[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page 10180] [From the U.S. 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. ____________________