[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1178-H1200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 444, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 444
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1287)
to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel pending
completion of the nuclear waste repository, and for other
purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Commerce; and (2) one motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall); pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purposes of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 444 would grant a
closed rule for consideration in the House of the Senate bill, S. 1287,
providing for the storage of spent nuclear fuel pending completion of
the nuclear waste repository and for other purposes. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment.
The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except
1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Commerce and one motion to recommit.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was originally enacted on the
premise that the Federal Government hold responsibility for the
permanent disposal of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high level
radioactive waste.
{time} 1115
The need for subsequent legislation is based on three fundamental
realities: First, the development of a permanent repository, originally
scheduled to begin in 1998, but has been, unfortunately, derailed by
past mismanagement and by political paralysis. Second, the nuclear
waste fund financing mechanism needs some revision. And, third, the
Department of Energy has requested authority to construct a Federal
interim storage facility so that it can discharge its original
responsibility.
S. 1287, which the House will consider today, contains a number of
specific provisions which the managers of the bill will outline in
considerable detail during their general debate, but the bottom line,
Mr. Speaker, is that by passing this bill, which has already been
passed in identical form by the Senate, the House can now move forward
on an issue which has been mired in gridlock for far too long.
By passing this bill today, we will move S. 1287 to the President's
desk and with one stroke of the pen we can finally stop stalling and
instead begin facing up to our responsibility to the American people.
Nuclear energy has long been a safe, clean and reliable means of
generating electrical power that has fueled much of America's economic
growth, but the nagging question about nuclear power, one that has
remained unanswered for too long, is what will we do with the spent
fuel that is produced at these plants all across the country?
Today, the long awaited answer to that question is before us. Simply
put: This compromise, while it may not be perfect, is a responsible
plan that should be implemented without further delay. Accordingly, I
strongly encourage my colleagues to support not only the rule, as
reported by the Committee on Rules, but the underlying bill, S. 1287,
so we can finally put the public's mind to rest on this critically
important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding me the customary time.
This is a closed rule which will allow for consideration of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999. It is known as S. 1287. As
my colleague from Washington has explained, this rule will provide for
1 hour of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. Under this
closed rule, no amendments may be offered.
The bill provides for the completion of a permanent site at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, for storing high-level radioactive waste generated
from nuclear power plants. Mr. Speaker, lack of this permanent site is
one of the greatest long-term problems involving electricity generation
in our country and we need to move forward to find a safe,
scientifically-based solution.
Unfortunately, this bill does not adequately solve the problem.
Moreover, the closed rule will prevent House Members from offering
amendments to improve the bill. The Energy Department opposes this bill
for a number of reasons. The most serious objection is that it
undermines the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to
establish adequate safety standards at Yucca Mountain.
The bill also raises concerns about the safety of transporting
radioactive material to the site. The President has indicated he will
veto the bill in its present form, and there is no reason for us to
take up the bill under a closed rule with no chance to amend the bill
when there is no chance that it will be enacted into law unless it is
amended.
The problem of nuclear waste disposal is too serious for this kind of
politics. I urge defeat of the rule so that we can bring this bill up
under the normal amending process.
[[Page H1179]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, begin by
thanking my colleague from Washington for the generous consideration of
granting me the time to speak in opposition, and I must say strong
opposition, to this closed rule.
This is, first and foremost, a matter of fairness. Nevada has not had
a voice in this issue, the issue of storing nuclear waste from other
facilities, which, by the way, Nevada has never benefitted from any of
the power generated. Secondly, we have never had a hearing on this
bill, the Senate bill 1287, and, as a result, we have not had an
opportunity to have input into this. This is a 1-hour debate today
without the opportunity even to offer an amendment to this rule.
The bill itself is fatally flawed. It creates an interim storage
facility, Mr. Speaker, which would, in and of itself, require early
shipment of nuclear waste to the State without even so much as putting
a roof over the material that is going to be stored there. And there is
an inadequacy in terms of the fee that is being charged to pay for the
storage of that nuclear waste down the road. This is material that has
a half-life of 10,000 years. And all of these nuclear facilities which
are supposed to pay for this, after they are closed they will not be
able to have additional funding and, therefore, the taxpayer will be
required to pick up this tab.
Transportation across America is going to occur. We are going to be
transporting this material through some of America's most natural
wonders. We need an amendment that would have prohibited shipping it
past our national conservation areas, through our parks and our
national historic preservation areas as well.
This is an issue of States' rights, Mr. Speaker, one which requires a
governor's consent. It is up to a governor to help protect the people
of his State. This bill fails to do that. Also, Mr. Speaker, there is
an issue of the fifth amendment private property rights. A recent court
ruling in New Mexico, which held that an individual whose property was
devalued simply by the passage of nuclear waste past his property, cost
that agency nearly $800,000 in devaluation. This is an issue if we
transport this material across America. The taxpayers of this country
are going to pick up an enormous tab for the devaluation under the
fifth amendment of individual property rights.
Let me also address the issue of an emergency response. This bill
does not provide for those States along the corridor where this
material is to be transported to have emergency response teams
available to them. If there is an accident, first responders would be
the local fire, the local police, and State officers. We must ensure
that they have adequate funding and an adequately certified response
team to deal with this. This bill fails to address that. We needed an
amendment to do that.
This bill fails to protect our children. Because, as I said earlier,
passage of this material along the corridors of transportation will, by
its very nature, take it near our schools and through school zones,
therefore endangering the lives of many of our children to needless
exposure to radiation.
One of these accidents, of course, could cause the rupture of these
casks that house this material as it is being transported. There is no
full-scale testing provided in this bill. There needs to be an
amendment, and we were denied this amendment, because the cask testing
does not meet full-scale testing standards today.
Let me talk about one of the other issues that this bill does. It
removes the limitation on the total amount of nuclear waste that can be
stored in Yucca Mountain. Mr. Speaker, all of the scientific studies
have been premised on the idea that approximately 77,000 tons of this
material will be stored in Nevada. This bill strips the cap off of
that. That means that all of those studies, those scientific studies
that were designed to assure the safety of the storage of this
material, are, in effect, inadequate and do not represent the safety
designs and standards for the storage of such material.
This bill also allows for a death sentence to those people who are
going to work in this area. There is a disagreement between the EPA and
the NRC with regard to the radiation standards. The EPA has
historically assessed standards to other nuclear waste facilities of 15
millirems and four millirems for groundwater supply. This bill lets the
NRC engage in a discussion which would raise the level of that
exposure, that millirem exposure to those people working in the area or
just in the process of being nearby the storage, to something at the
level of 25 millirems and has no identified groundwater standards.
These are unacceptable standards and we must ensure that if we are
going to be exposed to this, then we should have the same standards as
others.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to go on record and state
that I am adamantly opposed to S. 1287 and its intent to ship over
77,000 tons of nuclear waste across 43 States to be stored at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada.
As a Member from Nevada whose district is frighteningly close to
Yucca Mountain, and whose 1.2 million constituents live less than 90
miles from Yucca Mountain, it is outrageous to me that the Republican
leadership would even consider a closed rule and not allow me or my
colleagues to offer my common sense amendments. I represent southern
Nevada. This legislation will ship over 77,000 tons of deadly nuclear
waste to be permanently stored in Nevada. It will destroy the economy
of the State of Nevada and the health of the people living in Nevada.
My amendments are for the express purpose of protecting the health
and safety of the people of my district and all the people that live
along the transportation routes that the 77,000 tons of lethal waste
are to be transported on.
My first amendment would have prevented the transportation of
radioactive waste if it would preempt any State health and safety laws
or transportation regulations. And may I remind my colleagues that this
House has long prided itself on the ability to recognize and respect
States' rights. This issue certainly is just as much a State issue as a
Federal issue.
My second amendment would have prevented the establishment of a
nuclear storage facility if, after sound scientific geologic testing,
the facility site was found to be in an active seismic zone, within 10
miles of a potential volcanic eruption, or found to be threatened by
migration of groundwater. All of these things have been found
scientifically to exist at Yucca Mountain.
My third amendment would have prohibited the transportation of
nuclear waste by highway or rail if the route was within five miles of
any hospital, school, or college. It is unconscionable that we would
risk the safety of our most vulnerable citizens, our children, our
elderly, and those confined in a hospital and subject them to the
possibility of lethal contamination by nuclear waste.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this unfair,
unjust, and unreasonable rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks made by the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). I really think he touched base on a lot of
things that are really very important to all of us. It is about safety
and it is about protecting our communities. The gentleman talked about
a fair process, a process that should have been done and a process that
was not, and that process did not allow individuals to give input.
This is a bad rule. This is a bad rule for America; this is a bad
rule for our Nation. In a democracy we allow individuals to give input.
We did not allow individuals to give input based on what is going to
happen in our immediate area.
I state this because this impacts my area in California. This is a
route that
[[Page H1180]]
goes directly through an area that is going to impact thousands and
thousands of people without a specific plan that deals with safety,
that deals with regards to what happens in the immediate area.
{time} 1130
I am appalled when I think in terms of what may happen if there was a
catastrophe in that area where the freeway in that area, which is
Freeway 10, there is a lot of trucking that moves in from one area to
the other that goes into Las Vegas, if in fact there was a major
accident in that area like there was about a month ago where 70 cars
were derailed. There is no emergency plan that would deal with nuclear
waste, radioactive waste in that area, if it were to spill. How would
it affect the people in that area? How would it protect our children in
that area?
We recently had a hearing about a month ago in this area. The people
of my district rejected this. I believe that we have the responsibility
to make sure that we put amendments that have the safeguards, that we
put amendments that take care of what needs to be done, that we look at
alternatives as we decide.
It is easy to come up here and state, this is nice, this is good that
we should do this. But out of sight, out of mind, as long as it does
not affect their districts. But it affects my district. And let me tell
my colleagues, when you are talking about transferring through the
routes of California into Nevada and the effects it could have on many
of the individuals, our area is very well populated. California has 34,
35 million people and will continue to use these routes. We have got to
look at other alternatives.
It denies the people of my district a voice. I believe the people in
my district should have a voice to voice their opinion. I urge everyone
to vote no on this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such
time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I
would like to congratulate my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for
his management of this rule, and I would like to say that I believe
that we have crafted an extraordinarily fair rule on what clearly will
be one the most important environmental votes that we will cast in this
Congress.
While more than 20 percent of our Nation's electricity comes from
nuclear power, there is not one single safe and isolated location to
store nuclear fuel. Consequently, this spent fuel currently sits in the
communities where the nuclear power was originally generated.
So if we are talking about a question of safety, the idea of having
this waste go to an isolated, safe, secure spot, versus sitting in the
back of hospitals around the country, to me it is an absolute no-
brainer. The idea of not taking this action poses a very serious
environmental public health and safety threat.
By the end of last year, 29 of the Nation's 103 nuclear power plants
had exhausted their on-sight storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel
with no other long-term storage facilities available at all.
Of all energy sources, nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the
environment, including water, land habitat, species, and air resources.
Nuclear energy is the most eco-efficient of all energy sources, and it
produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental
impact.
Nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source. Nuclear power
plants produce no controlled air pollutants such as sulfur and
particulates or greenhouse gases. The use of nuclear energy in place of
other energy sources helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth's
climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation, and prevent acid rain.
This bill fulfills the commitments given the American taxpayers in
1982 and in 1987, with the enactment and amendment of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, by removing the bureaucratic and legal roadblocks in the
path of building and implementing a permanent nuclear waste repository.
It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the President to tell the American
people where he stands on this very important local environmental
issue. Moving the Senate bill under a closed rule is the most
expeditious way to get this important legislation to the President's
desk. And while I have heard people talk about how he plans to veto
this measure, I cannot help but look at the past several years and his
plan to veto legislation after legislation that we have put forward:
the Education Flexibility Act; the National Ballistic Missile Defense
Act; the Welfare Reform Act, which he did twice veto, ultimately
signed, and today claims as one of his greatest accomplishments.
So I believe that the President can, in fact, take a positive pro-
environment move by taking this very well-thought-out measure and
having it reported out of both Houses of Congress. I believe that we
will be doing the right thing by passing that.
So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and I urge a strong ``yes''
vote in support of this very, very important pro-environment
legislation.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that only a Republican
leadership could love. It is a bill that does precisely nothing. It is,
at best, a sham and a fraud. It is a waste of the time of the House of
Representatives. Frankly, if my colleagues are opposed to the nuclear
waste storage in Nevada, they could probably vote for it in the perfect
comfort and the solid assurance that it will do nothing.
This bill stands in the way of real progress in addressing the
difficulty of achieving a program of nuclear waste storage. It stands
in the way of addressing the problem of billions of dollars of lawsuits
which are now pending or will be pending against the Federal Government
because of our breach of understandings with the nuclear power industry
to take waste off the hands of the electrical utility generators who
use nuclear power to generate nuclear power and to create nuclear
waste. It is a piece of legislation which will assure that we will not
go forward with an interim waste storage. And so utilities all over
this country are going to continue to find their storage facilities
choking with nuclear waste.
We address virtually none of the problems that confront us with
regard to nuclear waste storage. And we create a very interesting
exercise. We enhance the probability of lawsuits against the Federal
Government in the amount of billions of dollars. We also do something
else: we postpone for a far distant time in the future the real
settlement and the real addressing of these problems.
This is a bad piece of legislation. The rule should be rejected
because it does not even allow the House sufficient time to address the
questions that the bill raises. It stands in the way of a piece of
bipartisan legislation which came out of the Committee on Commerce by a
vote of 40-6. And it does something else. It assures that, far into the
future, this problem is going to continue to plague us and meaningful
legislation will not be addressed because of this rather shameful and
sham-ful exercise today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the bill itself.
Twenty-four amendments were offered at the Committee on Rules meeting
yesterday, and 24 were blocked from any consideration on the House
floor.
High-level nuclear waste will remain deadly for a million years. But
unfortunately, because of this rule, there will not be any alternatives
permitted on the floor.
I offered seven of the 24 barred amendments yesterday, all to improve
the safety of nuclear waste transportation. My amendments offered
significant, but reasonable, protections for
[[Page H1181]]
my district and approximately 320 other districts which will see high-
level nuclear waste transported through them.
My amendments were critical to protect our constituents from the
thousands of shipments of waste through 43 States passing in the
vicinity of roughly 50 million Americans.
My amendments were not poison pills. They were common sense
approaches to improve the safety of nuclear waste transportation.
The 24 blocked amendments are: the comprehensive transportation
safety program, protecting populated communities from transportation,
oldest fuel first during transportation, full-scale cask testing, State
and local route consultation, private carriers must follow selected
routes, advanced notification of shipments. Those seven were all ones
that I sponsored.
