[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9104-H9115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT CONSENT ACT

  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 558) to grant the consent of the Congress to the Texas Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 558

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Texas Low-Level Radioactive 
     Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDING.

       The Congress finds that the compact set forth in section 5 
     is in furtherance of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.).

     SEC. 3. CONDITIONS OF CONSENT TO COMPACT.

       The consent of the Congress to the compact set forth in 
     section 5--
       (1) shall become effective on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act;
       (2) is granted subject to the provisions of the Low-Level 
     Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.); and
       (3) is granted only for so long as the regional commission 
     established in the compact complies with all of the 
     provisions of such Act.

     SEC. 4. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

       The Congress may alter, amend, or repeal this Act with 
     respect to the compact set forth in section 5 after the 
     expiration of the 10-year period following the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and at such intervals thereafter as 
     may be provided in such compact.

     SEC. 5. TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT.

       In accordance with section 4(a)(2) of the Low-Level 
     Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021d(a)(2)), the 
     consent of the Congress is given to the States of Texas, 
     Maine, and Vermont to enter into the Texas Low-Level 
     Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. Such compact is 
     substantially as follows:


          ``TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT

                    ``ARTICLE I. POLICY AND PURPOSE

       ``Sec. 1.01. The party states recognize a responsibility 
     for each state to seek to manage low-level radioactive waste 
     generated within its boundaries, pursuant to the Low-Level 
     Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended by the Low-Level 
     Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 
     2021b-2021j). They also recognize that the United States 
     Congress, by enacting the Act, has authorized and encouraged 
     states to enter 

[[Page H 9105]]
     into compacts for the efficient management and disposal of low-level 
     radioactive waste. It is the policy of the party states to 
     cooperate in the protection of the health, safety, and 
     welfare of their citizens and the environment and to provide 
     for and encourage the economical management and disposal of 
     low-level radioactive waste. It is the purpose of this 
     compact to provide the framework for such a cooperative 
     effort; to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the 
     citizens and the environment of the party states; to limit 
     the number of facilities needed to effectively, efficiently, 
     and economically manage low-level radioactive waste and to 
     encourage the reduction of the generation thereof; and to 
     distribute the costs, benefits, and obligations among the 
     party states; all in accordance with the terms of this 
     compact.


                       ``ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS

       ``Sec. 2.01. As used in this compact, unless the context 
     clearly indicates otherwise, the following definitions apply:
       ``(1) `Act' means the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 
     Act, as amended by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 
     Amendments Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 2021b-2021j).
       ``(2) `Commission' means the Texas Low-Level Radioactive 
     Waste Disposal Compact Commission established in Article III 
     of this compact.
       ``(3) `Compact facility' or `facility' means any site, 
     location, structure, or property located in and provided by 
     the host state for the purpose of management or disposal of 
     low-level radioactive waste for which the party states are 
     responsible.
       ``(4) `Disposal' means the permanent isolation of low-level 
     radioactive waste pursuant to requirements established by the 
     United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United 
     States Environmental Protection Agency under applicable laws, 
     or by the host state.
       ``(5) `Generate,' when used in relation to low-level 
     radioactive waste, means to produce low-level radioactive 
     waste.
       ``(6) `Generator' means a person who produces or processes 
     low-level radioactive waste in the course of its activities, 
     excluding persons who arrange for the collection, 
     transportation, management, treatment, storage, or disposal 
     of waste generated outside the party states, unless approved 
     by the commission.
       ``(7) `Host county' means a county in the host state in 
     which a disposal facility is located or is being developed.
       ``(8) `Host state' means a party state in which a compact 
     facility is located or is being developed. The State of Texas 
     is the host state under this compact.
       ``(9) `Institutional control period' means that period of 
     time following closure of the facility and transfer of the 
     facility license from the operator to the custodial agency in 
     compliance with the appropriate regulations for long-term 
     observation and maintenance.
       ``(10) `Low-level radioactive waste' has the same meaning 
     as that term is defined in Section 2(9) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2021b(9)), or in the host state statute so long as the waste 
     is not incompatible with management and disposal at the 
     compact facility.
       ``(11) `Management' means collection, consolidation, 
     storage, packaging, or treatment.
       ``(12) `Operator' means a person who operates a disposal 
     facility.
       ``(13) `Party state' means any state that has become a 
     party in accordance with Article VII of this compact. Texas, 
     Maine, and Vermont are initial party states under this 
     compact.
       ``(14) `Person' means an individual, corporation, 
     partnership or other legal entity, whether public or private.
       ``(15) `Transporter' means a person who transports low-
     level radioactive waste.


                     ``ARTICLE III. THE COMMISSION

       ``Sec. 3.01. There is hereby established the Texas Low-
     Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission. The 
     commission shall consist of one voting member from each party 
     state except that the host state shall be entitled to six 
     voting members. Commission members shall be appointed by 
     the party state governors, as provided by the laws of each 
     party state. Each party state may provide alternates for 
     each appointed member.
       ``Sec. 3.02. A quorum of the commission consists of a 
     majority of the members. Except as otherwise provided in this 
     compact, an official act of the commission must receive the 
     affirmative vote of a majority of its members.
       ``Sec. 3.03. The commission is a legal entity separate and 
     distinct from the party states and has governmental immunity 
     to the same extent as an entity created under the authority 
     of Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution. 
     Members of the commission shall not be personally liable for 
     actions taken in their official capacity. The liabilities of 
     the commission shall not be deemed liabilities of the party 
     states.
       ``Sec. 3.04. The commission shall:
       ``(1) Compensate its members according to the host state's 
     law.
       ``(2) Conduct its business, hold meetings, and maintain 
     public records pursuant to laws of the host state, except 
     that notice of public meetings shall be given in the non-host 
     party states in accordance with their respective statutes.
       ``(3) Be located in the capital city of the host state.
       ``(4) Meet at least once a year and upon the call of the 
     chair, or any member. The governor of the host state shall 
     appoint a chair and vice-chair.
       ``(5) Keep an accurate account of all receipts and 
     disbursements. An annual audit of the books of the commission 
     shall be conducted by an independent certified public 
     accountant, and the audit report shall be made a part of the 
     annual report of the commission.
       ``(6) Approve a budget each year and establish a fiscal 
     year that conforms to the fiscal year of the host state.
       ``(7) Prepare, adopt, and implement contingency plans for 
     the disposal and management of low-level radioactive waste in 
     the event that the compact facility should be closed. Any 
     plan which requires the host state to store or otherwise 
     manage the low-level radioactive waste from all the party 
     states must be approved by at least four host state members 
     of the commission. The commission, in a contingency plan or 
     otherwise, may not require a non-host party state to store 
     low-level radioactive waste generated outside of the state.
       ``(8) Submit communications to the governors and to the 
     presiding officers of the legislatures of the party states 
     regarding the activities of the commission, including an 
     annual report to be submitted on or before January 31 of each 
     year.
       ``(9) Assemble and make available to the party states, and 
     to the public, information concerning low-level radioactive 
     waste management needs, technologies, and problems.
       ``(10) Keep a current inventory of all generators within 
     the party states, based upon information provided by the 
     party states.
       ``(11) By no later than 180 days after all members of the 
     commission are appointed under Section 3.01 of this article, 
     establish by rule the total volume of low-level radioactive 
     waste that the host state will dispose of in the compact 
     facility in the years 1995-2045, including decommissioning 
     waste. The shipments of low-level radioactive waste from all 
     non-host party states shall not exceed 20 percent of the 
     volume estimated to be disposed of by the host state during 
     the 50-year period. When averaged over such 50-year period, 
     the total of all shipments from non-host party states shall 
     not exceed 20,000 cubic feet a year. The commission shall 
     coordinate the volumes, timing, and frequency of shipments 
     from generators in the non-host party states in order to 
     assure that over the life of this agreement shipments from 
     the non-host party states do not exceed 20 percent of the 
     volume projected by the commission under this paragraph.
       ``Sec. 3.05. The commission may:
       ``(1) Employ staff necessary to carry out its duties and 
     functions. The commission is authorized to use to the extent 
     practicable the services of existing employees of the party 
     states. Compensation shall be as determined by the 
     commission.
       ``(2) Accept any grants, equipment, supplies, materials, or 
     services, conditional or otherwise, from the federal or state 
     government. The nature, amount and condition, if any, of any 
     donation, grant or other resources accepted pursuant to this 
     paragraph and the identity of the donor or grantor shall be 
     detailed in the annual report of the commission.
       ``(3) Enter into contracts to carry out its duties and 
     authority, subject to projected resources. No contract made 
     by the commission shall bind a party state.
       ``(4) Adopt, by a majority vote, bylaws and rules necessary 
     to carry out the terms of this compact. Any rules promulgated 
     by the commission shall be adopted in accordance with the 
     Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article 
     6252-13a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes).
       ``(5) Sue and be sued and, when authorized by a majority 
     vote of the members, seek to intervene in administrative or 
     judicial proceedings related to this compact.
       ``(6) Enter into an agreement with any person, state, 
     regional body, or group of states for the importation of low-
     level radioactive waste into the compact for management or 
     disposal, provided that the agreement receives a majority 
     vote of the commission. The commission may adopt such 
     conditions and restrictions in the agreement as it deems 
     advisable.
       ``(7) Upon petition, allow an individual generator, a group 
     of generators, or the host state of the compact, to export 
     low-level waste to a low-level radioactive waste disposal 
     facility located outside the party states. The commission may 
     approve the petition only by a majority vote of its members. 
     The permission to export low-level radioactive waste shall be 
     effective for that period of time and for the specified 
     amount of low-level radioactive waste, and subject to any 
     other term or condition, as is determined by the commission.
       ``(8) Monitor the exportation outside of the party states 
     of material, which otherwise meets the criteria of low-level 
     radioactive waste, where the sole purpose of the exportation 
     is to manage or process the material for recycling or waste 
     reduction and return it to the party states for disposal in 
     the compact facility.
       ``Sec. 3.06. Jurisdiction and venue of any action 
     contesting any action of the commission shall be in the 
     United States District Court in the district where the 
     commission maintains its office.


