[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 161 (Tuesday, November 27, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8358-H8367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRICE-ANDERSON REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 2983) to extend indemnification authority under
section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and for other purposes,
as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
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 ``Price-Anderson
Reauthorization Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY.
(a) Indemnification of Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Licensees.--Section 170 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Licenses'' and
inserting ``Licensees''; and
(2) by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears
and inserting ``August 1, 2017''.
(b) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--
Section 170 d.(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2210(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``August 1,
2002'' and inserting ``August 1, 2017''.
(c) Indemnification of Nonprofit Educational
Institutions.--Section 170 k. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(k)) is amended by striking ``August 1,
2002'' each place it appears and inserting ``August 1,
2017''.
SEC. 3. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT.
Section 170 b.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2210(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the second proviso of the third sentence--
(A) by striking ``$63,000,000'' and inserting
``$94,000,000''; and
(B) by striking ``$10,000,000 in any 1 year'' and inserting
``$15,000,000 in any 1 year (subject to adjustment for
inflation under subsection t.)''; and
(2) in subsection t.--
(A) by inserting ``total and annual'' after ``amount of the
maximum'';
(B) by striking ``the date of the enactment of the Price-
Anderson Amendments Act of 1988'' and inserting ``July 1,
2001''; and
(C) by striking ``such date of enactment'' and inserting
``July 1, 2001''.
SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LIABILITY LIMIT.
(a) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--
Section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting
the following:
``(2) Indemnification agreements.--In an agreement of
indemnification entered into under paragraph (1), the
Secretary--
``(A) may require the contractor to provide and maintain
the financial protection of such a type and in such amounts
as the Secretary shall determine to be appropriate to cover
public liability arising out of or in connection with the
contractual activity; and
``(B) shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such
liability above the amount of the financial protection
required,
[[Page H8359]]
in the amount of $10,000,000,000 (subject to adjustment for
inflation under subsection t.), in the aggregate, for all
persons indemnified in connection with the contract and for
each nuclear incident, including such legal costs of the
contractor as are approved by the Secretary.''.
(b) Contract Amendments.--Section 170 d. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Contract amendments.--All agreements of
indemnification under which the Department of Energy (or its
predecessor agencies) may be required to indemnify any person
under this section shall be deemed to be amended, on the date
of enactment of the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of
2001, to reflect the amount of indemnity for public liability
and any applicable financial protection required of the
contractor under this subsection.''.
(c) Liability Limit.--Section 170 e.(1)(B) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the maximum amount of financial
protection required under subsection b. or''; and
(2) by striking ``paragraph (3) of subsection d., whichever
amount is more'' and inserting ``paragraph (2) of subsection
d.''.
SEC. 5. INCIDENTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Amount of Indemnification.--Section 170 d.(5) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(5)) is amended
by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
(b) Liability Limit.--Section 170 e.(4) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(4)) is amended by
striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
SEC. 6. REPORTS.
Section 170 p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(p)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and
inserting ``August 1, 2013''.
SEC. 7. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.
Section 170 t. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(t)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by adding after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust the amount of
indemnification provided under an agreement of
indemnification under subsection d. not less than once during
each 5-year period following July 1, 2001, in accordance with
the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index
since--
``(A) that date, in the case of the first adjustment under
this paragraph; or
``(B) the previous adjustment under this paragraph.''.
SEC. 8. PRICE-ANDERSON TREATMENT OF MODULAR REACTORS.
Section 170 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5)(A) For purposes of this section only, the Commission
shall consider a combination of facilities described in
subparagraph (B) to be a single facility having a rated
capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more.
``(B) A combination of facilities referred to in
subparagraph (A) is 2 or more facilities located at a single
site, each of which has a rated capacity of 100,000
electrical kilowatts or more but not more than 300,000
electrical kilowatts, with a combined rated capacity of not
more than 1,300,000 electrical kilowatts.''.
SEC. 9. APPLICABILITY.
The amendments made by sections 3, 4, and 5 do not apply to
a nuclear incident that occurs before the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON ASSUMPTION BY UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT OF LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN FOREIGN
ACCIDENTS.
Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``u. Prohibition on Assumption of Liability for Certain
Foreign Accidents.--Notwithstanding this section or any other
provision of law, no officer of the United States or of any
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
Government may enter into any contract or other arrangement,
or into any amendment or modification of a contract or other
arrangement, the purpose or effect of which would be to
directly or indirectly impose liability on the United States
Government, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of
the United States Government, or to otherwise directly or
indirectly require an indemnity by the United States
Government, for nuclear accidents occurring in connection
with the design, construction, or operation of a production
facility or utilization facility in any country whose
government has been identified by the Secretary of State as
engaged in state sponsorship of terrorist activities
(specifically including any country the government of which,
as of September 11, 2001, had been determined by the
Secretary of State under section 620A(a) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, section 6(j)(1) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, or section 40(d) of the Arms
Export Control Act to have repeatedly provided support for
acts of international terrorism).''.
SEC. 11. SECURE TRANSFER OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS.
(a) Amendment.--Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2201-2210b) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 170C. Secure Transfer of Nuclear Materials.--
``a. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall establish a
system to ensure that, with respect to activities by any
party pursuant to a license issued under this Act--
``(1) materials described in subsection b., when
transferred or received in the United States--
``(A) from a facility licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission;
``(B) from a facility licensed by an agreement State; or
``(C) from a country with whom the United States has an
agreement for cooperation under section 123,
are accompanied by a manifest describing the type and amount
of materials being transferred;
``(2) each individual transferring or accompanying the
transfer of such materials has been subject to a security
background check by appropriate Federal entities; and
``(3) such materials are not transferred to or received at
a destination other than a facility licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission or an agreement State under this Act or
other appropriate Federal facility, or a destination outside
the United States in a country with whom the United States
has an agreement for cooperation under section 123.
``b. Except as otherwise provided by the Commission by
regulation, the materials referred to in subsection a. are
byproduct materials, source materials, special nuclear
materials, high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel,
transuranic waste, and low-level radioactive waste (as
defined in section 2(16) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(16))).''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and from time to time thereafter
as it considers necessary, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
shall issue regulations identifying radioactive materials
that, consistent with the protection of public health and
safety and the common defense and security, are appropriate
exceptions to the requirements of section 170C of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as added by subsection (a) of this
section.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect upon the issuance of regulations under
subsection (b).
(d) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this section or the
amendment made by this section shall waive, modify, or affect
the application of chapter 51 of title 49, United States
Code, part A of subtitle V of title 49, United States Code,
part B of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, and
title 23, United States Code.
(e) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 170C. Secure transfer of nuclear materials.''.
SEC. 12. NUCLEAR FACILITY THREATS.
