Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 114 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9809-S9819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT CONSENT ACT--
CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senate will proceed to the
conference report to accompany H.R. 629, which the clerk will now
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A conference report to accompany H.R. 629, an act to grant
consent of Congress to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Compact.

The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on this conference report is limited
to 40 minutes to be equally divided.
Who yields time?
Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am now pleased to yield to my colleague
from Maine, Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise to join the senior Senator from Maine, Senator
Snowe, in urging my colleagues to approve the conference report on H.R.
629, legislation that would ratify the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Compact, 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.
Since 1985, Congress has ratified 9 compacts involving 41 States. Put
differently, 82 of the 100 Members of this body live in States with
compacts that have already 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 in the vast majority of 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 the State of Maine, endorsed by 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, the Senator from Minnesota, whom I enjoy serving with
on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, has criticized the
disposal site that is under consideration by the State of Texas. Apart
from the fact that the location of the site is a matter for Texas to
determine and is not a component of this bill, that criticism is
unsupported by the facts.
In making the decision to consider the proposed site in Hudspeth
County, TX, there has been extensive public involvement as well as a
thorough environmental and technical review. The county was found to
have 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 2,800
people, and it must be remembered, Mr. President, that this is only a
proposed site. Final approval will not be forthcoming unless all of the
standards established by Texas law are satisfied.
The decision to consider the site in Texas has nothing to do with who
lives there. It has everything to do with the fact that very few people
live there.
This body has been presented with nine low-level radioactive waste
compacts. It has not imposed changes on any one of those agreements. In
keeping with congressionally established policy for the disposal of
low-level waste, Maine, Texas, and Vermont are simply seeking the same
treatment.
I commend my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for her leadership
on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the conference
report. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise again this morning to speak
against the conference report to H.R. 629. This is the Texas-Maine-
Vermont Compact which will result in the dumping of low-level
radioactive waste from Texas, Maine, and Vermont, and potentially other
States, at a dump located in Texas. The dump is expected to be built in
the town of Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County where 66 percent of the
residents are Latino, and 39 percent live below the poverty line.

Mr. President, the construction of this dump site in this community
raises important questions of environmental justice. This is not just
about the people in Hudspeth County or about the people in Sierra
Blanca, or about west Texas for that matter. This is a fight for
communities all across the country who do not have the political clout
to keep this pollution out. This is a fight for minority communities
who are burdened with a disproportionate share of these sites.
It seems to be a pattern in our country, whenever we decide where we
are going to build a power line or where we are going to build a
nuclear waste dump site or where we are going to put an incinerator, it
never is located in communities where people who live in those
communities have political clout. It is not located where the heavy
hitters and the well-connected and the people who give the big
contributions live. It is almost always located in communities of
color.
Mr. President, there is an article today that I recommend for my
colleagues in the New York Times entitled, ``For Some, Texas Town Is
Too Popular as Waste Disposal Site.'' This is all about what we are
debating today. I just read the conclusion. Maria Mendez, a retired
school aide from Allamore, who lives in the community, is quoted as
saying:

I think Sierra Blanca was chosen for all this dumping
because we don't have any political clout. I think it's a
racism thing; I really do. Here we are, the hugest dump in
the whole world. First sludge, now nuclear waste. Our home
has been taken over as the nation's dumping ground.

Mr. President and colleagues, environmental justice is a difficult
issue. Too often we hide behind excuses. We say, ``These are private
sector decisions. This is a matter of State and

[[Page S9810]]

local responsibility. It is too hard to prove.'' But this is pretty
easy. The dump will not be built if we reject this compact. We have
direct responsibility, we have a Federal role, a direct Federal role.
We cannot wash our hands of this. We cannot walk away and pretend we
are not to blame. We are all responsible. And it is important to take a
stand.
This compact raises troubling issues of environmental justice. In
this case, the Texas Legislature selected Hudspeth County. They already
selected Hudspeth County. And the Texas Waste Authority selected the
Sierra Blanca site after the Authority's scoping study had already
ruled out Sierra Blanca as scientifically unsuitable. The Waste
Authority selected the site after the Authority's own scoping study had
ruled Sierra Blanca out as scientifically unsuitable; that is to say a
geologically active area; that is to say an earthquake area.
Communities near the preferred site have had enough political clout
to keep the dump out, but Sierra Blanca--already the site of the
largest sewage sludge project in our country--was not so fortunate. The
Waste Authority does a scoping study. The scoping study says this is
not scientifically suitable, but the Waste Authority goes ahead and
chooses this community. Why not? Disproportionately poor,
disproportionately Latino. This is an issue of environmental justice.
The residents of Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County and west Texas do not
want this dump. Last night, some of my colleagues talked about the
election of one official, and they said the people want this dump. This
candidate was elected, and he was for it. But twenty surrounding
counties and 13 nearby cities have passed resolutions against it. And
no city or county in west Texas supports it.
Nor would any Senator in this Chamber want this waste dump site built
in their backyard. I doubt whether any Senator in this Chamber has ever
been faced with this. These waste dump sites are not put where Senators
live. They are put in the communities disproportionately of color,
disproportionately low-income. This is a debate about environmental
justice in our country.
Over 800 adult residents of Sierra Blanca have signed petitions
opposing the dump. A 1992 poll, commissioned by the Texas Waste
Authority, showed 64 percent opposition in Hudspeth and Culberson
Counties. Republican Congressman Bonilla, who represents Hudspeth
County, and Democratic Congressmen Reyes and Rodriguez, who represent
neighboring El Paso and San Antonio, have all actively opposed the dump
site.
In an October 1994 statewide poll, 82 percent of Texans said they
were against it. Local residents have had no say over whether the waste
dump site will be constructed in Sierra Blanca. They were never
consulted at any stage in the decision-making process.
As a matter of fact, Mr. President, a 1984 public opinion survey
commissioned by the Texas Waste Authority provides some useful context
for what is going on. Let me just quote from what their consultant
said. This is the report:

One population that may benefit from [a public information]
campaign is Hispanics, particularly those with little formal
education and low incomes. This group is the least informed
of all segments of the population. . . . The Authority should
be aware, however, that increasing the level of knowledge of
Hispanics may simply increase opposition to the [radioactive
dump] site, inasmuch as we have discovered a strong
relationship in the total sample between increased perceived
knowledge and increased opposition.