``ARTICLE IV. RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTY STATES

       ``Sec. 4.01. The host state shall develop and have full 
     administrative control over the development, management and 
     operation of a 

[[Page H 9106]]
     facility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated 
     within the party states. The host state shall be entitled to 
     unlimited use of the facility over its operating life. Use of 
     the facility by the non-host party states for disposal of 
     low-level radioactive waste, including such waste resulting 
     from decommissioning of any nuclear electric generation 
     facilities located in the party states, is limited to the 
     volume requirements of Section 3.04(11) of Article III.
       ``Sec. 4.02. Low-level radioactive waste generated within 
     the party states shall be disposed of only at the compact 
     facility, except as provided in Section 3.05(7) of Article 
     III.
       ``Sec. 4.03. The initial states of this compact cannot be 
     members of another low-level radioactive waste compact 
     entered into pursuant to the Act.
       ``Sec. 4.04. The host state shall do the following:
       ``(1) Cause a facility to be developed in a timely manner 
     and operated and maintained through the institutional control 
     period.
       ``(2) Ensure, consistent with any applicable federal and 
     host state laws, the protection and preservation of the 
     environment and the public health and safety in the siting, 
     design, development, licensing, regulation, operation, 
     closure, decommissioning, and long-term care of the disposal 
     facilities within the host state.
       ``(3) Close the facility when reasonably necessary to 
     protect the public health and safety of its citizens or to 
     protect its natural resources from harm. However, the host 
     state shall notify the commission of the closure within three 
     days of its action and shall, within 30 working days of its 
     action, provide a written explanation to the commission of 
     the closure, and implement any adopted contingency plan.
       ``(4) Establish reasonable fees for disposal at the 
     facility of low-level radioactive waste generated in the 
     party states based on disposal fee criteria set out in 
     Sections 402.272 and 402.273, Texas Health and Safety Code. 
     The same fees shall be charged for the disposal of low-level 
     radioactive waste that was generated in the host state and in 
     the non-host party states. Fees shall also be sufficient to 
     reasonably support the activities of the Commission.
       ``(5) Submit an annual report to the commission on the 
     status of the facility, including projections of the 
     facility's anticipated future capacity, and on the related 
     funds.
       ``(6) Notify the Commission immediately upon the occurrence 
     of any event which could cause a possible temporary or 
     permanent closure of the facility and identify all reasonable 
     options for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at 
     alternate compact facilities or, by arrangement and 
     Commission vote, at noncompact facilities.
       ``(7) Promptly notify the other party states of any legal 
     action involving the facility.
       ``(8) Identify and regulate, in accordance with federal and 
     host state law, the means and routes of transportation of 
     low-level radioactive waste in the host state.
       ``Sec. 4.05. Each party state shall do the following:
       ``(1) Develop and enforce procedures requiring low-level 
     radioactive waste shipments originating within its borders 
     and destined for the facility to conform to packaging, 
     processing, and waste from specifications of the host state.
       ``(2) Maintain a registry of all generators within the 
     state that may have low-level radioactive waste to be 
     disposed of at a facility, including, but not limited to, the 
     amount of low-level radioactive waste and the class of low-
     level radioactive waste generated by each generator.
       ``(3) Develop and enforce procedures requiring generators 
     within its borders to minimize the volume of low-level 
     radioactive waste requiring disposal. Nothing in this compact 
     shall prohibit the storage, treatment, or management of waste 
     by a generator.
       ``(4) Provide the commission with any data and information 
     necessary for the implementation of the commission's 
     responsibilities, including taking those actions necessary to 
     obtain this data or information.
       ``(5) Pay for community assistance projects designated by 
     the host county in an amount for each non-host party state 
     equal to 10 percent of the payment provided for in Article V 
     for each such state. One-half of the payment shall be due and 
     payable to the host county on the first day of the month 
     following ratification of this compact agreement by Congress 
     and one-half of the payment shall be due and payable on the 
     first day of the month following the approval of a 
     facility operating license by the host state's regulatory 
     body.
       ``(6) Provide financial support for the commission's 
     activities prior to the date of facility operation and 
     subsequent to the date of congressional ratification of this 
     compact under Section 7.07 of Article VII. Each party state 
     will be responsible for annual payments equalling its pro-
     rata share of the commission's expenses, incurred for 
     administrative, legal, and other purposes of the commission.
       ``(7) If agreed by all parties to a dispute, submit the 
     dispute to arbitration or other alternate dispute resolution 
     process. If arbitration is agreed upon, the governor of each 
     party state shall appoint an arbitrator. If the number of 
     party states is an even number, the arbitrators so chosen 
     shall appoint an additional arbitrator. The determination of 
     a majority of the arbitrators shall be binding on the party 
     states. Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in 
     accordance with the provisions of 9 U.S.C. Sections 1 to 16. 
     If all parties to a dispute do not agree to arbitration or 
     alternate dispute resolution process, the United States 
     District Court in the district where the commission maintains 
     its office shall have original jurisdiction over any action 
     between or among parties to this compact.
       ``(8) Provide on a regular basis to the commission and host 
     state--
       ``(A) an accounting of waste shipped and proposed to be 
     shipped to the compact facility, by volume and curies;
       ``(B) proposed transportation methods and routes; and
       ``(C) proposed shipment schedules.
       ``(9) Seek to join in any legal action by or against the 
     host state to prevent nonparty states or generators from 
     disposing of low-level radioactive waste at the facility.
       ``Sec. 4.06. Each party state shall act in good faith and 
     may rely on the good faith performance of the other party 
     states regarding requirements of this compact.


                 ``ARTICLE V. PARTY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS

       ``Sec. 5.01. Each party state, except the host state, shall 
     contribute a total of $25 million to the host state. Payments 
     shall be deposited in the host state treasury to the credit 
     of the low-level waste fund in the following manner except as 
     otherwise provided. Not later than the 60th day after the 
     date of congressional ratification of this compact, each non-
     host party state shall pay to the host state $12.5 million. 
     Not later than the 60th day after the date of the opening of 
     the compact facility, each non-host party state shall pay to 
     the host state an additional $12.5 million.
       ``Sec. 5.02. As an alternative, the host state and the non-
     host states may provide for payments in the same total amount 
     as stated above to be made to meet the principal and interest 
     expense associated with the bond indebtedness or other form 
     of indebtedness issued by the appropriate agency of the host 
     state for purposes associated with the development, 
     operation, and post-closure monitoring of the compact 
     facility. In the event the member states proceed in this 
     manner, the payment schedule shall be determined in 
     accordance with the schedule of debt repayment. This schedule 
     shall replace the payment schedule described in Section 5.01 
     of this article.


              ``ARTICLE VI. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PENALTIES

       ``Sec. 6.01. No person shall dispose of low-level 
     radioactive waste generated within the party states unless 
     the disposal is at the compact facility, except as otherwise 
     provided in Section 3.05(7) of Article III.
       ``Sec. 6.02. No person shall manage or dispose of any low-
     level radioactive waste within the party states unless the 
     low-level radioactive waste was generated within the party 
     states, except as provided in Section 3.05(6) of Article III. 
     Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the storage or 
     management of low-level radioactive waste by a generator, nor 
     its disposal pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 20.302.
       ``Sec. 6.03. Violations of this article may result in 
     prohibiting the violator from disposing of low-level 
     radioactive waste in the compact facility, or in the 
     imposition of penalty surcharges on shipments to the 
     facility, as determined by the commission.


 ``ARTICLE VII. ELIGIBILITY, ENTRY INTO EFFECT; CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT; 
                         WITHDRAWAL; EXCLUSION

       ``Sec. 7.01. The states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont are 
     party states to this compact. Any other state may be made 
     eligible for party status by a majority vote of the 
     commission and ratification by the legislature of the host 
     state, subject to fulfillment of the rights of the initial 
     non-host party states under Section 3.04(11) of Article III 
     and Section 4.01 of Article IV, and upon compliance with 
     those terms and conditions for eligibility that the host 
     state may establish. The host state may establish all terms 
     and conditions for the entry of any state, other than the 
     states named in this section, as a member of this compact; 
     provided, however, the specific provisions of this compact, 
     except for those pertaining to the composition of the 
     commission and those pertaining to Section 7.09 of this 
     article, may not be changed except upon ratification by the 
     legislatures of the party states.
       ``Sec. 7.02. Upon compliance with the other provisions of 
     this compact, a state made eligible under Section 7.01 of 
     this article may become a party state by legislative 
     enactment of this compact or by executive order of the 
     governor of the state adopting this compact. A state becoming 
     a party state by executive order shall cease to be a party 
     state upon adjournment of the first general session of its 
     legislature convened after the executive order is issued, 
     unless before the adjournment, the legislature enacts this 
     compact.
       ``Sec. 7.03. Any party state may withdraw from this compact 
     by repealing enactment of this compact subject to the 
     provisions herein. In the event the host state allows an 
     additional state or additional states to join the compact, 
     the host state's legislature, without the consent of the non-
     host party states, shall have the right to modify the 
     composition of the commission so that the host state shall 
     have a voting majority on the commission, provided, however, 
     that any modification maintains the right of each initial 
     party state to retain one voting member on the commission.