One sponsored by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) included
prohibiting an interim storage facility, protecting taxpayers from
nuclear waste fees, prohibiting transportation through a national
forest or park, State governors must consent to a transport of high-
level nuclear waste, compensation of private property is devalued,
guaranteeing emergency response capabilities, funding for emergency
response teams, prohibiting transportation in school zones, protecting
the EPA's authority to set radiation standards, full-scale cask
testing, protecting current repository capacity limits, funding for
oversight by the State of Nevada and affected local counties. All those
were by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
Why are we not protecting our community?
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is now and has been for the last
15 years nothing more, no less than sticking the nuclear queen of
spades with the State of Nevada.
We are deciding it here on the floor of Congress. It is not done
scientifically. It is not done through some blue ribbon panel. It is
done because they have two Senators and two Congressmen. That is it.
The smaller the State's representation is the more likely that they
would get stuck with all of the nuclear waste from every nuclear power
plant in the United States.
Now, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) does a fabulous job,
and I agree with every single word that she laid out in her brilliant,
eye-wateringly detailed statement. She did an excellent job. But that
is not what this is about. If it was about safety, then we would not
have a bill out here on the floor right now which indemnifies, in other
words, it says to the companies which are going to be trucking and
railroading this nuclear waste all over America that they have no
liability, that is, as these atomic trains and trans-uranic trucks
start riding across America, and we are talking about 100,000 shipments
of nuclear waste criss-crossing America, now riding the streets of our
country after they have been put into the form of spent fuel, the most
dangerous form of this fuel at the 120 or so nuclear power plants
across our country.
What does this bill say? This bill says that even if the truck
company, even if the railroad engaged in negligence, gross negligence,
willful misconduct as the truck driver careens, for whatever reason
from the night before, whatever activity he might have been engaged in
the night before, careens through a neighborhood tipping over the
truck, dumping nuclear waste in a neighborhood, no liability for the
truck company. None. Zero. Zero for the railroad if they have an
accident.
Now, what kind of an incentive is that? If they are driving through
our neighborhoods with bread in the back of the truck and it tips over,
they are liable. If they are driving through our neighborhoods and it
is the milkman, they are liable. But because of their spill, if they
are driving through with nuclear waste, no liability.
Now, do my colleagues really want to give that incentive to every
truck driver and every railroad engineer carrying these 100,000
shipments of the most dangerous material ever known to mankind through
their neighborhoods? And by the way, 50 million people are on the
routes that will have to be used in order to move all of this waste to
the State of Nevada, without any assurance, by the way, that ultimately
Yucca Mountain is going to be suitable for the waste. It just might
have to get put back on the trucks and the trains and taken to some
other place.
Because ``congressional experts'' is an oxymoron. We are only experts
compared to other Congressmen. We are not experts compared to real
experts, the scientists. And there has been no scientist who has yet
been able to confirm that Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the place where
we can bury every bit of nuclear waste for the next 20,000 years. We
are just trying to get it off the hands of all the utilities. That is
what this is all about. And that is why no liability for the truck
drivers.
The Environmental Protection Agency can no longer look at the safety
standards. But do my colleagues want to know what they say? Do not
worry, an accident cannot happen. Do not worry, this is going to be
very safely transported. And so the public kind of scratches their head
and says, well, if this can be safely transported, how come they are
going to pass a law saying the truck drivers are not liable if an
accident takes place?
So this rule, basically, prohibits any amendments from being put in
order which can ensure that the health and the safety of all Americans
are protected, that there is an opportunity for real debate on this
most important of all environmental issues, which is going to be
debated on the floor of Congress this year; and, as a result, I have to
recommend, reluctantly, that the Members of this body vote ``no''
because this is not the way that we should be dealing with an issue
that deals with the most fundamental health and environmental and
safety issues that face our country.
{time} 1145
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I have no further requests for time. I would just say that we
will ask for a vote on the previous question and on the rule. We
consider the rule a very closed rule, not a good rule certainly, no
amendments, there ought to be amendments offered on this bill. We
consider the bill a bad bill. So we hope under the rule and under the
bill if the bill comes up that it goes down.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests
for time. I urge Members of the House to vote ``yes'' on the previous
question and ``yes'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 195, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 59]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
[[Page H1182]]
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--195
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Ackerman
Bateman
Boyd
Crane
Crowley
Davis (IL)
Ewing
Greenwood
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Klink
Lowey
McCollum
McDermott
Pallone
Pombo
Porter
Royce
Rush
Schakowsky
Tierney
{time} 1208
Messrs. GEJDENSON, STENHOLM and SHOWS changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. SPENCE and Mr. HILLIARD changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, on March 22, 2000, I was unavoidably
detained, causing me to miss rollcall vote 59. I ask that the Record
reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall
vote 59.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 191, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 60]
AYES--220
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--191
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
[[Page H1183]]
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--23
Ackerman
Baird
Becerra
Boyd
Crane
Davis (IL)
Ewing
Greenwood
Hill (IN)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Klink
Lowey
McCollum
McDermott
McKeon
Owens
Pallone
Pombo
Porter
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Schakowsky
{time} 1216
Ms. BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 60 on H. Res. 444, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 444, I call up
the Senate bill (S. 1287) to provide for the storage of spent nuclear
fuel pending completion of the nuclear waste repository, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of S. 1287 is as follows:
S. 1287
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``contract holder'' means a party to a
contract with the Secretary of Energy for the disposal of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste entered
into pursuant to section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)); and
(2) the terms ``Administrator'', ``civilian nuclear power
reactor'', ``Commission'', ``Department'', ``disposal'',
``high-level radioactive waste'', ``Indian tribe'',
``repository'', ``reservation'', ``Secretary'', ``spent
nuclear fuel'', ``State'', ``storage'', ``Waste Fund'', and
``Yucca Mountain site'' shall have the meanings given such
terms in section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(42 U.S.C. 10101).
TITLE I--STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
SEC. 101. PROGRAM SCHEDULE.
(a) In General.--The President, the Secretary, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall carry out their duties
under this Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 by
the earliest practicable date consistent with the public
interest and applicable provisions of law.
(b) Milestones.--(1) The Secretary shall make a final
decision whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for
development of the repository to the President by December
31, 2001;
(2) The President shall make a final decision whether to
recommend the Yucca Mountain site for development of the
repository to the Congress by March 31, 2002;
(3) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall make a final
decision whether to authorize construction of the repository
by January 31, 2006; and
(4) As provided in subsection (c), the Secretary shall
begin receiving waste at the repository site at the earliest
practicable date and no later than eighteen months after
receiving construction authorization from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
(c) Receipt Facilities.--(1) As part of the submission of
an application for a construction authorization pursuant to
section 114(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10134(b)), the Secretary shall apply to the Commission
to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste at surface facilities within the geologic
repository operations area for the receipt, handling,
packaging, and storage prior to emplacement.
(2) As part of the issuance of the construction
authorization under section 114(b) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, the Commission shall authorize
construction of surface facilities described in subsection
(c)(1) and the receipt and possession of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste at such surface facilities
within the geologic repository operations area for the
purposes in subsection (c)(1), in accordance with such
standards as the Commission finds are necessary to protect
the public health and safety.
SEC. 102. BACKUP STORAGE CAPACITY.
(a) Subject to section 105(d), the Secretary shall enter
into a contract under this subsection with any person
generating or owning spent nuclear fuel that meets the
requirements of section 135(b)(1) (A) and (B) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10155(b)(1) (A) and (B))
to--
(1) take title at the civilian nuclear power reactor site
to such amounts of spent nuclear fuel from the civilian
nuclear power reactor as the Commission determines cannot be
stored onsite; and
(2) transport such spent nuclear fuel to, and store such
spent nuclear fuel at, the repository site after the
Commission has authorized construction of the repository
without regard to the Secretary's Acceptance Priority Ranking
report or Annual Capacity report.
SEC. 103. REPOSITORY LICENSING.
(a) Adoption of Standards.--Notwithstanding the time
schedule in section 801(a)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note), the Administrator shall not
publish or adopt public health and safety standards for the
protection of the public from releases from radioactive
materials stored or disposed of in the repository at the
Yucca Mountain site--
(1) except in accordance with this section; and
(2) before June 1, 2001.
(b) Consultation and Reports to Congress.--(1) Not later
than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall provide the Commission and the National
Academy of Sciences--
(A) a detailed written comparison of the provisions of the
proposed Environmental Protection Standards for Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, published in the Federal Register on August
27, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 46,975) with the recommendations made
by the National Academy of Sciences in its report, Technical
Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, pursuant to section
801(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141
note); and
(B) the scientific basis for the proposed rule.
(2) Not later than April 1, 2001, the Commission and the
National Academy of Sciences shall, based on the proposed
rule and the information provided by the Administrator under
paragraph (1), each submit a report to Congress on whether
the proposed rule--
(A) is consistent with section 801(a)(2) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note);
(B) provide a reasonably expectation that the public health
and safety and the environment will be adequately protected
from the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and
spent nuclear fuel disposed of in the repository;
(C) is based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific
and technical information concerning the need for, and
consequences of, the rule; and
(D) imposes the least burden, consistent with obtaining the
regulatory objective of protecting the public health and
safety and the environment.
(3) In the event that either the Commission or the National
Academy of Sciences finds that the proposed rule does not
meet one or more of the criteria listed in paragraph (2), it
shall notify the Administrator not later than April 1, 2001
of its finding and the basis for such finding.
(c) Application of Congressional Review Procedures.--Any
final rule promulgated under section 801(a)(1) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note) shall be treated as
a major rule for purposes of chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, and shall be subject to all the requirements and
procedures pertaining to a major rule in such chapter.
(d) Capacity.--Section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(d)) is amended by striking ``The
Commission decision approving the first such application . .
.'' through the period at the end of the sentence.
SEC. 104. NUCLEAR WASTE FEE.
The last sentence of section 302(a)(4) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)(4)) is amended to read
as follows: ``The adjusted fee proposed by the Secretary
shall be effective upon enactment of a joint resolution or
other provision of law specifically approving the adjusted
fee.''.
SEC. 105. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may, upon the request of any
person with whom he has entered into a contract under section
302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10222(a)), enter into a settlement agreement with the
contract holder to--
(1) relieve any harm caused by the Secretary's failure to
meet the Department's commitment, or
(2) settle any legal claims against the United States
arising out of such failure.
(b) Types of Relief.--Pursuant to a settlement agreement
entered into under this section, the Secretary may--
(1) provide spent nuclear fuel storage casks to the
contract holder;
(2) compensate the contract holder for the cost of
providing spent nuclear fuel storage at the contract holders'
storage facility; or
(3) provide any combination of the foregoing.
(c) Scope of Relief.--The Secretary's obligation to provide
the relief under subsection (b) shall not exceed the
Secretary's obligation to accept delivery of such spent fuel
[[Page H1184]]
under the terms of the Secretary's contract with such
contract holder under section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)), including any
otherwise permissible assignment of rights.
(d) Waiver of Claims.--(1) The Secretary may not enter into
a settlement agreement under subsection (a) or (f) or a
backup contract under section 102(a) with any contract holder
unless the contract holder--
(A) notifies the Secretary within 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act of its intent to enter into a
settlement negotiations, and
(B) as part of such settlement agreement or backup
contract, waives any claim for damages against the United
States arising out of the Secretary's failure to begin
disposing of such person's high-level waste or spent nuclear
fuel by January 31, 1998.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be read to require a
contract holder to waive any future claim against the United
States arising out of the Secretary's failure to meet any new
obligation assumed under a settlement agreement or backup
storage agreement, including any obligation related to the
movement of spent fuel by the Department.
(e) Source of Funds.--Notwithstanding section 302(d) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)), the
Secretary may not make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste
Fund for any costs that may be incurred by the Secretary
pursuant to a settlement agreement or backup storage contract
under this Act except--
(1) the cost of acquiring and loading spent nuclear fuel
casks;
(2) the cost of transporting spent nuclear fuel from the
contract holder's site to the repository; and
(3) any other cost incurred by the Secretary required to
perform a settlement agreement or backup storage contract
that would have been incurred by the Secretary under the
contracts entered into under section 302(a) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)) notwithstanding
their amendment pursuant to this Act.
(f) Reactor Demonstration Program.--(1) Not later than 120
days after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2000, and notwithstanding Section 302(a)(5)
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10222(a)(5)), the Secretary is authorized to take title to
the spent nuclear fuel withdrawn from the demonstration
reactor remaining from the Cooperative Power Reactor
Demonstration Program (Pub. L. No. 87-315, Sec. 109, 75 Stat.
679), the Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor. Immediately upon the Secretary's taking title to the
Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor
spent nuclear fuel, the Secretary shall assume all
responsibility and liability for the interim storage and
permanent disposal thereof and is authorized to compensate
Dairyland Power Cooperative for any costs related to
operating and maintaining facilities necessary for such
storage, from the date of taking title until the Secretary
removes the spent nuclear fuel from the Dairyland Power
Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor site. The
Secretary's obligation to take title or compensate the holder
of the Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor spent nuclear fuel under this subsection shall
include all of such fuel, regardless of the delivery
commitment schedule for such fuel under the Secretary's
contract with the Dairyland Power Cooperative as the contract
holder under Section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)) or the acceptance schedule for
such fuel under section 106 of this Act.
(2) As a condition to the Secretary's taking of title to
the Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor spent nuclear fuel, the contract holder for such fuel
shall enter into a settlement agreement containing a waiver
of claims against the United States as provided in this
section.
(g) Savings Clause.--(1) Nothing in this section shall
limit the Secretary's existing authority to enter into
settlement agreements or address shutdown reactors and any
associated public health and safety or environmental concerns
that may arise.
(2) Nothing in this Act diminishes obligations imposed upon
the Federal Government by the United States District Court of
Idaho in an order entered on October 17, 1995 in United
States v. Batt (No. 91-0054-S-EJL). To the extent this Act
imposes obligations on the Federal Government that are
greater than those imposed by the court order, the provisions
of this Act shall prevail.
SEC. 106. ACCEPTANCE SCHEDULE.
(a) Priority Ranking.--Acceptance priority ranking shall be
determined by the Department's ``Acceptance Priority
Ranking'' report.
(b) Acceptance Rate.--As soon as practicable after
construction authorization, but no later than eighteen months
after the year of issuance of a license to receive and
possess spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
under section 101(c), the Secretary's total acceptance rate
for all spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste shall be a
rate no less than the following as measured in metric tons
uranium (MTU), assuming that each high-level waste canister
contains 0.5 MTU: 500 MTU in year 1, 700 MTU in year 2, 1,300
MTU in year 3, 2,100 MTU in year 4, 3,100 MTU in year 5,
3,300 MTU in years 6, 7, and 8, 3,400 MTU in years 9 through
24, and 3,900 MTU in year 25 and thereafter.
