[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9631-H9638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1270, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF
1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Hastings] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is
for purposes of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283 is a
structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1270, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. The rule provides for 1 hour of
general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member
of the Committee on Commerce, as well as 20 minutes of debate equally
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Resources.
The rule makes in order a committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute as the base text, and waives Congressional Budget Act
requirements that the Committee on the Budget report provisions within
its jurisdiction. The rule also waives House rules prohibiting
appropriations in an authorization measure.
Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order 10 amendments, debatable in the
order listed and for the amount of time specified in the Committee on
Rules report.
[[Page H9632]]
The rule further specifies that time for debate on each amendment
shall be equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent,
and that amendments shall not be subject to further amendment, and
shall not be subject for a demand for a division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole. Furthermore, the rule waives
all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
Under the rule, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
postpone votes and reduce the voting time on a postponed vote to 5
minutes, provided it follows a regular 15-minute vote.
In addition, the rule provides that after a motion that the Committee
rise has been rejected on a day, the Chairman may entertain another
such motion on that day only if offered by the majority leader or his
designee. The rule also provides that after a motion to strike the
enacting words of the bill has been rejected, the Chairman may not
entertain another such motion during further consideration of the bill.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
After passage of H.R. 1270, the rule provides for the consideration
of a motion to call up S. 104, the Senate version of the bill, strike
all after the enacting clause, and insert the text of the House-passed
version of H.R. 1270. After adoption of the motion, the rule makes in
order a motion for the House to insist on its amendments to S. 104 and
request a conference.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents the area that has the largest
repository of nuclear waste in the United States, let me take this
opportunity to remind my colleagues that Congress not only has a
statutory responsibility but a moral obligation to face squarely the
issue of long-term storage of nuclear waste.
For more than half a century now our Nation has faced the challenges
and reaped the benefits of nuclear science. Our ever-growing
understanding of the atom has helped to win both World War II and the
cold war that followed. At the same time, nuclear science has always
made possible the generation of safe, clean electric power for millions
of Americans in ways that produce far less pollution than many other
sources of energy.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there is a very large and costly
asterisk attached to the many benefits of nuclear energy. That is the
need to deal with the large quantities of nuclear waste that are a
byproduct of power generation in more than 100 reactors across this
country.
True, we could dramatically reduce the waste stream if we treated the
spent fuel produced in our Nation's powerplants as a renewable
resource. Unfortunately, however, the tremendous potential for
reprocessing has never been realized in the United States because of
political opposition based more, frankly, on political ideology than on
sound science.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, nuclear waste today sits untreated in
temporary storage sites across the country that are rapidly reaching
their full capacity. The amount of such waste is large and it is still
growing.
The nuclear wastes resulting from defense production are even less
stable. For example, in my own district at Hanford, 54 million gallons
of liquid nuclear and hazardous wastes are sitting in 177 underground
storage tanks just a few miles from the Columbia River. In addition,
2,100 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rests little more than 100
yards from this same river. This pattern is repeated again and again at
Savannah River, SC; Rocky Flats, CO; at Oak Ridge in Tennessee; at
Idaho Engineering Laboratory in Idaho; and elsewhere.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has an obligation to act. Just as
clearly, there are those in this body who oppose this legislation. Let
me emphasize, I do not want to question their motives in opposing this
bill. No one on either side of this issue who has looked carefully at
the issues could fail to see the seriousness of the problems we face.
While I do not want to question their motives, I do have some
practical questions for the critics of H.R. 1270. First, what do they
propose as an alternative? We have done too little for too long, and
the time, frankly, is running out.
Would our opponents send us back to the drawing board and delay this
process yet once again? Would they leave this dangerous material stored
in hundreds of our communities indefinitely? Do they truly favor
leaving this material in deteriorating containers and storage pools?
These are questions I think, Mr. Speaker, that need to be addressed in
the debate that will follow after the adoption of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, there are times when this body must make agonizingly
difficult decisions, and there are times when the risks of inaction are
simply too great. I believe this is one of those times. This is a sound
piece of legislation. The committees of jurisdiction have worked long
and hard to balance the concerns of Members from different parts of
this country. H.R. 1270 may not be perfect, but the rule we have
reported will provide Members an opportunity to address their most
serious objections to this bill.
The committee has reported a rule which will permit full and
extensive debate on all sides of this complex and controversial issue.
{time} 1230
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass this rule so that we can
proceed with the long overdue debate on H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1997.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] for
yielding me this time. This resolution is a structured rule that will
allow for consideration of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1997. Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes a process to store spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
As my colleague from Washington has described, this rule provides for
1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. It
also provides 20 minutes of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Resources.