[[Page H 9107]]

       ``Sec. 7.04. If the host state withdraws from the compact, 
     the withdrawal shall not become effective until five years 
     after enactment of the repealing legislation and the non-host 
     party states may continue to use the facility during that 
     time. The financial obligation of the non-host party 
     states under Article V shall cease immediately upon 
     enactment of the repealing legislation. If the host state 
     withdraws from the compact or abandons plans to operate a 
     facility prior to the date of any non-host party state 
     payment under Sections 4.05(5) and (6) of Article IV or 
     Article V, the non-host party states are relieved of any 
     obligations to make the contributions. This section sets 
     out the exclusive remedies for the non-host party states 
     if the host state withdraws from the compact or is unable 
     to develop and operate a compact facility.
       ``Sec. 7.05. A party state, other than the host state, may 
     withdraw from the compact by repealing the enactment of this 
     compact, but this withdrawal shall not become effective until 
     two years after the effective date of the repealing 
     legislation. During this two-year period the party state will 
     continue to have access to the facility. The withdrawing 
     party shall remain liable for any payments under Sections 
     4.05(5) and (6) of Article IV that were due during the two-
     year period, and shall not be entitled to any refund of 
     payments previously made.
       ``Sec. 7.06. Any party state that substantially fails to 
     comply with the terms of the compact or to fulfill its 
     obligations hereunder may have its membership in the compact 
     revoked by a seven-eighths vote of the commission following 
     notice that a hearing will be scheduled not less than six 
     months from the date of the notice. In all other respects, 
     revocation proceedings undertaken by the commission will be 
     subject to the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register 
     Act (Article 6252-13a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), except 
     that a party state may appeal the commission's revocation 
     decision to the United States District Court in accordance 
     with Section 3.06 of Article III. Revocation shall take 
     effect one year from the date such party state receives 
     written notice from the commission of a final action. Written 
     notice of revocation shall be transmitted immediately 
     following the vote of the commission, by the chair, to the 
     governor of the affected party state, all other governors of 
     party states, and to the United States Congress.
       ``Sec. 7.07. This compact shall take effect following its 
     enactment under the laws of the host state and any other 
     party state and thereafter upon the consent of the United 
     States Congress and shall remain in effect until otherwise 
     provided by federal law. If Texas and either Maine or Vermont 
     ratify this compact, the compact shall be in full force and 
     effect as to Texas and the other ratifying state, and this 
     compact shall be interpreted as follows:
       ``(1) Texas and the other ratifying state are the initial 
     party states.
       ``(2) The commission shall consist of two voting members 
     from the other ratifying state and six from Texas.
       ``(3) Each party state is responsible for its pro-rata 
     share of the commission's expenses.
       ``Sec. 7.08. This compact is subject to review by the 
     United States Congress and the withdrawal of the consent of 
     Congress every five years after its effective date, pursuant 
     to federal law.
       ``Sec. 7.09. The host state legislature, with the approval 
     of the governor, shall have the right and authority, without 
     the consent of the non-host party states, to modify the 
     provisions contained in Section 3.04(11) of Article III to 
     comply with Section 402.219(c)(1), Texas Health & Safety 
     Code, as long as the modification does not impair the rights 
     of the initial non-host party states.


             ``ARTICLE VIII. CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY

       ``Sec. 8.01. The provisions of this compact shall be 
     broadly construed to carry out the purposes of the compact, 
     but the sovereign powers of a party shall not be infringed 
     upon unnecessarily.
       ``Sec. 8.02. This compact does not affect any judicial 
     proceeding pending on the effective date of this compact.
       ``Sec. 8.03. No party state acquires any liability, by 
     joining this compact, resulting from the siting, operation, 
     maintenance, long-term care or any other activity relating to 
     the compact facility. No non-host party state shall be liable 
     for any harm or damage from the siting, operation, 
     maintenance, or long-term care relating to the compact 
     facility. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this 
     compact, nothing in this compact shall be construed to alter 
     the incidence of liability of any kind for any act or failure 
     to act. Generators, transporters, owners and operators of 
     facility shall be liable for their acts, omissions, conduct 
     or relationships in accordance with applicable law. By 
     entering into this compact and securing the ratification by 
     Congress of its terms, no party state acquires a potential 
     liability under section 5(d)(2)(C) of the Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 
     2021e(d)(2)(C)) that did not exist prior to entering into 
     this compact.
       ``Sec. 8.04. If a party state withdraws from the compact 
     pursuant to Section 7.03 of Article VII or has its membership 
     in this compact revoked pursuant to section 7.06 of Article 
     VII, the withdrawal or revocation shall not affect any 
     liability already incurred by or chargeable to the affected 
     state under Section 8.03 of this article.
       ``Sec. 8.05. The provisions of this compact shall be 
     severable and if any phrase, clause, sentence, or provision 
     of this compact is declared by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction to be contrary to the constitution of any 
     participating state or of the United States or the 
     applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or 
     circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder 
     of this compact and the applicability thereof to any 
     government, agency, person, or circumstance shall not be 
     affected thereby to the extent the remainder can in all 
     fairness be given effect. If any provision of this compact 
     shall be held contrary to the constitution of any state 
     participating therein, the compact shall remain in full force 
     and effect as to the state affected as to all severable 
     matters.
       ``Sec. 8.06. Nothing in this compact diminishes or 
     otherwise impairs the jurisdiction, authority, or discretion 
     of either of the following:
       ``(1) The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2011 et seq.).
       ``(2) An agreement state under section 274 of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2021).
       ``Sec. 8.07. Nothing in this compact confers any new 
     authority on the states or commission to do any of the 
     following:
       ``(1) Regulate the packaging or transportation of low-level 
     radioactive waste in a manner inconsistent with the 
     regulations of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission or the United States Department of Transportation.
       ``(2) Regulate health, safety, or environmental hazards 
     from source, by-product, or special nuclear material.
       ``(3) Inspect the activities of licensees of the agreement 
     states or of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, might I ask if the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is opposed to the bill?
  Mr. PALLONE. No, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the bill.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Inasmuch as that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I 
request I be permitted to manage the time on this side in opposition to 
the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] will 
be recognized for 20 minutes in opposition to the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 558, introduced 
by our colleague from Texas [Mr. Fields], which would grant 
congressional consent to the Texas, Maine, Vermont Low-level 
Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. In 1980, Congress made the policy 
decision that we at the Federal level would divide responsibility for 
radioactive waste disposal within the States. The Federal Government 
would be responsible for the disposal of high-level waste while the 
States would handle the low-level wastes. These low-level wastes emit a 
less intensity of radioactivity. In fact, the vast majority of low-
level waste, 97 percent, do not require any special shielding to 
protect workers or the surrounding community. Currently, 42 States are 
already involved in 9 compact arrangements for the disposal of low-
level waste.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House today will finally 
allow the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont to begin their efforts to 
fully comply with the Low-level Radioactive Waste Act of 1980.
  The responsibility of Congress in approving the compact is fairly 
simply. If the Texas compact complies with underlying requirements of 
the Low-level Radioactive Waste Act, Congress must grant approval to 
the compact. In our consideration of this measure before the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Power, we found that the Texas compact does 
meet this test. Congressional consent with allow the affected States to 
move ahead with their compact to fulfill the requirements of the 
Federal Low-level Waste Act.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. 
As the chairman knows, this particular project is in my congressional 
district and I cannot emphasize strongly enough, after Members look 
into the people's eyes and listen to their message in Hudspeth County 
and the west 

[[Page H 9108]]
Texas area and surrounding communities of the Hudspeth County area, 
this is strongly going to impact their property rights and their lives 
and disrupt their communities to the degree that I think it is 
difficult for Members here to understand unless they can actually hear 
it from them firsthand. Therefore, I strongly am opposed to this bill, 
and I believe that this act should be amended, actually to include the 
input from local constituents like that when their lives can be 
disrupted. My constituents should never be forced to accept the low-
level radioactive waste generated outside of Texas without first having 
their wishes considered at the Federal level, nor should any American 
community, for that matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to think of this vote as if it was 
their constituents being affected and whose voices were being silenced. 
All of our constituents have a right to be heard on such matters.
  In 1986, 7 years before I was elected to the U.S. House of 
Representatives, Congress passed legislation granting each individual 
State the authority to make a disposal agreement with other States.
  This measure is in keeping with the interstate commerce clause of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  It was designed to be fair and mutually beneficial to all 
participants; and it is, for the most part, except for the one party 
which is directly impacted--the people who live at the selected 
disposal sites. This fact makes all the difference as to why H.R. 558 
is not good legislation.
  Although the States have control in determining site selection, 
today, we in Congress can give my constituents a voice by voting ``no'' 
on this measure and demanding that the process be amended to consider 
local rights.
  I am aware of a Federal circuit court ruling, based on interstate 
commerce law, which requires States to accept the low-level waste of 
other States. However, radioactive waste commerce cannot be considered 
in the same light as other interstate commerce.
  This was recognized by Congress when the House passed the 1986 
legislation which provided a means for restricting this form of 
commerce between States.
  The Texas-Vermont-Maine compact has the benefit of limiting waste 
shipments to those three States. However, there remain serious problems 
with this compact.
  The language of the compact is not completely clear as to whether the 
Commission established under the compact could open the Hudspeth site 
to waste from even more. In addition, the people of Hudspeth County are 
compelled to accept this waste without recourse. It is vital that 
everyone understand the facts and what is involved.
  Lastly, given the earthquake which recently struck the heart of rural 
west Texas, I had asked for a detailed geological study to be done on 
the effects that this and future earthquakes would have on the proposed 
site and just what consequences this would have on water quality and 
other health-threatening concerns.
  This legislation has come to the floor today without a study and 
without knowledge of the potential harm caused by placing the compact 
in Hudspeth County. We are talking about private property rights here, 
real people, real lives.
  Again, I ask that the Congress oppose the compact.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern from 
his own district down there.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States gives to Congress 
the right to approve compacts between the States, and when a compact is 
clearly not in the interest of the people of the United States of 
America, notwithstanding what may have been done between the two 
States, it is the duty of the Congress to reject that compact. We will 
offer today compelling arguments with regard to the national interest 
about why this compact should be rejected and would call upon the 
Members of the House to join with us in sending this compact back to be 
handled in a different fashion at the local level.
  The fact of the matter is the States involved avoided the politically 
uncomfortable decisions and, therefore, made an irresponsible decision 
to locate this nuclear waste dump in a very unfortunate place, within 
14 miles of an international border, in an active earthquake zone which 
is next to the Rio Grande river, thereby inviting Mexico to locate its 
unpleasant dump sites to the river in the future, also subjecting the 
United States to enormous liabilities to all the inhabitants of the Rio 
Grande valley should an earthquake come, as happened only last April 
within 100 miles of this site, and contaminate the entire lower Rio 
Grande valley.