(c) Other Acceptances.--Subject to the conditions contained
in the license to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste issued under section 101(c), of
the amounts provided for in paragraph (b) for each year, not
less than one-sixth shall be--
(1) spent nuclear fuel or civilian high-level radioactive
waste of domestic origin from civilian nuclear power reactors
that have permanently ceased operation on or before the date
of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of
2000;
(2) spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors, as
necessary to promote nonproliferation activities; and
(3) spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
from research and atomic energy defense activities, including
spent nuclear fuel from naval reactors:
Provided, however, That the Secretary shall accept not less
than 7.5 percent of the total quantity of fuel and high-level
radioactive waste accepted in any year from the categories of
radioactive materials described in paragraphs (2) and (3) in
subsection (c). If sufficient amounts of radioactive
materials are not available to utilize this allocation, the
Secretary shall allocate this acceptance capacity to other
contract holders.
(d) Effect on Schedule.--The contractual acceptance
schedule shall not be modified in any way as a result of the
Secretary's acceptance of any material other than contract
holders' spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
(e) Multi-Year Shipping Campaigns.--Consistent with the
acceptance schedule, the Secretary shall, in conjunction with
contract holders, define a specified multi-year period for
each shipping campaign and establish criteria under which the
Secretary could accept contract holders' cumulative
allocations of spent nuclear fuel during the campaign period
at one time and thereby enhance the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
acceptance.
SEC. 107. INITIAL LAND CONVEYANCES.
(a) Conveyances of Public Lands.--One hundred and twenty
days after enactment, all right, title and interest of the
United States in the property described in subsection (b),
and improvements thereon, together with all necessary
easements for utilities and ingress and egress to such
property, including, but not limited to, the right to improve
those easements, are conveyed by operation of law to the
County of Nye, County of Lincoln, or the City of Caliente,
Nevada, unless the county notifies the Secretary of the
Interior or the head of such other appropriate agency in
writing within 60 days of such date that it elects not to
take title to all or any part of the property, except that
any lands conveyed to the County of Nye under this subsection
that are subject to a Federal grazing permit or lease or a
similar federally granted permit or lease shall be conveyed
between 60 and 120 days of the earliest time the Federal
agency administering or granting the permit or lease would be
able to legally terminate such right under the statutes and
regulations existing at the date of enactment of this Act,
unless Nye County and the affected holder of the permit or
lease negotiate an agreement that allows for an earlier
conveyance.
(b) Special Conveyances.--Subject to valid existing rights
and notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of the
Interior or the head of the other appropriate agency shall
convey:
(1) To the County of Nye, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on
file with the Secretary:
Map 1: Proposed Pahrump Industrial Park Site
Map 2: Proposed Lathrop Wells (Gate 510) Industrial Park
Site
Map 3: Pahrump Landfill Sites
Map 4: Amargosa Valley Regional Landfill Site
Map 5: Amargosa Valley Municipal Landfill Site
Map 6: Beatty Landfill/Transfer Station Site
Map 7: Round Mountain Landfill Site
Map 8: Tonopah Landfill Site
Map 9: Gabbs Landfill Site.
(2) To the County of Nye, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on
file with the Secretary:
Map 1: Beatty
Map 2: Ione/Berlin
Map 3: Manhattan
Map 4: Round Mountain/Smoky Valley
Map 5: Tonopah
Map 6: Armargosa Valley
Map 7: Pahrump.
(3) To the County of Lincoln, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on
file with the Secretary:
Map 2: Lincoln County, Parcel M, Industrial Park Site,
Jointly with the City of Caliente
Map 3: Lincoln County, Parcels F and G, Mixed Use,
Industrial Sites
Map 4: Lincoln County, Parcels H and I, Mixed Use and
Airport Expansion Sites
Map 5: Lincoln County, Parcels J and K, Mixed Use, Airport
and Landfill Expansion Sites
Map 6: Lincoln County, Parcels E and L, Mixed Use, Airport
and Industrial Expansion Sites.
(4) To the City of Caliente, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on
file with the Secretary:
[[Page H1185]]
Map 1: City of Caliente, Parcels A, B, C and D, Community
Growth, Landfill Expansion and Community Recreation Sites
Map 2: City of Caliente, Parcel M, Industrial Park Site,
Jointly with Lincoln County.
(5) To the City of Caliente, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on
file with the Secretary:
Map 1: City of Caliente, Industrial Park Site Expansion.
(c) Construction.--The maps and legal descriptions of
special conveyance referred to in subsection (b) shall have
the same force and effect as if they were included in this
Act. The Secretary may correct clerical and typographical
errors in the maps and legal descriptions and make minor
adjustments in the boundaries of the sites.
(d) Evidence of Title Transfer.--Upon the request of the
County of Lincoln or the County of Nye, Nevada, the Secretary
of the Interior shall provide evidence of title transfer.
(e) Consent.--(1) The acceptance or use of any of the
benefits provided under this title by any affected unit of
local government shall not be deemed to be an expression of
consent, express or implied, either under the Constitution of
the State of Nevada or any law thereof, to the siting of the
repository in the State of Nevada, any provision of such
Constitution or laws to the contrary notwithstanding.
(2) Arguments.--Neither the United States nor any other
entity may assert any argument based on legal or equitable
estoppel, or acquiescence, or waiver, or consensual
involvement, in response to any decision by the State of
Nevada, to oppose the siting in Nevada of the repository
premised upon or related to the acceptance or use of benefits
under this title.
(3) Liability.--No liability of any nature shall accrue to
be asserted against the State of Nevada, its Governor, any
official thereof, or any official of any governmental unit
thereof, premised solely upon the acceptance or use of
benefits under this title.
TITLE II--TRANSPORTATION
SEC. 201. TRANSPORTATION.
Section 180 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10175) is amended to read as follows:
``transportation
``Sec. 180. (a) In General.--The transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from any
civilian nuclear power reactor to any other civilian nuclear
power reactor or to any Department of Energy Facility, by or
for the Secretary, or by or for any person who owns or
generates spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste,
shall be subject to licensing and regulation by the
Commission and the Secretary of Transportation under all
applicable provisions of existing law.
``(1) Preferred shipping routes.--The Secretary shall
select and cause to be used preferred shipping routes for the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level
radioactive waste from each shipping origin to the repository
in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Transportation under authority of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (chapter 51 of title 49, United
State Code) and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under
authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et
seq.).
``(2) State rerouting.--For purposes of this section, a
preferred route shall be an Interstate System highway for
which an alternative route is not designated by a State
routing agency, or a State-designated route designated by a
State routing agency pursuant to section 397.103 of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations.
``(b) Shipping Containers.--No spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive waste may be transported by or for the
Secretary under this Act except in packages--
``(1) the design of which has been certified by the
Commission; and
``(2) that have been determined by the Commission to
satisfy its quality assurance requirements.
``(c) Notification.--The Secretary shall provide advance
notification to States and Indian tribes through whose
jurisdiction the Secretary plans to transport spent nuclear
fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
``(d) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) States and indian tribes.--As provided in paragraph
(3), the Secretary shall provide technical assistance and
funds to States and Indian tribes for training of public
safety officials or appropriate units of State, local, and
tribal government. A State shall allocate to local
governments within the State a portion of any funds that the
Secretary provides to the State for technical assistance and
funding.
``(B) Employee organizations.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance and funds for training directly to
nonprofit employee organizations, voluntary emergency
response organizations, and joint labor-management
organizations that demonstrate experience in implementing and
operating worker health and safety training and education
programs and demonstrate the ability to reach and involve in
training programs target populations of workers who are or
will be directly engaged in the transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste or emergency
response or post-emergency response with respect to such
transportation.
``(C) Training.--Training under this section--
``(i) shall cover procedures required for safe routine
transportation of materials and procedures for dealing with
emergency response situations;
``(ii) shall be consistent with any training standards
established by the Secretary of Transportation under
subsection (h); and
``(iii) shall include--
``(I) a training program applicable to persons responsible
for responding to emergency situations occurring during the
removal and transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste;
``(II) instruction of public safety officers in procedures
for the command and control of the response to any incident
involving the waste; and
``(III) instruction of radiological protection and
emergency medical personnel in procedures for responding to
an incident involving spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste being transported.
``(2) No shipments if no training.--
``(A) There shall be no shipments by the Secretary of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through the
jurisdiction of any State or the reservation lands of any
Indian tribe eligible for grants under paragraph (3)(B) to
the repository until the Secretary has made a determination
that personnel in all State, local, and tribal jurisdictions
on primary and alternative shipping routes have met
acceptable standards of training for emergency responses to
accidents involving spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste, as established by the Secretary, and
unless technical assistance and funds to implement procedures
for the safe routine transportation and for dealing with
emergency response situations under paragraph (1)(A) have
been available to a State or Indian tribe for at least 3
years prior to any shipment: Provided, however, That the
Secretary may ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste if technical assistance or funds have not
been made available because of--
``(i) an emergency, including the sudden and unforeseen
closure of a highway or rail line or the sudden and
unforeseen need to remove spent fuel from a reactor because
of an accident, or
``(ii) the refusal to accept technical assistance by a
State or Indian tribe, or
``(iii) fraudulent actions which violate Federal law
governing the expenditure of Federal funds.
``(B) In the event the Secretary is required to transport
spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste through a
jurisdiction prior to 3 years after the provision of
technical assistance or funds to such jurisdiction, the
Secretary shall, prior to such shipment, hold meetings in
each State and Indian reservation through which the shipping
route passes in order to present initial shipment plans and
receive comments. Department of Energy personnel trained in
emergency response shall escort each shipment. Funds and all
Department of Energy training resources shall be made
available to States and Indian tribes along the shipping
route no later than three months prior to the commencement of
shipments: Provided, however, That in no event shall such
shipments exceed 1,000 metric tons per year: Provided
further, That no such shipments shall be conducted more than
four years after the effective date of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 2000.
``(3) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--To implement this section, the Secretary
may make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund to the
extent provided for in appropriation Acts.
``(B) Grants for development of plans.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant of at
least $150,000 to each State through the jurisdiction of
which and each federally recognized Indian tribe through the
reservation lands of which one or more shipments of spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste will be made
under this Act for the purpose of developing a plan to
prepare for such shipments.
``(ii) Limitation.--A grant shall be made under clause (i)
only to a State or a federally recognized Indian tribe that
has the authority to respond to incidents involving shipments
of hazardous material.
``(C) Grants for implementation of plans.--
``(i) In general.--Annual implementation grants shall be
made to States and Indian tribes that have developed a plan
to prepare for shipments under this Act under subparagraph
(B). The Secretary, in submitting the annual departmental
budget to Congress for funding of implementation grants under
this section, shall be guided by the State and tribal plans
developed under subparagraph (B). As part of the Department
of Energy's annual budget request, the Secretary shall report
to Congress on--
``(I) the funds requested by States and federally
recognized Indian tribes to implement this subsection;
``(II) the amount requested by the President for
implementation; and
``(III) the rationale for any discrepancies between the
amounts requested by States and federally recognized Indian
tribes and the amounts requested by the President.
``(ii) Allocation.--Of funds available for grants under
this subparagraph for any fiscal year--
``(I) 25 percent shall be allocated by the Secretary to
ensure minimum funding and program capability levels in all
States and
[[Page H1186]]
Indian tribes based on plans developed under subparagraph
(B); and
``(II) 75 percent shall be allocated to States and Indian
tribes in proportion to the number of shipment miles that are
projected to be made in total shipments under this Act
through each jurisdiction.
``(4) Availability of funds for shipments.--Funds under
paragraph (1) shall be provided for shipments to a
repository, regardless of whether the repository is operated
by a private entity or by the Department of Energy.
``(5) Minimizing duplication of effort and expenses.--The
Secretaries of Transportation, Labor, and Energy, Directors
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall review periodically, with the head of
each department, agency, or instrumentality of the
Government, all emergency response and preparedness training
programs of that department, agency, or instrumentality to
minimize duplication of effort and expense of the department,
agency, or instrumentality in carrying out the programs and
shall take necessary action to minimize duplication.
``(e) Public Information.--The Secretary shall conduct a
program, in cooperation with corridor States and tribes, to
inform the public regarding the transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, with an
emphasis on those States, units of local government, and
Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary plans
to transport substantial amounts of spent nuclear fuel or
high-level radioactive waste.
``(f) Use of Private Carriers.--The Secretary, in providing
for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste under this Act, shall contract with private
industry to the fullest extent possible in each aspect of
such transportation. The Secretary shall use direct Federal
services for such transportation only upon a determination by
the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the
Secretary, that private industry is unable or unwilling to
provide such transportation services at a reasonable cost.
``(g) Compliance With Transportation Regulations.--Any
person that transports spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste under the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments
Act of 2000, pursuant to a contract with the Secretary, shall
comply with all requirements governing such transportation
issued by the Federal, State and local governments, and
Indian tribes, in the same way and to the same extent that
any person engaging in that transportation that is in or
affects interstate commerce must comply with such
requirements, as required by section 5126 of title 49, United
States Code.
``(h) Employee Protection.--Any person engaged in the
interstate commerce of spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste under contract to the Secretary pursuant to
this Act shall be subject to and comply fully with the
employee protection provisions of section 20109 of title 49,
United States Code (in the case of employees of railroad
carriers) and section 31105 of title 49, United States Code
(in the case of employees operating commercial motor
vehicles), or the Commission (in the case of all other
employees).
``(i) Training Standard.--
``(1) Regulation.--No later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of
2000, the Secretary of Transportation, pursuant to authority
under other provisions of law, in consultation with the
Secretary of Labor and the Commission, shall promulgate a
regulation establishing training standards applicable to
workers directly involved in the removal and transportation
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The
regulation shall specify minimum training standards
applicable to workers, including managerial personnel. The
regulation shall require that the employer possess evidence
of satisfaction of the applicable training standard before
any individual may be employed in the removal and
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste.
``(2) Secretary of transportation.--If the Secretary of
Transportation determines, in promulgating the regulation
required by paragraph (1), that existing Federal regulations
establish adequate training standards for workers, then the
Secretary of Transportation can refrain from promulgating
additional regulations with respect to worker training in
such activities. The Secretary of Transportation and the
Commission shall, by Memorandum of Understanding, ensure
coordination of worker training standards and to avoid
duplicative regulation.
``(3) Training standards content.--(A) If training
standards are required to be promulgated under paragraph (1),
such standards shall, among other things deemed necessary and
appropriate by the Secretary of Transportation, provide for--
``(i) a specified minimum number of hours of initial
offsite instruction and actual field experience under the
direct supervision of a trained, experienced supervisor;
``(ii) a requirement that onsite managerial personnel
receive the same training as workers, and a minimum number of
additional hours of specialized training pertinent to their
managerial responsibilities; and
(iii) a training program applicable to persons responsible
for responding to and cleaning up emergency situations
occurring during the removal and transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
``(B) The Secretary of Transportation may specify an
appropriate combination of knowledge, skills, and prior
training to fulfill the minimum number of hours requirements
of clauses (i) and (ii).