The concern is that if this poor Hispanic community finds out more
about this, they will be opposed to it. Indeed, people in the community
are opposed. And they should be.
Mr. President, my colleague, with all due respect, last night said we
need to have the compact to protect the people in Hudspeth County from
becoming a national repository of nuclear waste. That is not the way it
works.
The conference report on H.R. 629 would allow appointed compact
commissioners to import radioactive waste from any State or territory.
And both the State of Texas and nuclear utilities across the country
will have an economic incentive to bring as much waste as possible to
make this site economically viable and to reduce their disposal costs.
Section 3.05, paragraph 6 of the compact provides that the Compact
Commission may enter into an agreement with any person, State, regional
body, or group of States for importation of low-level radioactive
waste. All it requires is a majority vote of the eight unelected
compact commissioners.
Mr. President, the Texas Observer, March 28, 1997, had it right:

More than two or three national dumps will drive fees so
low that profit margins anticipated by states (and now
private investors) will be threatened. This economic
reality--and growing public resistance to the dumps--has
raised the very real possibility that the next dump permitted
will be the nuclear waste depository for the whole nation,
for decades to come.

Of these nine compacts, I want to point out to my colleagues that not
one compact has built a nuclear waste dump site.
Mr. President, here is what is so egregious about what has happened
here. To avoid turning this low-income, Mexican-American community into
a national repository for radioactive waste, I offered two amendments.
Colleagues, this is really what the vote is about. Twice you have been
on record. The Senate has unanimously said, A, ``We support an
amendment which makes it clear that the waste can only come from Maine,
Vermont, and Texas. We support an amendment that puts in the language
what we say this is about.'' That was passed twice by the unanimous
vote of the U.S. Senate.
The second amendment said that the people in Hudspeth County would
have a chance to prove local discrimination in court, that if they
could show they have been unfairly targeted then they could go to court
to challenge this.
My colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, we have gone on record
twice supporting these amendments. In the dark of night--no wonder
people get so disillusioned about this process--the conference
committee stripped out both amendments, took both amendments out.
Would it be such a crime if we passed this compact with an amendment
that made it clear that the waste could only come from Texas, Maine,
and Vermont? That is what they say the compact is about. Would it be
such a crime if this Hispanic community had some way of seeking redress
of grievance and could challenge discrimination in court? That
amendment was taken out. That is why this compact is flawed. That is
why we should vote against it.

Environmental justice is a national responsibility. We have a
national responsibility to remedy this injustice because if we do not,
the Congress will be complicit in the construction of this dump.
This is not purely a State or local issue. We have to vote on it. We
have to vote up or down. That is what our constitutional system is all
about. This compact requires congressional consent. The Texas Compact
cannot take effect without Federal legislation, since all 50 States--
not just the compact States--will be asked to give their consent.
Construction of the Sierra Blanca dump depends upon enactment of this
conference report. If we reject it today, Texas will not build a dump
in Sierra Blanca. But within 60 days of enactment, if you vote for
this, Maine and Vermont will pay Texas $25 million to begin
construction.
Let me point out this is different from all the other compacts
because it is crystal clear where the site is going to be. The Texas
Legislature already selected Hudspeth County, and the Texas Waste
Authority already identified a dump site near Sierra Blanca. That is
what is at issue here.
Our consent ought to be conditional. We ought to make it clear that
the compact can take effect only if the waste comes from these three
States only. But the conference committee knocked that amendment out--
the utility companies didn't want that.
We ought to make it clear the people of Hudspeth County at least have
a right to appeal this site selection. I think people in Maine and
Vermont agree with that idea, but we took that amendment out.
This is not a debate about State or local rights. The conference
committee

[[Page S9811]]

followed the wishes of the nuclear utilities, not the local residents--
the utilities who were going to benefit from cheap disposal of nuclear
waste. They supported this legislation with no amendments. That is why
this legislation is so flawed.
On July 7, 1998, two administrative hearing officers recommended that
the license for the Sierra Blanca dump be denied. They made a good
decision. What they said was that this is a tectonically active area.
We have a very real danger of earthquakes. This does not make sense
from the point of view of science. And they were right.
But the problem is that the Texas Environmental Agency, the TNRCC,
made up of officials appointed by the Governor, are not bound by what
these hearing officers have recommended. The executive director has
gone on record saying that he doesn't agree. And the Governor has gone
on record saying that Hudspeth County and Sierra Blanca is the right
place for this dump to be.
I say to my colleagues that we really have two choices here. We can
say, look, if we don't know where the site is going to be, then let's
put off the vote. But, no, that is not what we are doing. The idea here
is to just ram this through. As soon as we do, believe me, it will go
in Hudspeth County, Sierra Blanca. That will be a travesty.
I want to just cite for colleagues the broad coalition of religious,
environmental, social justice and public interest groups that oppose
this: The League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC; Greenpeace;
the Texas NAACP; the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas
House of Representatives; the Sierra Club; the House Hispanic Caucus;
the Bishop and the Catholic Diocese of El Paso; the United Methodist
Church General Board of Church and Society; Friends of the Earth;
Physicians for Social Responsibility; the League of Conservation
Voters; and 100 other local and national civic organizations.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
Robert Bullard, a professor at Clark Atlanta University, a leading
expert on environmental justice.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Clark Atlanta University,

Atlanta, GA, September 1, 1998.
Vice President Al Gore,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Vice President Gore: We are pleased to have an
administration that cares about people, the environment, and
justice. This letter is to express my concern about the
Texas/Maine/Vermont Compact and its environmental justice
implications. The issue is plain and simple. To allow the
compact to go forward would be an act of environmental
racism. For this administration to stand silent does not show
a commitment to environmental injustice that follows a
national pattern of siting waste facilities and other locally
unwanted land uses or LULUS in people of color and low-income
communities.
Having written several books and researched environmental
problems in communities of color for more than two decades,
it is very clear to me that the Sierra Blanca case is a
classic case of environmental racism. For this administration
to stand silent does not show a commitment to environmental
justice or a commitment to protect the civil rights of the
residents in Sierra Blanca, Texas. Many grassroots community
leaders I have talked to want to see the Clinton
Administration come out with a strong, bold, and powerful
public statement in opposition to the Texas/Maine/Vermont
Compact.
The people in Texas and across the nation need your help
and support.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Bullard,
Ware Professor and Director.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me read a portion of the letter.