                              {time}  1745

  These compacts are supposed to be regional in nature. This is not a 
regional compact. This is a compact between Texas and the State of 
Maine. There could hardly be greater distances between the two 
locations.
  This compact is not in the interest of the country. I urge the 
Members of the House to vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most important thing about the Texas low-
level waste compact is the progress it represents. This will be the 
10th compact to receive congressional approval, and will bring to 45 
the number of States moving forward together to meet their disposal 
needs. I am very happy to support its passage.
  The compact system envisioned by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 
Policy Act was developed with the strong support of the National 
Governors' Association. Under the law, the difficult task of selecting 
disposal sites is the States' responsibility. Congress' responsibility, 
on the other hand, is to act quickly on the compact's request and, if 
all is in order, to approve it promptly.
  The Texas compact meets the law's requirements, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from El 
Paso, TX [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Dallas, TX, for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statements by the gentleman adjoining 
my congressional district, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], who 
represents the district, the area in which the low-level radioactive 
waste dump site was to be located, or is to be located if we continue 
down this awkward path. I say awkward simply because I do not really 
care what the Congress said back in 1980 or 1982, that said low level, 
you do it; high level, we will do it. Low level, we will leave it to 
the States. So long as we care about the health and safety of any 
American citizen, I do not think we can wash our hands of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the statements made by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], are absolutely on target. I have 
represented that area during all of the time that the siting decisions 
were being made by the State of Texas, during all of the time that 
negotiations were ongoing between Vermont, Texas, and Maine.
  We should not leave out Vermont in any of this discussion, by the 
way. They too, like Maine, have aging nuclear facilities that will all 
have to be dumped somewhere, some day. We know where that will be, 
provided the Congress of the United States does not stop going down 
this path believing that we can do anything we want. We do not care 
what the consequences are.
  Let me tell you why it is especially difficult today I think for 
anyone to say that they support measures like this. It should be that 
the Federal Government should not be condoning another financial 
liability of massive proportions. After all, if in fact we have to do a 
cleanup, if there is an accident, and let me say we are putting it into 
an area of high earthquake and seismic 

[[Page H 9109]]
activity. The largest earthquake by the way in the State of Texas 
occurred in 1931, it was right here where they are putting the dump 
site.
  Guess what happened last month? Another earthquake, affecting west 
Texas as it had not since the 1930's. Well, I guess everybody is sure 
that nothing bad will ever happen. That is what we always say. Why, 
this earthquake, we can sustain these kinds of things if we do this 
thing right. That is what everybody always says.
  Let me just tell you what. I can tell you that, however, all of those 
statements notwithstanding, it is the poor siting, coupled with the 
large loopholes in the very bill you are asking us to vote on in this 
compact, which exposed the Federal Government, and yes, all U.S. 
taxpayers, not just those in Texas, as the compact would have you 
believe, not just those in Texas. By the way, Maine and Vermont will 
get out of it pretty easy in the compact itself. But this compact 
exposes all taxpayers to an enormous and unreasonable amount of 
liability.
  I can tell you that this epicenter of the earthquake that occurred 
last month is the strongest recorded in Texas. I ask why would anybody 
deliberately dispose of such volatile materials in an area known for 
its seismic activity? Those are the kinds of questions we ought to be 
asking.
  Who will ultimately have to pay? Well, we know. Under article 8, 
section 8.03, of the compact, the States of Vermont and Maine will not 
be held liable for damage incurred due to the siting, operation, 
maintenance, long-term care, or any other activity relating to the 
compact facility.
  I am citing it to you. It is right there in the bill. Who does this 
leave liable? Some of us might think, well, maybe it is going to be the 
generators of the waste. Maybe it is going to be the transporters, the 
owners, the operators of the facility. However, these companies have 
limited financial resources. If they run out, once again, who do we 
leave that to? The taxpayers of Texas certainly, but also the taxpayers 
of the rest of the United States in bearing the brunt of that 
liability.
  I could get into the issue of balancing the budget and how it is that 
we want to reform Superfund and cleanup and all of the things we know 
that have not happened very economically in terms of time or 
efficiency. Again, all I would say is we should be very careful, I 
think, before we get the United States back into another problem of 
that kind.
  I do not think anyone here that should think all Texans are in 
agreement on this compact. Unlike the citizens of Maine, the people of 
Texas were never provided the opportunity to vote on whether or not 
they approve of this compact.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I think as the gentleman is speaking 
reminds me of a point made that perhaps no other Member in Congress can 
testify firsthand to the beauty and the pristine of the wide open 
spaces of the part of the country we are talking about, that are 
unspoiled and untouched by any outside influence or contamination or 
toxic substance. It would be a real tragedy to have this suddenly 
introduced into an area like that.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
correct. Let me just tell the gentleman, it is not just even the 
problems in the area that is going to be dumped upon. There is another 
issue, and that is that we do not limit the volume of waste it must 
accept from the party States as well as other contracting States which 
will occur.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this 
legislation, and I hope in the subsequent time we can make the other 
points that need to be made.
  Today we are being asked to grant our approval of the Texas, Vermont, 
and Maine Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. While this 
legislation does not directly determine the site of disposal, the State 
of Texas has already selected the site and is limited by State law to a 
200-square-mile area in west Texas. I know that Congress left it to the 
States to determine the disposal site. However, this does not mean that 
we abrogated our responsibility to ensure that citizens' health and 
safety are not endangered. The Federal Government should not be 
condoning another financial liability of massive proportion and we 
should see that international agreements we make are lived up to.
  Proponents of the compact ask that we turn our backs on the issue of 
siting and the flaws in the compact. They propose that Congress should 
rubber stamp the actions of the State, regardless of the ramifications. 
However, it is the poor siting, coupled with the large loopholes in the 
compact which expose the Federal Government to an enormous and 
unreasonable amount of liability.
  As evident by the recent earthquake in west Texas, the mountain 
ranges of west Texas, northern Mexico and the Chihuahua Desert are 
areas of seismic activity. The site is near the epicenter of the 
earthquake that occurred last month and to the one that struck in 1931, 
the strongest recorded earthquake in Texas. The siting authority has 
stated that they planned for earthquakes and that the facility will be 
able to handle an earthquake of up to 7.0 on the richter scale. I ask 
you, why would anyone deliberately dispose of such volatile materials 
in an area known for its seismic activity? Who will ultimately have to 
pay for the cleanup of this site, because of poor siting? This American 
taxpayer, that's who.
  Under article VIII, section 8.03 of the compact, the States of 
Vermont and Maine will not be held liable for damage incurred due to 
the siting, operation, maintenance, long-term care, or any other 
activity relating to the compact facility. Who does this leave liable? 
One might think the answer is the generators, transporters, owners, and 
operators of the facility. However, these companies have limited 
financial resources. So, of course, the taxpayers of Texas and the 
Federal Government will bear the brunt of that liability.

  This Congress has made a commitment to balance the budget by the year 
2002. To do so, we have made enormous cuts in the EPA and some say we 
will continue to cut its budget over the next 7 years. We've all seen 
the difficulty the EPA has had in cleaning up superfund sites. It is a 
long and slow process. Wouldn't it be better if we had prevented the 
oilspills or unregulated dump sites in the first place? This compact is 
the worst of both scenarios. Today, we have an opportunity to save the 
Federal Government millions of dollars in cleanup costs. We know that 
the State has chosen an active earthquake zone for the dump. Once the 
leakage occurs, each of you will know that you could have avoided it. 
When the large cleanup bills roll in, each of you will know that you 
could have saved the Federal Government millions of dollars.
  Should you ratify this compact today, I hope you will pledge to 
adequately fund the superfund, the EPA and the necessary cleanup costs 
associated with doing what will one day be necessary.
  Do not think that all Texans are in agreement on this compact. Unlike 
the citizens of Maine, the people of Texas were never provided the 
opportunity to vote on whether or not they approve of a compact. The 
very people who have endangered their lives by accepting the wastes of 
other States, the people of Texas, had no say in the decision. If it 
was good enough for the people of Maine, it should have been good 
enough for the people of Texas. The people of Texas are speaking out 
against the compact and the dump site. A statewide survey conducted in 
September 1994 showed that 82 percent of Texans don't want to accept 
out-of-State nuclear wastes. Yet they never got a vote. Each week 
another city council of county commission passes a resolution objecting 
to the disposal site. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert 
these resolutions into the Record.
  My second objection to this compact is that it does not protect Texas 
by limiting the volume of waste it must accept from party States and 
contracting States. Under this agreement, Texas accepts responsibility 
for both management and disposal as described in article I, section 
1.01. Management is defined as collection, consolidation, storage, 
packaging, or treatment. Treatment is not defined in the agreement. 
However, it is generally accepted as including incineration. 
Incineration reduces the volume of the waste, but not the level of 
radioactivity. Thus, less volume of waste will be disposed of at the 
site, but at a greater level of radioactivity.

  It is also unclear if waste imported from other States, but 
incinerated in Texas, is counted under the Texas portion or the non 
host allotment. Article iii, section 3.04(11) says: ``the shipments of 
low-level radioactive waste from all non host party states shall not 
exceed 20 percent of the volume estimated to be disposed of by the host 
state during the 50-year period.'' Shipment volumes are tied 
exclusively to disposal estimates. The compact is silent on how much 
volume can be shipped for management. A substantially larger amount of 
waste can be shipped in and incinerated than the disposal estimates 
allow. Incineration of waste will allow more States to contract to 
dispose of their waste in Texas.

[[Page H 9110]]

  Unfortunately, the State legislature has failed to recognize the 
tenuous dilemma these technical flaws have placed upon us. Once the 
Texas site is open there will be incredible outside pressure not to 
change the contract clause and so it probably will not happen. Why do 
these obvious disparities exist? Because, money--not the best science--
is driving the compact process. Texas chose to be the host site for 
other States so that it could earn additional revenue. Texas could have 
entered into a reciprocal compact like Connecticut and New Jersey 
whereby each State agrees to manage and dispose of its own waste, but 
remains protected under the 1985 Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 
Policy Act amendments. It could have entered into a compact with a 
State more regional in nature. Instead, Texas chose to enter into a 
compact with the prosperous States of Vermont and Maine. Each of these 
States have aging nuclear plants which will eventually be buried lock, 
stock, and barrel in Texas.
  A third objection relates to respecting our binational agreements. 
Texas has selected Sierra Blanca, the county seat of Hudspeth County, 
as the waste site. The town of Sierra Blanca is 20 miles from the Rio 
Grande River which is the international boundary between the United 
States and Mexico. Selection of this site is in clear violation of the 
1983 agreement for cooperation on the environment between the United 
States and Mexico, commonly referred to as the La Paz agreement.
  Under article 2 of the La Paz agreement the United States and Mexican 
Government are directed

       To the fullest extent practical . . . Adopt the appropriate 
     measures to prevent, reduce, and eliminate sources of 
     pollution in their respective territory which affect the 
     border area of the other.

