[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.

                          ____________________