Thank you, Karen, for that kind introduction, and thanks to Parsons for sponsoring this lunch.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank Leslie Barbour and the Nuclear Energy Institute for inviting me to join you today at this, the fourth annual nuclear energy R&D summit. The decision to be here today was not a difficult one. How often does one get invited to address a packed room full of people who are likely to agree with almost everything you say? It’s not very often, let me assure you.

I must admit that my decision long ago to support nuclear energy was not a difficult one either, for parochial as well as national reasons.

A Nuclear State – Illinois and Argonne
For someone from the State of Illinois, and from my district in particular, supporting nuclear energy, and nuclear energy R&D, is not much of a political gamble. As many of you probably know, my home state of Illinois is a nuclear state.

Two years ago, my colleague from Texas, Congressman Henry Bonilla visited Illinois for a fly-around. As we were buzzing over the landscape, he was curious to know what these large, oddly-shaped industrial facilities were that dotted the Illinois landscape. Were they chemical plants? Because he sure hadn’t seen any chemical plants like that in Texas. I told him no, they weren’t chemical plants, but rather nuclear power plants that produced almost 50 percent of the electricity consumed in Illinois. He was amazed at their size, and the sheer number that he saw in one day while flying the skies of Illinois.

Illinois is more than a nuclear state; it was the birthplace of nuclear energy. I don’t need to tell you the stories of Enrico Fermi producing the first sustainable chain reaction under the squash courts at the University of Chicago, because they are more than stories. They are legends. They are history.

And this chain reaction led to another change reaction, namely the Manhattan Project, which grew into Argonne National Laboratory, which I am proud to represent.

Let me just say that when you represent a national lab that:

• One: always had as its mission the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy;
• Two: is actively involved in international non-proliferation activities; and
• Three: develops unpronounceable technologies, like the electrometallurgical treatment technology to dispose of the nation’s most dangerous and toxic nuclear waste,

Well, then you take a pretty serious interest in nuclear energy R&D issues from Day One. And I mean that literally.

During my very first weeks in Congress, just after I was sworn in for my first term, President Clinton’s Fiscal 2000 budget came out. Well, guess what was in it?

A $20 million dollar cut in Argonne’s budget for – you guessed it – nuclear energy R&D. “Welcome to Congress” was my first thought. Needless to say, my start in Congress as “the Gentle lady from Argonne National Lab” was a less-than-auspicious one.

The $20 million had been cut from a line item called “Termination Costs,” which had been funded the previous two years and therefore, it was argued by the Clinton Administration, should be terminated. At the most basic level, that made sense, until you learn that the money was to fund the third and final year of a three year project to demonstrate the EMT technology I have already tried to pronounce once today, a technology that would prepare legacy wastes for disposal at Yucca Mountain.

Now, let me assure you that regardless of how fiscally conservative a member of Congress may be, NO freshman member of Congress wants to see federal funding to his or her district slashed by tens of millions of dollars in your very first month in office.

The good news is that we ended up restoring most of that funding, and since that time, the program was renamed not once, but twice. At first, it was renamed the Spent Fuel Pyroprocessing and Transmutation program, which is no less of a mouthful. And then just last year, it became the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. Now that name is a bit more manageable.

The bad news is that I can never let down my guard — one must be ever vigilant to ensure that funding continues flowing to these important programs.

Contract Decision
Fiscal year 2005 is no different, and we all knew it was going to be a tough budget year to begin with. Unfortunately, certain questionable decisions by the Department of Energy have made the budget picture for nuclear energy R&D much more complicated.

What do I mean by that? Well, in the midst of our budget deficit difficulties, the DOE decided to create a new Idaho National Laboratory. This new lab would not be created by combining the hodgepodge of R&D programs at INEEL (I-kneel) with the successful, well-run nuclear energy R&D programs at Argonne. Instead the Department decided to take parts of INEEL and the part of Argonne in Idaho and, using another contract, create another separate national laboratory.

In the process, the Department of Energy may be severing one of the last, best teams of nuclear scientists, and fracturing a laboratory that has been the driving force behind the development of advanced nuclear technologies for almost 50 years. Time will tell, and much will depend on who bids for and is awarded the contract to manage this new lab.

