[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3068-H3074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 629, TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 
                      DISPOSAL COMPACT CONSENT ACT

  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Commerce, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
(H.R. 629) to grant the consent of Congress to the Texas Low-Level 
Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, with a Senate amendment thereto, 
disagree to the Senate amendment, insist on the House bill and request 
a conference with the Senate thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan 
Schaefer) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes), and I ask unanimous consent that they be permitted 
to control their own time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is a very simple one. It 
allows the House to go to conference with the Senate to resolve 
differences between the two versions of H.R. 629 that was passed by 
each body.
  H.R. 629 would grant the consent of Congress to the Texas, Maine and 
Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Disposal Compact. This compact, like the 
nine others we have passed through Congress, has already been approved. 
It is necessary to allow these three States to fully comply with their 
responsibilities under the Federal Low-Level Radioactive Policy Act.
  The act was passed as a part of an agreement with the States that 
they would be responsible for the disposal of low-level waste while the 
Federal Government would be responsible for high-level radioactive 
waste disposal. It is important for Congress to complete its work on 
this matter, and the motion is

[[Page H3069]]

a necessary step in the legislative process. I would recommend 
adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to House Resolution 622.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, 2 decades ago Congress passed legislation 
enabling States to form compacts to build low-level radioactive waste 
dumps. States have spent in excess of $400 million trying to site low-
level radioactive waste dumps, but not a single pile of dirt has been 
overturned.
  The Midwest Compact, which is trying to site a low-level radioactive 
waste dump in Ohio, fell apart last year for the same reason the Texas, 
Maine, Vermont compact fell apart.
  Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, one of the biggest sources of 
nuclear waste to go into the dump site in Texas, recently announced 
they are going to shut the reactor 10 years sooner than they had 
anticipated.