This letter is to express my concern about the Texas/Maine/
Vermont Compact and its environmental justice implications.
The issue is plain and simple. To allow the compact to go
forward would be an act of environmental injustice that
follows a national pattern of siting waste facilities and
other LULUs [locally unwanted land uses] in people of color
and low-income communities. Having . . . researched
environmental problems in communities of color for more than
two decades, it is very clear to me that the Sierra Blanca
case is a classic case of environmental racism.

I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. SNOWE. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 15 minutes 50
seconds remaining and the Senator from Minnesota has 3 minutes 59
seconds remaining.
Ms. SNOWE. May I be informed when I have consumed 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator when she has
consumed 10 minutes.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think it is important this morning to
review some of the facts regarding this conference report before the
Senate that creates this Texas Compact, because I do think that some of
the facts have been lightly regarded during the course of this debate.
This is nothing that hasn't been done before. This conference report
will ratify a compact between the States of Texas, Maine and Vermont
for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, as has been done on
nine previous occasions by the U.S. Congress in response to a mandate
by the Congress in both 1980 and 1985 that required the States to
accept responsibility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
Mr. President, 41 States--including the State of Minnesota, the State
which the Senator represents and who opposes this compact--have entered
into a compact over the last 20 years in response to the mandate that
was issued by the U.S. Congress. There are nine such compacts.
This compact in this conference report does not deviate from the
previous compacts. The fact of the matter is this compact gives greater
control to the State of Texas in terms of the determination of the
siting and all of the other factors to repeatedly and safely dispose of
low-level radioactive waste. This compact allows the State of Texas,
the State of Vermont and the State of Maine to do what 41 other States,
including Senator Wellstone's own State of Minnesota, do--to dispose of
this low-level radioactive waste. The States are responsible for making
this determination, whether it is in their State or out of their State,
for the waste that is generated within their borders.
There are other factors that have to be clarified here today. The
Senator from Minnesota said no other States in these compacts have
determined or designated other sites--which is incorrect--at the time
of the ratification. In fact, three other compacts--the Northwest, the
Rocky Mountain and the Southeast, which passed by the Congress in
1985--had operating facilities that were intentionally designated as
the compact's regional facility.
As has been said, the failure of this Congress to ratify this
conference report to create this compact will result in no facility
being built in Texas.
As this chart illustrates, there are 684 such storage sites in the
State of Texas. They are temporary. They are interim storage
facilities. What does that mean? It means that they don't have to meet
all the same strict requirements that a permanent storage facility will
have to meet. So if this conference report is ratified by the Congress,
that means the State of Texas can consolidate into one permanent
facility to meet all of the State, local and Federal requirements.
It is not, as the Senator from Minnesota has suggested, that we are
running roughshod, we are going to override all of the strict Federal,
State and local regulatory requirements with respect to safety and
health regulations, and of course environmental regulations. This issue
isn't going to go away. The waste has already been generated. In fact,
even the administrative law judge wants the commission to go back to
review essential factors to indicate that the process is working so
that all of the requirements under Federal, State and local law are
examined very carefully, in terms of the site, so that it is
environmentally and geologically safe and sound. But even the
administrative law judge determined on July 7 that, indeed, the State
of Texas is in need of a low-level waste disposal site.

Congress did not put conditions on the nine other compacts that were
ratified by Congress on previous occasions. So this compact should not
be dealt with any differently. We are going to adhere to all of the
safe requirements that have been established in law. So the siting in
Texas is not being done in a vacuum. To the contrary.
Just to name a few of the regulatory requirements that have to be
reviewed and have to be satisfied and have to be adhered to and are
being done, as included in this book right here that goes through the
entirety of the process

[[Page S9812]]

that has been implemented in the State of Texas for a siting of a
facility, there is the Civil Rights Act, which has to be adhered to;
title VI of the Civil Rights Act has to be regarded; the Clean Water
Act; the Clean Air Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Atomic
Energy Act; the 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act; the 1985
Amendments; the Texas Radiation Control Act, and the Texas Health and
Safety Code. They all must be adhered to.
So there is a process. The Senator from Minnesota suggests that there
has not been a process, or public participation. To the contrary, there
has been extensive public participation, and the process is not over.
This compact is site neutral. That doesn't mean to say that the State
of Texas hasn't been examining the site in Sierra Blanca, but the
process has not been completed. It is being examined very carefully.
There has been public participation. There have been numerous hearings
within Hudspeth County and Sierra Blanca specifically about this issue.
The Texas Legislature overwhelmingly has supported it in both the house
and senate, as have the Governors, Governor Richards and Governor Bush;
the State of Vermont, both legislatures, and the State of Maine, on a
bipartisan basis. In fact, 24 of the 30 members of the Texas
congressional delegation are all in support of this conference report.
So it has been regarded.
I want to read to my colleagues an open letter to the people of the
State of Texas from 100 residents of Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County.
I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from Judge Peace, the county
judge, printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Hudspeth County Courthouse,

Sierra Blanca, TX, August 25, 1998.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hutchison: It is my understanding that the
United States Senate will be considering the Texas/Maine/
Vermont Compact soon. I want to thank you for supporting this
important measure. Its passage will bring needed revenue and
opportunity to our area. Sierra Blanca has already benefited
greatly from the presence of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal Authority in the area. The benefits (jobs and
infrastructure improvement) will increase during construction
and operation of the low-level radioactive waste disposal
facility. The truth is the socieconomic benefits for the
residents of Sierra Blanca are enormous and overwhelmingly
positive. Continued economic benefits are absolutely critical
to the future development of Hudspeth County.
I want you to know that the majority of citizens favor the
development of such a facility. I have enclosed an
advertisement that recently ran in the Austin American
Statesman, paid for by donations and community funds. The
people of Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County voiced their
support for a better future and tangible real life advances
that will make our communities more livable. The
advertisement reflects the widespread support in our area for
this project; the support runs across the business community
to elected officials. During the recent primary elections,
this issue was openly debated in the County Judge,
Commissioners Court, and County Democratic Chairmanship
races; those who supported the project won, while those who
opposed it lost.
Thank you for your continued support. If you have further
questions or if I can help you in any other way, please feel
free to call.
Sincerely,
Judge James A. Peace.