(a) Study.--The President, in consultation with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and other appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies and private entities, shall conduct a
study to identify the types of threats that pose an
appreciable risk to the security of the various classes of
facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Such study shall take
into account, but not be limited to--
(1) the events of September 11, 2001;
(2) an assessment of physical, cyber, biochemical, and
other terrorist threats;
(3) the potential for attack on facilities by multiple
coordinated teams of a large number of individuals;
(4) the potential for assistance in an attack from several
persons employed at the facility;
(5) the potential for suicide attacks;
(6) the potential for water-based and air-based threats;
(7) the potential use of explosive devices of considerable
size and other modern weaponry;
(8) the potential for attacks by persons with a
sophisticated knowledge of facility operations;
(9) the potential for fires, especially fires of long
duration; and
(10) the potential for attacks on spent fuel shipments by
multiple coordinated teams of a large number of individuals.
(b) Summary and Classification Report.--Not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
President shall transmit to the Congress and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission a report--
(1) summarizing the types of threats identified under
subsection (a); and
(2) classifying each type of threat identified under
subsection (a), in accordance with existing laws and
regulations, as either--
(A) involving attacks and destructive acts, including
sabotage, directed against the facility by an enemy of the
United States, whether a foreign government or other person,
or otherwise falling under the responsibilities of the
Federal Government; or
(B) involving the type of risks that Nuclear Regulatory
Commission licensees should be responsible for guarding
against.
(c) Federal Action Report.--Not later than 90 days after
the date on which a report is transmitted under subsection
(b), the President shall transmit to the Congress a report on
actions taken, or to be taken, to address the types of
threats identified under
[[Page H8360]]
subsection (b)(2)(A). Such report may include a classified
annex as appropriate.
(d) Regulations.--Not later than 270 days after the date on
which a report is transmitted under subsection (b), the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall issue regulations,
including changes to the design basis threat, to ensure that
licensees address the threats identified under subsection
(b)(2)(B).
(e) Physical Security Program.--The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission shall establish an operational safeguards response
evaluation program that ensures that the physical protection
capability and operational safeguards response for sensitive
nuclear facilities, as determined by the Commission
consistent with the protection of public health and the
common defense and security, shall be tested periodically
through Commission approved or designed, observed, and
evaluated force-on-force exercises to determine whether the
ability to defeat the design basis threat is being
maintained. For purposes of this subsection, the term
``sensitive nuclear facilities'' includes at a minimum
commercial nuclear power plants, including associated spent
fuel storage facilities, spent fuel storage pools and dry
cask storage at closed reactors, independent spent fuel
storage facilities and geologic repository operations areas,
category I fuel cycle facilities, and gaseous diffusion
plants.
(f) Control of Information.--In carrying out this section,
the President and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall
control the dissemination of restricted data, safeguards
information, and other classified national security
information in a manner so as to ensure the common defense
and security, consistent with chapter 12 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954.
SEC. 13. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY RULES FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
NUCLEAR FACILITIES.
Section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(8)(A) It shall be a condition of any agreement of
indemnification entered into under this subsection that the
indemnified party comply with regulations issued under this
paragraph.
``(B) Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall issue
industrial health and safety regulations that shall apply to
all Department of Energy contractors and subcontractors who
are covered under agreements entered into under this
subsection for operations at Department of Energy nuclear
facilities. Such regulations shall provide a level of
protection of worker health and safety that is substantially
equivalent to or identical to that provided by the industrial
and construction safety regulations of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR 1910 and 1926), and
shall establish civil penalties for violation thereof that
are substantially equivalent to or identical to the civil
penalties applicable to violations of the industrial and
construction safety regulations of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration. The Secretary shall amend
regulations under this subparagraph as necessary.
``(C) Not later than 240 days after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, all agreements described in
subparagraph (B), and all contracts and subcontracts for the
indemnified contractors and subcontractors, shall be modified
to incorporate the requirements of the regulations issued
under subparagraph (B). Such modifications shall require
compliance with the requirements of the regulations not later
than 1 year after the issuance of the regulations.
``(D) Enforcement of regulations issued under subparagraph
(B), and inspections required in the course thereof, shall be
conducted by the Office of Enforcement of the Office of
Environment, Safety, and Health of the Department of Energy.
The Secretary shall transmit to the Congress an annual report
on the implementation of this subparagraph.
``(E) This paragraph shall not apply to facilities and
activities covered under section 3216 of the National Nuclear
Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2406).''.
SEC. 14. UNREASONABLE RISK CONSULTATION.
Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``v. Unreasonable Risk Consultation.--Before entering into
an agreement of indemnification under this section with
respect to a utilization facility, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission shall consult with the Assistant to the President
for Homeland Security (or any successor official) concerning
whether the location of the proposed facility and the design
of that type of facility ensure that the facility provides
for adequate protection of public health and safety if
subject to a terrorist attack.''.
SEC. 15. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) Amendment.--Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``w. Financial Accountability.--(1) Notwithstanding
subsection d., the Attorney General may bring an action in
the appropriate United States district court to recover from
a contractor of the Secretary (or subcontractor or supplier
of such contractor) amounts paid by the Federal Government
under an agreement of indemnification under subsection d. for
public liability resulting from conduct which constitutes
intentional misconduct of any corporate officer, manager, or
superintendent of such contractor (or subcontractor or
supplier of such contractor).
``(2) The Attorney General may recover under paragraph (1)
an amount not to exceed the amount of the profit derived by
the defendant from the contract.
``(3) No amount recovered from any contractor (or
subcontractor or supplier of such contractor) under paragraph
(1) may be reimbursed directly or indirectly by the
Department of Energy.
``(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any nonprofit entity
conducting activities under contract for the Secretary.
``(5) No waiver of a defense required under this section
shall prevent a defendant from asserting such defense in an
action brought under this subsection.
``(6) The Secretary shall, by rule, define the terms
`profit' and `nonprofit entity' for purposes of this
subsection. Such rulemaking shall be completed not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall not apply to any agreement of indemnification entered
into under section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) before the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 16. CIVIL PENALTIES.
(a) Repeal of Automatic Remission.--Section 234A b. (2) of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(b)(2)) is
amended by striking the last sentence.
(b) Limitation for Nonprofit Institutions.--Subsection d.
of section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2282a(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``d. Notwithstanding subsection a., a civil penalty for a
violation under subsection a. shall not exceed the amount of
any discretionary fee paid under the contract under which
such violation occurs for any nonprofit contractor,
subcontractor, or supplier--
``(1) described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a)
of such Code; or
``(2) identified by the Secretary by rule as appropriate to
be treated the same under this subsection as an entity
described in paragraph (1), consistent with the purposes of
this section.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall not apply to any violation of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 occurring under a contract entered into before the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Rulemaking.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
issue a rule for the implementation of the amendment made by
subsection (b).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
General Leave
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2983, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor the Price-Anderson
Reauthorization Act of 2001, H.R. 2983. After several months of hard
work, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has produced a bipartisan
bill that ensures swift compensation to the public in the unlikely
event of a nuclear accident and encourages the future development of
nuclear power.
Nuclear power currently provides over 20 percent of the Nation's
electricity. This bill paves the way for the development of a new
generation of smaller, safer and more affordable nuclear power
reactors. The bill also extends indemnification to the Department of
Energy contractors engaged in important nuclear work at several sites
across the country, including nuclear weapons research and nuclear
waste cleanup. Without reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, we
could risk losing some of the best contractors that the Department of
Energy relies upon.