To compound the problem, a preliminary review of the RFP – or Request for Proposals – to operate the new Idaho National Laboratory suggests that the DOE is looking for bidders with “scientific vision” in nuclear energy R&D. However, a closer look at the proposed RFP raises real doubt that potential bidders will be assessed to any significant degree on their scientific leadership and their ability to collaborate with universities. Instead, the emphasis seems to be on the business systems and management processes that a potential bidder might bring to the table.

Those are important functions, but as a member of the Science Committee, I believe scientific vision is equally important, especially as a basis for reviewing and selecting a potential contractor. Shouldn’t a lead laboratory be operated and maintained by a scientific leader? I would think so.

And where do we find some of the best science in America? At our colleges and universities. They are incubators of scientific vision. That’s why I think university collaboration in this new laboratory is so critical. Plus, I clearly recognize that our investment in R&D is also an investment in the education and training of future scientists, the best and brightest of which can be found at our colleges and universities.

I will be communicating these messages and other concerns about the RFP to the Department in the days to come. While I support the Department’s designation of a lead laboratory, I have serious concerns about how the Department is going about creating this laboratory. Needless to say, this is an issue that I will be watching closely as Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee.

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget
So, how has this decision affected the budget for nuclear energy R&D?

I know you already heard today from Bill Magwood, the Director of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology at DOE, and from Senator Craig of Idaho. I’m sure they both said good things about what the fiscal year 2005 budget will do to create this lead laboratory for nuclear energy R&D in Idaho. They are right; it will do good things, but at what cost to other R&D programs?

When I look at the budget numbers for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology, I see research program after research program being cut. NERI is eliminated. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative is cut by one-third. Even the Nuclear Power 2010 program is cut in half.

It would be one thing if this R&D money was being redirected to higher priority nuclear R&D efforts, but it’s not. What line item gets the biggest increase in terms of both whole numbers and percentages? Well, it’s Idaho facilities management — infrastructure.

There were quite a few defense and environmental R&D projects occurring at INEEL (I-kneel). Before creation of the new Idaho National Laboratory, contract and overhead expenses associated with these R&D efforts were covered by the Environmental Management program or EM for short.

Now it appears that the overhead burden of these EM and defense R&D projects has shifted to nuclear energy without a corresponding increase in resources. As a result, funding for overhead comes at the expense of core nuclear energy research activities. Upgrades to the Advanced Test Reactor are deferred, as are infrastructure improvements at Argonne-West. In essence, the INEEL R&D programs came with a lot of EM baggage for which the new Idaho National Laboratory is now responsible.

Unfortunately, because funding for R&D is flat across the Department of Energy, it is left with little choice but to sacrifice R&D for infrastructure to realize the vision of an Idaho National Laboratory.

I don’t think this is a fair trade-off. Much of what the DOE wants to do in the area of nuclear energy didn’t require the creation of a lead laboratory, or a new laboratory for that matter. Much of the necessary research is already being conducted at the six national laboratories that have successfully collaborated for years on nuclear energy R&D. Much of that research is slated for cuts in the FY05 budget, and much of that research is being conducted by you in this room.

Which is why I want to take the next few minutes to brighten the mood and talk about you. After all, it’s about you, isn’t it?

Current Status of the Nuclear Workforce
You are the reason why nuclear science and engineering in the United States is a 50-year success story. This story has been written by you and your predecessors, some of the brightest minds the world has ever known. When I say you, I mean nuclear scientists, engineers, and health physicists. Unfortunately, there are not as many of you as there used to be.

Even as there is renewed interest in nuclear energy as one of the solutions to our nation’s energy problems, there are fewer of you entering the fields of nuclear science, engineering, and health physics, and even fewer institutions left with the capability to train you. In fact, the supply of four-year trained nuclear scientists has hit a 35-year low, and there are only 28 universities that operate research reactors – less than half the number there were in 1980.

These statistics tell but the beginning of the story, however. Current projections are that 25 to 30 percent of you who are part of the nuclear industry’s workforce and 76 percent of you who work at our national laboratories will be eligible to retire in the next five years. And a majority of the 28 operating university reactors will have to be re-licensed in the next few years, a lengthy process that most universities cannot afford.

When I consider these facts, I wonder how long our nuclear science leadership success story in the United States can continue. “Not long” is my guess, and that’s why action must be taken to reverse this troubling trend.

