[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3015-S3019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT CONSENT ACT

  Mr. DOMENICI. This is with reference to H.R. 629. I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 
197, H.R. 629.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R.629) to grant the consent of Congress to the 
     Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2276

              (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Snowe has a substitute amendment 
at the desk. I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Ms. Snowe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2276.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of HR 629, 
the Texas Compact Consent Act of 1997, which addresses the disposal of 
low-level radioactive nuclear waste for Maine, Vermont and Texas--and 
to thank the cosponsors of this bill: Senators Collins, Leahy, and 
Jeffords, as well as Senators Hutchison and Gramm of Texas for their 
invaluable assistance and support.
  In 1980, Congress told the states to form compacts to solve their 
low-level waste disposal problems. Subsequently, Congress authorized a 
means of establishing these compacts without violating the Interstate 
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
  As you can see from the chart behind me, 41 states have now joined 
together to form nine different compacts across the country. Forty-one 
states. The compact before us today will simply add three more states 
to the nation's compact network, and carry out what these 41 other 
states have already been allowed to do.
  As the law requires, Texas, Vermont and Maine have negotiated an 
agreement that was approved by each state: in the Texas Senate by a 
vote of 28 to zero, and voice voted in the House; in Vermont, the bill 
was also voice voted by large margins in both bodies.
  In Maine, the Senate voted 26 to 3 to pass the compact; in the House, 
131 to 6. In addition, 73 percent of the people in a state-wide 
referendum approved the Compact. All three Governors signed the bill. 
And, last October 7th, the House passed the Texas Compact by an 
overwhelming vote of 309 to 107. Decisive victories on all counts, and 
by any measure.
  So, we have before us a Compact that has been carefully crafted and 
thoroughly examined by the state governments and people of all three 
states involved. Now all that is required is the approval of Congress, 
so that the State of Texas and the other Texas Compact members will be 
able to exercise appropriate control over the waste that will come into 
the Texas facility.
  Let me be clear: the law never intended for Congress to determine who 
pays what, how the storage is allocated, and where the site is located. 
To the contrary: the intent of the law is for states to develop and 
approve these details, and for Congress to ratify the plan. A quick 
review of history bears this out--for the nine compacts that have been 
consented to by the United States Congress, not one of them was 
amended. Not one of them.
  It is very important for my colleagues to know that the language 
ratified by each state for this Compact is exactly the same language, 
and if any change is made by Congress, the Compact would have to be 
once again returned to each state for reratification.
  And let me take this opportunity to clear up some other 
misconceptions about this compact, which are being used by our 
opponents to cast discredit on this legislation.
  The Compact before us does not discuss any particular site for the 
disposal facility. Let me repeat that--this bill has nothing to do with 
the location of a facility in Texas, as some would have us believe. It 
only says that Texas must develop a facility in a timely manner, 
consistent with all applicable state and federal environmental, health, 
and public safety laws.
  This is being done. The Texas Office State Office of Administrative 
Hearings is presently conducting several evidentiary hearings at 
various locations all around the state of Texas to evaluate a proposed 
site. All voices are being heard, and the state of Texas will decide, 
as it should.
  Opponents of the Texas Compact would have you believe that should we 
ratify this Compact it will open the doors for other states to dump 
nuclear waste at a site, in the desert, located five miles from the 
town of Sierra Blanca, exposing a predominantly low-income, minority 
community to health and environmental threats.
  The truth is that Texas has been planning to build a facility for its 
own waste since 1981, long before Maine first proposed a Compact with 
Texas. That is because whether or not this Compact passes, Texas still 
must somehow take care of the waste it produces.
  Further, absent the protection of this Compact, Texas must, I repeat 
must, open their borders to any other state for waste disposal or they 
will be in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. 
Constitution. The Compact gives Texas the protection that oversight 
commissioners, mostly appointed by the elected Governor of

[[Page S3016]]