  Article 7 of the agreement states that the two governments shall 
assess, as appropriate,

       Projects that may have significant impacts on the border 
     area, so that appropriate measure may be considered to avoid 
     or mitigate adverse environmental effects.

  The border region is defined as properties within 100 kilometers on 
either side of the Rio Grande. I do not agree, as the State contends, 
that they must merely inform the Government of Mexico of their actions. 
That is not an appropriate means by which to conduct our relations with 
other countries, and neither do they believe it is.
  I request that a communication from the Government of Mexico to the 
State Department outlining its objection be inserted into the Record 
immediately following my statement. As evident by this communication 
and the recent demonstrations on the Mexican side of the border against 
the dump site, the citizens and Government of Mexico are concerned 
about the threat to their environment from this disposal site. While 
Congress claims it may have no authority over the site selection 
process, we are responsible for guaranteeing that our binational 
agreements are respected by our own citizens, as well as by our State 
governments.
  A final issue concerns waste sites in minority communities. Under 
this compact the site county will receive a total of $5 million from 
Vermont and Maine. Hudspeth County is 64 percent Latino, 2,915 people 
live there and the per capita income is only $13,029. It is a rural 
community whose residents are generally poor and do not have the means 
to hire high-priced lobbyists or the population to influence state 
policy. It is an area not unlike the many other poor, minority 
communities across the country which have been forced to cohabitate 
with other's radioactive waste. Five million dollars is a lot of money 
to anyone, but especially to these poor citizens. I would like to point 
out action by our President which speaks to the issue of poor, minority 
communities such as Sierra Blanca who are targeted under agreements 
sanctioned by this compact. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton 
signed the Executive order on Federal actions to address environmental 
justice in minority populations and low-income populations. This 
executive order was in response to the overwhelming evidence that 
minorities and low-income populations are disproportionately burdened 
with environmental hazards. Hudspeth County is a prime example of this. 
The President directed all Federal agencies to ensure that the practice 
not continue. It is left to Congress to address its responsibility in 
the same spirit of this act.

  While Congress can not watch over each action by the States, we do 
have certain responsibilities. We have a responsibility to taxpayers 
not to rubber stamp an agreement which is going to cost them millions 
of dollars down the road. We have a responsibility to be leaders not 
followers in matters of civil rights. We have a responsibility to 
protect those without the means to protect themselves. We have a 
responsibility to abide by our bi-national agreements. We can fulfill 
our responsibility by disallowing this compact until a more suitable 
site is found.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert the following material for the Record.

                         Unofficial Translation

       The Embassy of Mexico presents its compliments to the State 
     Department and has the honor of referring to the plans for 
     the residual waste deposit sites that are supposed to be 
     built near the U.S.-Mexican border: in Texas, Low Level in 
     Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County, Dryden in Terell County, 
     and Spofford in Kinney County; in New Mexico, the Waste 
     Isolation Pilot Plan in Eddy County; in California, La Posta 
     and Campo in San Diego and Ward Valley in San Bernadino 
     County.
       As the State Department is aware, the plans for these 
     hazardous waste deposit sites in the border zone, for which 
     the Mexican Chancellory has appropriately given warning, have 
     provoked strong reactions from the border communities, 
     environmental organizations and both Mexican and United 
     States Congressmen.
       The Embassy would like to reiterate that the technical 
     considerations shown by the Mexican Government, by the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency itself and by various non-
     governmental organizations of both countries, demonstrate 
     that the plans and precautions of the companies promoting the 
     above mentioned waste deposit projects cannot avoid the risk 
     factor of transboundary pollution. In a context of greater 
     environmental awareness and cooperation in the international 
     community, neither one of our governments can ignore these 
     types of concerns.
       In accordance with the principles of cooperation and good-
     neighbors, the Embassy wishes to reiterate to the State 
     Department the duty of all countries to prevent, inform and 
     negotiate any action in their territory that could cause harm 
     to a third state. In addition, we would like to remind you 
     that during the High Level Meeting on Proposals for 
     Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Deposits in the Border Zone, 
     held on April 22, 1992, in Washington, the State Department 
     committed itself to ``be the means through which the 
     corresponding authorities of the United States would be made 
     aware of any information or concern of the Mexican Government 
     in this regard.''
       As such, Mexico hopes that the United States takes all the 
     preventive measures at its disposal to avoid the possibility 
     of any risk of transboundary damage, or that the U.S. might 
     cause said damage, in compliance with what was agreed upon by 
     both governments in Article 2 of the La Paz Convention in the 
     following terms: ``The Parties commit themselves as far as it 
     is possible, to adopt the appropriate measures to prevent, 
     reduce and eliminate sources of pollution in their respective 
     territories that affect the border zone of the other.'' Based 
     on the cited article, the hazardous waste deposit sites 
     represents important sources of transboundary pollution.
       At the same time, the second part of the article indicates 
     that ``the Parties will cooperate in the resolution of 
     environmental problems in the border zone for the common 
     good, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.'' 
     As such, the fact that the United States Government sets a 
     limit on its responsibility in regard to the actions taking 
     place in its territory, whether by federal, state, local 
     authorities or even individuals, demonstrates an 
     unwillingness to cooperate in finding a solution to 
     environmental problems, to which it agreed in the Convention 
     of La Paz.
       As it has already been expressed by the Mexican Government, 
     to contemplate building such a large number of waste deposits 
     near the international boundary or near international rivers 
     implies that the border location was selected, and this is an 
     outrage against the legitimate right of the people in the 
     regional communities not to have their natural birthright and 
     health affected.
       In view of the above, and the fact that the United States 
     has allowed local or state courts to approve such waste 
     deposit projects without taking into account the agreements 
     between our two countries, the Government of Mexico wishes to 
     reiterate its particular concern because the United States 
     Federal Government still has not taken an active role in this 
     regard and it still has not responded to diplomatic note 1214 
     of October 29, 1993, in regard to the waste deposit site at 
     Ward Valley.
       In this context, the Embassy of Mexico would like to 
     propose to the State Department that a High Level Meeting be 
     held as soon as possible, that will allow our Governments to 
     exchange viewpoints on the plans for the hazardous waste 
     deposits in the border area.
       The Embassy avails itself of this opportunity to renew to 
     the State Department the assurances of its highest and most 
     distinguished consideration.
                                                                    ____


                               Resolution

       Whereas, the State of Texas has proposed Sierra Blanca, 
     Hudspeth County for the site of a low-level radioactive waste 
     dump which would receive wastes from Texas, Maine, Vermont, 
     and possible other states and whereas the wastes would be 
     toxic for thousands of years; and
       Whereas, the proposed siting appears to be a result of 
     environmental racism and may be geological unsound as it is 
     in an active earthquake zone and only 16 miles from the Rio 
     Grande, potentially endangering Mexican and U.S. residents 
     who live nearby and downstream; and
       Whereas, Sierra Blanca is an impoverished Mexican American 
     community and studies 

[[Page H 9111]]
     have shown that toxic waste dumps are often sited in poor communities 
     of color; and
       Whereas, five of the six existing low-level nuclear waste 
     dumps have reportedly leaked radiation into the surrounding 
     environment; and
       Whereas, the City of Austin is the partial owner of the 
     South Texas Nuclear Project from which waste along with waste 
     from Commanche Peak, and other nuclear power plants may 
     comprise the majority of the proposed dump's contents by 
     radioactivity; and
       Whereas, the City of Austin desires to ensure the safe 
     management of wastes it and its business ventures produce and 
     to ensure that these wastes are not dumped on those with the 
     least financial and physical resources to protect their 
     communities from hazardous and radioactive waste dumping; and
       Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of 
     nuclear waste such as above-ground, monitored, retrievable 
     storage; now, therefore,
       Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Austin: 
     That the Austin City Council opposes a nuclear waste dump in 
     Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas.
                                                                    ____


     Resolution Opposing the Nuclear Waste Dump in Hudspeth County

       * * * Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, for the site of low-
     level nuclear waste dump which would receive wastes from 
     Texas, Maine, and Vermont and whereas the wastes will be 
     toxic for thousands of years; and
       Whereas, a radioactive release from the project could 
     threaten the residents of West Texas; and
       Whereas, West Texas highways would be used for the 
     transportation of radioactive waste to Sierra Blanca, thus 
     putting many residents along these routes at risk from a 
     transportation accident; and
       Whereas, precious underground water supplies for the region 
     could be contaminated by this facility; and
       Whereas, the proposed site is only 16 miles from the Rio 
     Grande, thus endangering Mexican and U.S. residents who live 
     downstream; and
       Whereas, Sierra Blanca is a poor, 70% Hispanic community 
     and studies have shown that toxic waste dumps are often 
     sighted in poor minority communities; and
       Whereas, four of the six existing low-level nuclear waste 
     dumps have leaked radiation into the surrounding environment; 
     and
       Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of 
     nuclear waste such as above ground monitored retrievable 
     storage.
       Now therefore be it resolved, that the City of 
     Brackettville, City Council oppose a nuclear waste dump in 
     Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas.
                                                                    ____