                              {time}  1845

  The Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company has since concluded that the 
compact no longer makes economic sense and is urging Congress to vote 
no. When a nuclear power company says something does not make sense, 
just imagine how bad the thing is.
  Compact after compact has fallen apart or been stopped by concerned 
citizens because the whole approach to building low-level radioactive 
waste sites is fundamentally flawed. We need a rational low-level 
radioactive waste policy that does not stick the taxpayers and 
ratepayers with huge waste disposal bills, that does not mandate the 
proliferation of dumps across the country, that does not put 
radioactive waste on the highways and railways.
  The people of the United States should not have to pay for the 
disposal of waste that was generated by commercial nuclear utilities. 
The people of the United States should not have radioactive waste 
transported through their communities on its way to a dump thousands of 
miles away. And the poorest people of the United States should not have 
radioactive waste sites right in their own communities because they are 
too poor to fight back.
  Though we may not agree on why, the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 
is absolutely right; the Texas compact makes no sense.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), 
ranking member on the subcommittee.
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Texas-Maine-
Vermont low-level radioactive waste disposal compact.
  Mr. Speaker, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act is a very 
good example of state-Federal cooperation, and approval of the compact 
will fulfill the congressional side of the bargain. A deal was made a 
long time ago, worked out between the States; a deal that was heard, 
debated, legislated by each of the States, signed by the governor.
  This is the tenth interstate compact to come up for congressional 
approval, and it behooves us I think to get this bill into conference 
and into law.
  In 1980, and again in 1985, Congress enacted legislation setting up a 
program under which the States would have primary responsibility and 
control over the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. This is what 
the States wanted. And it makes sense because so many important local 
activities depend on having safe and ready disposal of their low-level 
waste, including the 3 States that are involved.
  While this issue is often discussed in terms of utilities' need alone 
for disposal facilities, it also affects a lot of other entities. It 
affects hospitals, greatly affects university research programs. It 
affects the industry all across this land. Each of these activities 
utilizes low-level radioactive materials and each of them means jobs, 
and jobs mean dignity; and none could go forward without an assured 
economic option for disposal. Just think what would happen if nuclear 
medicine stopped being available. That gives us an idea of the 
importance of this bill.
  Texas, Maine, and Vermont have done what they need to do; they have 
done all they can do in order to get a low-level facility. They have 
gone through their legislative procedure. They have had the hearings. 
They have selected the site. They have taken care of their own disposal 
needs. We look to them to do that.
  As the largest producer of waste among the three, my State, the State 
of Texas, agreed to host the facility. Main and Vermont agreed to share 
in the cost. I will not pretend that finding a site has been easy or 
that all of the questions about how to build the right facility are 
known. These are the questions that have to be resolved in the course 
of obtaining the license to operate the facility and cannot be settled 
by laymen like ourselves.
  Of course, Congress has an important role to play and it is our job 
to pass H.R. 558 so that the States can move forward. This will be the 
tenth compact to received congressional approval when it is approved 
and brings to 44 the number of States moving forward to meet their 
disposal needs. The Texas compact meets the law's requirements. It is 
needed by the people of Texas. It is needed by the people of Maine. It 
is needed by the people of Vermont. And I strongly urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this compact 
between the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. This is a situation 
that is endangering the future and the environment for many of the 
constituencies that I have in the western part of my congressional 
district. I have received communications from no fewer than a dozen 
local government, city and county governments that are right now hoping 
that the Congress will stand up and finally do the right thing on this 
issue.
  Let me make it clear that there is no language in this bill at all 
that refers to where in Texas this dump would be constructed. That was 
decided by the State legislature, the State senators and State 
representatives, and the governors of Texas. What this does is allow 
the deal to be consummated, if you will; and we are the last hope that 
these folks have. Because, in their view, the State government did not 
do its job back home and have it constructed somewhere else, rather 
than right in their backyards.
  Let us all understand that there have been earthquakes in this area, 
that the geology is not stable in the surrounding area, and that there 
is a strong threat to the water supplies, there is a strong threat to 
the future of communities that want to survive and thrive in this 
particular part of west Texas. So it is incumbent upon ourselves to 
consider how it is going to affect the people that live in these areas 
that could be threatened by these toxic substances that are going to be 
buried right next to where they have raised their families.
  The other issue that is of great concern, not just to the folks who 
live in this area, but to the people who live in areas leading up to 
the area, in other words, the highways and the railway systems that 
lead to these areas where these toxic substances would be brought 
through, communities as far as 2 or 300 miles away, not only in Texas 
but in other States surrounding Texas where many of this low-level 
toxic radioactive waste material would be coming through their areas.
  In fact, this question has been raised in the community of San 
Antonio by some who are questioning right now, ``Where is this stuff 
going to be moving through? Will it be coming through our neighborhood, 
traveling westbound to be deposited in this particular area?''
  So these questions have not been answered, and it is a strong threat 
to the future of many of these communities. It is for that reason I 
rise in strong opposition to this compact and urge my colleagues to 
vote no.
  This thing has come up before in the House of Representatives on the 
floor here. One time earlier we were able to defeat it. The last time 
around, a lot of folks were spoken to very strongly and it turned out 
that we lost the second time around. And here we are one more time with 
an opportunity to say no to this dump and yes to the people that live 
in this community and are hoping

[[Page H3070]]