Mr. Speaker, only 10 specific amendments may be offered. No other
amendments will be in order.
One of the major environmental problems facing our Nation is
disposing of the thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and other
dangerous radioactive wastes. The bill establishes an interim storage
facility at Yucca Mountain for these nuclear wastes. The bill
designates the same site for study as a permanent storage facility.
Unfortunately, the geological testing of Yucca Mountain has not been
completed. Moreover, the bill does not consider any other location for
a permanent facility. Acting hastily, before we have enough valid
scientific information, could burden future generations with even
greater problems than we face now. The bill also unnecessarily weakens
existing environmental standards for acceptable radiation releases. For
these reasons, the President would veto the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Committee on Rules made in order a
number of Democratic amendments among the 10 that may be offered.
However, more than half of the requested amendments were denied by the
Committee on Rules, including many amendments which would have improved
the bill.
One of the amendments the Committee on Rules denied would make
contractors more responsible for accidents when transporting
radioactive wastes. There is no reason why American taxpayers should
pay if the contractor is at fault, and there is no reason why this
amendment should not be offered.
Mr. Speaker, bills reported from the Committee on Commerce have been
traditionally brought to the floor under open rules, and I regret that
we seem to be ending that tradition.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, subcommittee
chairman on the Committee on Commerce dealing with this legislation.
[[Page H9633]]
(Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today the House is
considering the rule for H.R. 1270, and I think this is a real fair
rule. It is one that provides for 10 amendments, 5 sponsored by
Republican Members and 5 sponsored by Democrat Members. How much more
fair can we get than that?
H.R. 1270 was developed by the Committee on Commerce in a bipartisan
manner over the past 2\1/2\ years and enjoyed broad bipartisan support
in the committee. Last month, the bill was reported out by a margin of
43 to 3. It is my hope that H.R. 1270 will enjoy the broad bipartisan
support in the full House.
This bill has been a long time coming. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, 15
years ago, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a nuclear
waste program based on a permanent repository that was expected to
begin operation in 1998. However, this repository is well behind
schedule and will not begin operation now until the year 2010.
Last year a Federal court ruled that DOE had a legal duty to begin
accepting the nuclear waste in January 1998. However, DOE cannot meet
its legal duty to begin acceptance of this waste under current law,
since this repository will not be operational now until the year 2010
and current law prevents DOE from developing interim storage facilities
after a repository is licensed.
The Federal Government should not shirk its legal responsibility, and
the word of the Federal Government should mean something to the
American people. Congress must act to permit DOE to meet its legal duty
under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act through acceptance at an interim
storage facility.
Although the January 1998 deadline is not achievable, it is possible
to begin acceptance at an interim storage facility by the year 2002.
That is a near-term date that permits enough time for the NRC to
license the interim storage facility.
Failure on the part of DOE to fulfill its legal duties will have a
heavy cost. State public utility commissions and utilities are suing
DOE for damages to pay for their onsite storage costs. If the courts
order DOE to pay these damages, funding for the nuclear waste program
will dry up and progress toward permanent disposal of nuclear waste
will grind to a halt.
Current law also does not protect the consumers. Since 1983,
consumers have paid $13 billion in fees to fund the nuclear waste
program. Unfortunately, only a small part has really been paid for
that. Recently as much as 85 cents of every dollar contributed by
consumers has been diverted to other Federal programs, and this is a
sham on the taxpayers in this country.
This diversion will continue unless Congress amends the fee, tackles
this issue, and goes at it. The issue before the House is a simple one.
Should Congress really act to fulfill the legal obligations of the
Federal Government? Should they? And should Congress act to maintain
progress toward development of a permanent repository?
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to act and we have to act today,
and I urge Members to support the rule for H.R. 1270.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], a fine gentleman and the deputy minority
whip.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, few bills we consider pose a
greater threat to the health and well-being of our Nation than the one
before us today. Nuclear waste is a deadly poison, a poison we must not
treat lightly. We must develop an intelligent, thoughtful, and prudent
nuclear waste policy.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not intelligent. It is not thoughtful. It
is not prudent.
This bill would have us move nuclear waste not just once, but twice.
This bill will require nuclear waste to travel thousands of miles on
our highways and railroads, through our neighborhoods, past our homes,
down our streets. And in a few years, we may well do it all over again.
Why? Because we do not know if Yucca Mountain is safe.
Mr. Speaker, nuclear waste does not just go away. The poison will be
around for thousands of years. Our children and unborn generations will
live with the nuclear waste we have created with the threat of
leukemia, cancer, and a slow, agonizing death.
