[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H14261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     H.R. 1020 WILL BUST THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about H.R. 1020, which 
has to do with nuclear waste storage. It is also called the ``budget 
buster,'' because this bill will indeed bust the budget. It will bust 
the budget by over $4 billion in the next 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, not only is there a problem with this bill as far as the 
budget is concerned; there is also a problem with this bill as far as 
safety and as far as States' rights are concerned. Let me address just 
a few of the points that this bill fails to address.
  First of all, the nuclear waste repository was originally put forth 
in 1982 to be in the State of Nevada or two other sites. In 1987, the 
famous bill that we in Nevada obviously are very much opposed to 
eliminated the other two sites from being studied and put it only at 
Yucca Mountain. This deep geological storage area has been being 
developed for the last several years.
  No good science is being used out there; this is purely a political 
process. But in the process of developing Yucca Mountain, 
transportation of the waste to Yucca Mountain has been studied. It had 
to be made safe.
  Well, in the process of developing a safe, reliable way of 
transporting the nuclear waste to Nevada, lo and behold, it was 
discovered dry cast storage would also store nuclear waste for the next 
100 years in a very safe, reliable manner.
  We can actually leave this nuclear waste on site in dry casts for the 
next 100 years, and if we want to retrieve it, if we develop technology 
that allows us to use this spent nuclear waste, then we will have it at 
the sites and be able to retrieve it very easily. If we bury it into 
the ground, we will not be able to retrieve this waste. Therefore, from 
an economic standpoint, it is much cheaper to have on-site dry-cast 
storage.
  Yucca Mountain was originally supposed to be $200 to $400 million 
total. In recent years now, new studies have come out where Yucca 
Mountain will cost over $30 billion to develop. That is one of the 
reasons it is a budget-buster, $30 billion versus $200 million, and 
that is just current estimates. We all know, 10 to 15 years from now, 
what happens to government estimates; they always go up. So how big 
will this bill be for the U.S. taxpayer?
  Some people say that this is a national security issue. I want to 
raise that point. Some people say that it is not safe to keep this 
nuclear waste at all of these storage facilities around the country. 
Well, if that were the case, why do we not have U.S. troops guarding 
these places currently?
  This is not a national security issue, and therefore, it becomes a 
States' rights issue. All of these States that have enjoyed nuclear 
power over the years, Nevada not being one of those States, should have 
to deal with the waste, because it is not a national security issue. 
Those States that have benefited from the power and the low-cost power 
over the years should pay and should have that stuff in their backyard, 
this nuclear waste Nevada has never had the benefit of; and therefore, 
it should not be dumped on a small State just because that small State 
only has two Representatives in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this whole process has never been based on sound 
science, has never been based on economics, but has been based purely 
on politics. We in Nevada understand that everybody wants to get 
nuclear waste out of their backyard and into Nevada's backyard. 
However, we oppose this measure, because not only will it bust the 
budget by over $4 billion, and when we are looking at potentially $30 
billion total money spent on this deal, the $4 billion actually becomes 
a very small number, but we also oppose this on States' rights issues.
  The 10th amendment clearly states that those powers not given to the 
Federal Government are reserved for the States and/or the people. Where 
in the Constitution does it give, when it is not dealing with a 
national security issue, this Congress the power to ship nuclear waste 
to a State that does not want it? This is a clear violation of the 10th 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that political expediency is 
not what this new Congress is about. That is not what we were elected 
to do. We were elected to respect the Constitution, and we were also 
elected to balance the budget. H.R. 1020 is a violation of everything 
that we were elected to do.

                          ____________________