In addition to reauthorizing these important programs, H.R. 2983 also
dramatically improves security at our Nation's nuclear power plants in
response to the widespread concerns over terrorist threats.
I would like to give special commendation to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his focus on this part of the bill.
To ensure that radioactive materials are transported securely, the
bill would
[[Page H8361]]
also require, for the first time, background checks on all individuals
involved in the transfer of dangerous nuclear radioactive materials
licensed by the NRC and require manifests to accompany the transfer and
receipt of radioactive materials that could pose a terrorist threat.
To enhance physical security at nuclear power plants, the bill would
require the President to conduct a comprehensive threat assessment for
existing nuclear plant security at existing nuclear power plants.
{time} 1530
The President must report to Congress on what actions the Federal
Government will take to address these threats from, and I quote from
the bill, ``enemies of the United States,'' including foreign
governments. In consultation with the President, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission must also revise its design basis threat regulations to
ensure that nuclear power plants are adequately protected.
Finally, the bill would require that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission periodically evaluate security at nuclear power plants
through what are called force-on-force exercises, in cooperation with
the industry.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank a number of Members
without whom we would simply not be here on the floor this afternoon.
First and foremost is the principal sponsor of the bill, the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who will speak later on in
this debate. She has played a critical role, not only in committee, but
also in working out the differences with other committees of
jurisdiction. I would also like to thank the ranking member of the full
committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is on the
floor and will speak later; the ranking member of the subcommittee that
I share jurisdiction with, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher),
whom I do not see on the floor, but perhaps he will be later. I would
also like to thank our full committee chairman, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who is not here at the moment, but who has been
a vital part of the negotiations.
I would also like to commend other committee chairmen for their
cooperation in resolving some very difficult technical disputes and
jurisdictional issues as we brought this bill to the floor; and they
are the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young),
the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the
chairman of the Committee on Science, who have all played a vital role
in this legislation coming to the floor as expeditiously as it has.
Madam Speaker, the extensive public protections provided by the
Price-Anderson Act work. I am pleased to present a reauthorization bill
that extends and improves on those protections. This legislation is by
no means a perfect bill; but it is a very, very good piece of work. We
will, of course, review the suggestions of the administration, and we
will work with the other body as they move their bill in, hopefully, a
similarly bipartisan fashion.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the passage of this legislation, especially
using the suspension process, which eliminates all ability for any
Members to amend this deficient piece of legislation.
I would like to begin first by saying that while I oppose the
legislation, I am beholden to the chairmen of the committee and the
subcommittee for the courteous way in which they treated the minority
and the respectful way in which we have handled, on a bipartisan basis,
the antiterrorist components of this legislation, which has received
unanimous support on both sides. However, I would like to note that the
overarching bill is something that still resists any logical analysis
in terms of why Congress should be subsidizing a private sector
industry.
The nuclear power industry was really born about 45 or 50 years ago,
and we were all told as a people, watching the Mickey Mouse Club, that
this was going to be a wonderful new industry, that it was going to
harness our friend, the atom. It was going to be safe, it was going to
be efficient, it was going to be cheap. But, they said, maybe not that
safe, because we cannot find any insurance company that will give us
any insurance, because they think we are a very dangerous industry. So
they came to Congress as an industry with their hat in hand asking us
if we would provide for a 10-year period, while the industry was in its
infancy, insurance protection so that there was a limited liability in
the event that there was a serious accident at a nuclear power plant.
That was supposed to end in 1967.
Well, here we are in the year 2001, and we are being asked, once
again, to extend this protection, this government subsidy of the
insurance that the industry, the nuclear industry must obtain. Now,
that, even at the same time that we are being told that a new
generation of plants are coming on line, pebble bed reactors, that are
going to be so safe that we will never have to worry about accidents.
So I had an amendment which I requested be put in order out here
which would be that before any one of these companies could avail
themselves of this Price-Anderson protection, that they had to first
have gone to an insurance company and tried to obtain insurance for
what they say is a very safe industry, so that we can end the
government subsidy. But what we are being told is that, no, that would
ruin the industry, that one must be an anti-nuclear zealot if one
believes that an industry should go to the private sector and ask if
they can obtain insurance so that the Federal taxpayer does not have to
pick up the tab.
Now, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave as he watches a Republican-
controlled Congress extend congressional taxpayer subsidies to this
industry.
Madam Speaker, when we were all teenagers all getting our licenses
for the first time, there was always one kid in our neighborhood who
always got into accidents, time after time, three accidents, five
accidents, 10 accidents; and then that kid, and we all know his name in
our own neighborhood, he lost his insurance and he went into the
assigned-risk pool, and his insurance rate was very high; but he could
keep his license. Only as his behavior improved could he potentially
work his way out of that pool.
What we have done here historically is we have created a one-
industry, assigned-risk pool. We have assumed that the nuclear industry
is so risky it cannot get insurance in the private sector. Today, even
though we are being told that this industry is safer than ever and the
new generation of pebble bed reactors will never have an accident, we
are told that even that new generation, the baby nukes, are still going
to have to live with the crimes, the sins, of their father. It is a
foreshadowing of history, that they too will be too risky. I think that
is terrible, this cycle of dependency that these baby nukes are now
trapped in, that they cannot go out into the private sector, that they
cannot try to obtain insurance, that they are not going to be requested
to do so. I think it is wrong for an industry to tell every subsequent
generation of power plants that they are going to be subsidized by the
Federal Government.
So I oppose Price-Anderson. I think it is unfair to this next
generation of nuclear power plants to be trapped in this cycle of
dependency, and I hope that today we are able to defeat this measure.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who has worked
very hard on this issue, and others, to get energy legislation through
this Congress, and also the chairman and the ranking member of the full
Committee on Commerce, who have reached what I think is a good,
bipartisan reauthorization of this bill, as well as the subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
Price-Anderson is something that is not exactly a common household
word in America; and I think it is important, particularly given the
remarks of
[[Page H8362]]
my colleague from Massachusetts, to explain what this does and how this
works.
About 44 years ago they set up a system that goes like this: every
nuclear power plant in the country has to buy, must buy the maximum
amount of commercially available insurance they can get; and right now,
that is about $200 million worth of insurance. In addition to that, the
law requires that they have a mutual insurance pool where for every
reactor, every company has to put in $88 million into that pool, which
means the industry itself is insuring itself up to the maximum amount
that is available on the commercial market and then ensuring each other
up to $9.5 billion in lawsuits. Then, the law says that the Congress
would be responsible for anything beyond that.
There is absolutely no subsidy. In fact, in 44 years, taxpayers have
not spent one dime in insuring this industry, because there have not
been the losses and the safety record has been very good.
The reality is it works. Over the last 44 years, there have been 206
claims against the nuclear industry, and compensation, total
compensation of $191 million, all of which has been covered by the
commercial insurance that is required to be purchased by nuclear power
companies.
What this really means, though, is that a company can build a
reactor. They can go to the capital markets and be assured that they
are going to be able to get the capital to build the next generation of
nuclear power. Twenty percent of our electricity in this country comes
from nuclear energy. We need a balanced, long-term plan for energy in
this country; and it must include nuclear energy.