So when we store nuclear waste, let us take our time and do it right.
Do it right. We should not rush to send these poisons through our
neighborhoods, down our roads, down our railroads, into our streets and
into our neighborhoods.
Mr. Speaker, let us slow down. Think of our children. Think of unborn
generations, and defeat this ill-conceived and dangerous bill. I urge
my colleagues to defeat the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that obviously being from
Nevada, I am opposed to this rule, but let me give some real reasons to
be opposed to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, we came in actually as a Republican majority saying we
want to open up the process. We want to allow the democratic process to
go forward in a fair manner. This bill shuts down that process. It is
not an open rule. It should be an open rule, as the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Hall] said earlier.
But it also did not allow some very key amendments to be debated on
this floor. This bill waives some of the most important environmental
laws that we have on the books today. That is why every major
environmental group in this country is opposed to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments we had on here had to do with
private property rights. Republicans came in as part of the Contract
With America saying that we want to defend the fifth amendment and when
the Government devalues a citizen's property due to an action that it
takes, that it should compensate them for that. The Republican
leadership would not allow that amendment to this bill, H.R. 1270, to
even be debated.
Also, Mr. Speaker, they would not allow an amendment that would
protect our children in our schools from having nuclear waste
transported near their schools.
Now, the gentleman who is controlling time on this side talked about
alternatives. Alternatives. The NRC said that dry cask storage on site
is safe for up to 100 years, keeping it right where it is. The most
dangerous part of nuclear waste storage is actually transport. So why
do we want to do something that we do not need to do?
They are saying that reactors are running out of space. No reactor in
the United States has ever shut down because they were running out of
storage space. There is plenty of room. Yes, they might have to build a
concrete pad or two, put dry casks there, take these nuclear wastes out
of the swimming pools, but there is plenty of room.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. This
rule is ill-founded.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the State of Ohio killed a plan to
establish a radioactive waste dump because people in Ohio recognized
the dangers of moving the waste to our State. I rise in opposition to
this rule and to this bill which would permit transport of millions of
tons of high-level radioactive waste through 43 States and dump it on
the good people of Nevada.
{time} 1245
It is nothing short of a total outrage that the American people will
pay the price with their health and their tax dollars to dispose of
waste which comes from commercial nuclear reactors. It is a bitter
irony to those of us who oppose nuclear waste to be proven right, but
now being forced to accept 15,000 shipments of waste through our
communities.
This bill is fundamentally flawed. The amendments I tried to offer,
but were not ruled in order would have at the very least made the
shipments safer. In order to protect our densely populated urban areas,
I offered an amendment that would prohibit private companies from
transporting high level radioactive waste through any community larger
than 50,000 unless the waste originated from that community. That
amendment was rejected. The public has a right to know what is being
trucked through their communities.
[[Page H9634]]
I offered an amendment that would require a notice to be published in
a newspaper of general circulation in each community through which the
waste would be transported and that the notice include a complete
inventory of the waste to be transported. We have to be certain that
people know what is going on with nuclear waste. Yet that amendment was
not accepted, so now the people will not know.
We have to be certain that the containers which would carry the waste
are safe and durable. So I offered an amendment to mandate that all of
these containers used in the transport of the waste be physically crash
tested prior to any shipments. None of these amendments were deemed
suitable for a vote by the House of Representatives.
We must be mindful of the health effects which this waste can have on
surrounding communities. So I offered an amendment which would have
required an epidemiological study of the communities surrounding the
waste dump to be conducted every 5 years after the first shipment of
radioactive waste and continue every 5 years as long as the dump
exists. Keep in mind, the waste will stay radioactive for thousands of
years.
I also offered an amendment that would have prevented a temporary
storage facility from being built until Yucca Mountain is deemed
suitable for storage of high level radioactive waste. It seems logical,
but none of these amendments were deemed suitable.
The important question here today is, Why do we not have an open rule
so that the House of Representatives will be able to debate these and
other critical issues on the House floor? When the American people find
out what is really in this bill, there will be a deafening outcry. It
will not be long before we will be hearing across the country a phrase
similar to ``hell no, we won't glow,'' as 15,000 shipments of nuclear
waste comes rolling through the backyards of the people of the United
States.