                               Resolution

       Whereas, the state of Texas has chosen Sierra Blanca, 
     Hudspeth County, for the site of a low-level nuclear waste 
     dump which would receive wastes from Texas, Maine, and 
     Vermont and whereas the wastes will be toxic for thousands of 
     years; and,
       Whereas, the site of the nuclear dump is only 37 miles from 
     El Paso County; and,
       Whereas, a radioactive release from the project could 
     threaten the residents of El Paso; and,
       Whereas, precious underground water supplies for the region 
     could be contaminated by this facility; and,
       Whereas, the proposed site is only 16 miles from the Rio 
     Grande, thus endangering Mexican and U.S. residents who live 
     downstream; and,
       Whereas, the growth pattern of El Paso is in the direction 
     of Hudspeth County and whereas a nuclear waste dump will lead 
     to devaluation of surrounding land resulting in a loss of tax 
     revenue; and,
       Whereas, Sierra Blanca is a poor, 70% Hispanic community 
     and studies have shown that toxic waste dumps are often 
     sighted in poor minority communities; and,
       Whereas, five of the six existing low-level nuclear waste 
     dumps have leaked radiation into the surrounding environment; 
     and,
       Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of 
     nuclear waste such as above ground monitored retrievable 
     storage.
       Now therefore, be it resolved, that the El Paso County 
     Judge and County Commissioners oppose a nuclear waste dump in 
     Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas.
                                                                    ____


                    City of Marfa: Resolution 95-11

       Whereas, the state of Texas, by action of the previous 
     Governor of the State, did mandate the establishment of a 
     nuclear waste dump site in an area of Far West Texas for the 
     sole purpose of storing nuclear waste from the state of 
     Texas, with pending permits for nuclear waste dumps and 
     storage from the state of Maine and Vermont, and,
       Whereas, no citizen or body of citizens in any jurisdiction 
     of Far West Texas has ever had the opportunity to vote for or 
     against the establishing of such waste site by the legal 
     voting process which is the right of all citizens; and, which 
     violates their sovereign rights as citizens of this State and 
     the United States, and,
       Whereas, these toxic wastes could affect the health and 
     welfare of the present generation and all future generations; 
     and the radioactive release from this project, and others of 
     a like kind, could also affect all of the citizens of this 
     area; and,
       Whereas, there are no restrictions or requirements as to 
     marking, labeling or illuminating for transportation of such 
     waste either by highway or by rail to the Far West Texas 
     site; and there are not speed limits nor are there 
     restrictions as to convoy type movement of these wastes in 
     place in any jurisdiction which is without regard for safety 
     of its citizens as it passes through urban and rural areas to 
     the dump site, and,
       Whereas, the extremely limited water resources and 
     underground water supply known to exist throughout this semi-
     arid represents the most precious commodity known to man and 
     could be endangered by radioactive leakage, spillage or 
     negligence in the total process of handling these potential 
     dangerous materials and; therefore, must be protected at all 
     costs and above all other considerations, and,
       Whereas, without regard to any minorities, race, ethnic 
     background, economic, status, population or any other group 
     of concerned people since this is a universal concern 
     involving the sovereign rights of all citizens which is to be 
     protected by their government from radioactive nuclear waste 
     of a toxic nature, and,
       Whereas, our government's agencies must provide protection 
     from all dangers involved in storage and disposal of such 
     materials be it underground or above ground.
       Now, Therefore be it resolved by the City Commission of the 
     City of Marfa in Presidio County, Texas hereby opposes:
       All nuclear waste dumps and dump sites within any area of 
     far west Texas.
                                                                    ____


  Resolution: A Resolution of the Commissioner's Court of Jeff Davis 
County, Texas Opposing the Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump To Be Located in 
                 Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas

       Whereas, the State of Texas has chosen Sierra Blanca, 
     Hudspeth County, for the site of a low-level nuclear waste 
     dump which would receive wastes from Texas, Maine, and 
     Vermont; and
       Whereas, the wastes will be toxic for thousands of years; 
     and
       Whereas, a radioactive release from the project could 
     threaten the residents of West Texas; and
       Whereas, West Texas highways could be used for the 
     transportation of radioactive waste to Sierra Blanca, thus 
     putting many residents along these routes at risk from a 
     transportation accident; and
       Whereas, precious underground water supplies for the region 
     could be contaminated by this facility; and
       Whereas, the proposed site is only 16 miles from the Rio 
     Grande, thus endangering Mexican and U.S. residents who live 
     downstream; and
       Whereas, Sierra Blanca is a poor, 70-percent Hispanic 
     community and studies have shown that toxic waste dumps are 
     often sited in poor minority communities; and
       Whereas, four of the six existing low-level nuclear waste 
     dumps have leaked radiation into the surrounding environment; 
     and
       Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of 
     nuclear waste such as above ground monitored retrievable 
     storage.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Commissioner's Court 
     of the County of Jeff Davis, Texas that: It hereby opposes a 
     nuclear waste dump in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas.
                                                                    ____


 Resolution--No. R: 95-67; A Resolution of the Commissioners Court of 
Presidio County Opposing the Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump To Be Located 
                in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas

       Whereas, the State of Texas has chosen Sierra Blanca, 
     Hudspeth County, for the site of a low-level nuclear waste 
     dump which would receive wastes from Texas, Maine and 
     Vermont; and
       Whereas, the wastes will be toxic for thousands of years; 
     and
       Whereas, a radioactive release from the project could 
     threaten the residents of West Texas; and
       Whereas, West Texas highways could be used for the 
     transportation of radioactive waste to Sierra Blanca, thus 
     putting many residents along these routes at risk from a 
     transportation accident; and
       Whereas, precious underground water supplies for the region 
     could be contaminated by this facility; and
       Whereas, the proposed site is only 16 miles from the Rio 
     Grande, thus endangering Mexican and U.S. residents who live 
     downstream; and
       Whereas, Sierra Blanca is a poor, 70% Hispanic community 
     and studies have shown that toxic waste dumps are often 
     sighted in poor minority communities; and
       Whereas, four of the six existing low-level nuclear waste 
     dumps have leaked radiation into the surrounding environment; 
     and
       Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of 
     nuclear waste such as above ground monitored retrievable 
     storage.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Commissioners Court 
     of Presidio County in Marfa, Texas, that: It hereby opposes a 
     nuclear waste dump in any part of West Texas West of the 
     Pecos River.
                                                                    ____


 Resolution No. R: 95-67: A Resolution of the city council of the City 
   of Del Rio, Texas opposing the proposed nuclear waste dump to be 
            located in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas

       Whereas, the State of Texas has chosen Sierra Blanca, 
     Hudspeth County, for the site of a low-level nuclear waste 
     dump which would  

[[Page H 9112]]

     receive wastes from Texas, Maine, and Vermont; and
       Whereas, the wastes will be toxic for thousands of years; 
     and
       Whereas, a radioactive release from the project could 
     threaten the residents of West Texas; and
       Whereas, West Texas highways could be used for the 
     transportation of radioactive waste to Sierra Blanca, thus 
     putting many residents along these routes at risk from a 
     transportation accident; and
       Whereas, precious underground water supplies for the region 
     could be contaminated by this facility; and
       Whereas, the proposed site is only 16 miles from the Rio 
     Grande, thus endangering Mexican and U.S. residents who live 
     downstream; and
       Whereas, Sierra Blanca is a poor 70% Hispanic community and 
     studies have shown that toxic waste dumps are often isolated 
     in poor minority communities; and
       Whereas, four of the six existing low-level nuclear dumps 
     have leaked radiation into the surrounding environment; and
       Whereas, safer alternatives exist for the storage of 
     nuclear waste such as above ground monitored retrievable 
     storage.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the 
     City of Del Rio, Texas, that: It hereby opposes a nuclear 
     waste dump in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County, Texas.
       Passed and approved on this 27th day of June 1995.
                                                                    ____


    Mexico-United States: Agreement To Cooperate in the Solution of 
             Environmental Problems in the Border Area \1\

        [Done at La Paz, Baja California, Mexico, Aug. 14, 1983]

       Agreement between the United States of America and the 
     United Mexican States on cooperation for the protection and 
     improvement of the environment in the border area:
     \1\ [Reproduced from the text provided by the U.S. Department 
     of State.
     [The Memorandum of Understanding, referred to in Article 23 
     and which this Agreement supersedes, is reproduced at 17 
     I.L.M. 1056 (1978).
     [An agreement between Canada and the United States concerning 
     acid rain research appears at I.L.M. page 1017.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The United States of America and the United Mexican States,
       Recognizing the importance of a healthful environment to 
     the long-term economic and social well-being of present and 
     future generations of each country as well as of the global 
     community;
       Recalling that the Declaration of the United Nations 
     Conference on the Human Environment, proclaimed in Stockholm 
     in 1972, called upon nations to collaborate to resolve 
     environmental problems of common concern;
       Noting previous agreements and programs providing for 
     environmental cooperation between the two countries;
       Believing that such cooperation is of mutual benefit in 
     coping with similar environmental problems in each country;
       Acknowledging the important work of the International 
     Boundary and Water Commission and the contribution of the 
     agreements concluded between the two countries relating to 
     environmental affairs;
       Reaffirming their political will to further strengthen and 
     demonstrate the importance attached by both Governments to 
     cooperation on environmental protection and in furtherance of 
     the principle of good neighborliness;
       Have agreed as follows:


                               article 1

       The United States of America and the United Mexican States, 
     hereinafter referred to as the Parties, agree to cooperate in 
     the field of environmental protection in the border area on 
     the basis of equality, reciprocity and mutual benefit. The 
     objectives of the present Agreement are to establish the 
     basis for cooperation between the Parties for the protection, 
     improvement and conservation of the environment and the 
     problems which affect it, as well as to agree on necessary 
     measures to prevent and control pollution in the border area, 
     and to provide the framework for development of a system of 
     notification for emergency situations. Such objectives shall 
     be pursued without prejudice to the cooperation which the 
     Parties may agree to undertake outside the border area.


                               article 2

       The Parties undertake, to the fullest extent practical, to 
     adopt the appropriate measures to prevent, reduce and 
     eliminate sources of pollution in their respective territory 
     which affect the border area of the other.
       Additionally, the Parties shall cooperate in the solution 
     of the environmental problems of mutual concern in the border 
     area, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.


                               article 3

       Pursuant to this Agreement, the Parties may conclude 
     specific arrangements for the solution of common problems in 
     the border area, which may be annexed thereto. Similarly, the 
     Parties may also agree upon annexes to this Agreement on 
     technical matters.