Madam Speaker, this bill reauthorizes a very successful piece of
legislation which is now being looked at as a model for what we should
do for terrorism insurance, so that our Main Street companies can get
the capital they need to operate their companies, build jobs, and
survive. I think the amendments that are in this bill, in the
reauthorization bill are good ones. I have been working with the
Committee on Armed Services and will continue to work with the Naval
Nuclear Reactor Program to make sure that none of these changes
adversely impacts or reduces the excellent safety record of our Naval
Nuclear Reactor Program.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2983. I thank
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my good friend, for
yielding me this time. I also commend him for his work on the Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. I commend the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his labors in that regard, and
also the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin), my good friend. The bill was reported from the committee
by a voice vote, and in a strong bipartisan vote besides.
The bill makes important improvements in current law, particularly
with respect to the Department of Energy contractors. These contractors
perform important and often hazardous work for the country in the areas
of research, management of nuclear ponds materials, and environmental
cleanup.
Since its enactment in 1957, the Price-Anderson Act has provided for
full indemnification of these contractors, some of whom originally
worked for $1 a year. This has meant that the taxpayers are obligated
to reimburse contractors working for the Department of Energy and its
predecessors for any and all liability to the public in connection with
any nuclear accident. This complete insulation from liability is unique
in Federal contracting law and suspends one of our legal system's most
useful incentives for proper conduct by businesses, and that is the
knowledge that they can be held accountable for their misconduct if it
results in injury to others.
While Price-Anderson's total indemnification policy may have been
appropriate when it was enacted over 40 years ago, it is no longer
necessary and no longer warranted. I do commend very much the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the committee, for working
with me on a compromise that holds for-profit contractors accountable
for harm caused by their intentional misconduct and that of their
corporate officials. With respect to nonprofit contractors, such as
universities who run our national laboratories, the compromise subjects
those entities to civil penalties for violation of DOE nuclear safety
regulations. I feel these provisions should have been more stringent;
but they are, nonetheless, significant and valuable reforms. Again, I
wish to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of
the subcommittee; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the
ranking member; and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their
work in fashioning this compromise.
I believe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) should be
congratulated for the important reforms he brought to the committee's
attention, which were adopted after a useful, bipartisan effort by all
of the members of the committee. As my colleagues know, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is a tireless advocate, both for his
communities and for others in which DOE nuclear facilities are located.
His amendment ends the Department's exemption from OSHA worker-safety
requirements, something badly needed and much overdue, and directs the
Department to adopt equivalent safety regulations. This amendment was
included in the bill only by his dogged determination and great effort.
I do want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey), who worked with the chairman and me to address matters of
nuclear security that have become more important in light of the events
of September 11.
{time} 1545
That amendment, sponsored by the three of us, the Markey-Tauzin-
Dingell amendment, requires the President to define those types of
threats that could be rightly handled by our Armed Forces, such as
attacks by hostile aircraft, and to develop a plan for addressing these
threats.
For these threats that do not fall into this initial category, the
bill requires NRC to revise its design basis threat to ensure that the
operators of nuclear facilities, including decommissioned reactors, are
providing adequate protection to the public.
The legislation, in a second fashion, requires NRC to establish and
oversee a rigorous program of force-on-force exercises to ensure that
each nuclear facility will be able to respond adequately to any
terrorist threat.
Third, the Markey-Tauzin-Dingell amendment directs NRC to use its
long-held authority over the movement of radioactive materials to
establish a cradle-to-grave system for tracking movements of these
materials that could pose a threat to the public health, to the public
safety, or to the common defense if they fall in the wrong hands.
The language instructs the NRC to ensure that all those involved in
the movement of these materials have been subject to a timely
background check by appropriate Federal entities such as the FBI.
Fourth, the amendment requires NRC within 1 year of enactment to
issue a rule exempting from the new manifest and background check
requirements shipments of these materials, particularly
radiopharmaceuticals that do not pose a threat to the public health,
safety, or well-being.
This is a good proposal, and the amendment does great good. It is a
meaningful bipartisan compromise that represents not only a great step
forward in protection of our nuclear facilities and more secure
movement of our nuclear materials, but manifests real bipartisan
cooperation.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It should be passed. It is
far better than existing law.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I wish to engage the
gentleman from Texas in a colloquy.
[[Page H8363]]
Madam Speaker, section 16 contains two provisions of concern to the
Committee on Science regarding the management of Department of Energy
labs by certain contractors.
Madam Speaker, the Battelle Memorial Institute manages several DOE
facilities and was explicitly named in the 1988 Price-Anderson
legislation as an entity exempt from civil penalties. In section 16(b)
of H.R. 983, the Committee on Science notes that the exemption for
such-named entities is eliminated. However, the current amendments
limit civil penalties to be paid by nonprofit institutions to the
discretionary fee.
Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) provide assurances that
the legislative intent of section 16(b) is to include institutions such
as Battelle Memorial Institute and that he expects the Secretary of
Energy to include Battelle in the Secretary's rulemaking under section
16(b)?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman, and
the committee agrees with what the gentleman just said.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have
one more question for the distinguished chairman.
Under section 16(b), H.R. 2983 limits civil penalties to be paid by
such contractors to no more than the amount of the discretionary fee.
Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) agree that the
appropriate definition for ``discretionary fee'' is contained in the
committee report on H.R. 2983, which specifies that the discretionary
fee refers to that portion of the contract fee which is paid based on
the contractor's performance?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, I agree, on behalf of the committee. We agree with the
gentleman's assessment.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas. I look forward to working with him on this matter and on other
important issues in the future.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
(Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson
Reauthorization Act.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the ranking members, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Boucher), as well as other sponsors of this legislation; and also
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), especially for her work
in bringing this legislation to the floor. I appreciate that. This is
an important piece of work, and she has done great service.
I also would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their hard
work to amend the bill and strengthen the safety of our nuclear
industry and increase the accountability of our Department of Defense
contractors.
Although this legislation does not come to the floor without some
controversy, I think it represents a good bipartisan effort to move
important legislation forward.
The Price-Anderson Act establishes a method to provide for timely
compensation to citizens who are injured in the event of a nuclear
incident or accident at a nuclear reactor or at a DOE facility where
nuclear activities are performed.
It is our hope that such an accident will never happen, but I would
not want injured citizens to be denied compensation should such an
unfortunate accident occur. This legislation provides assurances that
the public will be compensated appropriately.
I am particularly pleased that an amendment that I offered in the
Committee on Energy and Commerce is included in this legislation.
Again, I would like to express my thanks to the chairman and to the
ranking member for their support of this provision.
My amendment orders DOE to issue industrial and construction health
and safety rules that are as protective as OSHA rules already in place
at private industrial and construction sites. DOE's Office of
Environment, Safety, and Health will enforce these safety standards by
issuing fines and penalties for any violations, just as it currently
does for nuclear safety.