Members, do not let anyone tells us we have no choice but to pass
this. There is an alternative. Do not move the waste. The sites where
the waste exists will continue to be contaminated for thousands of
years. Vote no on the rule; vote no on this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Today this
institution has literally declared nuclear war on Nevada. This
institution has failed not just the people of Nevada, but all of
America. What could have been an open and honest debate on H.R. 1270 is
now limited to a very narrow attempt to approve one of the worst bills
that has ever been debated by this body. Yes, the Committee on Commerce
voted this out by a wide margin. But let me say that the Committee on
Resources said no to this bill, the committee of joint jurisdiction.
In my brief time in Congress, I have done countless floor speeches,
special orders, sent dear colleague letters out innumerable times,
participated in national radio shows, and been interviewed by the
national press on this issue. This effort has yielded great strides
toward exposing the gross negligent effort of the environmental lobby.
It has avoided environmental protection, transportation, safety, and
health issues, as all my colleagues have stated. This House has denied
those of us in opposition to this bill the opportunity to debate these
issues in an open and honest forum.
This has failed the American people. I testified before the Committee
on Rules asking them to make in order five simple amendments. This was
a small request when considering the potential impact that it could
have on the State of Nevada and especially on the district that I
represent. I am not here to tie up the floor, but to correct the ill-
thought-out misgivings of this legislation.
This rule will only permit me to offer two minor amendments tomorrow,
two minor amendments on a bill that could devastate the environment,
pollute our water supplies, contaminate entire communities across
America, and maybe, yes, even maybe your community.
Vote no on the rule and allow our voices to be heard and permit this
institution to do its work.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I rise today in opposition to the rule. I am a member of the
Committee on Commerce, the committee with jurisdiction, and went before
the Committee on Rules with an amendment that I think is a very good
compromise and certainly something that should be discussed with regard
to this very important issue. My amendment was not made in order so I
will oppose the rule.
I agree with the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] that on such an
important issue as this, when we are essentially debating nuclear
policy in this country, we should have allowed an open rule or, at the
very least, we should have allowed pertinent amendments, certainly from
members of the committee, to be able to present those amendments.
We all know that the President is probably going to veto this bill in
its current form and even though I voted for the bill in committee, we
know that we will probably have to come back next year and debate this
again. And if we are going to debate the issue of nuclear waste, then
certainly we need to have all the ideas on the table, particularly when
there are very serious proposals of compromises that may ultimately
have to be hammered out in this body. I just do not understand why my
amendment and some of the other very pertinent amendments were not made
in order by the rule. Therefore, I think it is a bad rule and ought to
be defeated.
My amendment would have permitted utilities to spend fees coming into
the nuclear waste trust fund for on-site storage prior to the
construction of an interim or final repository. The fees, as the
gentleman from Colorado said, have been collected. They have not been
doing very much and I think that the fees that the public has been
paying would be used, could be used to keep the nuclear waste at the
facilities until we can decide where it ought to be permanently buried.
This approach would allow plants to address their waste problem now
instead of in 2002, the date when H.R. 1270 foresees completion of the
interim repository near Yucca Mountain, because by next year, Mr.
Speaker, 26 nuclear reactors will have run out of storage space. This
is a problem we must address now, not 5 years from now.
I offered this amendment in the Committee on Commerce, but withdrew
it because it had not yet been reviewed by CBO and scored. I also did
it to give my colleagues a chance on the committee to consider the
measure. It has since been scored and will result in no additional
costs.
My amendment addresses many of the problems not addressed by H.R.
1270. First, we all agree that the average ratepayer has been on the
short end of the stick during this process as the trust fund is used to
balance the budget, not for this purpose. My amendment would have put
our constituents' money to its designated purpose, storage of spent
nuclear fuel.
Second, it would allow power-plants which are running out of pool
space to create interim storage on site without passing all of the
massive costs to the taxpayers on top of fees they pay to the trust
fund.
Third, it allows the powerplants an economically viable way to stay
open when they run out of storage space and, again, the nuclear waste
would not have to be trucked through our communities because it would
be able to be stored at the site itself.
Fourth, it offers a method to provide interim storage without the
inherent risks in transportation and security and without creating
powerful momentum for starting the permanent repository at Yucca
Mountain before the science is completed, before the study is
completed.
So once again, Mr. Speaker, I must unfortunately oppose the rule for
H.R. 1270, because my amendment was not made in order and other
amendments were not made in order. If we cannot have a very important
discussion of this very important issue, then I think
[[Page H9635]]
the rule is defective and ought to be defeated.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Hastings] has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
this bill.
Some will argue that we need more time to study, we need more time to
debate. I would suggest this issue has been debated and has been
studied for years and years. In fact, ratepayers around the United
States have paid $13 billion, and let us remind every Member who may be
listening to this debate that a promise is a promise.