``(4) Emergency responder training standards.--The training
standards for persons responsible for responding to emergency
situations occurring during the removal and transportation of
spent nuclear and high-level radioactive waste shall, in
accordance with existing regulations, ensure their ability to
protect nearby persons, property, or the environment from the
effects of accidents involving spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste.
``(5) Authorization.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation, from general
revenues, such sums as may be necessary to perform his duties
under this subsection.''.
TITLE III--DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STRATEGY
SEC. 301. FINDINGS.
(a) Prior to permanent closure of the geologic repository
in Yucca Mountain, Congress must determine whether the spent
fuel in the repository should be treated as waste subject to
permanent burial or should be considered an energy resource
that is needed to meet future energy requirements.
(b) Future use of nuclear energy may require construction
of a second geologic repository unless Yucca Mountain can
safely accommodate additional spent fuel. Improved spent fuel
strategies may increase the capacity of Yucca Mountain.
(c) Prior to construction of any second permanent geologic
repository, the nation's current plans for permanent burial
of spent fuel should be re-evaluated.
SEC. 302. OFFICE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RESEARCH.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established an Office
of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research within the Office of Nuclear
Energy Science and Technology of the Department of Energy.
The Office shall be headed by the Associate Director, who
shall be a member of the Senior Executive Service appointed
by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and
Technology, and compensated at a rate determined by
applicable law.
(b) Associate Director.--The Associate Director of the
Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research shall be responsible
for carrying out an integrated research, development, and
demonstration program on technologies for treatment,
recycling, and disposal of high-level nuclear radioactive
waste and spent nuclear fuel, subject to the general
supervision of the Secretary. The Associate Director of the
Office shall report to the Director of the Office of Nuclear
Energy Science and Technology. The first such Associate
Director shall be appointed within 90 days of the enactment
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000.
(c) Grant and Contract Authority.--In carrying out his
responsibilities under this section, the Secretary may make
grants, or enter into contracts, for the purposes of the
research projects and activities described in (d)(2).
(d) Duties.--(1) The Associate Director of the Office shall
involve national laboratories, universities, the commercial
nuclear industry, and other organizations to investigate
technologies for the treatment, recycling, and disposal of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
(2) The Associate Director of the Office shall--
(A) develop a research plan to provide recommendations by
2015;
(B) identify promising technologies for the treatment,
recycling, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste;
(C) conduct research and development activities for
promising technologies;
(D) ensure that all activities include as key objectives
minimization of proliferation concerns and risk to the health
of the general public or site workers, as well as development
of cost-effective technologies;
(E) require research on both reactor- and accelerator-based
transmutation systems;
(F) require research on advanced processing and
separations;
(G) ensure that research efforts with this Office are
coordinated with research on advanced fuel cycles and
reactors conducted within the Office of Nuclear Energy
Science and Technology.
(e) Report.--The Associate Director of the Office of Spent
Nuclear Fuel Research shall annually prepare and submit a
report to the Congress on the activities and expenditures of
the Office that discusses progress being made in achieving
the objectives of subsection (b).
TITLE IV--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 401. DECOMMISSIONING PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to
establish a Decommissioning Pilot Program to decommission and
decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast breeder experimental
test-site reactor located in northwest Arkansas.
(b) Funding.--No funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund may be
used for the Decommissioning Pilot Program.
SEC. 402. REPORTS.
(a) The Secretary is directed to report within 90 days from
enactment of this Act
[[Page H1187]]
regarding all alternatives available to Northern States Power
Company and the Federal Government which would allow Northern
States Power Company to operate the Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant until the end of the term of its current
Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses, assuming existing
State and Federal laws remain unchanged.
(b) Within six months of enactment of this Act, the General
Accounting Office is directed to report back to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House
Committee on Commerce on the potential economic impacts to
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan ratepayers should the Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant cease operations once it has met its State-
imposed storage limitation, including the costs of new
generation, decommissioning costs, and the costs of continued
operation of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel storage.
SEC. 403. SEPARABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be
invalid, the remainder of this Act, or the application of
such provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected
thereby.
SEC. 404. FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY.
Any spent nuclear fuel associated with the Fast Flux Test
Facility at the Hanford Reservation shall be transported and
stored at the repository site as soon as practicable after
the Commission has authorized the construction of the
repository.
Unfunded Mandates Point of Order
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 425 of the
Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I
make a point of order against consideration of S. 1287.
Section 425 states that a point of order lies against legislation
which either imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million
annually against State or local governments, or when the committee
chairman does not publish, prior to floor consideration, a CBO cost
estimate of any unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million annually for
State and local entities or in excess of $100 million annually for the
private sector.
Section 104 of S. 1287 contains violations of section 425 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.
Therefore, I make a point of order against consideration of this act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Nevada makes
a point of order that the bill violates section 425(a)of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In accordance with section 426(b)(2)
of the act, the gentleman has met his threshold burden to identify the
specific language in the bill on which he predicates the point of
order.
Under section 426(b)(4) of the act, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on
the question of consideration.
Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the act, after that debate the Chair
will put the question of consideration of the bill, to wit: ``Will the
House consider the bill?''
The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) will be recognized for 10
minutes, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 1287 contains violations of section 425 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. More specifically, S.
1287 would effectively stop the flow of revenue into the Nuclear Waste
Fund. This is the fund that is responsible for costs associated with
the shipment, storage and disposal of commercially generated nuclear
waste. Loss of this revenue would leave a multibillion dollar funding
gap that must be filled. Loss of this revenue would impose a
multibillion dollar unfunded Federal mandate on the American taxpayer.
The May 1995, Department of Energy-sponsored Independent Management
and Financial Review concluded, ``The Nuclear Waste Fund is currently
defined as inadequate.'' The review panel noted that the Nuclear Waste
Fund was between $4 billion and $8 billion underfunded for a single
regulatory program, and between $12 billion and $15 billion underfunded
for a two-repository program.
S. 1287 shifts the burden of paying the extra costs of a nuclear
waste repository program to the American taxpayer by freezing the
current mill fee that pays money into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Although
this aspect of S. 1287 appeals to the nuclear utilities, it is
difficult to justify it to the American taxpayer.
Let us take a quick review of the situation at hand.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 called for disposal of spent
nuclear fuel in a deep underground repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy
Act set forth two major provisions. First, it established an office in
the Department of Energy to develop such a repository; and, secondly,
now pay special attention to this, it required the program's civilian
costs to be covered by a fee on nuclear-generated electricity.
So here is the situation. The nuclear power industry goes to the
Federal Government and says they need help with their nuclear waste. So
the nuclear power industry makes a deal in which the Federal Government
becomes responsible for transporting, storing, and disposing of nuclear
waste. Okay. But who is going to pay for it? The deal essentially says
that they, the nuclear power industry, are responsible for picking up
the tab. The sad part about this rosy finding and scenario is that,
ultimately, your constituents, our constituents, the American
taxpayers, will actually be responsible for picking up the tab.
Let me make a quick review of the salient facts associated with the
costs of this nuclear waste disposal program. An independent cost
assessment of the Nation's high-level nuclear waste program conducted
by the Planning Information Corporation, the Thompson Professional
Group, and the Decision Research Institute, estimates total system
costs at $53.9 billion for fiscal year 1996, about 54.1 percent greater
than DOE's estimate in September of 1995.
About $38.5 billion are costs attributable to the disposal of
commercial spent nuclear fuel, for which, listen to this, Mr. Speaker,
is supposed to be fully recovered from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Full
recovery, Mr. Speaker, of $38.5 billion from the Nuclear Waste Fund, is
unlikely.
Current estimates put the Nuclear Waste Fund at only $8.9 billion.
This balance pales in comparison to the total system costs of almost
$54 billion. Those are in 1996 fiscal year dollars.
What is more, the nuclear power industry, the industry, remember,
that made the deal with the Federal Government to pay for the nuclear
waste disposal program, faces an uncertain economic future. Let me
point out just a few of the problems facing this industry, the industry
that is supposed to be responsible for paying the costs associated with
nuclear waste disposal.
No nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978. More than 100
reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. No units
are currently under active construction. In fact, the TVA, Tennessee
Valley Authority, Watts Bar 1 reactor ordered in 1970 and licensed to
operate in 1996 was the last U.S. nuclear unit to be completed.
The nuclear power industry's troubles include a slowdown in the rate
of growth of electricity demand, high nuclear power plant construction
costs, relatively low costs for competing fuel, public concern about
nuclear safety and waste disposal and regulatory compliance costs.
Even more of an immediate concern to the nuclear power industry is
the outlook for existing nuclear reactors in a deregulated electrical
market. Electric utility restructuring, which is currently underway in
several States, could increase the competition faced by existing
nuclear plants. High operating costs and the need for costly
improvements and equipment replacement has resulted during the past
decade in the permanent shutdown of 11 U.S. commercial reactors before
the completion of their 40-year license operating period.
Mr. Speaker, the viability of the Nuclear Waste Fund is directly
related to the continued viability of the nuclear utility industry. It
seems that the economic outlook for both is suspect at best. The vice
president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Mr. Garrish, affirmed the
dire strait of fiscal affairs in the Nuclear Waste Fund, the fund that
is supposed to pay for the nuclear waste disposal program, is Yucca
Mountain.
Mr. Garrish stated, ``The Nuclear Waste Fund was established in 1982
by
[[Page H1188]]
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That legislation imposed a 1 mill per
kilowatt-hour fee on customers who use electricity generated by nuclear
power. In return for paying this user fee to the Nuclear Waste Fund,
the Federal Government was made responsible by law for the transport,
storage and disposal of all commercially generated used nuclear fuel.''
Please note that Mr. Garrish does not say the Federal Government is
responsible for paying for the transport and storage or disposal of
their nuclear waste, nor does he say that the American taxpayer is
responsible for paying for the transport, storage, and disposal of
nuclear waste.
That is because he is correct. The American taxpayer is not supposed
to fund the program. The program is supposed to be funded by the
nuclear energy industry and the ratepayers who purchase and benefit
from their electricity.
Let us consider this in order, Mr. Speaker, and review the facts. The
total construction costs and operating costs for a repository at Yucca
Mountain are close to $54 billion and growing. The nuclear power
industry is in dire straits. They are plagued with a slowdown in the
rate of growth of electrical demand, high nuclear power plant
construction costs, relatively low costs for competing fuels, public
concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal and a regulatory
compliance cost; and we know that the money being paid into the Nuclear
Waste Fund is not used for its intended purpose. What is more, the
bill, S. 1287, essentially freezes the mill fee, the mechanism to fund
the Nuclear Waste Fund, thus effectively stopping the flow of revenue
into the fund. S. 1287 essentially allows the nuclear utilities to be
off the hook and sticks the American taxpayer with a burden of paying
this $54 billion bill.
Let us get this correct: we are supposed to believe that the American
people, our constituents, are supposed to believe that the Nuclear
Waste Fund, paid into by the industry, with an uncertain fiscal future,
and whose revenue inflows will effectively be frozen by the passage of
S. 1287, is supposed to pay for the total construction and the
operating costs of Yucca Mountain? I do not think so.
So the Nuclear Waste Fund by itself, Mr. Speaker, is doomed, and
there will be no money for the Nuclear Waste Fund coming in the future
if the ratepayers are closed out of paying for this with a mill fee, as
stated in S. 1287. The Nuclear Waste Fund will become an empty shell,
devoid of money. It is pretty simple: you cannot use the money from a
fund when there is no money here. So then, ultimately, the taxpayer is
responsible for picking up the tab.
Mr. Speaker, my objection to this is that this is an unfunded
mandate, and the bill so states.
It takes billions of dollars to construct and operate and maintain a
high-level nuclear facility. The nuclear energy industry is responsible
for providing this funding. The problem is that the industry is waning
in its effectiveness to provide the billions of dollars needed to
construct, operate, and maintain a facility in which their spent
nuclear fuel will be stored. Sadly, the American taxpayer will be the
ones who lose in the end.
The point is crystal clear: S. 1287 shifts the burden of paying the
extra costs of a nuclear repository program to the American taxpayer by
freezing the current mill fee that pays for the nuclear waste fund.
Once the fund is exhausted, the American taxpayers will be responsible
for the multibillion dollar price tag.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are here at this point on the
question before the House is whether we should consider this bill. I
think, emphatically, yes, we should consider this bill; and
accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion.
The basis of the argument of my friend, the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Gibbons), is that this is an unfunded mandate.
{time} 1230
We are considering a Senate bill.
I would like to read to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, a letter to
Senator Frank Murkowski who is the chairman of the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources. The letter is dated June 24, 1999 from Director
Dan Crippen of the Congressional Budget Office and he writes
specifically on the question of unfunded mandates, and I quote:
``CBO is unsure whether the bill contains intergovernmental mandates
as defined by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, but we estimated that
costs incurred by State, local and tribal governments as a result of
the bill would total significantly less,'' and I want to emphasize this
point, ``significantly less than the threshold established in the law,
which is $50 million adjusted annually for inflation.
``Although this bill would, by itself, establish no new enforceable
duties on State, local or tribal governments, shipments of nuclear
waste for surface storage at the Yucca Mountain site, as authorized by
law, probably would increase the cost to the State of Nevada of
complying with existing Federal requirements. CBO cannot determine
whether these costs would be considered the direct costs of a mandate
as defined by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
``Additional spending by the State would support a number of
activities, including emergency communications, emergency response
planning and training, inspections, and escort of waste shipments.
These costs are similar to those that the State would eventually incur
under current law as a result of the permanent repository plan for
Yucca Mountain. This bill would, however, authorize DOE to receive and
store waste at Yucca Mountain once the NRC has authorized construction
of a repository at that site and would set a deadline of December 31,
2006 for NRC to make that decision. This date is about 3 years earlier
than DOE expects to begin receiving material at this site under current
law.''
So, Mr. Speaker, there are some other safeguards within this act that
address some of the costs that may be incurred and that obviously would
be incurred by the establishment of this act, but the point is, it
falls significantly below the threshold, as pointed out by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
this question of consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is, Will the House
now consider the Senate bill?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 206,
nays 205, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 61]
YEAS--206
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
[[Page H1189]]
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--205
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--24
Ackerman
Barton
Berry
Boyd
Crane
Dunn
Engel
Ewing
Franks (NJ)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hill (IN)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kingston
Klink
Lowey
McCollum
McDermott
Moran (VA)
Ose
Pallone
Royce
Rush
Schakowsky
{time} 1253
Messrs. PHELPS, BENTSEN, HILLIARD, TALENT and GORDON and Mrs. CUBIN
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GEJDENSON, HUNTER and GALLEGLY changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution
444, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 2000. Why are we here? We are here today
because the Government broke its promise to the American people that it
would begin storing the Nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain by
1998, 2 years ago. The administration has still refused to deal in good
faith with a bipartisan majority of both Houses of Congress to fix this
problem.