                               article 4

       For the purposes of this Agreement, it shall be understood 
     that the ``border area'' refers to the area situated 100 
     kilometers on either side of the inland and maritime 
     boundaries between the Parties.


                               article 5

       The Parties agree to coordinate their efforts, in 
     conformity with their own national legislation and existing 
     bilateral agreements to address problems of air, land and 
     water pollution in the border area.


                               article 6

       To implement this Agreement, the Parties shall consider 
     and, as appropriate, pursue in a coordinated manner 
     practical, legal, institutional and technical measures for 
     protecting the quality of the environmental in the border 
     area. Forms of cooperation may include: coordination of 
     national programs; scientific and educational exchanges; 
     environmental monitoring; environmental impact assessment; 
     and periodic exchanges of information and data on likely 
     sources of pollution in their respective territory which may 
     produce environmentally polluting incidents, as defined in an 
     annex to this Agreement.


                               article 7

       The Parties shall assess, as appropriate, in accordance 
     with their respective national laws, regulations and 
     policies, projects that may have significant impacts on the 
     environment of the border area, so that appropriate measures 
     may be considered to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental 
     effects.


                               article 8

       Each Party designates a national coordinator whose 
     principal functions will be to coordinate and monitor 
     implementation of this Agreement, make recommendations to the 
     Parties, and organize the annual meetings referred to in 
     Article 10, and the meetings of the experts referred to in 
     Article 11. Additional responsibilities of the national 
     coordinators may be agreed to in an annex to this Agreement.
       In the case of the United States of America the national 
     coordinator shall be the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
     in the case of Mexico it shall be the Secretaria de 
     Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia, through the Subsecretaria de 
     Ecologia.


                               article 9

       Taking into account the subjects to be examined jointly, 
     the national coordinators may invite, as appropriate, 
     representatives of federal, state and municipal governments 
     to participate in the meetings provided for in this 
     Agreement. By mutual agreement they may also invite 
     representatives of international governmental or non-
     governmental organizations who may be able to contribute some 
     element of expertise on problems to be solved.
       The national coordinators will determine by mutual 
     agreement the form and manner of participation of non-
     governmental entities.


                               article 10

       The Parties shall hold at a minimum an annual high level 
     meeting to review the manner in which this Agreement is being 
     implemented. These meetings shall take place alternately in 
     the border area of Mexico and the United States of America.
       The composition of the delegations which represent each 
     Party, both in these annual meetings as well as in the 
     meetings of experts referred to in Article 11, will be 
     communicated to the other Party through diplomatic channels.


                               article 11

       The Parties may, as they deem necessary, convoke meetings 
     of experts for the purposes of coordinating their national 
     programs referred to in Article 6, and of preparing the 
     drafts of the specific arrangements and technical annexes 
     referred to in Article 3.
       These meetings of experts may review technical subjects. 
     The opinions of the experts in such meetings shall be 
     communicated by them to the national coordinators, and will 
     serve to advise the Parties on technical matters.


                               article 12

       Each Party shall ensure that its national coordinator is 
     informed of activities of its cooperating agencies carried 
     out under this Agreement. Each Party shall also ensure that 
     its national coordinator is informed of the implementation of 
     other agreements concluded between the two Governments 
     concerning matters related to this Agreement. The national 
     coordinators of both Parties will present to the annual 
     meeting a report on the environmental aspects of all joint 
     work conducted under this Agreement and on implementation of 
     other relevant agreements between the Parties, both bilateral 
     and multilateral.
       Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or otherwise 
     affect the functions entrusted to the International Boundary 
     and Water Commission in accordance with the Water Treaty of 
     1944.


                               article 13

       Each Party shall be responsible for informing its border 
     states and for consulting them in accordance with their 
     respective constitutional systems, in relation to matters 
     covered by this Agreement.


                               article 14

       Unless otherwise agreed, each Party shall bear the cost of 
     its participation in the implementation of this Agreement, 
     including the expenses of personnel who participate in any 
     activity undertaken on the basis of it.
       For the training of personnel, the transfer of equipment 
     and the construction of installations related to the 
     implementation of this Agreement, the Parties may agree on a 
     special modality of financing, taking into account the 
     objectives defined in this Agreement.
     
[[Page H 9113]]



                               article 15

       The Parties shall facilitate the entry of equipment and 
     personnel related to this Agreement, subject to the laws and 
     regulations of the receiving country.
       In order to undertake the monitoring of polluting 
     activities in the border area, the Parties shall undertake 
     consultations relating to the measurement and analysis of 
     polluting elements in the border area.


                               article 16

       All technical information obtained through the 
     implementation of this Agreement will be available to both 
     Parties. Such information may be made available to third 
     parties by the mutual agreement of the Parties to this 
     Agreement.


                               article 17

       Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prejudice 
     other existing or future agreements concluded between the two 
     Parties, or affect the rights and obligations of the Parties 
     under international agreements to which they are a party.


                               article 18

       Activities under this Agreement shall be subject to the 
     availability of funds and other resources to each Party and 
     to the applicable laws and regulations in each country.


                               article 19

       The present Agreement shall enter into force upon an 
     exchange of Notes stating that each Party has completed its 
     necessary internal procedures.


                               article 20

       The present Agreement shall remain in force indefinitely 
     unless one of the Parties notifies the other, through 
     diplomatic channels, of its desire to denounce it, in which 
     case the Agreement will terminate six months after the date 
     of such written notification. Unless otherwise agreed, such 
     termination shall not affect the validity of any arrangements 
     made under this Agreement.


                               article 21

       This Agreement may be amended by the agreement of the 
     Parties.


                               article 22

       The adoption of the annexes and of the specific 
     arrangements provided for in Article 3, and the amendments 
     thereto, will be effected by an exchange of Notes.


                               article 23

       This Agreement supersedes the exchange of Notes, concluded 
     on June 19, 1978 with the attached Memorandum of 
     Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency of 
     the United States and the Subsecretariat for Environmental 
     Improvement of Mexico for Cooperation on Environmental 
     Programs and Transboundary Problems.
       Done in duplicate, in the city of La Paz, Baja California, 
     Mexico, on the 14th of August of 1983, in the English and 
     Spanish languages, both texts being equally authentic.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields], the sponsor of the legislation.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 558, a 
bill I introduced to provide the consent of Congress to the Texas low-
level radioactive waste disposal compact. As most of us know, the 
legislatures of Texas, Maine, and Vermont--the States composing this 
compact--approved this legislation overwhelmingly.
  As we consider H.R. 558 today, I would like to make four simple 
points:
  First of all, we should pass this legislation out of recognition of 
the accomplishment of the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont for their 
responsiveness in doing just what Congress asked them to do. In 1980, 
Federal legislation was passed which established a low-level 
radioactive waste policy that placed the responsibility within the 
States for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. In 1985, 
further amendments were passed in Congress reinforcing this policy and 
providing incentives to States to form these compacts. Therefore, after 
they have done their job of passing this compact in all three State 
legislatures, we should do our job and act promptly to approve this 
resulting compact agreement. In response to Congress' entreaty, nine 
compacts have already been formed and approved, including 42 States; 
this compact will bring the total to 10 compacts covering 45 States.
  Second, our role is to be sure that the compact comports with the 
underlying Federal law from which it derives and not to preside over 
controversies that may be local in nature, which are the responsibility 
of the local authorities. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, our responsibility 
is to be sure that the three State legislatures were consistent with 
the underlying Federal law when they passed this compact and not to 
arbitrate over local issues such as site selection. That is a matter 
for the States, and it would be intrusive of us to assume the authority 
unto ourselves. The compact implicitly defers questions on these 
matters to the Texas Legislature, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste 
Disposal Authority, the Texas Water Commission, and other State 
agencies.
  Third, this compact has already received a hearing before the 
Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on May 11. Subsequently, the 
subcommittee approved the compact by a voice vote. Shortly thereafter, 
the full Commerce Committee approved H.R. 558 by a vote of 41 to 2. The 
compact remains the same, the underlying Federal legislation remains 
the same, and therefore I would urge my colleagues to support this bill 
so that the three States in question can perform their responsibilities 
and proceed to develop a site to responsibly dispose of low-level 
radioactive waste.
  Last of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this 
legislation is in the best interest of all three States, but 
particularly for my State of Texas. By forming this compact, Texas 
avoids the risk of being forced to take waste from other States which 
would generate much larger amounts of low-level waste. Under the 
compact, Texas has full control of the site, development, operation and 
management, and closure of its low-level waste disposal facility. 
Furthermore, with our State's leadership in such areas as research and 
medical activities, which use low-level radioactive materials at our 
academic and health institutions, it is in our best interest to 
responsibly provide for the disposal of the constant wastes from those 
activities and take a leadership role in planning for our future.
  This responsible action was reflected in the approval of the compact 
by the Texas House of Representatives by a voice vote and the Texas 
Senate by a vote of 26 to 2.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, there is no legitimate reason to delay an 
approval at the Federal level any longer.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this compact. This plan 
causes me, it causes many people in the city of Austin and across the 
State of Texas, the gravest concern. Though a new Member here, I had 
understood there was at least some tradition of giving a certain degree 
of deference to the Members in whose district a project of this type is 
going to be located.
  I have listened to the eloquent comments of the gentleman from El 
Paso, TX [Mr. Coleman] who has fought steadfastly, along with his 
staff, to resist this compact, to try to block it. I have listened to 
the very telling comments today of my colleague from Texas, a fellow 
Texan, Mr. Bonilla, in whose district this particular project would be 
sited. And I think what they say has a considerable degree of merit.
  My district, the city of Austin and Travis County, is halfway across 
Texas from where this project will be located. Hundreds of miles. But I 
can tell you that the people of central Texas are every bit as 
concerned about this as are the people of Sierra Blanca or the people 
of El Paso.
  I believe that I have now received a total of 1,415 communications 
from people in Travis County, TX, expressing opposition to the location 
of this dump; and, oh, by the way, six people who said they were for 
locating it at this point and approving this compact. What these people 
kept saying is the same thing that the Austin City Council said when it 
voted 5 to nothing against this compact, and that is do not make Texas 
the dumping ground for this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, let us acknowledge from the beginning that when Congress 
passed this piece of legislation, the 1986 Low Level Radioactive Policy 
Act, it was planning on agreements that did not look anything like the 
one we are taking up here today. When it referred to a regional 
compact, it has in mind just that, a region, because there would be 
less danger of spills and other problems if you localize the nature of 
the disposal.
  Well, we in Texas have a rather big idea of our State. I have even 
heard some Texas talk about Colorado as north Texas, and indeed when we 
declared our independence in 1936, it was north Texas. But I have yet 
to see the 