Since the dawn of the nuclear age and since the first nuclear
powerplant, the Federal Government has promised that we would find a
permanent storage site. This bill would recognize that the Department
of Energy has an obligation to create a storage area in an area about
the size of the State of Connecticut and this recognizes that it is
time that we live up to that end of our bargain. The Federal court of
appeals has ruled that we have that obligation. It is a binding
obligation under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Mr. Speaker, I think the time has long since passed for Congress to
take action. Where I come from a deal is a deal and a bargain is a
bargain. The time has come for us as representatives of the Federal
Government to live up to our end of that bargain.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes and 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we are making one of the most important
environmental decisions that the Congress has ever been confronted
with. We are going to take all of the nuclear waste that has ever been
generated at any nuclear powerplant in the United States, and we are
going to find one location somewhere in the United States, and we are
going to dump it all there.
Now, one would think on an issue of such grave importance that we
would have a very well-thought-out scientific process that we would
use. In fact, we are doing just the opposite. In 1982, we did set up a
process that would find the best scientifically obtainable site in the
United States. And in 1987, Congress got a little frustrated and they
said, no, we are not going to have that search. We are going to pick
Yucca Mountain in Nevada. We do not know if that is the right site, but
we are picking it. Congress is picking it. Not geologists, not
scientists, but Congress picked it.
Now it is 10 years later and Congress is unhappy with the pace of 10
years of the Reagan and Bush administrations and 5 years of the Clinton
administration's DOE trying to determine if this site is the right
place.
So what are we saying today? We are saying, we are not going to bury
it permanently at Yucca Mountain. We are giving up on a permanent
burial. We are going to build an above-ground mausoleum for all this
stuff and we are going to ship it across the country to this site. We
are giving up.
We are going to have a vote here today to never bury nuclear waste
permanently in the United States. We are building an above-ground
facility. We are sticking this nuclear queen of spades, because no one
else wants it, with Nevada. They lose. Fifty States, 50 cards, they
lose. And they lose because Texas does not want it. Louisiana does not
want it. Washington State does not want it. Massachusetts does not want
it. New York does not want it. You can be pronuclear all you want, but
when we say, how would you like all the spent fuel from nuclear
powerplants, it is, not in my backyard, no thanks. We are picking
Nevada.
So I asked the committee for a rule, if you are going to ship all of
this stuff across America in trucks. Guess what they do? They say that
for the purposes of ensuring that we get it off site in all these
individual States, we are going to have in this bill something that
says that it is not a major Federal action. That is right, Mr. Speaker.
This bill says that putting all the nuclear waste in America on
railroad cars, in trucks shipping it to Nevada, storing it there for
10,000 years is not a major Federal action. As a result, you suspend
NEPA, the constitution of the environment of the United States, and the
National Environmental Policy Act.
{time} 1300
We suspend it. So we can assume a lot of things. We can assume it is
going to be safe. We can assume that we do not need extra protections.
That is what we are doing here. Not scientists, not geologists, not
physicians, Congress is assuming it is going to be safe, nuclear waste.
Nobody wants it. ``Don't get it near me.'' It is like kryptonite.
``Don't get it near my district.'' We are going to assume it is safe.
So, believe it or not, in this bill they say that if there is a
trucking company and they get the contract from DOE to ship all this
stuff in thousands of truckloads all across the country, that the
trucking company is indemnified against any lawsuit even if they engage
in willful gross misconduct. That is right. If they hire truck drivers
who are drunk, who are on antidepressants, who are driving after
midnight 100 miles an hour through our neighborhood and they crash
through our neighborhood and leave a nuclear waste dump there for
generations, we cannot sue the trucking company.
Now, I asked for an amendment to be placed in order, that at least we
can make the trucking company liable. If someone brought nitroglycerin
through our neighborhood and there was an explosion, we could sue them.
If they brought TNT through our neighborhood and it exploded, we could
sue them. But if they bring nuclear waste through the neighborhood, we
here this Congress are saying the trucking company should not be
liable.
My amendment has not been allowed to be put in order. And why is
that? Because this generation that enjoyed nuclear power does not want
to pay the price of burying this waste permanently. It is going to cost
a lot of money. Instead, we engage in a thermonuclear ponzi game. We
get the benefit of the electricity. We pass on to three or four
generations from now the responsibility of finding a way of burying it
because we are not going to do it.