Ms. SNOWE. I want to read this open letter that was placed as an
advertisement in a local newspaper:

We support the approval of the license for the proposed
radioactive waste disposal facility near our town. It offers
hope for a better future and tangible, real-life advances
that will make Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County more
livable. The overwhelming majority of residents support this
project near our town for the following reasons:
A halt to exporting our children to other areas for
employment; a larger job market for all residents of Sierra
Blanca and Hudspeth County; the ripple effect seen from
additional businesses and services to support the facility;
improved medical care; increased property values; a broader
tax base; enhanced infrastructure; disposal fees paid to the
county; upward mobility, and an improved standard of living;
a better perception of our community by ourselves and others.
The critics--almost all of whom live outside the
community--say the proposed site is not a reasonable road to
economic development for Sierra Blanca. We say that these
people do not speak for us and that this is our only road in
sight.

I believe the people of Hudspeth County have spoken. I ask unanimous
consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[From the Austin American-Statesman, July 22, 1998]

An Open Letter to the People of the State of Texas From Residents of
Sierra Blanca, Texas and Hudspeth County

We support the approval of the license for the proposed
radioactive waste disposal facility near our town. It offers
hope for a better future and tangible, real life advances
that will make Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County more
livable. The overwhelming majority of residents support this
project near our town for the following reasons:
A halt to exporting our children to other areas for
employment,
A larger job market for all the residents of Sierra Blanca
and Hudspeth County,
The ripple effect seen from additional businesses and
services to support the facility,
Improved medical care,
A broader tax base,
Enhanced infrastructure,
Disposal fees paid to the County,
Upward mobility and an improved standard of living, and
A better perception of our community by ourselves and
others.
Until the proposed project, the only method of upward
mobility and economic development for the residents of Sierra
Blanca was a bus ticket out of town. There was little hope
for economic progress. Sierra Blanca was destined to be a
small, remote, dying community.
The critics--almost all of whom live outside the
community--say the proposed site is not a reasonable road to
economic development for Sierra Blanca. We say that these
people do not speak for us and that this is the only road in
sight.
After four years of intensive review, TNRCC issued a
favorable Environmental Assessment. We are totally satisfied
that the project will be safe and the residents of Sierra
Blanca want it to be licensed. It is a sign of hope and a
brighter future.
The only negative socio-economic impact would be the denial
of the license and the decision to site the facility
elsewhere.

Ms. SNOWE. The fact of the matter is that there has been extensive
public participation, and it has not been completed. In fact, there
were local elections in Hudspeth County, and all of the candidates who
were in support of this facility were elected or reelected. I think
that speaks volumes. This was an issue in those campaigns. I will also
submit for the Record the list of supporters of the compact and the
following letters; a letter from nine Texas Members of the House of
Representatives; the Governors of Maine, Texas and Vermont; a letter
from the National Governors' Association; the National Conference of
State Legislatures; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; a ``Dear
Colleague'' by two members of the Texas House of Representatives. All
of them are in support of the Texas Compact before us here today.
I ask unanimous consent that the list and these letters be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Support for Texas Compact Consent Act

Organizational Support (18 national organizations, 11 regional
organizations)

Organizations United (American Association of Physicists in
Medicine, American College of Nuclear Physicians, American
Council on Education, American Heart Association, American
Medical Association, American Nuclear Society, American
Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Appalachian Compact Users of
Radioactive Isotopes Association, Association of American
Medical Colleges, California Radioactive Materials Management
Forum, Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals,
Edison Electrical Institute, Health Physics Society,
International Isotope Society, Michigan Coalition of
Radioactive Material Users, National Association of Cancer
Patients, National Electrical Manufacturers Association,
Nuclear Energy Institute, Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America, Society of Nuclear Medicine,
Society of Prospective Medicine); Robert Carretta, Chair,
Organizations United.--March 16, 1998; May 1, 1996.
Society of Nuclear Medicine, Southwestern Chapter;
Resolution. Southwestern Chapter of the Society of Nuclear
Medicine.--April 1997.
Texas Radiological Society; Resolution. Texas Radiological
Society.--April 4, 1997.
Texas Medical Association; Resolution. Texas Medical
Association.--April 4, 1997.
Texas Radiation Advisory Board; Resolution. Texas Radiation
Advisory Board.--March 16, 1996.
Health Physics Society; Resolution. South Texas Chapter of
the Health Physics Society.--February 24, 1996. Resolution.
North Texas Chapter of the Health Physics Society.--February
22, 1996.
Radiation Safety Officers; Resolution. Radiation Safety
Officers Advisory Group of

[[Page S9813]]

the University of Texas System.--February 12, 1996.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers; Resolution. Texas
Society of Professional Engineers.--January 26, 1996.
California Radioactive Materials Management Forum; Alan
Pasternak, Technical Director, California Radioactive
Materials Management Forum.--October 6, 1997.
____

Washington, DC,

March 13, 1998.
Hon. Paul Wellstone,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: As members of the Texas delegation,
we urge you to lift your hold on H.R. 629/ S. 270, the Texas
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact.
This bill follows the guidelines set forth by Congress in
1985, setting up a compact for the disposal of low-level
radioactive waste. The legislation is strongly supported by
the three states affected--Texas, Maine, and Vermont--and
H.R. 629 passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 309-107.
We appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about
radioactive waste, and the impact that it could have on our
environment if not properly handled. We agree that these are
important issues which must be fully and completely
examined--a process that is currently under way in Texas
through an intense administrative hearing process.
But ultimately, low-level radioactive waste exists and all
parties are better served if there are safe and secure
disposal facilities. While this may not be the best solution
for all states--such as Minnesota--the Texas State
Legislature, in conjunction with the state leadership of
Vermont and Maine, has come to agreement for the waste
generated in those states.
Finally, concerns have been raised regarding the location
of the proposed disposal site in Texas. This site was not
selected by the U.S. Congress, and the bill before us does
not reference a specific site.
We urge you to lift your hold on this Texas bill so that
the process may move forward and this agreement may be
implemented.
Chet Edwards, Martin Frost, Max Sandlin, Eddie Bernice
Johnson, Ralph Hall, Charles W. Stenholm, Ken Bentsen,
Gene Green, Jim Turner.
____