[[Page H 9114]]
most boastful Texan ever suggest that Maine and Vermont were in the 
region of Texas.
  There is good reason for everyone and not just Texans, boastful or 
otherwise, to be concerned about this compact. Because to get from here 
to there, to get from Maine and Vermont to Texas, you are going to have 
to cross a little of these United States. So if you represent Ohio or 
New Jersey or New York or Kentucky or Tennessee or Arkansas, or any 
number of other States, you have every reason to be concerned about 
what happens when this highly toxic radioactive waste is transported 
across your State and across your district.
  Though this compact has been lobbied through the Texas Legislature 
very successfully as a way to limit the dump in the State of Texas, 
exactly the opposite is going to happen. There is absolutely no reason 
that the commissioners of this compact cannot get together without any 
input from the people in Sierra Blanca or in El Paso or in Austin or in 
this U.S. Congress and expand the compact to include every State in the 
Nation. Under the definition of ``region'' being used here, there is no 
more basis for excluding New York or California than there is for 
including Maine and Vermont. Texas could well become the place where 
all of this toxic waste from around the country is located.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, there are already proposals up talking about mixing 
radioactive waste, low-level radioactive waste, with other types of 
toxic waste once this compact is ratified. Other States and economic 
pressures are going to cause this compact to include other States and 
have Texas be a dumping ground.
  The Hudspeth County site that has been chosen in the district of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] raises a number of safety concerns. 
Seepage of radioactive waste into ground water supplies has been a 
problem with other dump sites. This is just a few miles from the Rio 
Grande River which provides a water supply to all of the southern 
border of the big State of Texas.
  I agree that we also need to set a good example for our neighbor to 
the south, Mexico. Can Members imagine the uproar, the outrage on the 
floor of this Congress if Mexico was talking about locating a 
radioactive waste dump right on the border next to the United States? 
We would hear one Member after another denounce that kind of operation.
  But that is precisely what we are doing at the same time we are 
seeking the involvement of the people of Mexico and their government in 
cleaning up other kinds of environmental damage all along the border 
from San Diego, CA to Brownsville, TX. This is a step that really works 
against our national interest all along the border on a wide range of 
environmental issues.
  An earthquake. Well, most people associate those with San Francisco 
or California. Yet, as my colleague the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] who has also fought so ably against the compact pointed our 
earlier, we just had one of 5.6 on the Richter scale within a 
relatively short distance of this Sierra Blanca site back in April when 
this measure was being considered here in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a deeply flawed plan. This is a facility that 
will house waste not just for a few years but for a few millennia. Do 
not make the Lone Star State the Lone Dump State. Vote against this 
legislation.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from El Paso, TX [Mr. Coleman].
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me only add to what I was saying a little bit 
before. I wanted to hit a couple of points that may have been lost 
because we did not get to them.
  One certainly was concerning the volume of waste. I know that that is 
not an issue that a lot of people concern themselves with, but let me 
tell the Members what this compact that we are voting on says, very 
simply.
  Texas accepts responsibility for both management and disposal as 
described in article 1, section 1.01. Management is defined as 
``collection, consolidation, storage, packaging or treatment.'' 
Treatment, however, is not defined in this agreement. I hope that is 
just not an oversight of the committee.
  It is generally accepted, as I understand it, in terms of the 
committee's understanding of it as including incineration? I think so. 
Incineration reduces the volume of the waste but not the level of 
radioactivity. It is not like other kinds of waste disposal sites that 
Members may be thinking of. Thus, less volume of waste will be disposed 
of at the site but at a greater level of radioactivity.
  Yet, what happens in the agreement that is unclear if waste imported 
from other States but incinerated in Texas is counted under the Texas 
portion of the nonhost allotment? Article iii, section 3.04(11) says: 
``The shipments of low-level radioactive waste from all nonhost party 
States shall not exceed 20 percent of the volume estimated to be 
disposed of by the host State during the 50-year period.''
  Shipment volumes are tied exclusively to disposal estimates. The 
compact is silent on how much volume can be shipped for management.
  Why is that? We did not care? It did not matter? That is out in the 
little old town, mainly Hispanic community, called Sierra Blanca in 
west Texas, right? Is that why we did not care?
  I think there are a lot of us that have some very serious questions 
about this legislation. Were it not placed on a suspension provision 
under the rules, we could actually be able to amend it in a way that 
perhaps we could all be supportive.
  Unfortunately, the State legislature has failed to recognize the 
tenuous dilemma these technical flaws have placed on us. That is on 
whom we rely. We should not be doing that for the health and welfare of 
American citizens.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, while those of us from Texas are 
understandably voicing the great anxiety of the people of our State and 
the particular region in which this is to be located, of far greater 
importance to the listeners to this debate within the House is the 
enormous threat to the national interest that is posed by this compact. 
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] said a moment ago, there have 
already been nine of those that have been approved, but there have not 
been nine of these kinds of compacts that have been approved.
  There have not been any compacts approved where we are putting a low-
level nuclear waste dump in an earthquake zone. There have not been any 
compacts approved where we have put a low-level nuclear waste dump 14 
miles from a river that serves the farms and ranches and the drinking 
water for millions of people. And there have not been any low-level 
nuclear waste dumps approved which would invite the neighboring 
country, which will no doubt take great offense at this decision, to 
begin locating its undesirable entities and dumps right on the river, 
right on the border, right across from the United States.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] asked the right question a 
moment ago. Is it not obvious how we would feel if the Mexican 
Government was going to locate a nuclear waste dump 14 miles from the 
Rio Grande River on the other side? We would be up in arms about it. 
Yet we are going to sit back here, if we do as these gentlemen have 
asked us, and approve this.
  They are going to get up in a moment and say, oh, siting decisions 
are not the province of the U.S. Congress. Well, generally I would 
agree. Siting decisions within a State, that is pretty much up to the 
State.
  But if a siting decision has international foreign policy 
implications, if a siting decision would subject the people of the 
United States to enormous financial liability because of the 
irresponsibility of the decision, then that is a situational where we 
should exercise our constitution authority and responsibility and say, 
``No, we are not going to approve a compact like this. Take it back and 
start over.'' That is all that we are asking for.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H 9115]]

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say respecting our binational 
agreements is pretty important. I have been told over and over again in 
hearings throughout the last decade that the agreement that President 
Ronald Reagan made with the President of Mexico was not a treaty, and 
that is absolutely right. Nonetheless, many of us respect agreements 
made by our Presidents. In fact, I think it is the responsibility of 
the U.S. Congress, not the State legislature, to see to it that we 
respect those agreements and live up to them.
  The La Paz Agreement, under article 2, said very simply that the 
Governments of Mexico and the United States were directed to the 
fullest extent practicable to adopt appropriate measures to prevent, 
reduce, and eliminate sources of pollution in their respective 
territory which affect the border area of the other. Article 7 stated 
that the two governments shall assess as appropriate projects that may 
have significant impacts on the border area.
  I have placed into the Record with my motion to revise and extend the 
objections of the Mexican Government and diplomatic note to the United 
States. That is not the responsibility of the State of Texas. We are a 
State that is in this Union. That is the responsibility of this 
Congress to see to it that we respond in an appropriate fashion.

  I can just tell the Members that my colleague from Texas is 
absolutely right. The United States would not put up with it if it was 
within 100 kilometers, as the La Paz Agreement states we were to have 
the dumping of radioactive waste by the Government of Mexico.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
additional comments. I would emphasize once again, we are not talking 
about a simple siting question that makes some people happy and some 
unhappy. We are talking about a siting question that subjects this 
country to enormous liabilities.
  In 1931, 40 miles from this site, there was an earthquake that 
registered 6.4 on the Richter scale. Sixty-five years ago is just 
yesterday in geologic time. In April of this year, just 2 months before 
this thing was marked up in committee, there was an earthquake in the 
same region that measured 5.6 on the Richter scale. Can anybody argue 
that we ought to let States locate nuclear waste dumps in earthquake 
zones right next to an international boundary and on a river that 
serves millions of people, who if harmed will be in the courthouse 
asking the taxpayers of this country to pay for the harm that they 
suffered? I do not think we can make that argument.
  Today the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] and I and the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] 
stand on the floor of the House and ask this House of Representatives 
to make a decision that is in the interest of the American people, and 
say to the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont, go back and do it 
again. We may approve the next one and we may not, but for goodness 
sakes do not send us one that is in an earthquake zone.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say that our colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields], should be commended for this efforts to move this bill forward 
in a very fashionable, responsible, and timely manner.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, for his 
support in moving this very reasonable measure through the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields] to close debate.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief.
  The purpose of a law passed by Congress is to allow States to make 
decisions for themselves, to make decisions relative to siting. That 
decision has been made. It is a decision that has been reviewed by the 
Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission. It has been 
reviewed by the Texas Water Commission. The Texas legislature has voted 
on this. I stand here with a letter from Governor George Bush. It is 
factual to say that former Governor Ann Richards supported this. I 
stand here with a letter from Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock, I stand 
here with a letter from Mickey LeMater of the M.D. Anderson Cancer 
Institute talking about the need for Congress to move forward.
  Is there a benefit to the State? The answer is absolutely. That if 
the State of Texas had not itself moved forward, then Texas would have 
been subject to becoming the dumping ground for the rest of the 
country. We would not have had the ability or have the ability to pass 
laws restricting the low-level nuclear waste coming in to our 
particular State. This is a decision that has been made by Texans for 
Texans in the best interest of our particular State. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this piece of legislation.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since I have done a 
suspension on the floor and I am unsure how we can assure a record 
vote. At what time should that request be made?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. We will have that in just a moment.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Schaefer] that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 
558.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________