to have their families and grandchildren and future generations survive 
and thrive in these areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), sponsor of the 
bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
send this bill to conference with the Senate. It did pass the House 
last year 309-107, which is a tremendous bipartisan show of support.
  All this bill does is ratify the ability of the States of Maine, 
Vermont, and Texas to enter into a compact for the storage of low-level 
nuclear radioactive waste. Nine other compacts have already been 
ratified by the Congress that comprise 42 States. So this legislation 
is necessary to give the State of Texas, the State of Vermont, and the 
State of Maine the opportunity to do what 42 other States already do; 
and that, simply put, is to enter into a compact for the storage of 
this waste.
  It is low-level radioactive waste, it is not high-level. And I would 
point out to some of my friends in Texas who oppose this, if we do not 
ratify it, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, any State 
could send low-level radioactive waste to the State of Texas.
  So this is a good piece of legislation. It has already passed the 
House once in this Congress 309-107. The Senate passed similar 
legislation. We need to appoint conferees and go to conference. So I 
would support the motion of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan 
Schaefer) to appoint conferees and go to conference and hope that the 
House would likewise do so.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks very brief.
  The Doggett language, as agreed to by the House and which is also 
included in the Senate bill, must be kept as part of the conference 
language. Why? Because the Doggett language guarantees that we do what 
is right and that is to ensure no low-level radioactive waste is 
brought into Texas from any State other than Maine or Vermont.
  Sierra Blanca is an inappropriate site for intensely radioactive 
materials. The consequence of placing this waste in an area that is 
earthquake-prone is reason enough to support the Doggett language. Add 
to that the potential threat that would be posed to the Rio Grande 
River, and I believe it is quite obvious why we would want to preserve 
this language in conference.
  With nuclear power waste, I think it is pretty safe to say we do not 
get a second chance. Would we want this in our community without 
appropriate safeguards? I do not think so. And that is all my colleague 
is seeking to do, make certain safeguards are in place.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to preserve this language in conference.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to instruct the 
conferees, as offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and my 
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer).
  The Governors of Texas, Maine, and Vermont have all signed this 
compact to ensure that their States have the means to efficiently 
manage and safely dispose of low-level waste. They entered into the 
compact to meet the demands placed on the States by Congress through 
the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. They complied. They met the 
mandate. They should be allowed to meet Federal demands without 
unnecessary burdens of unwanted amendments.
  Congress, to this point, has approved 9 compacts and it has amended 
none, and it should not start now. There are others who feel this way. 
The National Conference of State Legislatures stated 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.
  The National Governors Association said that since 1985, 41 States 
have entered into 9 congressionally approved compacts without any of 
these unnecessary amendments. The Texas-Maine-Vermont compact deserves 
to be the tenth. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to 
instruct and to allow the States of Maine, Vermont, and Texas to 
properly dispose of the low-level waste.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from San 
Antonio, Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), my neighbor, friend, and colleague.
  (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Texas-Maine-Vermont low-
level radioactive waste dump bill.
  This bill as originally written would allow waste dump operators to 
dispose of waste in Texas from States other than Texas, Vermont, and 
Maine. That is simply unacceptable.
  I served in the Texas legislature in 1993, when the Low-Level 
Radioactive Compact was approved. At that time the supporters of the 
bill insisted that only waste generated by the three member States 
would be disposed at the site. It was on that understanding that the 
legislators approved the legislation.
  For this reason, I believe we should maintain the amendment by my 
colleague from Texas and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota to 
guarantee that the site will not become a national dumping ground in 
west Texas. Supporters of the waste site oppose this amendment on the 
grounds that it may force the 3 States to re-ratify the compact.
  I have seen the arguments, and this is not the case. Even if that is 
the case, however, I think that is the right thing to do and we should 
not avoid the issue merely because of convenience. There should not be 
any hurry to move on this particular motion, to move on this particular 
piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1900

  Furthermore, we should retain the other amendment from the Senate 
which allows the party to bring suit in case of discriminatory waste 
dumping. I believe that this safeguard for the residents of the Sierra 
Blanca is necessary in light of the predominantly minority population 
in the region where this facility may be located. Approximately 76 
percent of the residents are Hispanic; 39 percent live in poverty in 
the area.
  The site is not for relatively harmless medical waste. In fact, there 
is an effort at amending the site permit to include dumping parts of 
reactors, not just clothing and instruments.
  This is not an issue about States rights. It is about self-
determination, self-determination for the community and the land around 
it and the impact that it has. The residents have not received a fair 
chance to be able to make a decision on what will be occurring in their 
backyards.
  A recent study, by the way, showed that, of the three existing sites 
that we have out there in Utah, Washington, and South Carolina, I want 
you to listen to that, the study indicated that there is a life 
expectancy of over 29 years. So there is no need for us to move until 
the year 2027.
  Listen to this, in addition to that, beyond that, they have the 
potential of going up to almost 260 years in the existing sites.
  So why are we doing what we are proposing? The only thing I can 
figure is for economic reasons and deciding to move in that direction. 
I would ask that we take this very seriously, that we take the time to 
study. Finally, it is a bad policy and is divisive.
  As we look at our agreements with Mexico, we had an agreement in 
1983, the La Paz Agreement. In that particular agreement, we talked 
Mexico into making sure that nothing occurred 60 miles from the Rio 
Grande on either side so we would not pollute the area. So what has 
happened? We are the ones that have polluted. We are the ones that are 
doing the site right next to it.
  I ask Members to vote against it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 
6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H3071]]