Madam Speaker, there are few in this House who have worked as long to
find a bipartisan solution to the problem of nuclear waste storage than
I. For three consecutive Congresses, I have introduced bipartisan
legislation to implement a safe solution to the problem of nuclear
waste storage. Yet, despite the overwhelming bipartisan support for
these measures throughout the years, we still cannot get the
administration to stop saying no, no, no.
Let us review what has happened. In the 105th Congress, the
bipartisan majority in the House overwhelmingly approved our nuclear
waste bill, but the promise of a veto killed any further consideration
in that Congress.
In this Congress, the House Committee on Commerce, by a vote of 40 to
6 reported out my bill, H.R. 45. Yet the administration continues to
say, no, we will still veto it.
Just this past month, the Senate with a bipartisan majority passed
the bill that we are considering today, S. 1287, bending over backwards
to address each and every concern by this administration. Yet the
administration still said no.
One of the big issues was interim storage. That cannot be part of the
bill. We took it out over there in the Senate. Yet it seems like this
legislation is like Charlie Brown and Lucy with a football. No matter
what they did, the football kept going up, and they missed the kick.
Sadly, it is the American people who continue to fall on their backs
because it is they who are at risk with nuclear waste continuing to
pile up in their communities.
So why do I come to the floor today in support of S. 1287 instead of
my bill, H.R. 45? Well, the hour is late in this legislative year, and
I believe it is better to move forward with the Senate bill today
rather than face yet another filibuster in the other body and send it
to the President in hopes that perhaps he will sign it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, which, if passed
today and signed by the President, will in fact remove dangerous
nuclear waste from communities all across America and deposit this
material at Yucca Mountain, a safe and stable storage facility.
But, Madam Speaker, as I stand here today, I want to be clear about
what our failure to pass this legislation will mean. By failing to pass
this common sense, reasonable, scientifically sound bill, we are
allowing the continuous pileup of nuclear waste in our communities, and
we are abdicating our stewardship for future generations.
Right now across America, nuclear power plants are being forced to
construct temporary facilities to hold nuclear waste, and they are
filling up fast. Many of them are just a baseball throw away from your
lakes, rivers, schools, and neighborhoods.
This bill moves high-level nuclear waste into one safe place rather
than keep it in environmentally sensitive areas. Clearly, there is a
need for a permanent facility to store this material.
But in the middle of the Nevada desert, far away from a populated
ecosystem, sits Yucca Mountain, which by scientific accounts is a good
place to start, a place, by the way, where we have spent $10 billion
preparing it for this day.
Independent analysis in government agencies have shown that we are on
the right track to have the Yucca Mountain site be safe, and I am here
today to urge my colleagues to look at the sound science behind this
proposal.
In addition, emotional pleas, mine, others today, some of our
colleagues will say that transporting nuclear waste out of our
communities is more dangerous than leaving it there. That makes no
sense.
Again, I urge my friends to look at the scientific studies. In fact,
over the past 30 years, we have had thousands of these shipments. Not a
single release of radioactivity in any of those shipments. Asking
consumers, through a tax in our utility bills, every single one of our
constituents has contributed more than $17 billion to pay for this
project.
[[Page H1190]]
{time} 1300
By asking them to pay their utility bills to take care of this
problem at the local level is unfair. Building temporary storage sites
at our Nation's nuclear reactors have put taxpayers in double jeopardy.
We are already paying the bill to build the storage site in Nevada, and
now we are starting to foot the bill for storage sites in our
communities.
With each passing day, we are one day closer to a nuclear power plant
running out of storage room; we are one day closer to another cement
cask being built in one of our constituents' back yards; and, my
colleagues, it is yet another day that the Federal Government has not
lived up to its responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on this measure. Let us get the stuff into one safe place. This bill
begins that process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I begin my comments by paying tribute to
my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton). He is a
gentleman and a fine Member. He is also a dear friend of mine, and I
grieve to see him placed in a position of handling a turkey like this.
This is one of the most extraordinary examples of legislative bait
and switch that I have ever seen. The House Committee on Commerce
reported by 40 to 6 a good bill which did all the things that my friend
from Michigan was speaking on behalf of. The bill, in a curious process
of bait and switch, had a substitute of the Senate bill put in its
place last night under a closed rule. No Member will have opportunity
to perfect the bill, and the bill does not do any of the things that my
good friend from Michigan says it does.
One of the most remarkable things about this is not just that it is
legislative bait and switch and that it does not do anything or the
false representations, but my poor friend from Michigan is stuck with
handling this bill because neither the chairman of the full committee
nor the subcommittee have chosen to handle a bill that, quite frankly,
stinks.
Now, having said that, let us recognize that we have here a
remarkable procedure. Nothing similar to S. 1287 has been considered by
any committee of the House. The bill was voted out from the other body
last month, held at the desk, and brought to the floor under a closed
rule. None of the committees of jurisdiction have consented to this
approach. Under the closed rule, all Members are denied the right to
offer perfecting amendments to the bill.
I would have offered an amendment today to substitute the text of
H.R. 45, sponsored by my able friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton). That is a bill which would have done something.
It was reported from the Committee on Commerce by a vote of 46 to 0.
This puts Members of both parties who support nuclear waste legislation
in the position of having to vote against the only bill on this subject
that is likely to be brought before the House during this Congress.
This is a shame, since the program is in sore need of improvement and a
very different bill coming out of the Committee on Commerce during the
105th Congress gathered, as my good friend mentioned, a strong
bipartisan vote of 307 to 120.
However, we have been presented now with a take-it-or-leave-it
proposition. I urge my colleagues to leave it. This bill is an affront
and the procedure is a greater affront to the Members of this body. If
any of my colleagues have a utility running out of storage space for
its nuclear waste, this bill does nothing to help them, their district,
their people, or their utility.
Unlike the House bill, this neither directs the Department of Energy
to build an interim storage facility in Nevada nor does it authorize
the Department to pay for waste stored at the utility site until it can
be taken to Nevada. It also provides no help in moving waste from DOE
defense sites located in communities that have done more than their
share for the national good.
Second, the bill provides no assurance that the ratepayer money will
be used in the nuclear waste program, but it continues to allow it to
be diverted to other uses. Nearly $8 billion in taxpayer money has been
siphoned off for other purposes; and, without this money, DOE will face
funding shortfall in 2003. Unlike the House bill, which would have
assured money paid into the nuclear waste fund will stay there, the
Senate bill, which we have before us, only assures that the shortfalls
will occur when the money is most needed.
Third, the Senate bill does nothing to resolve the litigation
questions that plague the DOE program and to ensure that payments for
these suits will not drain the nuclear waste fund. These suits amount
to billions of dollars, probably $8 or $10 billion at this time, and
the number is growing. CBO estimates that there will be $400 million in
litigation costs in addition to this between 2000 and 2009 because
nothing is done to prevent that from occurring under this legislation.
The bill, in fact, is going to create more lawsuits. And while it
fraudulently purports to address the litigation issue, it does not do
so until the year 2006 or 2007 and under terms that CBO said were too
vague to score. Without an interim storage facility, which this bill
does not provide, the utilities' cost and the legal damages, for which
the taxpayers are going to probably be liable, will continue to mount.
In short, if Members want nuclear waste to continue to pile up in
their district or State, if they want ratepayers to continue to spend
money for nothing, if they like lawsuits and want to see more of them,
then they should vote for this bill.
We do need a good nuclear waste bill. This is not it. It does more
harm than good and, as I have mentioned, it is nothing more or less
than bait and switch. It is a sham. It is a fraud upon this body. And
we will be sorry if we pass it, because we will delay a resolution to
the questions that we should be addressing if the Committee on Rules
and the leadership had given us an opportunity to consider these
matters under an open rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), my good friend and, on this issue, a very good
adversary.
Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me this time, and I thank also my other colleague and friend
from Michigan for labeling this bill just exactly what it is: A turkey.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bipartisan bill.
It is important that the House of Representatives realize the
disastrous impacts S. 1287 would have on the State of Nevada. The issue
before us is whether this bill is necessary and whether it is an
erroneous waste of time since the Senate has already voted and received
enough votes to sustain a promised veto by President Clinton.
This body should not allow short-term political pressure to become
serious long-term health and safety problems hundreds of years from
now. As Nevadans, we believe that standards based on sound science,
along with the protection and welfare of this Nation's citizens, should
become our fundamental threshold when we debate this bill today.
Senate bill 1287 will mandate upon the State of Nevada and this
Nation the transportation of high-level nuclear waste on a scale
unprecedented in history while failing to address the issues of safety
and the general well-being of its citizens. The deadliest material ever
created, Madam Speaker, would hit the Nation's roads and rails,
bringing with it the risk of transportation accidents with the most
lethal and toxic proportions.
Many in this chamber have fallen under the false pretense that we
have been shipping nuclear waste all along and, if we have done it
before, we can do it again. This is a dead wrong assumption. Between
1964 and 1997, there were only 2,913 shipments of used nuclear fuel,
which I would like to point out had its share of accidents. Senate bill
1287 would mandate that over 100,000 shipments of high-level nuclear
waste over the next 30 years be sent to Nevada. This is a 4,350 percent
increase in just the number of shipments alone.
To understand the seriousness of the accidents, consider an analysis
done by
[[Page H1191]]
the Department of Energy on the repercussions of a rural transportation
accident. The study, part of a 1986 environmental assessment for Yucca
Mountain, warns that a serious accident would contaminate 42 square
miles and require 462 days to clean up at a cost to the American
taxpayer of $620 million. That was from the Department of Energy.
Does it make sense for anyone to take these unnecessary chances,
especially if the accident happened in their district? Realize that
over 50 million people live within one mile of the transportation
corridors selected for this nuclear material, and these will be our
voters and our constituents.
Not surprisingly, Senate bill 1287 fails to use best available
science when developing shipping casks. The bill defies logic and does
not even require real full-scale testing of nuclear waste shipping
containers. So let us get this straight. There will be a 4,350 percent
increase in deadly nuclear waste shipments, it will cost $620 million
to clean up an accident, and the bill does not even require full-scale
testing of the nuclear shipping containers.
For many years, I, and many other Members who oppose this
legislation, have urged the debate to be governed by two principles:
First, that all decisions with regard to storage of dangerous high-
level nuclear waste be made according to science, not politics; and,
second, that the health and safety of Americans always be paramount in
our concern.
Unfortunately, 1287 blatantly ignores these two principles. It
includes provisions that shift responsibility for developing standards
for acceptable levels of human radiation exposure from the
Environmental Protection Agency, which has lawful jurisdiction
over setting such standards, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The NRC has virtually no experience in either protecting the civilian
population from health risks or in determining the impact of radiation
on natural resources, such as groundwater. In fact, NRC's proposed
Yucca Mountain standards include no radiation standards for groundwater
contamination, even though nearby communities rely heavily on
groundwater for their drinking water supply.
Senate bill 1287 also mandates an unrealistic and unnecessary
timetable for shipping nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. The bill also
proposes a costly temporary storage facility, which is conveniently
called in the bill a backup storage facility, and will be in place well
before science dictates whether or not Yucca Mountain should be
licensed as a repository.
Moreover, Madam Speaker, the bill's language is crafted to protect
the nuclear industry from angry customers because it essentially caps
the rate charged to utility customers who use nuclear electricity.
Unfortunately, there is not enough money generated by the nuclear
electric customers to finance the nuclear waste trust fund, which was
created to ship the waste and construct, operate and maintain a high-
level nuclear repository for 10,000 years. Therefore, the hardworking
American taxpayer will soon be footing the bill for this multibillion
dollar bill. Again I say to all my colleagues, these are our
constituents.
As we know, there are ongoing studies at Yucca Mountain to determine
if it is suitable to become a permanent repository. All of these
studies work within certain parameters to determine issues such as
safety. Senate bill 1287 ignores these parameters and deletes the
metric ton limit currently placed on Yucca Mountain. This last-minute
change would disqualify the ongoing scientific studies at the site and
would be similar to placing a dump truck load of sand into a
wheelbarrow.
Finally, let us look at the facts and the Earth science surrounding
Yucca Mountain. In the last 20 to 30 years, there have been over 634
earthquakes, and 13 of those earthquakes have occurred in the last 30
days. We could not site, license or construct a nuclear power plant on
the site where this nuclear waste facility is to be constructed. It is
not safe. And I ask my friends and colleagues in this body to vote
against this untimely and unfortunate measure.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the ranking member
of the subcommittee.
Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me this time. It is with a strong sense of regret that I rise
in opposition to S. 1287.
I recently became the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy
and Power of the House Committee on Commerce. The Subcommittee on
Energy and Power has a long tradition of working on a bipartisan basis
to address our Nation's energy security in a manner that is both
serious and thoughtful. Whether under the chairmanship of Phil Sharp or
Dan Schaefer, we have always tried to put the interest of our Nation
ahead of the allure of partisan advantage. That tradition is being
upheld today in a truly excellent fashion by our current subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the process of
creating sound energy policy is advanced by it.
Nowhere has that bipartisan spirit been more in evidence than in our
efforts to solve our Nation's nuclear waste problems.
{time} 1315
In each of the last three Congresses, Republicans and Democrats
representing a broad array of political viewpoints have banded together
to draft nuclear waste legislation; and the result has been that these
bills have been approved by the House Committee on Commerce by
overwhelming margins each time, including a victory just this past May
of 40 votes in favor to only six votes opposed.
That type of bipartisan work led to a clear and convincing victory in
the last Congress when the nuclear waste legislation reported by the
House Committee on Commerce was approved in this House by a veto-proof
majority of 307-120.
Unfortunately, the bill that we are considering today flies in the
face of what we did just 2 years ago. Let me quickly highlight some of
the many differences between what the Members accomplished 2 years ago
and what they are being presented this afternoon.
The central element of the bill passed by the House 2 years ago was
the construction of an interim storage facility so that waste could be
moved from their States to Yucca Mountain beginning in the year 2002.
The bill currently before us does not authorize construction of that
vitally needed interim storage facility. It seems to require DOE to
begin receiving waste at the site 18 months after the NRC grants a
license to construct the repository sometime around the year 2006.
However, this is not a schedule that the Department can meet even under
the best of circumstances. And for reasons I will lay out in a minute,
DOE is not likely to be operating in a best-case scenario.
Now, some proponents point to a provision of section 102 of the bill
that authorizes something called backup storage capacity as somehow
being similar to interim storage, but that is simply not accurate. The
provisions of section 102 are so narrowly focused that only two
utilities, if any, could benefit from the provisions of that section.
Another central tenet of the bill that was passed in the 105th
Congress, as well as the bill reported this year by the House Committee
on Commerce, is that all of the money ratepayers pay into the nuclear
waste fund must be used exclusively for the nuclear waste program.
Ratepayers have paid more than $11 billion into the waste fund to date,
and only a fraction of that money has been spent on the waste programs.