Section 13 of this bill strives to create industrial and construction
safety rules which are substantially equivalent or identical to those
regulations enforced by OSHA. In my opinion, there is no reason that
the enforcement of industrial safety standards at our DOE facilities
should differ from the enforcement of standards at commercial sites. I
thank those who worked on this bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Rockwall, Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking
member of the Committee on Science and a former distinguished ranking
member of the subcommittee that I chair, and one of the most
distinguished Members of this body.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Madam Speaker, I of course rise in support of H.R. 2983. I rise as
one who represents the oil patch in Texas. Yet, I recognize the need
for nuclear energy as a supplemental source.
I also recognize the fact that energy is such that nations have to go
to war for it. We sent Japan hurtling into war 50 years ago. We sent
450,000 kids to the desert 6 years ago. That was for energy. We have to
solve our energy problems.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), the ranking member, and those that the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton) thanked. I want to thank the very capable gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for the work that he has done.
I have sat by him for 21 years. While he never saw a nuclear plant he
liked, he has never seen an issue that he could not debate, and do it
masterfully; and he is a gentleman.
I serve on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Science. As the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, I
also want to thank the Committee on Science members, the gentleman from
New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Energy, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), and the ranking
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Madam Speaker, the Committee on Science has asked for and was granted
referral of the bill. However, we were able to find a solution to the
problem without having to go to the mark-up.
It certainly is my intent that all laboratory contractors have
coverage; and I believe we have found a way to ensure that coverage
will apply to this exceptional situation.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2983. This
legislation is nothing more than a giant government subsidy to keep the
nuclear industry afloat.
Opposition to Price-Anderson runs the political gamut. Environmental
groups like Public Citizen oppose Price-Anderson because it hurts our
environment. Rather than investing resources in renewable energy, this
bill would further our reliance on nuclear energy, thus exacerbating
our problems with nuclear waste.
On the right, even the conservative Cato Institute states that if
nuclear power is a better investment than gas or coal-fired power, then
no amount of government help is necessary. If it is not, then no amount
of government help will make it so.
This legislation mandates that it is the American taxpayer who will
pay the financial costs of cleaning up a nuclear accident. It has been
estimated that a worst-case scenario accident could cost more than $300
billion to clean up. The total insurance coverage provided under this
act is $9.4 billion. It is the American taxpayer who will make up the
difference.
Madam Speaker, both Liberals and Conservatives oppose Price-Anderson
because it
[[Page H8364]]
artificially supports an industry that is not trusted by the American
public, and not supported by the American investor. Nuclear energy is
dangerous, and it is this danger that prevents investors from being
interested in nuclear power.
Price-Anderson not only subsidizes the production of nuclear energy,
it also subsidizes the production of nuclear waste. Although the
nuclear industry has lobbied for years to dump its garbage at Yucca
Mountain, located just outside my rapidly-growing hometown of Las
Vegas, it is not a safe place to permanently store nuclear waste. The
geology of Yucca Mountain is unsound. Nuclear waste risks contaminating
the ground water throughout southern Nevada and California.
Even if this administration is successful in its efforts to ram a
nuclear dump down our throats, it will take more than 50 years before
77,000 tons of nuclear waste is moved from its current locations across
the United States and relocated to Yucca Mountain.
At the same time, Price-Anderson subsidies keep the nuclear industry
afloat, creating more and more waste, so even as the waste is shipped,
more waste is being created and stored at the reactors. Any central
repository represents only a temporary solution. Waste will continue to
be stored at taxpayer-subsidized reactors, posing both security and
environmental hazards.
I have heard representatives of the nuclear interests argue that the
events of September 11 emphasize the need for a central repository.
This is not just an erroneous statement, but the most blatant political
misuse of those tragic events. A central repository would do nothing to
diminish the threat at active reactor sites and would offer only one
more attractive target. When we include each individual nuclear waste
transport, there would be thousands more inviting targets for potential
terrorist attacks.
Madam Speaker, I oppose the reauthorization of Price-Anderson because
it makes our country a more dangerous place to live. Nuclear energy
cannot survive on its own, and I think it is nothing short of highway
robbery that we ask the American taxpayer to subsidize a product that
endangers their very health and safety.
Nuclear energy creates Nuclear waste. There is no way of getting
around that. Long term options for disposing of nuclear waste, such as
transmutation, are emerging, but they have not yet been fully
developed. I would urge my colleagues to support research into the
decontamination, and safe disposal, of nuclear waste, so we can solve
this problem, once and for all. But in the meantime, I urge all my
colleagues to oppose this measure until the nation finds a safe,
realistic, and economically feasible method of dealing with nuclear
waste.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support research on
decontamination and safe disposal. I urge all of my colleagues to
oppose this measure until the Nation finds a safe, realistic, and
economically feasible method for dealing with nuclear waste.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in yielding me time to speak on this issue.
I appreciate the hard work of this committee, but I rise in
opposition to the bill.
First and foremost, it has no business on the suspension calendar. It
is not a simple, noncontroversial bill, and members of this assembly
should be given an opportunity to fully express their concerns and
fully debate the reauthorization.
Madam Speaker, it is not about changing rules for existing plans,
although many argue that the Price-Anderson Act has long been an
unwarranted subsidy enjoyed by the nuclear industry.
The question is, where are we going to go from here? The gentlewoman
from New Mexico was correct, there is a little bit of coverage. Two
hundred million dollars sounds like a lot, and $88 million in addition
to the pool, but look at what happened in the World Trade Center: just
the collapse of an office tower, and we see tens of billions of dollars
that are being brought forward, rocking the potential for the insurance
industry.
There is big money that is going to be involved if we have a serious
nuclear accident; and I think it is very easy to document by any
impartial group that it will go far beyond $200 million, far beyond
$288 million, and will stretch, in a realistic form, to something that
deals with $9.5 billion, as she talks about.
I live in the Pacific Northwest. We are going to spend maybe $100
billion and not do an adequate job cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear
Plant, and that is something that has not been subjected to a meltdown.
If smaller, safer plants make sense, so be it. Allow the smaller,
safer plants to go forward like any other industry would, and be able
to cover their own liability. If they make sense, the private sector
will provide coverage.
I would strongly suggest that if we have to continue subsidizing the
production of energy, that this body can find far more productive,
safer, economically viable alternatives in terms of renewable energy.
If we are going to throw hundreds of billions of dollars, let us do
something that is going to stabilize our energy future, something that
has been long ignored, rather than taking a path for an industry that,
after 50 years, should be mature enough to stand on its own legs with
this new generation.
{time} 1600
I strongly urge a no vote. We need to deal with Price-Anderson in a
broader context. It ought not to be on the suspension calendar. This
assembly needs to look at alternative ways of subsidizing energy
production. I would suggest continuing a subsidy for the nuclear power
energy is not the alternative to follow.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire from the Chair how much time
is remaining on either side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) has 9\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself that remaining 1 minute.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman from
Massachusetts yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts
cannot say hello in 1 minute. I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I will use some of that time to praise the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the process that he put in place
for us to, on the one hand, pass a particularly odious piece of
legislation which I historically have opposed but at the same time
sweetening it with a provision that will deal with a palpable threat to
our society, which is that the terrorist organizations that are under
the control of Osama bin Laden have clearly indicated that nuclear
power plants are near the top of their list of targets if they could
successfully pull off one of those attacks.