Today is the official buck-passing day intergenerationally. In the
same way that Congress irresponsibly for 20 years kept passing on the
deficit to the next generation, we are now doing the same thing with
environmental issues. Rather than bearing the burden today for the
benefits that this generation received from the electricity generated
from this source of power, we are all saying here today, well, we get a
lot of electric utility executives that just want it off-site. Do we
think they are ever going to call back again once they get it off-site?
I do not think so.
This rule should have more opportunities for amendments to be made to
cure the defects that are in it. I hope that the Members vote ``no.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall]
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule because it fails to address the
concerns my colleagues and I have with this nuclear waste bill. The
Committee on Rules decided not to grant an open rule for the
consideration of the bill, and it has precluded debate on the important
environmental aspects of the bill. I am deeply concerned that, given
the importance of this legislation and given the severe environmental
impacts, that the process for full, fair and open debate has been
precluded.
In the Committee on Commerce I offered an amendment which would
require that the interim and permanent nuclear waste storage disposal
site conform to the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. In the
Committee on Rules my colleague from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and I wanted
to offer this amendment on the floor. We believe it is important that
NEPA allow a thorough review of the environmental aspects when the
Federal Government undertakes a major action, such as storage of high-
level nuclear waste at
[[Page H9636]]
this site. We have the NEPA law in effect today because there is an
important need for the Federal Government to honestly consider all of
the ramifications and options before it takes such an important
environmental step.
In this case, we are going to pool high-level nuclear waste from our
Nation's power plants which will stay there for the next 10 to 10,000
years. This is an environmental impact we cannot ignore. I urge a
``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern].
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, transporting hazardous waste is a
dangerous business, and transporting nuclear waste is certainly the
most dangerous business of all. That is why I rise in opposition to
this rule and to this legislation which would seriously undermine our
efforts to keep our communities safe from nuclear waste.
Over the past 10 years my own State of Massachusetts witnessed more
than 2,200 transportation-related accidents that resulted in the
release of hazardous materials. Fifty-two of those accidents resulted
in individual injuries costing more than $5.25 million in damages.
Fortunately, we do not ship a great deal of nuclear waste. Over the
past 30 years we have shipped less than 2,500 truckloads of this
incredibly dangerous material. But if this bill becomes law, my State
of Massachusetts will see over 100,000 more shipments over the next 30
years. That is more than a 4,000-percent increase.
If only 1 percent of transported radioactive waste were released, the
Department of Energy has estimated that it would contaminate 42 square
miles, would require 460 days to deal with, and would cost over $620
million to clean up. That would spell disaster for families throughout
my district and all across this Nation.
Who exactly would be affected? Well, the State of Nevada has prepared
a map using the Department of Energy's own computer code, demonstrating
that one truck path would run right through a dozen communities in my
own congressional district. This map shows that the towns of Mansfield,
Foxborough, Wrentham, Plainville, Franklin, Hopkinton, Westborough,
Grafton, Auburn, and my hometown of Worcester would all be at risk
under this legislation, and I cannot let that happen.
Section 501 of this bill ignores all of our efforts to craft balanced
environmental laws by exempting every environmental regulation with
which every other project in this Nation must comply. If that were not
bad enough, we are learning more and more about the potential hazards
of the site at Yucca Mountain, NV. Yucca Mountain is in the middle of a
major fault line, and evidence shows that seismic activity at that site
is greater than anticipated. That makes Yucca Mountain not merely a
puzzling choice for nuclear waste storage, but a frightening one
indeed.
Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has promised to veto this misguided
legislation, and I applaud him for his leadership. The President
understands that we already have a process in place to study and
determine how best to deal with these toxic materials, and amending
that process in a way that endangers our Nation's families is simply
unacceptable.
This legislation would subvert reasonable safety measures established
by the National Environmental Policy Act and Environmental Protection
Agency, safety measures designed to protect communities all across the
Nation from the devastating effects of nuclear waste spills.
Certainly we all understand the need to effectively deal with nuclear
waste, but we have a moral obligation to our Nation to go about it in a
way that protects our children and safeguards our environment. I
strongly urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to this rule, ``no'' to this
legislation, and ``yes'' to our future.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I wanted to
commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. He never ducks tough
issues. It is tough lining up on an issue on the gentleman from Nevada
[Mr. Gibbons], but I think he has done one of the greatest jobs in the
country. I mean that.
But I have two amendments. One says, look, if we are going to spend
money, and the bill is trying to buy American products, and I want to
thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for helping us buy more
American products. He helped me ever since I was a new Member, and I
appreciate it.
The other amendment has been a little bit of a controversy. This is a
controversial bill. But the chairman, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Dan Schaefer, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Hall, do not duck controversial issues, and I am hoping that there
could be some workout here and agreement that would reach the agreement
of all of Congress. But Congress must work its will.