  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan 
Schaefer), my subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Commerce and 
Subcommittee on Energy and Power for allowing me to speak tonight.
  I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. The States of 
Texas, Maine, and Vermont deserve and expect congressional approval for 
the disposal and storage of their low-level radioactive waste. Since 
1985, Congress has improved nine compacts which include 41 States, so 
we are not breaking new ground by this legislation. It is vitally 
important that we move this bill quickly.
  In fact, that is frustrating, Mr. Speaker, because I was in the State 
senate when we approved the compact as a State legislature in 1991. We 
did not approve the site; that was left to the experts. And now they, 
the experts, have picked a site in west Texas. It may not have been the 
one I picked, but I know we need a low-level site. So that is why we 
are here today, to authorize that.
  If the State of Texas wants to pick another site, let them do that, 
but there is no reason why we should make that decision here on the 
floor of the House. The better place to do it is in the halls of the 
State legislature. So, anyway, I support the bill.
  Under the terms of the Texas-Maine-Vermont compact, low-level 
radioactive waste produced in each State will be carefully disposed of 
at a single facility. Again, it is in west Texas.
  I share the concern my colleague from San Antonio has with the 60 
miles of the border, but we also have pollution that goes both ways 
across the border. In fact, it was ironic, last week, last fall rather, 
I was in California and saw cross-border pollution in California, both 
ways, from both northern Mexico and from southern California. So we 
have that problem on both sides within 60 miles of the border.
  There is a need for this. Many other States are part of the compact. 
We need to have Texas and Maine and Vermont have their compact so we 
can protect the citizens of Texas, because, otherwise, this compact, 
without this approval, could ultimately be the low-level waste site for 
all the country. That is not what the States want. That is why other 
States have created compacts and that is why it is important for Texas 
to do this.
  The waste will be transported from hospitals and university research 
centers, utilities, and other waste producers in each State to a safe, 
permanent disposal site to be built in Texas.
  Much has been said about the proposed site for the waste disposal 
facility. In fact, the permit to build the waste disposal facility in 
west Texas has been requested from our Texas Natural Resources 
Conservation Commission.
  If the Commission finds that the permit meets all of the 
requirements, it will grant that permit. If Congress does not approve 
this bill under the Interstate Commerce clause, Texas must accept low-
level waste from all other States.
  H.R. 629 would allow Texas to limit who sends waste to the facility 
and be in compliance with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, 
just like 41 other States, Mr. Speaker, had their ability to limit it 
in a compact.
  Again, Texas, there are three States; I think the minimum number of 
States that can be in a compact is three States, and so Texas and Maine 
and Vermont had made this agreement. Again, this is over a period of 
years. This just did not happen yesterday or last year.
  When this first was being discussed, Ann Richards was the Governor of 
Texas, and now George Bush; and Ann Richards supported a low-level 
compact just like George Bush supports it.
  The compact makes it possible to manage a Texas facility in an 
orderly and efficient manner. Without the compact, we would have no 
control in Texas over access. The Texas, Maine, and Vermont compact is 
an excellent arrangement between the three States, and it has received 
overwhelming bipartisan support in the legislatures of all three 
States.
  I know because, again, I was there in 1991. We approved the compact 
commission decision, not the site selection. That, again, is best left 
to the local legislature and the local experts to do that, not here on 
the floor of Congress.
  We can debate all day whether we like the site in west Texas, or 
maybe we would like a site in the district of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriguez). That was one I heard earlier that was proposed in the 
earlier part of this decade.
  Let us let the folks in Texas make that decision and not here, 
because we do not have that expertise on the floor.
  So I urge passage of the bill and support H.R. 629.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. 
Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 629, the Texas-Maine-
Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact.
  The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments 
make commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal a State, not a 
Federal responsibility. Since that time, 41 States from every region of 
the country have come together to form compacts.
  Essentially, all we are asking today is that our three States be 
given the same consideration that every other State which went before 
us received in this process.
  In every instance, Congress has understood the benefits of these 
compacts and has recognized the rights of the different States to come 
together in their own best interests to form these compacts. In fact, 
each of these waste compacts passed by voice vote and without 
amendment.
  This compact has been overwhelmingly approved by the legislatures of 
Texas, Maine, and Vermont. It has the very strong support of the 
governors of the three States. It has the support of all the Senators 
from Texas, Vermont, and Maine, all of the House Members from Vermont 
and Maine, and as I understand it, about two-thirds of the members of 
the Texas congressional delegation.
  We hear a great deal of discussion in this body about devolution, 
returning powers to the States. If we believe in that concept and 
believe that States should have the right to come together in their own 
best interests to address this very difficult issue, then today's vote 
should be an easy one. This legislation won by a vote of 309 to 107 
last year and should be strongly supported today.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaefer) 
has 26 minutes.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the motion to go to conference 
on H.R. 629. This is simply the opportunity for Texas, Vermont, and 
Maine to continue the process of gaining congressional approval for 
their low-level radioactive waste compact.
  The House voted, as several speakers have said, last November by a 
vote of 309 to 107 to approve this compact. The Low-Level Radioactive 
Waste Act places the responsibility for the disposal of low-level waste 
upon the States.
  I do want to come back to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) who, earlier on, made a reference to Maine Yankee. Maine 
Yankee is, of course, the owner of the nuclear power facility that is 
now in the process of decommissioning in Maine. But Maine Yankee's 
position is now different than it was last year.
  By letter dated March 12, 1998, Maine Yankee makes it clear that it 
does not object to the proposed compact. It has satisfied itself that 
it can dispose of its waste in the interim, but it does urge that the 
compact pass with no amendments.
  Under this act, the States of Texas, Vermont, and Maine crafted a 
compact to meet their needs. In Maine, this compact was approved by a 
three-to-one margin during a referendum. This was not simply passed by 
the State legislature, which it was, but it was passed on a referendum 
by the people of Maine.
  Over the past several years, Congress has approved nine such compacts 
covering 41 States. The time has now come