Not only is that wrong as a matter of principle, but without
rectifying the funding situation, DOE will not be able to open a
repository in 2010, let alone in the year 2006, clearly in not a best-
case situation.
There are many other differences between this bill and the bill we
passed in the last Congress. But let me point to just one final crucial
point of departure. This bill contains language that would tie our
ability to transport waste to Nevada in knots.
Madam Speaker, this legislation is clearly not well crafted. It will
not further the policy of objectives that we sought to achieve in the
House on a bipartisan basis. And I am deeply concerned that the actions
we are taking today, for no apparent positive purpose, may do
irrevocable damage to our
[[Page H1192]]
chances of ever enacting the nuclear waste legislation that is so
vitally needed.
So more in sorrow today than in anger, and as a long-time supporter
of nuclear waste legislation, I urge my colleagues to join with me in
voting no on this measure.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond.
Madam Speaker, I appreciated the leadership of both the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher). They were terrific as we moved H.R. 45, as well as were other
members of the committee.
But the major change between the two bills is the interim storage
facility. It was the administration that sent us that letter and said,
we will veto the bill unless you take that provision out. We took their
word for it, and yet they still were not there. It really was Lucy and
the football. We did what they asked. The Democratic administration
refused to play ball. And here we are today.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood), a member of the Committee on Commerce and a viable Member on
this issue.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose my friend,
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). But I do admire a worthy
opponent, and he most assuredly has been that.
I also find it very interesting that I rise and agree with both of
the gentlemen from Michigan. The senior Member from Michigan, my good
turkey-hunting buddy, has called this bill a turkey; and he and I both
know that the turkey is a noble bird. We both know that had it been
left to Ben Franklin, of course, that would be one of our national
symbols.
So we are ending up with a bill that does not really suit any of us
on the Committee on Commerce. We would much rather have our bill. And I
am going to support this bill not because I think it is a perfect bill.
It is far from that. There are many aspects of this bill that I would
certainly like to see changed. I am particularly disappointed that
there are no interim storage or take-title provisions, among other
things. But, in short, this is a seriously watered down bill.
Now, I support this bill because I am sick and tired of the President
playing games with this important issue; and I, for one, am ready to
call his bluff. He says he wants to support responsible management of
our nuclear waste. Yet every single time, every single time we have
made a concession and moved his way, he says it is not good enough and
wants more. It has happened every time. It is a classic case of moving
the goal post.
It is, obviously, that he does not want a bill to sign. He wants to
play politics with this issue like he does with many other issues. We
have haggled over and over on the details of this legislation for years
now. The only remaining question is whether or not the President will
honor a Federal responsibility to store this waste at one site instead
of dozens of sites all across the country.
It is my guess that he will not. Since passage of the Nuclear Waste
Passage Act of 1982, ratepayers have committed $17.5 billion, and $573
million of those came from Georgia, into the nuclear waste fund for the
purpose of building a permanent home for spent nuclear waste. The
original deadline was 1998.
The only reason in the world that we do not have a law and a good law
that came out of the House and came out of the Committee on Commerce is
that the President of the United States is playing politics with
hazardous nuclear waste. It is just that simple.
So I say to both of my friends from Michigan, we are doing the best
we can do in view of the fact that we have had an administration that
did not recognize the great bill that came out of the Committee on
Commerce. Now let us see if he will honor his word and sign a watered
down bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), my distinguished ranking member, for yielding me the time to
speak on this important issue.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. We must stop
attempting to pass a nuclear waste bill merely to say we have passed a
bill. This is high-level nuclear waste we are talking about sweeping
under the rug here, not just household dust; and it must be treated
accordingly.
As we all know, one of the more important issues we face at the
beginning of the 21st century is how to dispose of our spent nuclear
fuel. Solving this issue is essential to the future environmental
health and safety of this country.
Unlike some, I am not unequivocally opposed to storing the fuel in
one safe centralized location. Unfortunately, this bill does not
accomplish this very important goal.
This bill will allow Yucca Mountain to be used as a default temporary
storage facility because we will not be able to do the adequate testing
to first determine its true viability as a permanent storage facility.
I visited Yucca Mountain last year, and I toured the site. I was very
encouraged about the progress that was being made towards certification
as a permanent site. But we cannot rush this testing. We cannot move up
the water seepage test or the heat test or any of the other tests.
Instead, what we are trying to do is take this action before the study
is completed. This is dangerous and this is ill-advised.
I asked the scientists when I was there where the temporary storage
would be until it was certified; and they said, well, they could put it
over there or they could put it over there, whatever they decide. I do
not think this is sound nuclear policy.
I am equally troubled by the dangerous potential for accident during
transportation of the fuel through dangerous mountain passes and
heavily populated urban areas, both of which we have in my State.
In 1984, in this overpass in Denver, Colorado, we narrowly survived a
brush with disaster from deadly cargo when a tractor trailer carrying a
torpedo rolled over right here in the Mousetrap in central Denver and
endangered millions of people in the metropolitan area. Luckily, the
torpedo did not explode. But it shut down the entire city of Denver for
an entire day.
Imagine if we do not have local involvement in these transportation
decisions what high-level nuclear waste will do.
Madam Speaker, rushing to pass a very flawed bill is not smart public
policy. Rather, it is a political act to force the President to once
again veto a bad bill. Let us do the science. Let us do the science
right. Let us survey a site. Let us have involvement from local
transportation officials, and let us have smart transportation routes
before we go anywhere.
Madam Speaker, like my colleagues, I believe that we should vote down
this turkey, as my distinguished ranking member says, and go back to
the drawing board.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, we have been at this for about 18 years.
That is when we passed the first nuclear waste bill. And we kind of set
it up like a legit process. We were going to send out all these
scientists, and they were going to try to find the best sites in
America to characterize in order to take all of this nuclear waste for
the rest of eternity or 20,000 years, whichever came first, which is
quite a scientific task.
Then we reached 1987 and all of the scientists figured out that maybe
we could put it in Washington State. But at that point the majority
whip was from Washington State, so he said, I do not want it in
Washington. And then the next one on the list was Texas. But the
Speaker at the time came from Texas, so he said he did not want it. And
then Louisiana. But the Senate energy committee chairman came from
Louisiana, so that one was off. Then we had Mississippi. And we know
who represents Mississippi. That one was off.
So it came down to handing over the nuclear queen of spades to
Nevada, picked by this incredibly distinguished group of scientists
here on the House floor, notwithstanding the fact that there is an
earthquake fault about 100 miles away from the site.
Now we come back 13 years later, and we are about to say that we are
going
[[Page H1193]]
to authorize 100,000 truckloads of nuclear waste to start heading
toward Nevada, kind of mobile Chernobyls out on the street heading
towards Nevada.
Have my colleagues ever noticed that, in any of these prison movies,
they never break out of prison; it is usually when they put them on
trains or trucks that they figure out how to break out of the train or
the truck, the fugitive. Well, we have to think of these like loose
nukes out on the streets of America.
Maybe a driver that went out last night and had a little toot,
unfortunately now careening through our neighborhoods, 50 million
people's homes are going to be driven by with this nuclear waste. And
this bill says that, believe it or not, if the driver engages in gross
negligence, willful negligence, that the trucking company is not
liable.
Just think of the disincentive that that would create for a truck
driver to get a good night's sleep the night before and not to have
that little extra beer before they close up the joint at 2 in the
morning and then they careen these trucks right through our
neighborhoods. Well, this bill does not allow us to build in any
safeguards, any liability for the trucking or for the railroad firms.
In addition, we used to have Elliott Ness and Al Capone. Well, we
call these contractors now the untouchables. Cannot get them. It is bad
precedent. We would not do it for any other part of American commerce
if they were trucking or a railroad. But, in this bill, they do so.
This bill must be defeated. I urge a very strong ``no.''
{time} 1330
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I
commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) as well as the
Committee on Commerce's efforts in pressing for responsible nuclear
waste legislation.
It is high time we took the bull by the horns and dealt honestly and
professionally with the issue of nuclear waste.
We might ask why, why is this piece of legislation needed now? The
answer, Madam Speaker, is very simple. We rely on civilian nuclear
power plants for almost one quarter, let me repeat that, almost one
quarter of our Nation's electric power supply.
Last year, our 103 nuclear power plants, which is down from a few
years back, were more productive than ever before by producing safe,
reliable, inexpensive electricity, more than ever before.
Nuclear power is one piece, and by no means, a small piece. It is a
part of the engine that drives the American economy. We cannot afford
to be small-minded and throw up our hands and walk away from this
issue; something must be done.
The thousands of tons of radioactive fuel currently sitting in spent
fuel pools across this Nation cannot sit there forever. The United
States Government made a commitment to the Nation's nuclear utilities
and to its people, a commitment that it would build a repository and
begin receiving spent fuel in 1998, a responsibility under law passed
in this very Chamber. That deadline is well passed, and a most
optimistic estimate for what the Department of Energy now says to begin
taking shipments would be the year 2010.
The failure by the administration and DOE to live up to its
responsibilities is now forcing the nuclear industry to expend
considerable sums of money to construct additional storage. This after
those same utilities have kicked in over $12 billion to the Federal
coffers for the expressed purpose of constructing a geologic
repository.
It is very clear that something must be done, and S. 1287 is a step
in the right direction. We have to face reality, the reality of the
Clinton administration's lack of leadership with respect to nuclear
power and nuclear waste, the reality of opposition by the Nevada
delegation in the Senate, and, most importantly, the reality that we,
as a Nation, desperately need a repository. And Yucca Mountain is the
best place in this country for it to be built.
The amendments to the 1982 act found in this bill will get us back on
track by setting up a mechanism through which the costly legal battles
between the utilities and the Government are resolved. It sets out the
necessary milestones to be met and provides for early receipt of Yucca
Mountain spent fuel or spent fuel for Yucca Mountain, potentially as
early as 2006.
It is a vital step, Madam Speaker, for those plants with limited
existing storage capacity. It ensures that transport of the depleted
fuel is done safely along the lines established for the Waste Isolation
Plant.
Let me assure you that the transport of spent fuel along the Nation's
highways and railways is safe. With over 3,000 shipments since 1964,
and shipping casks that can withstand the impact of a speeding
locomotive, we certainly know how to safely ship radioactive waste. And
S. 1287 leaves the setting of radiation standards up to the EPA and
ensures that EPA is aided in its decision by the formidable scientists
and engineers at the National Academy and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
We need to allow sound science to guide us here and remove the
setting of radiation standards from the political arena.
Madam Speaker, Yucca Mountain is perhaps the safest place in the
world to store spent nuclear fuel. S. 1287 protects the citizens of
Nevada and protects those living near the plants and along the
transport routes. The administration has been irresponsible in its
failure to live up to its obligations. S. 1287 gets it back on the path
to a permanent solution for our Nation's nuclear waste.
Madam Speaker, we need to send to the President S. 1287, and he
should sign it. I urge and I vote for this bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for yielding me the time.
Madam Speaker, at the close of debate I will offer a motion to commit
S. 1287 to committee. I oppose S. 1287 because it would irresponsibly
ship nuclear wastes to Yucca Mountain, a location that scientific
evidence has established cannot safely contain the massive heat and
radioactivity generated by 100,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste.
After more than 15 years of study, it is clear that Yucca Mountain is
not what Congress had in mind when it set high standards for finding a
nuclear waste disposal site. A nuclear waste site must be free of
groundwater contamination for many, many centuries to come; but Yucca
Mountain is now known to be at high risk for water contamination that
will speed the release of radioactivity into the water supplies over a
vast area of the Nevada desert.
A nuclear waste site must be free of earthquakes, but Yucca Mountain
is in one of the more active earthquake zones in the country. It has
been shaken repeatedly, even over the past year, by severe earthquake
jolts. And a nuclear waste site must be free of volcanic activity, but
scientific findings show that Yucca Mountain is subject to potential
eruptions deep within the earth that could cause a catastrophe of
unimaginable proportions.
I offer this damaging assessment of Yucca Mountain as a backdrop to
the many flaws identified with S. 1287. Bills like S. 1287 only exist
because they offer a political, not a scientific, approach to the
Nation nuclear waste problem.
S. 1287 is the latest ploy in a long line of actions that have been
taken to undermine the tough standards for a nuclear repository that
Congress established 18 years ago. S. 1287 constrains the Environmental
Protection Agency from implementing their final rule for radiation
standards, at the same time this bill opens up the door to making
radiation standards a political exercise in the hope that a new
administration would shift its policies away from strong radiation
standards towards more lax limits on radiation exposure.
S. 1287 also takes a dangerous and arbitrary position by mandating
that high-level nuclear waste would be shipped to Nevada beginning in
the year 2006, years before testing and construction at Yucca Mountain
could possibly be completed.
[[Page H1194]]
There is absolutely no logic to sending high-level nuclear wastes to
Nevada, the most dangerous substance known to mankind, to a place that
it is not safe to begin with and certainly would not be ready to safely
accept this toxic garbage.
It is an outrage that the Republican leadership is even considering
this legislation. Common sense should dictate that in the light of a
promised presidential veto and the ability for the Senate to sustain
that veto, that we waste not one more moment of our precious time with
this issue.
Let us focus our time and energy on fighting for prescription
medication for our seniors, a Patients' Bill of Rights, finding ways to
protect Social Security and Medicare, and other important issues
confronting this great Nation.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), a member of the Committee on
Commerce.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
pending legislation before the Congress. I am the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Power that has jurisdiction over this issue.
I have held numerous hearings on this issue. I have been in Nevada
several times on this issue. I have met with State officials, local
officials, and county officials in Nevada on this issue; I have met
with the Nevada delegation on this issue. And I want a solution to the
problem. I do not believe that there are any Members more committed to
a long-term solution to our nuclear waste disposal issue than I am.
Having said that, I think the Clinton administration has been
absolutely opposed to any reasonable approach to this for 8 years. It
appears they are going to succeed in stonewalling a solution in the
next year.
I think the world needs to know that since 1998, Federal law requires
that the Federal Government take title and take responsibility for the
nuclear waste that is in existence from our civilian reactors. The
Clinton administration has not done so. They are in violation of
Federal law. They are subject as we stand on the House floor to
billions of dollars of penalties.
Having said that, if we are going to pass legislation, I think what
we ought to do is solve the problem. I give Senator Murkowski all the
credit in the world in the Senate for trying to craft a political
compromise that might not be subject to a presidential veto. He tried
very hard. Unfortunately, he was not successful and in so trying to
reach that compromise, he watered down the bill so much that it solves
none of the major policy issues that need to be solved.
Let us go through those. Number one, we actually have to have the
funding to build the repository. We have put about $15 billion into the
nuclear waste fund since 1982. There is still in the neighborhood of
$10 billion in the fund. The House bill with the support of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the leadership on
our side, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and myself, we
solved it. We free up the nuclear waste fund to be used to build and
operate the nuclear waste depository. The Senate bill does nothing on
that, so you are not going to fund the program. You cannot build a
depository with $400 million a year. The Senate bill is fatally flawed
on that one issue alone.