But the second Traficant amendment, known as No. 3, is very
significant. It is very controversial to be transporting and storing
spent nuclear fuel and waste, but what is worse is if America would
become the dumping ground for nuclear spent fuel around the world. So
the Traficant original amendment was designed to say, look, this deals
with American spent nuclear fuel and the storage of only American
nuclear spent fuel.
But then I did come to an understanding that there are certain
international agreements and memorandums of understanding whereby we do
accept foreign spent fuel, and we want to because we do not want it
reprocessed and used against us by the wrong hands. And I do not
disagree with that, for sure.
So I will be asking unanimous consent when I offer my amendment, that
will retrofit it with language that says whenever there is an
international agreement that allows for our taking, or a military
agreement which allows for our taking in foreign spent fuel, that it
would be so allowed, but that the commercialization of dumping nuclear
spent waste fuel would be prohibited.
So that is what it is. I am going to support this rule. I normally
support the rule. I think the Committee on Rules has been very, very
fair, and I am hoping that some of these other agreements that are of
concern to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] and the gentleman
from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] can be worked out. I have the highest regard
for both of them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], one the
deans now for such a young man in the Congress, for yielding me the
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I did want to respond, of course, to some of the assertions made by
my colleague from Minnesota that the Federal court has obligated us to
accept the nuclear energy industry's waste. That is just not so.
H.R. 1270 will state that the Federal court is legally bound to begin
accepting waste by January 31, 1998. That is not what the court said.
The court ruled, in Indiana Michigan Power versus DOE, that the
Department of Energy needs to determine whether or not the delay in
beginning the disposal of spent fuel is unavoidable within the meaning
of Article IX of their contract.
Article IX provides, in brief, that ``neither the Government nor the
contractor or contract holder shall be liable for damages caused by
failure to perform its obligations if such failure arises out of causes
beyond and without the fault or negligence of the party failing to
perform. In the event of an unavoidable delay, the parties are to
readjust schedules as appropriate to accommodate the delay.''
Let me read that again: ``In the event of an unavoidable delay, the
parties are to readjust schedules as appropriate to accommodate the
delay.''
The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management contends that the
delay was unavoidable and the Department of Energy would not be liable
and not be required to accept this nuclear waste.
My colleagues, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule because the House
fails to understand that the law does not require the Federal
Government to begin accepting nuclear waste. That is what
[[Page H9637]]
the court said in Indiana Michigan Power versus DOE.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
other distinguished gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Hastings] for yielding me the time.
Let me reemphasize a couple of points my colleague, the gentleman
from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] brought up: first of all, that the court
decision that everybody talks about, that we have an obligation to take
this waste, that the Federal Government has, what the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] said is true. Also, in the court they did say that
some kind of a remedy must take place.
However, there are all kind of options on those remedies. Those
options range from escrowing nuclear waste trust fund fees, taking
title on site, or setting up an interim storage facility in the current
law anywhere other than the State of Nevada. This bill seeks to change
current law, to wipe it out, saying that permanent repository State
also gets interim. In the first two bills on nuclear waste, whatever
State was going to get permanent could not get interim because it would
prejudice the siting, whether it is suitable or not to put nuclear
waste in a deep geological storage facility.
Let me just mention a couple things on transport of the waste, as
well, because this is really one of the big issues. In Germany they
tried to transport high-level nuclear waste approximately 300 miles,
just 300 miles, not thousands of miles like we are going to do in this
country, just 300 miles. It took 30,000 police officers because there
was so much civil unrest because of the transport of this waste. One
hundred seventy-three people were injured during this ruckus. There are
going to be similar types of civil disobedience, we can bet on it, in
America if we go to transporting nuclear waste. The sad thing about it
is it is not necessary. The technology exists to do on-site dry cast
storage right where it is.
And reprocessing has been talked about today. It was talked about by
the gentleman who manages time on this side. If we ever want to get to
reprocessing, once we ship it to Nevada, we will never be able to
reprocess. That will end that debate forever.
{time} 1315
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I would ask Members to vote against the rule. I think that
Republicans and Democrats on both sides feel that the rule is faulty,
it is a structured rule, it is not open. There are amendments that
should be in order that are not in order. I think in the bill itself,
while I am not an expert on this issue, the bill really appears to be
very deficient. For that reason, I would ask that the House vote
against the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I would say to the previous speaker, I hope he did not say that
this rule was phony. I hope I misunderstood what he said.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say I rise in very, very strong support of
this rule and of this bill. I want to say right off the bat that if I
ever had to go into combat, by golly, there are two people in this body
I would want by my side. One is the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign],
and one is the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons]. I hope we live to
fight many battles on this floor in the future side by side.
