[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  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was originally enacted on the 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.

                          ____________________