So built into this legislation is something which I think every
Democrat and every Republican can support wholeheartedly. It requires
the President to do an immediate assessment of the current
vulnerabilities of the plants to terrorist attack and what aspect of
the defense of these plants should be the responsibility of the Federal
governments.
It secondly requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do a rule-
making to upgrade its rules on the design basis threat which
establishes the parameters for what the licensees need to defend
against.
Third, it requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue new
rules to enhance the security of transportation of nuclear materials.
Fourth, it codifies into law the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
operational safeguards response evaluation preparedness which tests
security at nuclear plants through force-on-force exercises.
So this is actually going to be a quite important new addition to the
law. My hope is that we can work with the Senate expeditiously to put
this on the books so that we can move forward in providing the real
security that Americans want, especially those who live within a 10-
mile radius of nuclear power plants, that they are not in fact subject
to a successful terrorist attack.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H8365]]
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I would take mild umbrage to the statement of my good
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), that this is an
odoriferous piece of legislation. I think it is sweet smelling like a
rose. But to the extent that it has offended his olfactory organs, let
me simply say it is less odious than it was because of his efforts; and
I want to commend him on those efforts.
Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few points for the record.
There has been some discussion in the debate, Madam Speaker, about a
subsidy for the nuclear industry. Price-Anderson is nothing more than a
last-resort indemnification of the nuclear power industry. In a similar
fashion, we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation which
guarantee $100,000 for every savings account and every bank account in
this country. There is private insurance that has to kick in before
that, but as a last resort the FDIC guarantees every depositor's
account up to $100,000.
I would also point out the Federal Housing Administration has a home
mortgage program. Many first-time buyers get their mortgage through an
FHA mortgage, which again guarantees that mortgage. There is private
market with private insurance, homeowners insurance, but the FHA is the
guarantor of last resort.
Madam Speaker, I would also point out that in the mid-1980s when we
had the collapse of the savings and loan industry, the Federal
taxpayers, as guarantors of last resort, put $125 billion into the
economy to guarantee mortgages that were failed and institutions in the
S and L industry that failed. We hoped to recoup that money over time,
but it is expected that somewhere between $125 billion and $500 billion
was paid out to guarantee the solvency of the savings and loan industry
in the mid-to-late 1980s.
I could point to our farm programs where again we have price support
programs in place to guarantee farmers some minimal financial support
if the market does not operate as they had hoped that it will. So
Price-Anderson, which has been on the books for over 50 years, was put
into place to guarantee that in a very, very worst-case scenario there
would be some guarantee if we had one of these worst-case catastrophes
which we have not had. In the most serious incident that we had, the
Three Mile Island incident, $187 million was paid out, well within the
$200 million per reactor private sector insurance cap. So as I am
standing on the floor today we have not had an instance where the
Federal taxpayers have been at risk.
As has been pointed out by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
and others, the bill before us is an improved bill. It has increased
penalties for gross and willful misconduct by contractors.
It has an elimination of profit in the case that something egregious
is done by the contractor. So it is a better bill than the current law.
We are on the verge of a new generation of nuclear power reactors
that are safer, less expensive to operate, more efficient, will provide
electricity, we hope, for future generations of American consumers.
Now is not the time to change the Price-Anderson Act in a negative
way. Instead, it is the time to improve it, to pass it with a strong
bipartisan vote to the Senate, and that is exactly what this piece of
legislation does.
I again want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell),
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and others
for their strong work on this, the committee staffs on both sides, my
personal staff, especially my intern from the Nuclear Electric
Institute, Mr. Jason Remer, for his strong work in this area.
Finally, Madam Speaker, to pay off a wager that I had on the A&M-
Texas game where I bet on the Aggies, my great team, and they
unfortunately were on the low side of the score 24 to 7, I want to wish
the Longhorns God speed this week in the Big 12 championship game
against the Colorado Buffaloes and say that I cannot bring myself to
say the Longhorn slogan but would say Go Longhorns.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I would say Hook 'em Horns.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts
can say that; I cannot.
Mr. MARKEY. Why is that? I do not think people would understand why
the gentleman cannot say that.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, where I come from, that dog just
will not hunt.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2983 and of
H. Con. Res. 267, a resolution which I introduced on November 13, 2001.
Nuclear energy is one of our Nation's vital sources of energy.
Nuclear energy accounts for 20 percent of all U.S. electricity
generation and more than 40 percent of the electricity generation in 10
states in the Northeast, South, and Midwest. Currently, there are 103
nuclear energy plants operating at 64 sites in 31 States.
With this in mind, it is my belief that Congress must act to
reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act of 1957. The Price-Anderson Act of
1957 was created to encourage the development of our nascent nuclear
industry. It is time that we commit to encouraging the development of
the industry once again. The nuclear energy industry is a vital element
in our attempt to become energy independent. In the times we find
ourselves, we must realize that reliance on foreign sources of energy
is foolish at best and ultimately dangerous to our national security.
We must encourage development of all our domestic sources--from
traditional sources like oil, natural gas, and clean coal to high-tech,
next-generation sources like fuel cells and advanced nuclear reactor
designs and even renewable sources like hydro, wind, geothermal, and
solar power.
Mr. Speaker, nuclear power is an important key to achieving energy
independence. Nuclear power is also considered potentially more
dangerous and more volatile than other sources. The most serious
nuclear incident in U.S. history happened at Three Mile Island-Unit 2,
in my congressional district. A catastrophe was averted, but the memory
of this incident--along with the disaster at the Chernobyl plant in the
former U.S.S.R.--has led many to question the role of nuclear power.
The Price-Anderson Act goes far to assuage the concerns of
communities around nuclear facilities. During the Three Mile Island
incident, the financial assistance Price-Anderson was designed to
provide served as an assurance to many communities in my district.
Today we must use Price-Anderson to assuage a new fear. That is the
fear of a terrorist attack against a nuclear facility. I praise the
Committee on Energy and Commerce for the inclusion of language that
would require the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct a study
of the vulnerability of licensed nuclear facilities to certain threats,
and report to Congress on that study. This is necessary to keep our
nuclear facilities safe in the future. Before September 11, many would
have thought this unnecessary, but today we see it as vital.
I have introduced H. Con. Res. 267 for this very reason. I firmly
believe that a thorough, Federal study of the security measures in
place now, and those needed in the future, at all of our Nation's
nuclear facilities should be conducted immediately. My legislation
would raise the possibility of making the Federal Government
responsible for nuclear plant security, and call upon the President to
order an interagency study of security at nuclear facilities be
conducted by the NRC, the Defense Department, the Department of
Transportation, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central
Intelligence Agency immediately.