What about interim storage? Again since 1998 we are in violation of
Federal law. The House bill does two things. It actually funds the
building of an interim storage facility that takes the waste beginning
in 2003. It also incorporates the Secretary of Energy's recommendation
on the take-title option in place. The Senate does neither of those. It
strips out the take-title option, and again it has no funding to build
an interim storage facility. It has something called early acceptance
in 2007 which again will never happen because the funding is not there.
So it fails on the interim storage front.
What about the radiation standard? The House again responsibly sets a
responsible radiation standard. We put the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in charge of that standard. The Environmental Protection
Agency has been sitting on their hands for 18 years claiming vaguely
some sort of jurisdiction but doing nothing about it. The House takes
the responsible position. The Senate tries but what they basically do
is prevent the EPA from issuing a standard for 18 months which punts
the issue into the next administration, so the Senate bill fails on
that.
What about the transportation issue that the gentlewoman from
Colorado spoke about? The House has a very responsible transportation
plan that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Towns) have worked on in past Congresses. The Senate
sets up a cumbersome mechanical process, requires 3 years of specific
training by the Federal Government in each State, which is I think
inviting endless litigation and appeals by the State governors. I would
have to say the Senate fails on that issue.
So if we look at it on policy issues alone, I do not believe one
independent, informed observer who has followed the issue for the past
15 years would say the Senate bill solves the problem. In fact, I would
say just the opposite. They would say the House has acted responsibly,
has a solution that would work. The Senate in trying to craft a
compromise that the President might accept had to so back away, in my
opinion, that the Senate bill even if the President were to sign the
bill, which he says he will not, does not solve the problem. So the
responsible policy vote in my opinion is a no vote on the Senate bill.
I want to commend the House leadership for trying to bring the issue
to the floor. I believe that they have tried to act in what they think
is the best interest of the House, but they have not put the best
policy option on the floor. We should reject this, bring up the House
bill, then try to go to conference with the Senate.
I reluctantly rise in opposition to S. 1287. I certainly agree with
bill supporters that our Nation needs a comprehensive nuclear waste
solution. But this legislation does not go far enough to address the
critical issues that would actually get spent nuclear fuel out of our
communities and where it needs to go, and in proper time.
Probably everyone who votes yes today would also vote in favor of
H.R. 45, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. In fact, the House bill
would receive even more support, likely constructing a bipartisan veto-
proof margin of more than 290 votes. On April 21 of last year, for
example, the House Commerce Committee passed H.R. 45 on a bipartisan
vote of 40 to 6. I thank Chairman Tom Bliley, Ranking Member John
Dingell, and my other committee colleagues for their work across both
sides of the aisle.
On February 10 of this year, the Senate passed this legislation, S.
1287, by a vote of 64 to 34. I applaud the Members of the other body,
particularly Senate Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, for
their efforts to get a strong vote. The Senate took a different
approach in its efforts to find a comprehensive solution, and came
close to a two-thirds vote, but the Senate vote at least makes clear
that a significant majority in Congress supports nuclear waste
legislation.
The current administration, however, flaunts the bipartisan will of
the Congress with a series of irresponsible veto threats and coalition-
breaking efforts. When the Commerce Committee passed H.R. 45 by that
overwhelming 40 to 6 vote, the administration chose not to work with
us--instead it said it would veto our bill. When the Senate neared the
magic 67 votes necessary to override, the only contributions from the
White House were a moving of the goalposts and, yes, more veto threats.
I applaud Speaker Hastert and the Republican leadership fro their
continued support of nuclear waste legislation. I understand the
constraints on time here and in the Senate that permit us to consider
only the Senate bill, without amendment. I do not question the intent
in scheduling this bill for floor consideration.
I only wish President Clinton and Energy Secretary Richardson offered
a genuine willingness to work with the Congress in a House-Senate
conference committee. Instead, this administration continues to
stonewall progress toward a real solution and even obstruct our own
efforts to find a compromise. Three times Federal courts have ruled
that the administration is violating Federal law by ignoring its legal
duty to begin acceptance of spent fuel in 1998. Despite these rulings,
over the past 8 years the administration has never once offered a
solution to the nuclear waste disposal problem. Instead, the
administration has focused its energies on obstructing reasonable
congressional solutions. Perhaps a real solution will have to wait for
a future administration.
[[Page H1195]]
When we face an administration so completely uncooperative, we should
not lower our sights and pursue the lesser bill. The House bill, H.R.
45, would provide for a safe and licensed interim storage facility
while the permanent site is completed and tested. H.R. 45 would move
the Nuclear Waste Fund off-budget, a crucial step to ensure funding for
the completion of the work at the depository. Our funding solution
ensures that the ratepayers, in return for the $15 billion they have
already paid to the Nuclear Waste Fund, get the repository that the
Federal Government promised to them. If we do not fix the funding
arrangement, the general taxpayers will eventually get stuck with the
costs of nuclear waste disposal. Even Secretary Richardson testified
that the permanent repository program faces a serious funding shortfall
in the coming fiscal years.
H.R. 45 provides a safe and efficient intermodal transportation to
the Yucca Mountain site, avoiding shipments through Las Vegas. H.R. 45
requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a radiation
protection standard, finally placing that rulemaking in the proper
hands. By requiring a cessation of lawsuits after performance by the
Department of Energy, H.R. 45 would instill incentives for utilities to
settle outstanding cases and get the waste on its way to the
repository. Finally, the schedules in H.R. 45 are realistic and
achievable in large part because it provides a secure source of
adequate funding for the entire program. By contract, the schedules in
the Senate bill (2007 for early acceptance, 2010 for the permanent
repository) will never happen without sufficient funding to meet those
deadlines.
Looking forward, this administration claims to support nuclear
energy, yet it refuses to take the number one step to regain the
nuclear power option. Much is said about our dependence upon foreign
oil, yet this administration continually tries to find new ways to use
the Clean Air Act and other laws to block domestic fossil fuel
development. If we solve the nuclear waste problem, we remove the major
impediment to constructing new nuclear power plants and at the same
time can provide the Nation with a zero-emission source of power.
While the debate on nuclear power's future is for another cay, our
current situation cannot be ignored. Spent nuclear fuel continues to
accumulate at reactor sites around the country, and the financial
liability against the Federal Government grows larger every day. But
let no one doubt the readiness of my Energy and Power Subcommittee, the
Commerce Committee, the House of Representatives, or the U.S. Congress
to address the nuclear waste issue responsibly and on a bipartisan
basis.
I promise all of my colleagues that I will return here to stand on
the floor in support of comprehensive nuclear waste legislation when we
can make good public law. Unfortunately, that will have to wait for a
day when we have the votes in both Chambers to override a Presidential
veto in both Houses, or better yet when we have a President who will
work in good faith with a bipartisan Congress to solve this vital
issue.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, first of all I want to recognize the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his efforts and the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for fighting very hard on an
important issue that is impacting not only their districts but the
districts throughout the Nation. I commend them for their effort in
bringing this awareness to a lot of us. All of us care about
legislation. We care about good legislation. This is not good
legislation. It should not be done just for the sake of creating
legislation and having a nuclear waste dump in Yucca Mountain. It
should be legislation that is positive, legislation that has taken in
every safeguard. It should have allowed the input. It did not allow the
input. We have many people that are going to be affected. This is a bad
bill, especially for my district and Members from Southern California.
This bill does not accurately address the serious issues of highly
radioactive nuclear waste being shipped to Nevada. Currently it is
estimated that transportation of spent fuel to Yucca Mountain will
involve over 100,000 shipments by trucks and trains.
{time} 1345
Can we imagine 100,000 shipment of roads and highways and rails
through at least 43 States over the next 30 years? Can we imagine if
there was a derailment in the area? I know that in California not too
long ago we had a derailment in that immediate area with an explosion
that affected many individuals. We recently had some of the trucking
industry that had a derailment in that area that had the trucks and
traffic that was delayed for some period of time.
Can we imagine how many people would be affected in that area without
a safety plan, without an emergency plan? It is important that we also
know that the Americans and individuals are informed as to what are the
safety precautions if, in fact, something was to happen.
Many individuals utilize our freeways and our highways. If, in fact,
they could not get to work, what alternate plans or routes would be
there? How would we be working with the communities in the area with
the fire chiefs, with the police department, with the emergency
response team, to notify them of this shipment?
We need to begin to address this issue. It is important for all of us
to make sure that we protect our children, we protect our communities
but that we do have good legislation that impacts us not to have
legislation for the sake of putting legislation before us.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, let me thank our ranking
member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for his leadership
on this issue.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act. This bill promotes bad environmental and health policy
and it does not allow the EPA to issue public health and safety
standards for waste storage in Yucca Valley.
In addition, it does not authorize the Department of Energy to build
interim storage facilities or take responsibility for utility waste
storage on-site. This process that we are using to consider this bill
is a perfect example, Madam Speaker, of how partisan politics have
degraded the legislative process. Rather than to bring the House
version of the bill to this body, we are considering a Senate measure
which does not even garner enough votes to override a veto.
Moreover, we are not being given the opportunity to offer amendments
that might bring about some level of bipartisan compromise on this
issue.
There are at least 8 amendments that have been offered as a means to
strengthen S. 1287. I am a cosponsor of one such amendment which
promotes fiscal responsibility. My amendment allows utilities to invest
the surcharge nuclear utilities pay to the Department of Energy.
Interest earned on this investment would be used to fund on-site
storage.
The Department of Energy's obligation to store the waste until a
permanent facility is completed is met, and taxpayers' money is saved.
My amendment further would create an incentive to speed up the
development of a permanent facility.
Madam Speaker, I am dismayed at the fact that my colleagues and I are
not able to present our amendments, which would bring about needed
reform in nuclear waste disposal. I urge then all of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to oppose this measure.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), my friend and a leader on this issue.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Upton) for yielding me the time.
Madam Speaker, I am not an expert on this issue but I do know a
little bit about it; and if we look back at history, this all started
back in the 1950s when the Federal Government made an agreement with
the utilities industry and said they will build these nuclear power
plants which we believe to be a peaceful way to use nuclear energy, we
will take responsibility for the spent fuel. That was the 1950s, and
that was the policy under which a lot of these plants were built.
I do not know why we are here, to be honest. We passed back in 1982 a
bill which said, yes, in fact, the Federal Government would take
possession of spent nuclear fuel beginning on January 31, 1998.
Why are we here? I think we have been clear all along, Federal policy
has been that the Federal Government
[[Page H1196]]
would take responsibility for spent nuclear fuel. In return for that,
ratepayers have paid over $13 billion in additional fees that were
supposed to go to help develop a nuclear spent fuel repository. That
money has been collected. Ratepayers in my region have paid over a
billion dollars, and yet we are still arguing here on the House Floor
whether or not the Federal Government is going to be responsible for
this spent fuel.
There is no question the Federal Government is responsible. We should
not have to even be here passing a bill.
Now some Members have said this bill is not perfect. I agree, but we
have to do something. This is the best chance we have.
Madam Speaker, I hope Members will join with me in supporting this
very important legislation. It is important not only to the ratepayers
but to people who use energy all over the United States.
We have an energy problem in the United States. Shutting down nuclear
power plants is not the answer.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Madam Speaker, we heard a remarkable speech from my good friend from
Texas, a man of remarkable courtesy and courage and decency, wherein he
addressed the problems that exist with regard to this bill. I want to
express again my affection and respect to my good friend, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who has handled the bill for the majority.
The simple fact of the matter is this is a bad bill. This is a bad
procedure. What we find ourselves confronting is a bill which will be
vetoed, a bill which does not have the chance of getting a veto-proof
majority. It does not address the problems which confront us with
regard to the handling of nuclear waste or what is required in the way
of good nuclear waste legislation, but substitutes a Senate bill which
everybody recognizes is inadequate.
Why we should pass a bill recognized as inadequate is beyond my ken,
particularly since it does not address the problems and since it
triggers opposition by many of us, like myself, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and other colleagues on the committee, who have
staunchly supported the resolution of this problem by the passage of
proper legislation.
We supported the bill so ably handled by my good friend, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), in which the process was led by
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
We supported the bill which passed the House last year. Why? Because
we thought that those two pieces of legislation were good bills; that
they took steps towards resolving a major national problem and did so
in a fair and a proper way.
This legislation does not resolve it. It does not deal with the
problem of short-term waste. It, in fact, probably delays the time when
utility waste and defense waste could be taken to Yucca Mountain. It
does not provide the utilities with the choice of interim storage in
Nevada. It does not restore the $11 billion paid by ratepayers to fund
the program. It does not ensure there will be enough money to pay for
the repository program. It does not expedite transportation of waste
from my colleagues' States or my State to Nevada. In fact, it creates a
situation which will probably tie up efforts to move waste to Yucca
Mountain in knots for years to come.
The interesting thing about this whole process is for some strange
reason the leadership on the other side came to the conclusion, and I
do not mean my colleagues on the committee but the leadership came to
the conclusion that they would put the Senate bill on the floor. There
was no consultation with the committee. There were no hearings on this.
This bill was held at the Speaker's table. The legislation, if it had
had hearings, would have become very plain.
It does not resolve the problems. We have not addressed any of the
real concerns that had triggered the enactment or rather the reporting
of the original House bill from the Committee on Commerce, in a
bipartisan exercise. The result here is that we are passing a bad bill,
under a gag rule, under a bad process, in a fashion which, very
frankly, assures we do not address a major national problem; and in
fact we are creating further problems, including further litigation and
the possibility of large losses to the taxpayers both in terms of the
corpus of the fund because of judgments and also because of huge
litigation costs that are going to arise.
Clearly, we need to address the problems of procedure and have a
procedure which is fair and sensible. Equally, it is clear that we need
to address the fact that the substance of this bill affords no relief
to the industry, does not resolve the problem and leaves us with a
future mess on our hands.
I urge my colleagues to reject the legislation, vote it down or
recommit it to the Committee on Commerce. Let us put a decent bill on
the floor and let us do it under a process which lets the House work
its will. I would have offered the Committee on Commerce's bill, which
was sponsored so ably by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Upton).
The Committee on Rules and the leadership denied us that right. Not
just to me but to all of us, to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, many of whom strongly desire to have a good piece of legislation
because we know that the resolution of this question or these questions
is in the national interest.
Regrettably, we are rejecting that opportunity to pass a piece of
legislation which will be vetoed by the President; and which I can
guarantee cannot muster the votes, either to see an override of that
veto in the House or in the Senate.
This is an exercise in futility; and it, quite frankly, is a shameful
waste of the time of this body.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the kind words from
my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and to close I
yield the balance of our time, 4 minutes, to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, the objections to this bill are, in fact,
process and schedule. The objections are that perhaps a better bill
could have been written and, in fact, the Committee on Commerce I think
has produced on occasion better language.
