirected funds that have in essence already been taxed by 
the overhead charges.
  Section 313 restricts LDRD funds derived from DOE funded programs to 
be used only on DOE related research, as if other funded projects 
(generally referred to as ``Work for Others'' projects) do not help 
fund the LDRD programs. This is in fact not the case. In general, all 
funding for projects at the laboratories help to fund the LDRD programs 
at equal rates. The accounting nightmare that would be created if the 
installations were forced to keep the funding separate would be 
particularly onerous and waste even more resources. But beyond all 
these arguments, the LDRD program is designed expressly to investigate 
basic and applied research that has broad application across the 
potential customer base.

                          ____________________