Texas but also with a say from Maine and Vermont, will decide what is 
best for Texas.
  Local support for the Compact was evidenced just last month in state 
elections held in Texas. The Hudspeth County judge, who is the top 
elected official who runs county business where the site has been 
proposed, and who has strongly declared his support for the Compact, 
won his race for reelection. Two candidates for county commissioner who 
also support the Compact won their races over two opponents of the 
Compact.
  The opponents of the Compact would have you believe this issue is 
about politics. It is not about politics, it is about science: sound 
science. It is very dry in the Southwest Texas area, where the small 
amount rainfall it receives mostly evaporates before it hits the 
ground. The aquifer that supplies water to the area and to nearby 
Mexico is over 600 feet below the desert floor and is encased in rock.
  The proposed site has been designed to withstand any earthquake 
equaling the most severe that has ever occurred in Texas history. 
Strong seismic activity in the area is non-existent. All these factors 
mean that the siting of this facility is on strong scientific grounds.
  Our opponents say we will be bad neighbors if we pass this Compact 
because the proposed site is near the Mexican border. In fact, the U.S. 
and Mexico have an agreement, the Las Paz Agreement, to cooperate in 
the environmental protection of the border region. The Las Paz 
Agreement simply encourages cooperative efforts to protect the 
environment of the region.
  Any proposed facility will be protective of the environment because 
it will be constructed in accordance with the strictest U.S. 
environmental safeguards. In addition, both the Mexican National Water 
Commission and the National Nuclear Security and Safeguards Commission 
have stated that the proposed site meets the Mexican government's 
requirements.
  Without question, the far bigger threat to the border environment is 
the untreated sewage dumped into the Rio Grande River by poor border 
communities on both sides of the river, and large factories, or 
maquiladoras on the Mexican side of the river that do not adhere to 
these stringent U.S. environmental standards.
  Mr. President, when this Compact is adopted--and it is clear that it 
should be adopted without amendments--the States of Texas, Maine and 
Vermont will become the forty second, forty third and forty fourth 
states to be given Congressional approval for forming a compact. And 
they will meet their responsibilities under federal law for the 
disposal of their low-level waste from universities, hospitals, medical 
centers, and power plants and shipyards.
  I, along with my colleagues from the Texas Compact states, urge the 
Senate to give us this reasoned opportunity, which has widespread 
public support in Texas, Maine and Vermont. I urge the Senate to adopt 
S. 270.
  I ask unanimous consent that several letters relating to this subject 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   State of Texas,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                        Austin, TX, July 15, 1997.
     Dear Senator: 
       As the Governors of the member states, we strongly urge 
     passage by the U.S. Senate of S. 270, the Texas Low-Level 
     Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act.
       The 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 
     1985 amendments make each state ``responsible for providing, 
     either by itself or in cooperation with other states,'' for 
     disposal of its own commercial low-level radioactive waste. 
     In compliance with this federal legislation, the states of 
     Texas, Maine and Vermont have arranged to manage their waste 
     through the terms of the Texas Compact. This compact passed 
     the legislatures of the states involved and is supported by 
     all three Governors. Texas, Maine and Vermont have complied 
     with all federal and state laws and regulations in forming 
     this compact. For the Congress to deny ratification of the 
     Texas Compact would be a serious breach of states' rights and 
     a rejection of Congress' previous mandate to the states.
       It is important to remember that S. 270 is site neutral--a 
     vote on S. 270 is neither a vote to endorse nor oppose the 
     proposed site in Texas. Federal legislation leaves the siting 
     of a facility to state governments and should be resolved 
     during formal licensing proceedings. Currently, the Texas 
     Natural Resource Conservation Commission is conducting the 
     appropriate hearings.
       Please vote to supply the member states of the Texas 
     Compact with the same protections that you have already given 
     42 states in the nine previously approved compacts. Thank you 
     for your time and attention on this very important matter. We 
     appreciate all efforts made on behalf of states' rights.
           Sincerely,
     George W. Bush.
     Howard Dean, M.D.
     Angus S. King, Jr.
                                  ____