Let me also comment on the very eloquent gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey], who was here a few minutes ago, because he really was
good. He always is. He is very eloquent and he has done his homework.
But he is really criticizing this bill and that mystifies me, because
this bill was reported out of the Committee on Commerce, which is a
committee made up of a really diverse membership of this body, a real
cross-section. We have got liberals, we have got conservatives and
moderates from both political parties. The bill was reported 43-3. That
means that all these liberals and these conservatives from the far
right and the far left and in the middle must have voted for this bill.
Let me read the Democrats, because this floors me when the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] stands up here, he says, ``We are
against this bill.'' Well, who is ``we''? The gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell]? I mean, the dean of this delegation, of the Democratic
side and of this whole Congress who has been here for how many years?
Forty some years. He is for this bill. So is the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Hall]. Then we have the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher]. The
gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns]. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Pallone], who is a noted green advocate in this Congress who takes this
well day after day. He voted for this bill. The gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush], the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Klink], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak]. The gentleman
from New York [Mr. Engel], who was just here complaining in the well
about the bill, voted for this bill. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Wynn], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green], the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Strickland], the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette]. No, she did not. I beg your
pardon. She was one of the 3 that voted against it. But I look at the
cosponsors of this bill, 160 some odd, and lo and behold, there is the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. He is the leader of the green
Republicans. He is a cosponsor. Then you have got Jerry Solomon, me,
and I am the leader of the opposite. I am the leader of property rights
in this Congress. It seems to me that we have got everybody for this
bill.
Some of the people were complaining this bill is not fair. Mr.
Speaker, we have 6 legislative days left before we get out of here on
November 7, these are full legislative days, when Members ought to get
out of here and go back home and meet with their constituents. We
should not even be here 10 months out of the year in the first place.
We ought to be here 3 or 4 months and then back in our districts
representing our people. People are complaining. They want to stay
here.
Sure, we could have had an open rule on this bill and we could have
spent 4 days on it, 4 out of the 6 remaining days. My colleagues know
that is not possible. We made 5 Democrat amendments in order. They are
significant amendments as I read them. We made 4 Republican amendments
in order, two by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and two by the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons]. One of those gentlemen stood up
here and they said that, well, they are minor and insignificant
amendments. I am going to tell these two gentlemen and anybody else in
this body, do not ever come to the Committee on Rules and offer to make
in order insignificant and minor amendments. I do not want to waste my
time up there. If you want to have serious amendments, come up there
and offer them and we will make them in order.
Let me just give my colleagues an example of one of these. The
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] has an amendment made in order that
ensures that a risk assessment study and a cost-benefit analysis are
conducted prior to any action being taken under this act. I think that
is significant. Here is another by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Gibbons], who I want by my side. He says:
The Governor of each State, with nuclear waste routes,
shall certify that ``emergency response teams'' exist and can
properly manage any nuclear accident before transportation
plans can be implemented by the Secretary.
I think that is very significant. I have two prototype nuclear
reactors in my district in the Adirondack Mountains, where we train
most of the nuclear sailors. We do not train them down in Groton, CT,
on the sea. We train them up in the mountains. What are we going to do
with that waste up there? We are going to have to get it out of there.
We are going to take it to Nevada.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have just about covered it, except to say that
some other people were complaining there was not much time allocated.
By the time the Members have finished
[[Page H9638]]
today they will have spent more than 6 hours on this bill. How many
times have we dealt with the national defense budget of this country
and not spent 6 hours spending $280 billion of the taxpayers' money?
This rule is fair. The bill is good. Members ought to come over here,
vote for the rule and vote for the bill and let us stop this business.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ENSIGN. 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 259,
nays 155, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 536]
YEAS--259
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Klink
Klug
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Manton
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (FL)
NAYS--155
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Borski
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Cardin
Carson
Christensen
Clay
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dickey
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pombo
Poshard
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Souder
Stabenow
Stark
Talent
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--18
Brown (CA)
Cubin
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Houghton
Kelly
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Matsui
McIntosh
Meek
Payne
Pelosi
Scarborough
Schiff
Stokes
Weldon (FL)
Wolf
{time} 1343
Messrs. OBEY, McNULTY, and HOLDEN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mrs. CLAYTON and Messrs. HUTCHINSON, COX of California, BOSWELL,
LEWIS of California, and RUSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________