[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 70 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               STATEMENT ON THE MARKEY AMENDMENT ON GNEP

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 6, 2006

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, before Memorial Day Recess, during 
consideration of the Fiscal Year 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill, Mr. Markey, the gentleman from Massachusetts, offered an 
amendment that would have cut $40 million for the Global Nuclear Energy 
Partnership, a dangerous program about which we are still not fully 
aware of the consequences. I supported Mr. Markey's amendment, which 
unfortunately failed last night. This amendment would have funded GNEP 
at $80 million. The Energy and Water Subcommittee already cut funding 
from this program, stating ``serious reservations'' about the new 
program. Until there are no reservations about the program, we should 
not continue to fund it.
  The Department of Energy claims that the Global Nuclear Energy 
Partnership will prevent misuse of civilian nuclear facilities for non-
peaceful purposes by developing enhanced safeguards over these programs 
and technologies. According to DOE, the program will account for 
materials, control technology, provide transparency to validate 
peaceful uses, and review international agreements and obligations.
  Despite the claims of the Department of Energy, there are many 
consequences of this program that are costly and potentially very 
dangerous to Americans and the international community.
  Nuclear reprocessing is a dangerous endeavor. Reprocessing nuclear 
waste produces separated plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear 
weapons. If the plutonium remains bound in large, heavy, and highly 
radioactive spent fuel assemblies, it is nearly impossible to steal. In 
contrast, separated plutonium is not highly radioactive. The simple 
fact is it will never be as secure as it would be if left in the spent 
fuel rods. By producing additional materials that aid in the production 
of nuclear weapons, we are potentially enabling terrorists and other 
non-nuclear countries to create nuclear weapons. This is not the 
example we want to set for the world.
  Reprocessing also does not decrease radioactive nuclear waste. The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said that spent fuel could be safely 
stored in spent fuel pools or dry casks without significant 
environmental impact for at least 100 years. For the past thirty years, 
we have been able to dissuade countries from creating nuclear 
reprocessing programs on the premise that we ourselves are not 
involved.
  Another problem with GNEP is that the Administration has not been 
able to demonstrate to Congress how costly this program will be. Since 
the program was announced in February of this year, the Department of 
Energy has not provided Congress with an overall cost for this program. 
Congress has not had the opportunity to evaluate the merits of this 
program or determine if it is in our best interest, in the long and 
short term. With such a great undertaking, we must fully understand the 
effects of this program.
  I am disappointed that the Markey amendment failed. It is my hope 
that my colleagues will see the dangers of nuclear reprocessing and 
oppose this program when the final version of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill is considered in the next couple of months.

                          ____________________