                                                 Maine Yankee,

                                      Augusta, ME, March 12, 1998.
     Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Snowe: Thank you for contacting me to let us 
     know that debate on the Texas Compact legislation is 
     scheduled to begin this Friday. I appreciate the leadership 
     role you have taken on this difficult issue. I am also 
     grateful to the other members of Maine's congressional 
     delegation for being sensitive to the unique issues presented 
     by Maine.
       Since the House vote in December, Texas has issued a fee 
     schedule that appears to make the Texas facility comparable 
     in cost to Barnwell, South Carolina, so long as there are no 
     delays in the scheduled opening of the facility. In addition, 
     we are pleased to see the public hearing process in Texas 
     going forward on schedule, which gives us greater confidence 
     that the site may begin accepting waste in 1999 as projected. 
     Given the foregoing, Maine Yankee can support ratification of 
     the Texas Compact, on the following basis: Maine Yankee has 
     the flexibility to ship waste to South Carolina prior to the 
     operation of the Texas facility; Maine Yankee has the ability 
     to use the Envirocare facility in Utah throughout our 
     decommissioning; and the Compact passes with no amendments.
       Please let me know if you have any questions regarding our 
     position on the Texas Compact legislation. Once again, thank 
     you for taking the lead on this issue which is so important 
     to electric ratepayers.
           Yours truly,
                                                David T. Flanagan,
                                                         Chairman.


                                   Hudspeth County Courthouse,

                                Sierra Blanca, TX, March 12, 1998.
     Hon. Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: It is an honor for me to write to 
     U.S. Senators, whose title and energy is devoted to important 
     national and international issues. There are several facts I 
     want you to consider as the U.S. Senate takes up floor action 
     on SB 270, a low-level waste Compact between Texas, Maine and 
     Vermont.
       First, I am the County Judge for Hudspeth County, Texas, 
     the site of the proposed low-level radioactive waste 
     facility. Second, I am a strong and vocal supporter of the 
     proposed site and compact. Third, the voters of Hudspeth 
     County overwhelmingly reelected me on March 10th. I won with 
     54% of the vote in a three person race.
       The people of Hudspeth County know my position on these 
     issues and spoke clearly and forcefully the best way can--
     through the electoral process. I won. My opponents are 
     against the proposed facility. They lost.
       In the County Commissioner races, both losing candidates 
     publicly opposed the proposed facility.
       Finally, the only candidate on the ballot for Chairman of 
     the Hudspeth County Democratic Party was defeated by a write-
     in candidate. Billy Addington, a long time an outspoken 
     opponent of the proposed facility, could not win. The 
     democratic process has clearly shown that the citizens of 
     Hudspeth County continue to accept the string of the 
     facility, despite the loud but false claims by the 
     opposition.
       I urge you to listen to what the voters of Hudspeth County 
     are saying, as well as the past actions of the legislatures 
     in Maine, Texas and Vermont. This facility has wide support. 
     Please ratify the Compact to enable these states to safety 
     and permanently manage their low-level waste and to help 
     stimulate economic development in Hudspeth County. At least 
     that's what the grass-roots level wants.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James A. Pease,
     Hudspeth County Judge.
                                  ____



                               National Governors Association,

                                                    March 2, 1998.
       Dear Member of Congress:
       On behalf of the National Governors' Association, we urge 
     you to adopt S. 270 without amendment. This bill provides 
     congressional consent to the Texas-Maine-Vermont Low-Level 
     Radioactive Waste Compact. The National Governors' 
     Association (NGA) policy in support of this compact is 
     attached. We are convinced that this voluntary compact 
     provides for the safe and responsible disposal of low-level 
     waste produced in the three member states.
       As you know, under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 
     Act (LLRWPA) of 1980. Congress mandated that states assume 
     responsibility for disposal of low level radioactive waste, 
     and created a compact system that provides states with the 
     legal authority to restrict, dispose of, and manage waste. 
     Since 1995, forty-one states have entered into nine 
     congressional approved compacts without amendments or 
     objections. The Texas-

[[Page S3017]]

     Maine-Vermont Compact deserves to be the tenth.
       Your support for this bipartisan measure, which has the 
     full support and cooperation of the Governors and 
     legislatures of the three participant states, will be 
     crucial.
       If you have any questions concerning this matter, please 
     don't hesitate to contact Tom Curtis of the NGA staff at 
     (202) 624-5389.
           Sincerely,
     Governor George V. Voinovich,
       Chairman.
     Governor Tom Carper,
       Vice Chairman.
                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                   Washington, DC, March 11, 1998.
     Re S. 270, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 
         Compact Consent Act NCSL urges you to support this bill 
         without amendment.

     Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: The National Conference of State 
     Legislatures (NCSL) urges you to support S. 270, the Texas 
     Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act, 
     which will allow the states of Maine, Texas, and Vermont to 
     continue to work together to develop a facility in Hudspeth 
     County, Texas for the disposal of the low-level radioactive 
     waste produced in those three states. NCSL has consistently 
     reiterated its firm belief that states must be allowed to 
     exercise their authority over the storage and disposal oflow-
     level radioactive waste, authority that was granted to them 
     by Congress in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 
     1980 and the Low-Level Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1985.
       NCSL is concerned about H.R. 629, the version of the Texas 
     Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act 
     which passed through the House of Representatives last 
     October. H.R. 629 was amended with language that was not in 
     the compact as approved by the Maine, Texas and Vermont state 
     legislatures. No low-level radioactive waste compact between 
     states has ever been amended by Congress. We believe that the 
     amendments to H.R. 629 would establish an unfortunate 
     precedent for Congressional tinkering with agreements that 
     have already been passed by their relevant state 
     legislatures.
       The states of Maine, Texas, and Vermont have already 
     expended significant time and resources in order to negotiate 
     an agreement on the Hudspeth County facility. It would be 
     inappropriate for Congress to attempt to alter a valid effort 
     by the Compact states to meet their responsibilities under 
     the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. We urge you to 
     support S. 270 without amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Craig Peterson,
       Utah State Senate,
       Chair, NCSL Environment Committee.
     Carol S. Petzold,
       Maryland House of Delegates,
       Chair, NCSL Energy & Transportation Committee.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Nuclear