I am pleased with the steps Governor Ridge of the Office of Homeland
Defense continues to take to prepare the country for future acts of
terrorism. One of those steps was to issue, in conjunction with the
NRC, an alert to Governors to take necessary steps to bolster security
at our Nation's nuclear power plants. Thirty-one States are home to
over 100 nuclear facilities. Twenty-two Governors, after receiving the
Homeland Defense security alert, ordered State troopers and local
police officers to temporarily augment the private security at the
facilities in their States. Nine Governors, including Governor
Schweiker of Pennsylvania, decided to call up National Guard units to
bolster security at their nuclear facilities. However, the use of
National Guard forces has raised many questions. Why some States and
not others? How large a force will be necessary? How long will they be
there? Are they properly trained for such a mission? Are their efforts
coordinated with law enforcement and private security? And who will
fund these units?
My legislation calls upon President Bush to make the use of military
forces at nuclear
[[Page H8366]]
plants a primary focus of the federal interagency study to be
commissioned. The Department of Defense and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission must move forward with other relevant agencies toward
developing standards to ensure that National Guard units, Coast Guard
units, Army and Air Force units are used appropriately, are adequately
trained, and highly coordinated with law enforcement and private
security forces. Moreover, my resolution calls upon the President to
recognize the need for Federal funding for National Guard units called
upon to perform security duties at nuclear power plants nationally. The
National Guard has a unique dual role. They serve under State authority
or Federal authority, depending on their mission. President Bush has
recognized the national importance of protecting our national
transportation system by funding National Guard units stationed at
airports and train stations across the country. The resolution also
calls upon the President to similarly recognize the national importance
of nuclear plant security by funding those units sent to nuclear power
plants.
Additionally, my resolution calls upon the President to direct the
FDA, NRC, and FEMA to take all necessary steps to begin stockpiling
supplies of potassium iodide in communities within the Emergency
Planning Zones of each of the 64 nuclear power sites across the
country. Potassium iodide can effectively counteract some of the more
serious debilitating effects of radiation poisoning. A potential
accident at a nuclear facility can result in leakage of radioactive
iodine. Studies show that alacritous use of potassium iodide tablets
can prevent the onset of thyroid cancer, a by-product of radioactive
iodine exposure. Stockpiling of potassium iodide tablets simply makes
sense. It is another important way we can do everything within reason
to make sure our communities are free from the fear of insecurity.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Bush administration for the actions
taken to make America more secure. More will be done. My sense-of-the-
Congress resolution helps point the Government in the direction it must
move over the next months. I thank Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Pitts and Mr.
Platts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for their active support in
joining me in this measure. And, I ask that all Members of Congress and
the Senate support our measure.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I would like to lend my strong support
for the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. I commend my
colleague Heather Wilson for introducing this timely bill and her work
on the Energy and Commerce Committee to ensure bipartisan
participation.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee's Special Panel on
Department of Energy Reorganization and with two national defense
laboratories in my district, I believe that the timely renewal of the
Price-Anderson Act is absolutely essential for the continued operations
and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities.
As several of my colleagues who have National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) sites in their districts know, the defense
production sites and former sites are operated by experienced, uniquely
qualified contractors who ensure that viability of our nuclear
deterrent and the safe disposition of excess nuclear materials and
waste. Price-Anderson gives us critical protection while fostering
progress on environmental and quality management of many of the world's
most radioactively contaminated facilities.
The legislation passed out the Energy and Commerce Committee ensures
a sufficient contractor base and places a strong emphasis on
accountability. Current civil and criminal penalties contained in
Price-Anderson, combined with DOE's inherent authority to adjust fees
based on performance or terminate contracts, ensure contractors are
accountable. This mix will help DOE contractors continue their
dedication to safely maintaining America's nuclear stockpile, while
they continue cleaning up the environmental legacy of the cold war, and
ensuring worker safety and health.
On a broader level, a straightforward Price-Anderson reauthorization
is necessary to ensure that the public has the financial resources
available to cope with a nuclear accident, covering expenses from
evacuation to medical care to property damage. The strict liability
regime imposed by Price-Anderson in the unlikely case of a major
accident ensures money starts flowing where it's needed without legal
wrangling. This expedited process visibly benefits the public. In fact,
during the Three Mile Island accident, Price-Anderson financial
assistance meant that the needs of people in the surrounding
communities were met.
Finally, important, timely measures have been added to the Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act, that address the threat of terrorism to
our nuclear facilities. These provisions include measures to safeguard
the transportation of nuclear materials and several steps that address
potential threats to nuclear facilities.
Mrs. Wilson's bill is timely. It matches bipartisan proposals for
reauthorization in the Senate and tracks both recommendations made to
Congress under the previous administration and the National Energy
Policy developed by the Bush administration.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. Passage of this bill is critical
to the future development of nuclear power. Nuclear power is essential
for maintaining a balanced diversity of fuel sources to feed the
Nation's growing electricity needs. This bill also includes several
provisions that will strengthen physical security at nuclear power
plants regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I would
like to describe some of the actions that NRC has taken in the
aftermath of the September 11 attacks, and also describe how this bill
will help NRC and the Federal Government manage emerging threats at
nuclear plants.
The events of September 11 have necessitated a review of security at
our Nation's 103 operating nuclear power reactors. The NRC is in the
process of conducting a top-to-bottom review of the security at these
reactors. The NRC is interacting with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, other Federal law enforcement and intelligence
organizations, the military, and the newly established Office of
Homeland Security so that necessary changes to NRC's programs consider
pertinent information from all relevant Federal agencies.
In the process of this review, however, we should not unnecessarily
cause fear among those who reside near these nuclear facilities. First,
the Nation's 103 nuclear reactors are among the most hardened
structures in the country. Nuclear power plants are designed to
withstand extreme events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and
earthquakes, in addition to objects propelled at great force into the
structures. The NRC has in fact required that three nuclear power
reactors be able to withstand certain aircraft strikes due, in part, to
the location of those power reactors to airports or runways. The
analysis of those reactors to withstand aircraft crashes did not result
in design changes because the plants were already sufficiently hardened
as a result of the design to protect them against natural and internal
events.
While nuclear power reactors are among the most strong and most
secure facilities in the United States, they have not been specifically
analyzed to consider attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s,
and nuclear power plants were not specifically designed to withstand
such crashes. This does not necessarily mean, however, that they are
not capable of withstanding a strike, because in light of their
inherent robustness, they may in fact prove capable. The NRC is
appropriately evaluating ways to assess the effects of a deliberate
aircraft impact and resulting fires and explosion on the reactor
containment building and support structures. The NRC should conclude
that study with all deliberate speed.
The committee-reported bill contains several provisions pertaining to
the security of nuclear power reactors. Congressman Markey, with the
support of the committee chairman and ranking minority member, offered
one nuclear safety amendment which directs the President, in
consultation with the NRC and other appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies and private entities, to conduct a study of nuclear
facility security and to report to Congress on the study's findings
within 270 days of the amendment's enactment. The President must
classify threats as either an attack by ``an enemy of the United
States'' or as ``the type of risks that NRC licensees should be
responsible for guarding against.'' This study will address what is at
heart a national question of policy: the role of the Federal Government
with respect to nuclear facility security. It is meant to delineate
those threats that should be the responsibility of the Federal
Government and those threats that should be the responsibility of the
nuclear industry.