The objections to the bill are that we do not treat in this bill
short-term or temporary storage but it is the administration that is
opposed to us doing so. We are trying to get a bill passed, trying to
get it signed. We have been at this business for 15 years, and in the
course of the 15 years of debate high level nuclear waste is now stored
at 80 different sites in America in 40 different States.
That is in addition to the DOE waste that is now stored at DOE's
weapons facilities and, as a consequence, we have collected during this
15-year period nearly $16 billion from consumers, who we have promised
we would take care of this mess; and yet we have failed to keep our
commitments.
The Court of Appeals has ruled that DOE has an obligation to take
possession of nuclear waste in 1998, whether a repository is ready or
not. 1998 has come and gone and yet now we stand in that court that the
costs and the expenses of contractual damages could exceed $40 billion
to $80 billion. This is taxpayer and ratepayer expenses we ought to be
avoiding.
So what is our only solution? Our solution is to pass this bill, and
get it as quickly as we can into law.
It does not do everything, but it does a lot. It provides indeed the
backup of storage of spent nuclear fuel, for those who cannot build on-
site storage. It maintains the nuclear waste fee at the current level
until it is changed by Congress. It authorizes DOE to enter volunteer
settlements of the billions of dollars of liability that taxpayers now
face if we do nothing. It provides additional planning and safeguard.
It requires additional research into new technologies. What it does
not do is important. It does not take away EPA's authority to set
radiation release standards at Yucca Mountain. It does require a review
of EPA's proposed rules by experts at the National Accounting of
Science and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
It allows EPA and Congress to review their comments and it does not
authorize interim storage prior to authorization of permanent
repository authority at Yucca Mountain.
[[Page H1197]]
{time} 1400
It does not violate the Budget Act, and my understanding is that the
administration's objection to this bill makes no sense whatsoever.
Madam Speaker, it is time for us to settle this issue and to begin
the process of avoiding this overhanging liability to the American
taxpayers. Forty States, 80 different sites; it is time for us to
settle it.
I want to commend my friend from Michigan for bringing this bill
forward and for understanding the practical realities. Yes, we could
argue process; yes, we could argue schedule; yes, we could argue for 12
hours on this floor. The result would be the same. The issue would go
undetermined and unsettled.
It is time, schedule permitting, process permitting, for us to settle
it, and to begin to bring an end to this awful 15-year debate, an end
that provides for some permanent resolution of this issue, some
permanent repository for nuclear waste, so that American citizens can
avoid this overhanging problem of damages and so that we can
rationalize this system of protection and provision for ultimate
storage of these wastes.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to vote for
it. It is critical that we pass it on to final action by the Senate and
the White House.
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, while nuclear power has conferred a
considerable benefit upon power users in this country, today, we
confront the symptoms of a federal government run Constitutionally amok
which requires our serious attention. As a Congress, we are faced with
the decision of whether to further ignore the federal government's
constitutional limits and ultimately confront additional future
symptoms of such action or acknowledge the necessary consequences of
such an extra-Constitutional activity and act to correct the initial
``enumerated powers doctrine'' transgression.
In 1982, the federal government entered into an agreement with
nuclear power industry to take possession of their nuclear waste and
properly dispose of it in 1998. It should be noted that it is now March
2000 and the federal government has quite simply breached its contract.
More importantly, it should be noted that the federal government had no
authority to enter such an agreement in the first place. These facts,
of course, did nothing to prevent the federal government from
collecting from utility companies and their customers tax revenues for
placement in a trust fund to accomplish their illegitimate and
unfulfilled promise. Lack of constitutional authority also did nothing
to stop the federal government from squandering more than $6 billion of
that trust fund without having collected one gram of nuclear waste.
Today we are faced with yet another bill which provides mandates for
which neither constitutional authority exists nor for which there is
any reason to believe that such mandates will be observed by the
Department of Energy any more than the previously legislated mandates
have been observed. Additionally, this bill further expands the
authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and further
involves the EPA in the process which could only exponentially increase
the difficulty and time required to actually accomplish the
legislation's stated purpose.
These facts stated, we nevertheless remain faced with the current
status quo requiring a solution. The initial question which must
necessarily be asked and answered is ``whether one constitutionally
illegitimate action by the federal government may ever be used to
justify the second?'' The answer to this question must always be
answered in the negative. This does not mean, however, that those whose
taxes have been illegitimately taken should receive nothing in return--
quite the contrary. Numerous breach of contract lawsuits have been
filed against the federal government for which quick remedies must be
effectuated. Not only must the ill-taken revenues be returned to the
non-breaching parties but attorneys fees and damages imposed upon the
non-breaching parties should be awarded them as well. Perhaps, even
more should be done, however, as this ``contract'' can, in many ways,
be likened to the car thief who knowingly sells a stolen car to an
unsuspecting customer inasmuch as the federal government promised to
deliver something for which they themselves have usurped (stolen) from
the state authorities and, hence, had no legitimate right to offer.
Of course, returning the trust fund money including interest and
damages to ratepayers and utilities companies quite obviously does not
dispose of the hazardous waste. Waste disposal and public safety,
though, remains a power of the state governments under the tenth
amendment to the U.S. Constitution which specifies that ``The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the
people.'' The public safety and police power have long been held to be
state law matters and most appropriately so.
While citizens of those forty-nine states exclusive of Nevada may
believe that Nevada is a fine place to dispose of one's waste, one must
never concede the principle of states right guaranteed by the
Constitution or forget that, in so doing, the next choice of the
federal government may be to deposit equally dangerous or harmful
materials in the rangeland of Texas. To the extent any particular state
is unfit for such waste, the Constitution allows for interstate
compacts between states. Enlisting the aid of the federal government to
impose one's waste on citizens of another state while efficacious for
the ``dumper'' is thus neither prudent, Constitutional, nor
particularly pleasant for the ``dumpee.''
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 1287.
The bill poses a serious risk of contaminating our Nation's groundwater
with nuclear waste. It also would require the Department of Energy to
accept nuclear waste for permanent storage before a storage facility
was completed.
Nuclear waste storage policy needs to reflect science, not politics.
It must protect Americans health and the safety of their natural
resources. This bill does neither.
Under the bill, there would need to be 100,000 shipments of extremely
dangerous nuclear waste traveling the roads and highways of 43 States.
The threat to drinking water as a result of the use MTBE as a fuel
additive underscores the need to proceed carefully in storing nuclear
waste. We are learning that migration of chemicals in groundwater is
wider and easier than we previously thought. To hurry to store nuclear
waste at Yucca Mountain without fully understanding the risks of
groundwater contamination is foolish and dangerous.
Currently the standards for Yucca Mountain include no radiation
standards whatsoever for groundwater contamination. A recent article in
the journal Science concluded that plutonium dioxide, present in
nuclear waste, is water soluble. By rushing 77,000 tons of radioactive
waste to Yucca Mountain is to reduce the time available to conduct
research to assure that groundwater is protected.
It is regrettable that the Republican leadership has prevented
Members from offering amendments to correct the deficiencies of this
bill. Almost a year ago, the Commerce Committee reported a nuclear
waste bill with bipartisan support to the House. The Republican
leadership will not permit us to even consider that bill.
We need to resolve the problem of nuclear waste storage. But a bad
bill is no solution. The President has indicated that he will veto this
bill. He is right to do so. I will vote against this bill, and will
vote to uphold his veto.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 444, the Senate bill is considered read
for amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time and was read the
third time.
Motion to Commit
Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. BERKLEY. I am, Madam Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Berkley of Nevada moves to commit the Senate bill, S.
1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act, to the
Committee on Commerce, with instructions that the Committee
hold hearings on the bill.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order. I do not think
we have seen a copy of the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley)
will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, the intense debate today makes it clear
that the House should not act on this flawed legislation, but should
further consider it in committee.
A great many amendments have been drafted by Members of the House who
agree that S. 1287 is a dangerous and irresponsible approach to dealing
with our greatest environmental challenge, nuclear waste. But we are
operating under a closed rule, and no amendments were considered. In
view of this
[[Page H1198]]
rule, our only reasonable option is to commit this bill to the
Committee on Commerce so that all issues may be fully addressed.
Here are some of the issues that must be addressed before any
legislation can be passed by this body:
Improving the testing of nuclear shipping containers, which are the
only, only, line of defense against nuclear contamination on shipping
routes in 43 States.
Shipping routes that pass through cities and towns with a combined
population of over 50 million people.
Requiring consultation with State and local governments on public
safety issues prior to shipping.
Beefing up our emergency response capabilities to deal with radiation
releases caused by shipping accidents, including funding for emergency
response teams. With well over 100,000 rail and highway shipments
looming, the Department of Energy safety experts tell us accidents will
happen, it is a mathematical certainty; yet S. 1287 fails to address
this awful reality.
Prohibiting transportation in school zones.
Protecting EPA's authority to set radiation standards.
Requiring private carriers of nuclear waste to follow selected
routes, determined in advance.
Protecting the American taxpayer from the escalating costs of nuclear
waste.
Requiring advance notification to safety agencies and communities of
all nuclear waste shipments going through their States and cities and
towns.
Assuring compliance with State and local laws regarding
transportation and storage of radioactive materials.
Prohibiting storage of nuclear wastes in areas known to be plagued by
natural disasters.
Preventing negligence or misconduct by contractors who would handle
and ship nuclear wastes.
Madam Speaker, this list of amendments is by no means complete. Many
more have been suggested, and all of them should be considered. I know
of at least 24 amendments that Members would submit under an open rule.
Clearly our discussion today of S. 1287 is incomplete, as these
amendments cannot be debated under the closed rule. The wise course of
action is to commit, and I call for your support for this motion to
commit S. 1287 to the Committee on Commerce for further review and
study.
Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member from Michigan for his
outstanding leadership in this issue.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
Madam Speaker, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to
commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's request that
we hold hearings on the Senate bill. I might say, though, as a member
of the committee, we have had days and days and nights on this issue,
some would say 40 days and 40 nights, a lot of weeks over the last
couple of years, including debate, lengthy debate, on this House floor.
The problem is not hearings; the problem is the administration. The
administration has refused to negotiate in good faith on an issue of
terrific importance to the entire country on this issue.
Detractors, many of the detractors of this bill were against nuclear
power from the get-go. I have to say that I think I was still in grade
school when the decision was made, maybe even before that, to go with
nuclear power; and we are now 30 or 40 years later, and when the
decision was made, the Federal Government promised that it would take
care of the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste.
As the gentleman from Louisiana pointed out earlier, we have more
than 80 sites across this country that are storing now high-level
nuclear waste. A number of them, including some in my district, but
about a dozen sites around the country in fact ran out of room a long
time ago.
In my district we have cement silos literally a baseball throw away,
a Sammy Sosa relay throw, from Lake Michigan, where it is being stored,
probably for at least another decade. I do not want it there. I want it
in one safe place.
We transported that material to these sites around the country for
the last couple of decades. Not a single case of radioactivity was
released in those transfers. I believe that with the standards that we
impose, that we will in fact see that waste transported safely again
without a single release to one safe site.
I have been to the Nevada site. I have seen some of the $10 billion
of Federal money that was used to finally store this for thousands of
years, and I think it is going to be safe. The scientists are going to
decide that.
Our problem has been an administration that has refused to negotiate
with us. Yes, they have given us conditions they wanted. But do you
know what? This bill we are taking up this afternoon, many of those
conditions were met. We heard the other side talk about the interim
storage facilities, this does not have an interim storage facility.
Well, I can show you the letter signed by the President, not only this
year but last year and the year before that, he is going to veto the
bill if that provision is in there. The Senate leadership in good faith
negotiations said okay, we are going to have a new President next year,
one way or another. We will take that out if that gets you to sign the
bill.
Guess what? The veto signal still stayed on. In my State we have a
Republican Senator and we have a Democratic Senator. Both of them voted
for this bill that we are now debating today.
It is time to get a bill to the President's desk. That is all we are
asking. It is not perfect. Our bill, the House Commerce bill, yes, it
is better. It is better in a lot of respects. But in negotiations with
this administration the Senate felt they had to make some changes that
they thought that was the best, to hopefully get the administration on
board; and, at the end of the day, Lucy took the football away again,
and we are left with what we have got. We are left with the hand that
we are dealt.
Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote down this motion.
We have had a lot of hearings. We spent a lot of time on this issue for
the right reasons. It has been bipartisan virtually every which way. I
would hope that we could turn down this motion to commit and vote for
the bill.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 2
additional minutes be added to this motion to commit, and that those 2
minutes be granted to me.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object; this is a
rather unusual process.
Madam Speaker, I will not object, and I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I still have 1 minute remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan reserves his 1
minute.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, I was prepared to assist and help with
the passage of this bill, but I believe this bill is fatally flawed. I
support the motion to commit because it is bad enough, Madam Speaker,
that the district of the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) will
become a dump for nuclear waste, but this bill leaves our Nation wide
open for foreign nuclear waste.
The Traficant amendment should have been made in order to this bill.
Listen to what it said: ``No foreign nuclear waste shall be allowed in
the United States or be deposited in, on, or under American soil or
American water.'' This is big business. Big business will pay big money
to store this, and we will become the nuclear waste dump site of the
world. That is reasonable language.
Here is my position: I am going to ask that if this bill is passed
that the Traficant language be inserted in conference. That is a
reasonable protection that has so much common sense, we look like fools
if we leave it open for foreign nuclear waste to be brought in here.
[[Page H1199]]
So I am going to vote for the motion to commit; I am going to vote
against the bill.
Madam Speaker, I would appreciate Members doing something in the
conference to protect the American people and the people from the
district of the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) as well.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, in my remaining minute I would just again
urge my colleagues to support this bill. This bill will go to the
President's desk. It has bipartisan support in the Senate. It should
have bipartisan support today.
In the next administration I will work with the gentleman from Ohio
and other Republicans and Democrats to rightfully craft even a better
bill. This bill goes two steps in the right direction. I will be glad
to take it the remaining half step to get it to be a good bill
eventually with the President.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion to commit, and
vote yes on final passage.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188,
nays 233, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 62]
YEAS--188
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--233
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Ackerman
Boyd
Crane
Greenwood
Hill (IN)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lowey
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Pallone
Pomeroy
Royce
Rush
Schakowsky
{time} 1436
Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. GEJDENSON and Mr. RILEY changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay''.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253,
noes 167, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 63]
AYES--253
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
[[Page H1200]]
McHugh
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--167
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McGovern
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Talent
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--15
Ackerman
Boyd
Crane
Greenwood
Herger
Hill (IN)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lowey
McDermott
Pallone
Royce
Rush
Schakowsky
Shaw
Waters
{time} 1453
Mrs. MALONEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 63, I was on the floor and
voted ``yes''. The electronic machine did not record that I had voted.
____________________