                                        Regulatory Commission,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 1998.
     Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Snowe: In response to the request from your 
     staff, here are the views of the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission (NRC) on two proposed amendments to S. 270, a bill 
     to provide the consent of Congress to the Texas Low-Level 
     Radioactive Waste (LLW) Disposal Compact. The proposed 
     amendments would add two new conditions to the conditions of 
     consent to the compact: (1) that no LLW may be brought into 
     Texas for disposal at a compact facility from any State other 
     than Maine or Vermont (referred to below as the ``exclusion'' 
     amendment); and (2) that ``the compact not be implemented . . 
     . in any way that discriminates against any community 
     (through disparate treatment or disparate impact) by reason 
     of the composition of the community in terms of race, color, 
     national origin, or income level'' (referred to below as the 
     ``discrimination clause''). These amendments raise some 
     significant questions of concern to the NRC.
       First, no other Congressional compact ratification 
     legislation has included such conditions to Congress' 
     consent. Making the Congressional consent for this compact 
     different from that for other compacts would create an 
     asymmetrical system and could lead to conflicts among 
     regions. In the past, Congress has set a high priority on 
     establishing a consistent set of rules under which the 
     interstate compact system for LLW disposal would operate.
       With respect to the exclusion condition, while the Low-
     Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level 
     Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 authorize 
     compact States to exclude LLW from outside their compact 
     region, the terms of doing so are left to the States. This is 
     consistent with the intent of these statutes to make LLW 
     disposal the responsibility of the States and to leave the 
     implementation of that responsibility largely to the States' 
     discretion. Thus, the addition of the exclusion condition to 
     the compact would deprive the party States of the ability to 
     make their own choices as to how to handle this important 
     area. In addition, restriction on importation of LLW into 
     Texas to waste coming from Maine or Vermont could prevent 
     other compacts (or non-compact States) from contracting with 
     the Texas compact for disposal of their waste (such as has 
     occurred between the Rocky Mountain and Northwest compacts). 
     This type of arrangement with existing LLW disposal 
     facilities may well become a preferred economical method of 
     LLW disposal. It is also important to note that the exclusion 
     condition may hamper NRC emergency access to the Texas 
     facility pursuant to section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive 
     Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
       With respect to the discrimination clause, the Commission 
     supports the general objectives of efforts to address 
     discrimination involving ``race, color, national origin, or 
     income level.'' However, it is unclear how a condition 
     containing broad language of the type contained in the 
     proposed amendment would be applied in a specific case 
     involving a compact. This lack of clarity is likely to create 
     confusion and uncertainty for all parties involved, and could 
     lead to costly, time-consuming litigation. Including such a 
     provision in binding legislation may have broad significance 
     for the affected States and other parties would appear to 
     warrant extensive Congressional review of its implications.
       In light of the above, the NRC opposes the approval of 
     amendments to S. 270 that would incorporate the exclusion 
     condition or an undefined discrimination clause into the 
     Texas compact bill.
           Sincerely,
                                              Shirley Ann Jackson,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from the State 
of Maine, Senator Snowe, in urging my colleagues to enact H.R. 629, 
legislation that would ratify the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 
Compact, also known as the Texas Compact.
  In entering into an agreement for the disposal of low-level 
radioactive waste, the States of Maine, Texas, and Vermont followed the 
direction established by the Congress in the Low-Level Radioactive 
Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments. That legislation contemplated 
that states would form agreements of this nature for the disposal of 
low-level waste, and thus, by ratifying the compact, Congress will be 
completing a process that it set in motion.
  Mr. President, since 1985 Congress has ratified nine compacts 
involving 41 states. Put differently, 82 of the 100 members of this 
body live in states with compacts that have been ratified by the 
Senate, and with the approval of the Texas Compact, that number will 
rise to 88. In short, what Maine, Texas, and Vermont are seeking today 
has already been routinely granted to the vast majority of the states.
  While the disposal of radioactive waste is bound to generate 
controversy, this agreement has been overwhelmingly approved by the 
Legislatures of the three compacting states, signed by their governors, 
and in the case of Maine, endorsed by the voters in a referendum. This 
is consistent with the congressional determination that the states bear 
responsibility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and 
that in the interest of limiting the number of disposal sites, they 
work together to carry out this responsibility. Indeed, ratification by 
Congress is necessitated only because state-imposed limitations on the 
importation of waste would otherwise violate the Commerce Clause.
  Mr. President, a member of this body has criticized the proposed 
disposal site to be established pursuant to this compact. Apart from 
the fact that the location of the site is a matter for the states to 
determine, that criticism is unsupported by the facts.
  In the selection of the proposed site in Hudspeth County, Texas, 
there was extensive public involvement, as well as thorough 
environmental and technical reviews. Hudspeth County was found to have 
the two critical characteristics for a disposal site, namely, very 
little rainfall and very low population density. Indeed, the county is 
the size of the State of Connecticut and has a population of only 2800 
people.
  While some may wish to use this legislation to pursue a larger 
ideological agenda, it does not square with the facts. The choice of 
Hudspeth County had nothing to do with who lives there; it had 
everything to do with the fact that very few people live there.
  Mr. President, this body has been presented with nine low-level 
radioactive waste compacts. It has ratified each one without change. In 
keeping with congressionally established policy

[[Page S3018]]