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.
____

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-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. Veinovich,
Chairman, National Governors' Association.
Governor Tom Carper,
Vice Chairman, National Governors' Association.
____

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 of
low-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
____

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

[[Page S9814]]

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 8 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 and 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.
____

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.
Dear CBC Member: We are writing to ask you to vote for H.R.
629, a bill we both are cosponsoring to ratify the Texas-
Maine-Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact.
Although H.R. 629 specifically provides Congressional
consent for the Texas, Maine, and Vermont Compact which
provides for the safe, responsible disposal of low-level
waste produced in those three states, every state has a stake
in the success of this compact. The Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA) of 1980 requires states to manage
the disposal of low-level waste. The compact system provides
a mechanism for states to ensure their control over the
origin of the waste and allows the individual host staet--
with input from interested citizens--to determine the
appropriate location for the disposal site.
Your state may or may not be one of the 41 states that have
entered into the 9 compacts previously ratified by congress.
Either way, passage of H.R. 629 will reaffirm your State's
right both to control local land use and, subject to federal
and state health, safety, and environmental laws, to
determine the best and safest location for disposing of your
State's waste.
Through bipartisan cooperation, the Governors and
Legislatures of Texas, Vermont, and Maine negotiated and
ratified this Compact in full compliance with all federal and
state laws. Since 1985, nine other compacts comprising 41
states have been ratified by congress without amendment or
objection. Please join us in helping all of our States to
protect the health and safety of our citizens by co-
sponsoring and voting for the Texas-Maine-Vermont Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Compact ratification bill.
In the last Congress, some members of the Texas delegation
opposed ratification of the Compact because of concerns over
the location for the proposed site in Texas. We are satisfied
that all appropriate health, safety, and environmental
concerns are being addressed in a responsible manner by the
Texas state government.
The Commerce Committee reported H.R. 629 on June 25th. The
bill will be coming to the floor soon. We strongly urge you
to vote for this bill.
Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member of Congress.
Sheila Jackson Lee,
Member of Congress.

Ms. SNOWE. The fact of the matter is that there has been a public
process. There has been very careful evaluation and concern about the
views of the constituents in the local area of Hudspeth County, of
Sierra Blanca, of the State of Texas. The fact is, the Senator from
Minnesota wants to treat the States of Texas, Vermont, and Maine
differently from 41 other States, including the Senator's own State of
Minnesota.
The States of Texas, Vermont, and Maine are doing just what the
Congress required them to do--enter into a compact. The failure of this
Congress to approve this conference report and ratify this compact
would mean that the State of Texas could not create one safe permanent
disposal for low-level radioactive waste; that they would have to
maintain 684 temporary storage facilities that do not meet the strict
Federal, State and local requirements that this permanent facility
would be required to meet.
So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference
report. I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, would the Chair please notify me when I
have 2 minutes remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, A, this is the only compact the Senate
has considered where we have a site identified for construction of a
compact dump. In this particular case, 90 percent or more of that waste
is going to come from nuclear power plants.
B, with all due respect to my colleague, the argument that the people
in Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County want this is an argument that just
cannot be accepted on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Eight hundred adult
residents of this town of Sierra Blanca signed petitions in opposition.
A 1992 poll commissioned by the Texas Waste Authority showed 64 percent
in opposition. In a poll in 1994, 82 percent of Texans were against it.
It just doesn't wash.
Third, as colleagues follow this debate, again, the Texas legislature
selected Hudspeth County. The Texas Waste Authority selected the Sierra
Blanca site after the Authority's own scoping study said it is not
scientifically suitable. But this was the path of least political
resistance. This is an issue of environmental justice. This is being
put on the back of a community that is disproportionately Hispanic and
poor. That is what today's article in the New York Times is all about.
Finally, let me name some of the members of a coalition of religious,
environmental, social justice and public interest groups who oppose the
compact. I cite the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC.
The Latino community should make us accountable on this vote. This is
an issue of environmental justice. Then there is GreenPeace, the Texas
NAACP, the Texas House of Representatives Mexican-American Legislative
Caucus, the Sierra Club, the House Hispanic Caucus, and the League of
Conservation Voters. I reserve my final 2 minutes, the balance of my
time.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me go back to the basic reason we are
debating this Compact today. This Compact is before the Senate today
because we shifted the responsibility to manage low-level nuclear waste
to the states almost a decade ago. Congress encouraged the states to
enter into compacts to share this responsibility. Forty-one states have
already followed our direction by entering into compacts very similar
to the one we have before us today. With the expectation that Congress
would ratify their compact, just like we have nine other times, the
states of Texas, Vermont and Maine entered into this Compact.
That was more than four years ago. We have delayed this Compact long
enough. The amendments that Senator Wellstone offered to the Compact
when it passed the Senate earlier this year would delay implementation
of this Compact even further. When the Conference Committee considered
these amendments, we not only heard opposition to the amendments from
the National Governors' Association and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, but also from each of the governors of Texas, Maine and
Vermont.
Their letter urges Congress to pass the Compact without amendments.
The letter makes it clear that the governors believe that the
amendments would require re-ratification by the states and would
undoubtedly lead to costly and time-consuming litigation. But their
letter raises what I think is the most important question: what is our
role in ratifying this Compact? Congress has passed nine other compacts
without any amendments. In fact, we passed them by unanimous consent.
So why is this Compact so different? Contrary to Senator Wellstone's
statement, the Compact makes no mention of a site. Nowhere in this
legislation will you find a mention of Sierra Blanca, Texas. The people
of Texas will make a decision for themselves. The Compact will not.
We are not here to select the site for them. We are not here to write
the Compact agreement for them. We are not here to decide how much
waste should be deposited at the facility or where that waste should
come from. The states have already made those decisions for themselves.
As the governors pointed out, the Wellstone amendments would have been
an ``infringement on state sovereignty.'' It