DOE University Nuclear Science, Engineering, and Health Physics Act Act
So just this week, I introduced the Department of Energy University Nuclear Science, Engineering, and Health Physics Act, H.R. 3XXX. Incorporating approaches recommended by reports from the National Research Council, the Department of Energy, and its Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, the bill advances four components essential to strong nuclear science, engineering, and health physics programs: students, faculty, facilities, and finally, research.

More specifically, the bill provides:

• Financial support for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of expensive – yet essential – university nuclear research reactors;
• Resources for the professional development of faculty in the field of nuclear science, engineering, and health physics;
• Incentives for students to enter the field, and opportunities for education and training through fellowships and interaction with national laboratory staff; and
• General research funds for students, faculty, and national laboratory staff.

Now more than ever, you — America’s nuclear scientists, engineers and health physicists — are needed for so much more than simply operating nuclear power plants.

We must take action now to ensure there will be enough qualified, well-trained, highly-skilled people to take your place when you’re all relaxing in Florida or watching your grandchildren.

We’ve already made quite a bit of progress on the bill. I first introduced it in the 107th Congress, and its provisions were included in the comprehensive energy bill as passed by the House not once, but twice in the 108th Congress. Unfortunately, we still don’t know what the final fate of the energy bill will be this Congress. And that brings me to the final topic I want to cover today.

Energy Bill
The latest Senate energy bill is a slimmed-down version of its former self. I wonder if it’s a product of Atkins or Weight Watchers? I think they trimmed a lot of the fat, so it must be Weight Watchers.

Despite cutting the cost of the bill in half, there’s no guarantee that even this “lighter” version will be approved by the Senate. As for the House, you know that we have three times passed the energy bill. It’s now time for the Senate to step up to the plate.

There were some whispers that leadership might try to move the comprehensive energy bill in pieces. In the Science Committee, we’re prepared for that contingency, but at this point in time, that seems very unlikely.

If that possibility becomes reality, it could be very difficult to move many of the R&D provisions that emerged from the Science Committee and were incorporated into H.R. 6.

Why the difficulty? Because the cold, hard fact of the matter is that we are confronting a half-trillion dollar deficit. And despite their relatively non-controversial nature, most of the R&D provisions have big price tags that are likely to illicit opposition from budget hawks on both sides of the aisle.

Every item will face greater scrutiny. As a result, many of the more expensive R&D provisions in the energy bill may never reach the floor as stand-alone legislation. The exceptions are those bills that have considerable bipartisan support.

Conclusion
That’s why I will conclude today by offering my own words of encouragement as you hit the halls of Congress to build support for nuclear energy R&D, and, I hope, for my bill, H.R. 3XXX.

You’ve got powerful message points. How do I know? Well, I got to sneak a peek at your most convincing messages, the ones you just discussed in the last session. They happen to be the ones I find most useful when I lobby my colleagues. I tell them that nuclear energy is emissions-free, reliable, and affordable, and will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fossil energy.

And I tell them that support for nuclear energy R&D will lead to safer, more efficient power plants, and technologies that will reduce the risk of proliferation. Increasing our investment in nuclear R&D is important to our industry, our navy, our national and energy security, our universities and national labs, and to those engaged in our lifesaving medical research involving radiation.

One of the stronger arguments that deserves more attention, in my opinion, is that R&D is needed to reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste. I’m guessing that most of you in this room would rather work on development of Generation 4 reactor technologies, the technologies of the future, rather than work on the problems of the past. But I think expanding our use of nuclear power and putting Generation 4 technologies to use is contingent on finding a solution to our waste problem.

I don’t think many Members of Congress realize that Yucca Mountain was designed only to store the waste that’s been created over the last 35 years, and not future waste that will accumulate if we continue to rely on nuclear power for approximately 20% of our nation’s electricity. We’ve already spent over $4 billion on Yucca Mountain. If we want to avoid having to site and build another such repository, we must continue to invest in R&D to further reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste.
 
I think you will agree that a big part of that investment must be made in human capital – in you – to ensure that America continues to realize the benefits of a competent, well-trained, highly skilled nuclear workforce. I wish you all luck as you go now to convince Congress of this important fact.

Thank you.