for the disposal of low-level waste, Maine, Texas, and Vermont are 
seeking the same treatment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the predicament 
Vermont, Maine and Texas find themselves in, simply because they are 
following Congress' directions. In 1985, we amended the Low-Level 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to encourage states to enter into interstate 
compacts to develop disposal facilities for low-level waste by 
December, 1995, or to assume responsibility for safe waste disposal in 
their own states. Following our direction, Vermont began looking for an 
in-state depository location. The sites examined in Vermont were not 
suitable because of both their geology and their proximity to large 
populations. At about the same time, Texas offered to enter into a 
compact with Vermont and Maine and to use a site they were already 
developing for Texas waste.
  The state legislatures of Vermont, Maine and Texas agreed to enter 
into this compact in the early 1990s. The Compact is a contractual 
agreement among the three states, but it requires Congressional 
approval in order to allow the member states to exclude waste from 
outside their compact. According to our Constitution, these compacts 
must be approved by Congress. Article 1 clearly states that ``No state 
shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . Enter into any Agreement 
or Compact with another state, . . . .''
  Since 1985, nine interstate low-level waste compacts have been 
approved by Congress, encompassing forty-one states. They were ratified 
without change and without a single recorded negative vote. I am 
pleased to see that the Vermont, Maine and Texas Compact will follow in 
that tradition.
  I first introduced legislation to approve our Compact in the 103rd 
Congress. Passage of H.R. 629 finally ratifies the clear will of the 
Vermont Legislature when it entered in the Compact. At that time, I 
believe we all recognized that there was no perfect solution for 
dealing with low-level nuclear waste, but as long as we are generating 
power from nuclear facilities and as long as our research universities, 
hospitals and laboratories use nuclear materials, we are going to have 
to dispose of the waste. We cannot continue to ignore the need to 
safely store nuclear waste. To pretend otherwise would be to ignore the 
growing environmental problem of storing this waste at inadequate, 
temporary sites in Vermont, Maine and Texas.
  Instead, we need to make a commitment to developing and building the 
safest facility for long-term storage of waste. That is what our States 
have done, and Congress should not stand in their way. I have talked 
with our Vermont state geologist. We have looked at maps of Vermont and 
we have looked at our geology, hydrology and meteorology in Vermont. 
There is only one conclusion from all of these discussions: there is 
not an acceptable site for nuclear waste storage in our state.
  The Compact also makes economic sense. The residents of Vermont have 
already committed themselves to this Compact, and the twenty-five 
million dollar price tag that goes along with it. Since Vermont 
generates such a small amount of waste, it would be economically 
unfeasible to build a facility that would meet all the environmental 
requirements and only store waste generated in Vermont. Building such a 
facility would put Vermont in a position of looking to other states to 
help support the facility.
  It is also important to remember that under the Compact, Texas has 
agreed to host the waste facility, but it does not name a specific 
site. That is an issue to be decided by the people of Texas, as it 
should be. This Compact also allows the states of Vermont, Maine and 
Texas to refuse waste from other states. Specifically, Texas will be 
able to limit the amount of low-level waste coming into its facility 
from out-of-state sources. Maine and Vermont together produce a 
fraction of what is generated in Texas, but by entering into this 
Compact, our states will share the cost of building the facility.
  Finally, building the facility does not end Vermont's obligation to 
the safety of this site. We have a long-term commitment to the site, 
from ensuring that the facility meets all of the federal construction 
and operating regulations, to making sure the waste is transported 
properly to the site, and to ensuring that the surrounding area is 
rigorously monitored. Vermont will not send its waste to Texas and then 
close it eyes to the rest of the process.


      Amendments No. 2277 and 2278, En Bloc, To Amendment No. 2276

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Wellstone has two amendments at 
the desk. I ask unanimous consent the Senate consider those amendments 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Wellstone, proposes amendments numbered 2277 and 2278, en 
     bloc, to amendment No. 2276.

  The text of the amendments follow.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2277

  (Purpose: To add certain conditions to the grant of consent to the 
                                compact)

       On page 2, strike lines 5 through 15 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3. CONDITIONS ON CONSENT TO COMPACT.