[[Page S9815]]

would have been the first time Congress amended an original contract
negotiated by the states. Inclusion of these amendments in the Compact
would deny the states the right Congress gave them to make their own
choices as to how to handle disposal of low-level nuclear waste.
The amendments offered to the Compact by Senator Wellstone were
inappropriate. I can understand Senator Wellstone's concern that too
many sources of pollution and waste facilities are targeted to minority
and low-income areas, but one of his amendments would have created new
opportunities for litigation that go far beyond the ``environmental
justice'' guidance recently proposed by the Environmental Protection
Agency. The amendment would also apply federal environmental justice
standards to states for the first time. Congress should address the
issue of environmental justice. But we should take the time to do it
right, not through amendments to an agreement between three states that
are following the lead of nine other similar agreements.
The second amendment attached by Senator Wellstone also expands the
role of Congress in approving these compacts. This Compact is the
result of years of negotiation among the three states and approved by
the legislatures of those states. Senator Wellstone argues that his
amendment would give Texas protection from having to accept waste from
states other than Maine and Vermont. However, the Compact already gives
Texas the majority vote in deciding if and from whom additional waste
may come. This amendment is unnecessary and would only lead to further
delay of the Compact since it will likely require re-ratification by
the member states. In fact, under the Wellstone amendment, Texas may be
more open to accepting waste from other states because it would not
have the protection of the exclusionary provisions of the Compact.
The States of Texas, Maine and Vermont have done their job. They have
negotiated a compact among them to provide for the responsible disposal
of low-level radioactive waste and submitted it to this body as
required under Federal statute, for the consent of the Congress. Now,
we need to do our job. Those Senators who support the basic premise
that we agreed to in 1980, that states should have the responsibility
to dispose of their waste, should vote for this bill. It is the
responsibility of Congress to follow through on the direction we gave
to states in 1980 and ratify this Compact.
Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to yield 4
minutes to my colleague from the State of Texas, Senator Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from
Maine.
Mr. President, I think it should be noted that all six Senators from
three affected States are supportive of this legislation.
I want to begin my remarks with the most important thing I can
possibly say, and that is, I would never support a hazardous waste site
in my State that wasn't in full compliance with Federal and Texas
environmental laws and regulations. This is the most important of all
of the things that I could possibly say.
This compact came about because of Federal legislation--the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments. They allowed
States to come together, and encouraged States to come together, to
find waste disposal facilities that would meet the needs of our
country.
In fact, all of us would love not to have any waste that would be put
anywhere. But if we didn't have waste, we wouldn't have medical
remedies, we wouldn't have the cures for people's diseases. That is
what this waste is. It is not nuclear waste. It not high-level
hazardous waste. It is low-level medical waste.
The law has created 41 States that have formed 9 low-level
radioactive waste compacts. Minnesota is a member of one such compact
ratified by Congress in 1985. Nine compacts have been formed. And the
compact that Texas, Maine, and Vermont have created is no different
from these, and it seeks to provide the citizens of our three States
the same protections enjoyed by the State of Minnesota and the other 40
States that have formed compacts.
I think it is very important that we address the issue of how this
came about.
A compact agreement was negotiated by former Governor Ann Richards
with the Governors of Maine and Vermont. The compact was overwhelmingly
approved by the Texas State Legislature and signed by Governor Richards
in 1993. That compact now enjoys the support of our current Governor,
George Bush, and our Lieutenant Governor, Bob Bullock.
Maine's compact was passed by their legislature and signed in 1993.
It also passed a State-wide referendum. In Vermont, legislation was
passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor in 1994. I don't
think the Federal Government has a mandate to nullify a contract among
three State Governors and ratified by their legislatures.
I think it is also important that we address the local issue that has
been addressed by the Senator from Minnesota.
We have not yet--the three States together, nor the State of Texas--
decided on a place for this radioactive waste. However, there is
careful consideration being given to Hudspeth County, which is the
focus of where they are looking for the site of this low-level waste
compact as a place where they are going to put the waste.
Hudspeth County is the third largest county in Texas, with 4,566
square miles. It has a population of 3,200 people.
I want my colleagues to know that the vast majority of the county's
leadership support locating this facility in Hudspeth County as long as
it is done in an environmentally safe way, which the Governor has
promised will happen or it will not be created.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Texas have 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has only 1 additional
minute remaining.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I was informed earlier that I had 9 minutes
remaining.
I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute and the Senator from
Minnesota to have an additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I certainly will not object. My
understanding is that the Senator from Texas needed additional time.
If additional time is added on your side and then added to my side as
well, that will be fine with me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. There is one other addition I would like to have, and
that is that the Senator from Minnesota have an additional 1 minute as
well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is
the agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I think this side would have 4 additional
minutes remaining, of which the Senator from Texas would use 1, and you
would have 3 additional minutes remaining.
Mr. WELLSTONE. So the additional minutes added to the side in favor
of this would be the same as the amount of time added to the
opposition. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There would be 2 additional minutes remaining,
and you would be getting 1 additional minute.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will say what would be fair would be 2 additional
minutes on each side.
Ms. SNOWE. I agree with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page S9816]]

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
It is very important that the people of our country know that the
people of Hudspeth County want this low-level waste authority. They in
fact had an election this past May in the primaries. The county
elections were held. And every opponent of the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Compact who sought office in Hudspeth County lost.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of
support from the Hudspeth County judge, James Peace, and 300 community
leaders in the county in support of the compact; and, furthermore,
letters from the National Governors' Association, the Western
Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the United States, the M.D.
Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, the University of Texas System, the
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in El Paso, and the
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.
There being no obligation, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, 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 Governor's 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 provided 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-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,
Gov. George V. Voinovich,
Chairman.
Gov. Tom Carper,
Vice Chairman.
____

Western Governors' Association,

Washington, DC, March 12, 1998.
Dear Senator: The Western Governors' Association urges you
and your fellow Senators to pass S. 270, without amendment.
This legislation would ratify the Texas-Maine-Vermont Low
Level Radioactive Waste Compact. Congress envisioned this
type of compact when it passed the Low Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Act (LLRWA) of 1980. This Compact is a voluntary
group of states which joined together to identify and operate
a site for the disposal of low level radioactive waste. The
site and management program is fully supported by the
Governor of Texas, the host state.
As you know, Congress requires the states to take
responsibility for the proper disposal of the low level
radioactive waste generated within their borders, and created
the compact system to allow states to join together to meet
this mandate. The Western Governors support such compacts
particularly when the states join voluntarily and when the
host governor supports the location and operation of the
disposal site.
Your vote for adoption of S. 270, without amendment, is
critical to its ratification. This will allow the three
states to move towards complying with the LLRWA.
If you have questions please contact me or Rich Bechtel,
Director of the WGA Washington Office.
Sincerely,
James M. Souby.
____