[[Page H3072]]

to add to that list. It is very important from our point of view that, 
once the bill goes to conference, a clean bill without amendments, 
without amendments, is reported back to the House and Senate. The 
member States are opposed to any amendments to the bill. The amendments 
to the compact will only cause delay and added costs due to likely 
litigation.
  This compact did not come easily. It was the result of several years 
of good-faith negotiations by the three member States. Maine and the 
other member States do not deserve the additional costs and additional 
delays that would be the result of unwanted amendments.
  No compact before this body, no compact has ever been amended without 
the express consent of the member States. In this case, no consent has 
been given by Maine, by Texas, or by Vermont.
  Mr. Speaker, we must move this issue forward and allow Texas, 
Vermont, and Maine the opportunity to dispose of their low-level 
radioactive waste.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I can certainly sympathize with the 
comments of my colleague from Maine. I guess if I lived in Maine or 
Vermont, I would like to get this stuff as far away as possible as much 
as anyone else.
  There are two very serious misnomers in this compact as proposed. One 
is that it is a low-level radioactive waste disposal site. It is low-
level only as compared with higher level, but not as compared to the 
life of anybody sitting around here tonight.
  Indeed, long after every person in this body is gone from this Earth 
and everyone who ever knew any of them is gone from this Earth and 
everyone who knew anyone on this planet is gone from this Earth, this 
radioactive waste is going to be very, very deadly.
  Indeed, this radioactive waste that is going to be put out in Sierra 
Blanca, Texas, is going to be very deadly to humans for far longer than 
all of recorded human history in the existence of men and women on this 
planet. So it is a very momentous occasion when we consider the issue 
of what we are going to do with waste that is waste and is harmful for 
thousands and thousands of years.