       (a) In General.--The consent of Congress to the compact set 
     forth in section 5--
       (1) shall become effective on the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       (2) is granted subject to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.); and
       (3) is granted on the conditions that--
       (A) the Commission (as defined in the compact) comply with 
     all of the provisions of that Act; and
       (B) the compact not be implemented (including execution by 
     any party state (as defined in the compact) of any right, 
     responsibility, or obligation of the party state under 
     Article IV of the compact) in any way that discriminates 
     against any community (through disparate treatment or 
     disparate impact) by reason of the composition of the 
     community in terms of race, color, national origin, or income 
     level.
       (b) Consent to Suit.--By proceeding to implement the 
     compact after the date of enactment of this Act, the party 
     states and Commission shall be considered to have consented 
     to suit in a civil action under subsection (d).
       (c) Continuing Effectiveness of Condition.--If the consent 
     of Congress is declared to be of no further effect in a civil 
     action under subsection (d), the condition stated in 
     subsection (a)(3)(B) shall continue to apply to any 
     subsequent operation of the compact facility.
       (d) Enforcement.--
       (1) By the attorney general.--If the Attorney General 
     obtains evidence that a condition stated in subsection (a)(3) 
     has not been complied with at any time, the Attorney General 
     shall bring a civil action in United States district court 
     for a judgment against the party states (as defined in the 
     compact) and Commission--
       (A) declaring that the consent of Congress to the compact 
     is of no further effect by reason of the failure to meet the 
     condition; and
       (B) enjoining any further failure of compliance.
       (2) By a member of an affected community.--If person that 
     resides or has a principal place of business a community that 
     is adversely affected by a failure to comply with the 
     condition stated in subsection (a)(3)(B) obtains evidence of 
     the failure of compliance, the person may bring a civil 
     action in United States district court for a judgment against 
     the party states and Commission--
       (A) declaring that the consent of Congress to the compact 
     is of no further effect by reason of the failure to meet the 
     condition; and
       (B) enjoining any further failure of compliance.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2278

  (Purpose: To add certain conditions to the grant of consent to the 
                                compact)

       On page 2, strike lines 5 through 15 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3. CONDITIONS ON CONSENT TO COMPACT.

       (a) In General.--The consent of Congress to the compact set 
     forth in section 5--
       (1) shall become effective on the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       (2) is granted subject to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.); and
       (3) is granted on the conditions that--
       (A) the Commission (as defined in the compact) comply with 
     all of the provisions of that Act; and
       (B) no low-level radioactive waste be brought into Texas 
     for disposal at a compact facility from any State other than 
     the State of Maine or Vermont.
       (b) Consent to Suit.--By proceeding to implement the 
     compact after the date of enactment of this Act, the party 
     states and Commission shall be considered to have consented 
     to suit in a civil action under subsection (d).
       (c) Continuing Effectiveness of Condition.--If the consent 
     of Congress is declared to be of no further effect in a civil 
     action under subsection (d), the condition stated in 
     subsection (a)(3)(B) shall continue to apply to any 
     subsequent operation of the compact facility.
       (d) Enforcement.--
       (1) By the attorney general.--If the Attorney General 
     obtains evidence that a condition stated in subsection (a)(3) 
     has not

[[Page S3019]]

     been complied with at any time, the Attorney General shall 
     bring a civil action in United States district court for a 
     judgment against the party states (as defined in the compact) 
     and Commission--
       (A) declaring that the consent of Congress to the compact 
     is of no further effect by reason of the failure to meet the 
     condition;
       (B) enjoining any further failure of compliance; and
       (C) in any second or subsequent civil action under this 
     subsection in which the court finds that a second or 
     subsequent failure to comply with the condition stated in 
     subsection (a)(3)(B) has occurred, ordering that the compact 
     facility be closed.
       (2) By a member of the community in which a compact 
     facility is located.--If any person that resides or has a 
     principal place of business in the community in which a 
     compact facility is located obtains evidence that the 
     condition stated in subsection (a)(3)(B) has not been 
     complied with at any time, the person may bring a civil 
     action in United States district court for a judgment against 
     the party states and Commission--
       (A) declaring that the consent of Congress to the compact 
     is of no further effect by reason of the failure to meet the 
     condition;
       (B) enjoining any further failure of compliance; and
       (C) in any second or subsequent civil action under this 
     subsection in which the court finds that a second or 
     subsequent failure to comply with the condition stated in 
     subsection (a)(3)(B) has occurred, ordering that the compact 
     facility be closed.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed 
to, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed as amended, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement relating to 
the bill appear at this point in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 629), as amended, was considered read the third time, 
and passed.

                          ____________________