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 of
low-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 8 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 and 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

[[Page S9817]]

incorporate the exclusion condition or an undefined
discrimination clause into the Texas compact bill.
Sincerely,
Shirley Ann Jackson.
____

Hudspeth County Judge,

Sierra Blanca, TX, August 25, 1998.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hutchison: It is my understanding that the
United States Senate will be considering the Texas/Maine/
Vermont Compact soon. I want to thank you for supporting this
important measure. Its passage will bring needed revenue and
opportunity to our area. Sierra Blanca has already benefited
greatly from the presence of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal Authority in the area. The benefits (jobs and
infrastructure improvement) will increase during construction
and operation of the low-level radioactive waste disposal
facility. The truth is the socioeconomic benefits for the
residents of Sierra Blanca are enormous and overwhelmingly
positive. Continued economic benefits are absolutely critical
to the future development of Hudspeth County.
I want you to know that the majority of citizens favor the
development of such a facility. I have enclosed an
advertisement that recently ran in the Austin American
Statesman, paid for by donations and community funds. The
people of Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County voiced their
support for a better future and tangible real life advances
that will make our communities more livable. The
advertisement reflects the widespread support in our area for
this project; the support runs across the business community
to elected officials. During the recent primary elections,
this issue was openly debated in the County Judge,
Commissioners Court, and County Democratic Chairmanship
races; those who supported the project won, while those who
opposed it lost.
Thank you for your continued support. If you have further
questions or if I can help you in any other way, please feel
free to call.
Sincerely,
James A. Peace.
____

[From the Austin American-Statesman, July 22, 1998]

An Open Letter to the People of the State of Texas From Residents of
Sierra Blanca, Texas and Hudspeth County

A halt to exporting our children to other areas for
employment
A larger job market for all the residents of Sierra Blanca
and Hudspeth County
The ripple effect seen from additional businesses and
services to support the facility
Improved medical care
Increased property values
A broader tax base
Enhanced infrastructure
Disposal fees paid to the County
Upward mobility and an improved standard of living
A better perception of our community by ourselves and others

Until the proposed project, the only method of upward
mobility and economic development for the residents of Sierra
Blanca was a bus ticket out of town. There was little hope
for economic progress. Sierra Blanca was destined to be a
small, remote, dying community.
The critics--almost all of whom live outside the
community--say the proposed site is not a reasonable road to
economic development for Sierra Blanca. We say that these
people do not speak for us and that this is the only road in
sight.
After four years of intensive review, TNRCC issued a
favorable Environmental Assessment. We are totally satisfied
that the project will be safe and the residents of Sierra
Blanca want it to be licensed. It is a sign of hope and a
brighter future.
The only negative socio-economic impact would be the denial
of the license and the decision to site the facility
elsewhere.
____

The University of Texas

MD Anderson Cancer Center,

Houston, TX, February 20, 1995.
Hon. Henry Bonilla,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Bonilla: Early this session, Congress
will have the opportunity to ratify the Texas Compact, an
interstate compact entered into by Texas, Maine and Vermont
for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at a joint
facility. As President of The University of Texas M.D.
Anderson Cancer Center at Houston, I write to tell you of the
great importance of this legislation to M.D. Anderson Cancer
Center.
Along with five other health related components of The
University of Texas System, M.D. Anderson engages in
important research and medical activities which require the
use of radioactive materials. Such materials are an essential
part of biomedical research into illness like cancer, AIDS,
and Alzheimer's disease. Radioactive matter is used
extensively in the development of new drugs and is critical
to the process of diagnosing and treating patients. For
example, radioactive tracer elements are used to detect
coronary artery disease and lung and bone scans help locate
blood clots or cancerous cells. Radiation therapy is also
effective in controlling the spread of many types of cancer.
The low-level radioactive waste generated by research and
detection and treatment of illnesses must be disposed of in a
responsible, permanent manner. Ratification of the compact
between Texas, Maine and Vermont will provide Texas with $25
million, sent by the other two states, to help defray the
costs involved with developing a safe facility. This
legislation which will be sponsored by Congressman Jack
Fields and several co-sponsors from the Texas delegation,
finalizes years of negotiations between the states and
safeguards Texas against having to accept out-of-compact
waste in the future.
Again, I urge your support of the Texas Compact and your
consideration to join Congressman Fields as a co-sponsor.
Congress gave the states a mandate to manage their low-level
radioactive waste. With your vote for ratification, Texas can
move forward toward that goal.
Sincerely,
Charles A. LeHaistre,
President.
____

Texas Tech University

Health Sciences Center at El Paso,

El Paso, TX, October 17, 1995.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson,
Russell Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hutchinson: Enclosed is a review of the
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site that I completed on 18 July
1995. Texas needs this radioactive waste disposal site. We
have 2,217 users of radioisotopes in Texas. We know of 684
sites that produce radioactive waste that must be disposed of
properly in order to safeguard the health of all Texans.
Medical diagnosis and treatment with radioisotopes is a
significant factor at hospitals and cancer treatment centers.
Radioisotopes are used at many Texas Universities and
teaching institutions. There has to be a site for disposal of
their wastes. We can not simply store this material on site
at 684 different places.
We have to look to the total disposal of radioactive waste
in Texas and do the best possible job so that future
generations are not affected by sloppy disposal and
contamination of ground water or food chains. The Eagle Flat
site at Sierra Blanca meets those needs.
We need your support in approving HR 558 which is the
compact between Texas, Maine, and Vermont. Congress has
approved 9 compacts which includes 41 states. Please vote for
approval of the 10th compact so that Texas can move forward
on proper disposal of radioactive wastes with input and
monies from Maine and Vermont.
The site selected in Hudspeth County is being reviewed by
the Texas Department of Natural Resources. Approval by that
state agency will enable Texas to properly dispose of its
radioactive waste. The state approval process continues to
move forward at this time. Public hearings at the state level
are scheduled for Spring 96.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Williams,
Chairman, Institutional Review Board.
____