                              {time}  1915

  It is true that nuclear medicine, as my colleague from Texas 
indicated, is important, and all of the wastes generated from the 
academics, from medicine, from other sources of this type as proposed 
would take up, I believe it is something like five ten-thousandths of a 
percent of the capacity of this dump site. Well over 90 percent would 
come from the nuclear power industry. So it is indeed misleading to 
suggest that we are trying to thwart nuclear medicine, which we 
certainly are not.
  What we are trying to do is to ensure that something that is going to 
be extremely dangerous for tens of thousands of years is not 
inappropriately dumped on a poor, impoverished, heavily Hispanic area 
of Texas, that also happens to be environmentally unsuitable.
  The second misnomer in this bill is something we can and have done 
something about, and that is it is labeled as the Texas-Maine-Vermont 
compact. Indeed it is so labeled. Yet in the fine print, as the 
comments of my colleague from Maine suggest, there is a little escape 
clause that says that a group of unelected commissioners, appointed by 
governors who have long forgotten about this compact, that this group 
of people can let anybody into this compact they want to, and have 
everybody dumping on the poor people of Sierra Blanca, Texas. That is 
wrong, and that is why this House of Representatives has already gone 
on record in approving an amendment that I offered to limit the compact 
to the title, Texas, Maine and Vermont.
  The United States Senate did exactly the same thing. They approved 
the same kind of amendment. So the conferees ought not to have to spend 
any time on the issue of limiting this dump site to three states, 
Texas, Maine and Vermont, because both houses of Congress have already 
acted on this issue.
  Unfortunately, our statewide elected officials in Texas have been 
strangely silent on it, and hopefully the fact that now both the House 
and the Senate have acted will give them the fortitude to come forward 
and speak out and say, ``Don't mess with Texas; don't dump everybody 
else's waste.'' At least limit it, if you are going to mess with Texas, 
to just the states of Maine and Vermont.
  Indeed, that is exactly what they said. My good friend, the gentleman 
from Rockwall, Texas (Mr. Hall), told this body on October 7 of 1997 
that by approving this compact, and I am quoting, ``Texas will be 
required to accept waste only from Maine and Vermont.''
  The same comments were made by our colleague the gentlewoman from 
Dallas, Texas (Ms. Johnson), by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee), and by a number of other of our colleagues, and it was 
reiterated by Governor George Bush in an interview with the Houston 
Chronicle on April 19th, that that was the objective of this whole 
proposal.
  Well, if it is, let us write it into law, as we have done.
  The suggestion of the gentleman from Maine and others that this 
somehow would require reratification is nonsense. There is no reason 
that simply holding these parties to what they presented to this 
Congress, of limiting it to those three states, would require 
reratification. Nor does it constitute any violation of the commerce 
clause, as some have suggested, since it deals exclusively with the 
compact and not all sources of waste.
  But, you know, the real issue here is not the legalism, but the 
environmental soundness of this decision. The most recent report on the 
whole subject of nuclear waste dumping, one that came out in December 
of this past year, indicates we already have excess capacity, that the 
three waste sites that we have at present are perfectly adequate to 
meet future waste needs.
  Senator Wellstone has done an excellent job of adding an amendment in 
the Senate that deals with this issue of environmental justice. I hope 
that it is maintained by the conference committee.
  I think that the reason this site has been placed in Sierra Blanca, 
Texas, for Maine and Vermont, and perhaps for other states, is not 
because of environmental suitability, but because of perceived 
political weakness. We are today speaking out on behalf of the poor 
people of Sierra Blanca and all those that care about this nuclear 
waste issue, to say it is wrong to dump on them what we would refuse to 
keep in our own backyard.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult question, as many times I come to 
the floor of the House and I join in with my good friend, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), and fully appreciate the high moral ground 
that he now is able to stand upon dealing with the ultimate perceived 
impact that this legislation, H.R. 629, presents.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I ask that this particular legislation go to 
conference, and I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who has 
worked very hard on this issue, he can count on me to work with him to 
address the State legislature as to the question of site location, and 
would certainly, as I have indicated in previous debate, be the first 
to oppose what may be an already established site that would impact 
negatively on his immediate community.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot deny that this is the best approach. This 
answers the question, what now, and how? For it is through man's 
knowledge and expertise that we have been able to utilize nuclear 
science, nuclear technology.
  It would be devastating, Mr. Speaker, for us to disallow the 
utilization of this technology, and, yes, it is in its own realm, very 
difficult and sometimes very dangerous. But that is why we have 
established the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, in 
order to be able to assure that Congress does not intervene or dominate 
on decisions that need to be made by the states.
  In this instance, Mr. Speaker, we have the states of Texas, Maine and 
Vermont who have worked in a bipartisan manner to protect the life and 
safety of their residents and constituents. This has not been done 
haphazardly,