The Presidential study is to take into account not only the threats
of September 11 and ``air-based threats,'' but also the potential for
attacks my multiple coordinated teams of a large number of individuals;
the potential for assistance is an attack from several persons employed
at the facility; the potential for suicide attacks; and the potential
for water-based threats, as well as other threats. The President must
report to Congress on actions taken, or to be taken, to address the
types of threats identified as ``enemy of the United States'' threats.
Such ``enemy of the United States'' threats could very well include
September 11-type attacks, regardless of the nationality of the
perpetrators. In preparing the report, the President will need to
consider the defensive capabilities of private corporations and those
of the government.
The NRC must promulgate regulations addressing the threats the
President identifies as the type of risks that NRC licensees should be
responsible for guarding against. The NRC is
[[Page H8367]]
required to update its regulations pertaining to the design basis
threat (DBT), based, in part, on whether the President's study
identifies new threats that conflict with the DBT as currently set
forth in NRC regulations. It may be, however, that the majority of
threats in the President's study are deemed to be ``enemy of the United
States'' threats, and, in such cases, the NRC would not be required to
expand its regulations in this area.
The amendment also requires the NRC to establish a program to test
the response of reactor personnel to mock attacks. The NRC must approve
or design, observe and evaluate force-on-force exercises to determine
whether the ability to defeat the design basis threat is being
maintained. This provision gives the NRC flexibility to text and
implement a Safeguards Performance Assessment (SPA) pilot program
currently under development or to continue its current Operational
Safety Response Evaluation (OSRE) program. As the committee report
points out, the NRC must be active in the preparation of the testing
program. The language, however, does not mandate the use of, or
otherwise codify the existing OSRE program; nor does it prohibit the
use of the SPA program. Rather, it gives the NRC the flexibility it
needs to run a program of its own choosing, provided that the key
elements specified in the bill are contained in the program.
Statement of Administration Policy
(this statement has been coordinated by omb with the concerned
agencies)
H.R. 2983--Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001 (Rep.
Wilson (R) NM and 8 cosponsors)
The Administration supports reauthorization of the Price-
Anderson Act, which provides liability protection for
government contractors and the nuclear industry and assures
prompt and equitable compensation for the public in the
unlikely event of a nuclear accident. The Administration
commends the House for its efforts to extend Price-Anderson's
important indemnification objectives. To assure the future of
nuclear energy, liability coverage must continue for nuclear
activities conducted by the Department of Energy and by
licensees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as
contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers of both.
The Administration remains committed to enacting
legislation that will reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act in
its current form, and looks forward to working with Congress
to improve provisions in the bill concerning financial
accountability, safety, and security. The Administration
hopes to work with Congress to ensure that the bill achieves
its intended effect without detracting from the quality of
potential contractors, fostering unnecessary regulations, or
compromising security, anti-terrorism, or non-proliferation
efforts.
Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, currently, nuclear security requirements
at licensed nuclear facilities do not reflect the risk of terrorism
that they face in the post September 11, 2001-world. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has recognized that the containment buildings
housing nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand an attack of
September 11 proportions. An even more vulnerable target includes spent
nuclear fuel pools which contain more radioactivity than a reactor core
and are located outside of the containment structure. Unfortunately,
H.R. 2983 contains specific provisions intended to facilitate the
construction of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), a design that
does not include a protective containment structure.
The blanket indemnities granted to Department of Energy contractors
by the Price-Anderson Act, even in cases of willful misconduct and
gross negligence, runs counter to the goal of comprehensive security at
licensed nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, America knows far too well
the effects of willful misconduct on buildings and locations that do
not house radioactive waste. Exposing facilities that do is an
egregious violation of public trust and safety. As a Congress, we
should not provide disincentives to ensuring public safety. If we pass
H.R. 2983, we will be doing just that.
Besides worrying about terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors, nuclear
waste transports, or nuclear waste storage sites, taxpayers are
concerned abut having to foot the bill in cases of disaster. Americans
are expected to purchase their own insurance, yet the nuclear industry
asks Americans to pay for theirs. The Price-Anderson Act limits the
financial responsibility of the nuclear industry by awarding special
protections that no other industry has received. This limitation not
only insulates the industry from financial risks but creates an
inherent subsidy by relieving the costs of fully insuring against the
risk of an accident. All other businesses insure to a reasonable limit
against potential liabilities and risk loss of assets if the level of
insurance is inadequate. This insurance is a normal cost of doing
business, which is then reflected in the price of the product or
service provided by that business. The Price-Anderson Act gives the
nuclear industry an unfair business advantage. By eliminating the cost
of purchasing adequate insurance, the Act makes nuclear power appear
cheaper to consume than it truly is.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the Federal Government being used as
an insurance provider of this magnitude. The nuclear industry should be
required to purchase insurance like everyone else is expected to--
through the private market. I do not support H.R. 2983 and urge my
colleagues to reconsider its placement on the suspension of the rules
calendar.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record
the following language that is missing from the Price-Anderson
Reauthorization Act of 2001, but that I feel should have been included.
The effect of this language would be to clarify that Indian tribes are
covered under the act, and to ensure that in the event of a nuclear
incident on an Indian Reservation which renders such land
uninhabitable, the tribe would be compensated with other lands of
comparable size and value.
42 U.S.C. 2014(s) is amended to read:
(s) The term ``person'' means (1) any individual,
corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate,
public or private institution, group, Government agency other
than the Commission, any State or any political subdivision
of, or any political entity within a State, any Indian tribe,
band, nation or other organized group or community of
Indians, any foreign government or nation or any political
subdivision of any such government or nation, or other
entity; and (2) any legal successor, representative, agent,
or agency of the foregoing.
42 U.S.C. 2014(w) is amended to read:
(w) the term ``public liability'' means any legal liability
arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident or
precautionary evacuation (including all reasonable additional
costs incurred by any Indian tribe, band, nation or other
organized group or community of Indians or a State, or a
political subdivision of a State, in the course of responding
to a nuclear incident or a precautionary evacuation), except:
(i) claims under State or Federal workmen's compensation acts
of employees of persons indemnified who are employed at the
site of and in connection with the activity where the nuclear
incident occurs; (ii) claims arising out of an act of war;
and (iii) whenever used in subsections (a), (c) and (k) of
section 2210 of this title, claims for loss of, or damage to,
or loss of use of property which is located at the site of
and used in connection with the licensed activity where the
nuclear incident occurs. In the case of an Indian tribe with
trust or reservation lands located within one mile of the
site of a nuclear incident, ``public liability'' includes the
loss of use of trust or reservation lands. In the event of a
nuclear incident which renders such trust of reservation
lands uninhabitable, upon meaningful consultation with the
Indian tribe, other lands of comparable size and value shall
be placed in trust for the tribe and shall have the same
status for all purposes of Federal, State and Indian law as
did the uninhabitable lands. ``Public liability'' also
includes damage to property of other persons indemnified:
Provided, That such property is covered under the terms of
the financial protection required, except property which is
located at the site of and used in connection with the
activity where the nuclear incident occurs.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2983, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________