The University of Texas Health

Science Center at San Antonio,

San Antonio, TX, December 5, 1995.
Re passage of H.R. 558/low-level radioactive waste compact.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
U.S. Representative, District 21,
San Antonio, TX.
Dear Congressman Smith: It is my understanding that the
House of Representative may once again vote on a low-level
radioactive waste (LLW) compact among Texas, Maine, and
Vermont. As you evaluate this issue, I thought you might be
interested in the importance of such compacts to The
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.
As you know, UTHSCSA engages in important research, medical
treatment, and diagnosis using radioactive materials. These
activities could be curtailed, or even possibly eliminated,
if long-term, reliable LLW disposal is not available. Much,
if not all, of our research depends on radioisotopes used as
``tracers.'' These isotopes allow researchers to identify
cells being studied without using dyes or chemicals which
would interfere with the experiment. Virtually all aspects of
contemporary biomedical research depends on the use of these
radioisotopes.
Currently, at UTHSCSA, the following research is underway
using low-level radioactive materials: (1) Cancer research on
causes and treatment of different types of cancer; (2)
Exploration and mapping of human genomes; (3) Studies on the
effects of aging; (4) Diabetes in the Hispanic population;
(5) Bone loss, density, growth, and osteoporosis; (6) Genes
that suppress tumors; (7) Pathogenicity of various infectious
agents; and (8) Studies of neuroendocrinology and pineal
physiology.
According to figures from the Texas Low-level Radioactive
Waste Disposal Authority, approximately 23% of the LLW sent
to the proposed Texas disposal facility will be generated by
medical research and health facilities, including the fifteen
academic and health institutions of The University of

[[Page S9818]]

Texas System. The University of Texas System and the UTHSCSA
rely on Congress to support the State's efforts to provide
generators of LLW a safe, secure, and permanent LLW disposal
facility.
Thank you for your further consideration of this issue,
which is of great concern to this University and its
important research and health care goals. We appreciate your
interests and support.
Sincerely yours,
John P. Howe III,
President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the issue before us today is whether
the citizens of Texas, Maine, and Vermont will enjoy the same
protections as 41 other States to ensure safe and environmentally sound
disposal of dangerous radioactive material.
The local support is there. The Governor has assured us that there
will not be a site selected until all of the scientific data shows that
this is where it should go, and we are doing exactly what Congress
directed us to do in creating safe places for this low-level
radioactive waste.
I hope my colleagues will support this, as all of the six Senators
who have a direct interest in this are doing.
Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Maine. I yield the
floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Chair notify me when I have 1
minute left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that the site has been
selected. The only remaining question is final licensing. The site in
Hudspeth County, Sierra Blanca, is disproportionately Hispanic and
disproportionately poor. That is what this debate is all about. This is
an injustice. If you vote for this compact, you will be ratifying this
injustice. If you vote against this compact, then this will not happen.
That is why LULAC, that is why the League of Conservation Voters,
that is why the Sierra Club, that is why the religious community, that
is why 100 different organizations from around the country, that is why
people came here, as difficult as it was, all the way from Hudspeth
County to say please don't do this.
We had two amendments that would have made this fair.
Please, colleagues, listen to this. One amendment that you voted for
said that if the people in Hudspeth County can prove that this is
discriminatory, they should have a right to do so in court. The other
amendment says let's make it clear that the waste can only come from
Maine, Vermont, and Texas. Twice the Senate went on record with
unanimous votes supporting both those amendments, and in the conference
committee those amendments were knocked out. The utility industry
wanted them knocked out. They don't want the people to have any kind of
remedy for discrimination. There is no assurance that the waste will
come just from Maine, Vermont, and Texas. They want this to be a
national repository site.
That is why we should vote against this compact--the first compact
ever with a clear site for building a compact nuclear waste dump. This
is an environmental injustice.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, let me make a final comment. I think we
have had very extensive debate.
I believe that the facts have been emphasized and clarified with
respect to this issue. The fact of the matter is, this compact adheres
to all of the standards that have been applied to previous compacts
ratified by the Congress, nine such instances as mandated by the U.S.
Congress. The fact is, 82 Senators in this body represent States that
have compacts, but the Senator from Minnesota is saying that somehow
the States of Texas and Vermont and Maine should be discriminated
against, that they should not be allowed to enter into a compact to
safely dispose of low-level radioactive waste--waste, yes, that is
generated by universities, by medical centers, by defense facilities,
by power plants.

The Senator from Minnesota is saying that somehow we should be
treated differently from his own State of Minnesota and all of the
other 40 States that are included in these compacts. The State of Texas
has procedures, has a public process, has a political process to
determine where the site should be located. The Senator from Minnesota
is somehow suggesting that the State of Texas does not have the trust
and the confidence of the people that it serves to make a judgment in
adherence to their State environmental and public and health and safety
laws as well as the Federal Government, all of which, I might add, have
to be adhered to, all of which have been outlined in this process
throughout. This has not been something that somehow has materialized
out of thin air, overriding and breaching all of the environmental and
safety laws in America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. SNOWE. So I would urge my colleagues to adopt this conference
report that allows the States of Texas and Vermont and Maine to do what
41 other States, including the State of Minnesota, have been able to do
in the past.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Colleagues, you have never voted for a compact with a
specific site for building a compact dump, not with a site in Sierra
Blanca, not with a site disproportionately Hispanic and poor.
This is an environmental vote. This is a geologically active area.
The science says no, but it is the path of least political resistance.
This community is targeted. We will now vote. If you vote for this
compact, you vote for an injustice. Do the right thing and vote against
this compact.
Twice you have gone on record, colleagues, by unanimous vote: yes,
for the compact as long as people have a right to challenge this and
have a chance to prove discrimination. Yes, we vote for the compact if
we make it clear that this won't become a national repository site and
the waste can only come from Maine and Vermont and Texas. And both of
those amendments, in the dark of night, were stripped by the conference
committee.
That is why so many religious and civil rights organizations have
said vote against this. LULAC, the League of Conservation Voters, the
Sierra Club, the Catholic diocese, the Methodist Church, so on and so
forth. This is a justice vote. We have to vote on this, and once and
for all it is important for us to be on the side of justice and vote no
on this compact.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Does my colleague have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Her time has expired.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I then will yield the remainder of my time, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is
absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 15, as follows:

[[Page S9819]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]

YEAS--78

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--15

Akaka
Boxer
Bryan
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Moseley-Braun
Reed
Reid
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--7

Bingaman
Coverdell
Domenici
Glenn
Helms
Inouye
Murkowski
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion
to reconsider the last vote be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.

____________________