[[Page H3073]]

Mr. Speaker. You have had governors from parties, from both sides of 
the aisle, who have come together to negotiate this pact. I think it 
would simply be tragic for us not to allow this to now go to 
conference.
  I do believe, as I have indicated in debate, that the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett) has a very good point, and I hope in conference we 
can work out the agreement where this compact does relate to Texas and 
Vermont and Maine, but the question becomes, who does have the higher 
moral ground? Is it those who say we do not know where it should go, 
throw it to the wind, keep it in limbo, hold Maine hostage or 
Vermont hostage; or, when Texas has conceded to the point we can work 
it out, ignore the response of those in Texas?

  I think, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem with nuclear waste, and we in 
our own human frailties have done the best that we can. Because I do 
not want to see the benefits of nuclear medicine, if you will, go down 
the drain, when someone laying on an operating room table needs that 
kind of technology and we cannot give it, because we have no way of 
disseminating the waste in a proper manner. These are life and death 
questions, Mr. Speaker, and I believe this low impact radioactive waste 
policy and the coming together of these states is the best approach.
  Any day I will stand with my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes) in the selection. I asked in the last debate last year that the 
State not precipitously move forward, our State, the State of Texas, 
but to hold hearings and listen to the constituents and work to ensure 
that it not be in an area that may be heavily directed toward a low or 
poor income area.
  I still stand on those words. But this is a good piece of legislation 
that should move through the conference. This is a good process for 
states to make the decision, and not the United States Congress. This 
is positive for states to become allies in this very increasing 
concern.
  Mr. Speaker, we must as a country have a way of ridding ourselves of 
the waste of using nuclear energy or nuclear science in the question of 
doing what is best for us.
  We have found, Mr. Speaker, that more and more of our energy concerns 
are not relying on nuclear energy, but they have in the past. They may 
in the future. It is best then for the states to move forward. This 
policy is one that directs the states to make their arrangements. It is 
not a Federal policy that dominates the states.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had no authority, no choice, no decisionmaking 
on the site. I think it should be very clear.
  I would argue, Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, it should go to 
the conference, and we must find a way to make sure and ensure that all 
of our constituencies are safe; but we must do it in a manner where we 
are cooperating with the states. That is what this legislation does. I 
would ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, four 
minutes, to the gentleman from El Paso, Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is on 
the right side of this issue.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as many know, I have opposed this bill at every turn. On 
October 7, 1997, the House passed H.R. 629, in spite of overwhelming 
opposition by the residents of Hudspeth County, Presidio County, Jeff 
Davis County and others in West Texas.
  I respect my colleagues that are on the other side of this issue. I 
respect the fact that they have strong opinions about the necessity of 
our State and Vermont and Maine to have a site where nuclear waste can 
be stored. However, this issue is about fairness. This issue is about 
understanding that a life in Sierra Blanca, Texas, is worth the same as 
a life in Rockwall, in Houston, and in any other part of this great 
country of ours.
  I believe that this site threatens the health and safety of our 
citizens, our citizens that live in Sierra Blanca, Texas. In spite of 
the designation of ``low level,'' this dump would accept intensely 
radioactive materials, as my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett) has stated.
  The community of Sierra Blanca already has one of the largest sewage 
sludge projects in the country. The proposed dump site is also at risk 
in this particular area of Texas from earthquakes. According to the 
1993 license application for Sierra Blanca, it is part of the most 
tectonically active area within the State of Texas. This radioactive 
site would effectively threaten the water supply of about 3 million 
people by threatening the Rio Grande River.
  I also believe that this bill violates the 1983 La Paz Agreement with 
Mexico. This bill directs the governments of the United States and 
Mexico to adopt appropriate measures to prevent, reduce and eliminate 
sources of pollution within a 60 mile radius of the border. The State 
of Texas asserts that they just merely must inform the Government of 
Mexico on actions of this type. I disagree, the Mexican government 
disagrees, and in fact last week the Mexican Congress in a strongly-
worded message passed a resolution taking an official position against 
the site of this nuclear dump.
  During the debate on H.R. 629, the House agreed to an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) that makes 
Congressional approval conditional and will be granted only for so long 
as no low level radioactive waste is brought into Texas from any other 
State other than Maine or Vermont. As introduced, H.R. 629 did not 
include that stipulation. This compact was promoted to the Texas 
legislature as a way to restrict out-of-state waste to those other than 
those two New England states. I strongly believe and those that support 
our position, which is the right position, believe that the Doggett 
amendment should remain as part of this legislation.
  When the Senate considered this bill, it also included the Doggett 
language in the bill. I strongly support this language, and urge the 
conferees in the strongest possible way to leave this language in the 
conference bill.
  The Senate has also unanimously agreed to an amendment which gives 
local residents and businesses the right to challenge the compact if 
they can prove discrimination on the basis of race. This area that has 
been selected is predominately Hispanic. Eighty-two percent of the 
residents of Sierra Blanca, Texas, are Hispanic. Therefore, this is a 
vital and important component in the legislation. Much of the local 
community believes that there has been discrimination, I believe that 
there has been discrimination, and the Senate amendment gives the local 
community a chance to prove its case in court.
  Again, in closing, I strongly urge the conferees to preserve the 
language and think of the people of Sierra Blanca, Texas, and let us 
not make decisions on where we locate radioactive dumps on the basis of 
political impotence.

                              {time}  1930

  I think it would send a very strong and clear message to the 
community of Sierra Blanca, Texas, to west Texas, and those that 
ultimately are going to rely on the Rio Grande River as their main 
water source that this body, that the House and the Senate, care about 
the future of this area and this region of the country.
  For that reason, I strongly recommend that if we are going to pass 
this kind of legislation, that it be with the Doggett amendments.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the sponsor of 
the bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
  This legislation passed the House 309 to 107 last year; it passed the 
Senate earlier this year by unanimous consent. There are 42 other 
States that have such compacts. The motion before us is simply to send 
the bill to allow the House to appoint conferees to go to conference 
with the Senate. I think we can all agree to that. If we pass this in 
the next several minutes, there will be no motions to instruct. We will 
just go to conference, we will let the conference work its will and 
then we will have one final vote of both the House and the Senate on 
this legislation.
  So let us all vote in favor of appointing conferees and send this 
bill to conference.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have no further 
speakers. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the motion

[[Page H3074]]

offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
  For consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment and 
modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Bliley,
  Dan Schaefer of Colorado,
  Barton of Texas,
  Dingell, and
  Hall of Texas.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________