[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 148 (Tuesday, October 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9777-H9780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Markey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 6 be instructed to
insist upon the provisions contained in--
(1) section 14011 of the House bill relating to secure
transfer of nuclear materials;
(2) section 14012(d) of the House bill relating to nuclear
facility threats, directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to issue regulations, including changes to the design basis
threat, to ensure that nuclear facilities licensed by
Commission address the threat of a terrorist attack against
such facilities; and
(3) section 14013 of the House bill requiring the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, before entering into any agreement of
indemnification with respect to a utilization facility under
section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to consult with
the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (or any
successor official) with respect to that facility concerning
whether the location of the facility and the design of that
type of facility ensures that the facility provides for the
[[Page H9778]]
adequate protection of public health and safety if subject to
a terrorist attack, and that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission also consult with the Secretary of Homeland
Security before issuing a license or a license renewal for a
sensitive nuclear facility concerning the emergency
evacuation plan for the communities living near the sensitive
nuclear facility.
Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am offering this motion today to address one of the most
inexplicable and indefensible decisions made by the House and Senate
Republican energy conferees in their closed-door meetings. I am talking
about the decision that has apparently been made by the Republican
majority to weaken critical nuclear security provisions Democrats had
earlier attached to the energy bill, H.R. 6, in order to better secure
our Nation's 103 currently operating civilian nuclear power plants from
the threat of terrorist attack.
Remember less than 2 years ago, President Bush told the Nation in his
State of the Union address, quote, our discoveries in Afghanistan
confirmed our worst fears and showed us the true scope of the task
ahead. We have seen the depths of our enemies' hatred in videos where
they laugh about the loss of innocent life and the depth of their
hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We
have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water
facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons,
surveillance maps of American cities and thorough descriptions of
landmarks in America and throughout the world.
So we know that nuclear power plants are at the very top of al
Qaeda's list of potential targets in the United States. Despite this
fact, the Republican conferees have apparently decided to weaken the
nuclear security language in the energy bill. My motion covers three of
the major weakening changes that have been made in the nuclear
antiterrorism provisions in the energy bill.
The first part of my motion addresses the decision by the House
Republican conferees to eliminate the requirement for a mandatory
Nuclear Regulatory Commission rulemaking to upgrade nuclear security
regulations. Section 14012 of the House bill entitled Nuclear Facility
Threats requires the NRC to issue regulations, including changes to the
design basis threat, to ensure that licensees addressed the threats of
a terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant in the United States.
Under the provision, these new rules are required to be issued not
later than 270 days after the submission of a detailed report by the
President assessing the nature of the terrorist threat to the nuclear
facilities in the United States or a year after enactment.
The Republican conferees have now weakened this provision so that it
no longer mandates a new NRC rulemaking, but instead merely authorizes
the NRC to make such revisions to the design basis threats promulgated
before the date of enactment of this section as the commission deems
appropriate, based on the summary and classification report. There is
no deadline. There is no requirement for any formal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission rulemaking. This language guts the entire section and
appears to allow the NRC to deem the interim orders that it has already
adopted since the September 11 attacks to be sufficient and take no
further action.
This new language reflects what the NRC and the nuclear industry have
always wanted, no action by Congress to require them to do anything
more than that which they have already done on nuclear security. But is
that the position that this body, which has twice voted to mandate
Nuclear Regulatory Commission nuclear security rulemaking, really wants
to take?
You might say, perhaps the NRC has already addressed the problem in
its secret orders. No, it has not. The NRC orders are classified and
were prepared following closed-door consultations with the nuclear
industry and no opportunity for public comment. I have read the NRC
orders very carefully. And while I cannot discuss them in a public
forum due to their security classification, I can tell this House that
the NRC's orders are inadequate in several respects and fail to address
the kind of threats that we now must be prepared for in a post-
September 11 environment. I would suggest to the Members that if they
took the time to read these orders and to consult with anyone with any
real expertise on security matters, they would share my concern that
the NRC has failed to do enough to beef up security at our Nation's
nuclear facilities.
{time} 1430
But despite the President's warnings, the Republican energy conferees
have now decided not to even require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to undertake a rulemaking to tighten up security at these sensitive
facilities.
The second part of my motion addresses the Republican conferees'
decision to weaken the House-passed requirements for full consultation
with Homeland Security regarding nuclear security risks. Section 14013
of the House bill, ``Unreasonable Risk Consultation,'' requires the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consult with the Department of
Homeland Security concerning whether the location of a new nuclear
power plant or its design provides for adequate protection of public
health and safety if subject to a terrorist attack before Price-
Anderson liability indemnification is provided to the plant.
This provision originated as an amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) to last year's Price-Anderson bill, which
this year was attached to the base text of H.R. 6. It also requires the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consult with the Department of
Homeland Security before issuing or renewing a license to operate a new
or existing nuclear power plant to determine the adequacy of the
emergency evacuation plan for communities around the plant. This
provision originated as an amendment that I authored. We have also been
informed that they are preparing to eliminate the requirement for
consultation prior to a relicensing of an existing power plant,
although the Republican conferees have yet to share this new language
with us in this bill.
The Republican conferees have now de-linked the Waxman amendment's
consultation requirement from Price-Anderson's liability
indemnification and eliminated the Markey amendment's requirement for
consultation regarding adequacy of emergency evacuation plans. We have
also been informed that they are preparing to eliminate the requirement
for consultation prior to a relicensing of an existing power plant,
although the Republican conferees have yet to share this new language
with the Democrats.
The elimination of the Waxman amendment's linkage between NRC
consultation with Homeland Security and Price-Anderson indemnification
takes all of the teeth out of the Waxman provision. Instead of
mandating a consultation aimed at determining whether the design or
location of a nuclear facility poses an unreasonable risk before giving
the owner government-subsidized insurance, we are now merely calling
for such consultation to take place.
Moreover, tying consultation to the initial licensing of a plant, and
not recovering relicensing of the 103 currently-operating nuclear power
plants, greatly narrows the application of the amendment since no new
nuclear power plant has been successfully ordered since 1973 and no new
nuclear power plants are likely to be ordered for decades, if ever. If
this change is made, there would be no mandatory consultation by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the Department of Homeland Security
for any of the existing nuclear power plants in this country, not for
Seabrook, not for Pilgrim, not for Indian Point, not for Diablo Canyon,
for none.
Finally, eliminating the specific requirement for consultation
regarding
[[Page H9779]]
the adequacy of emergency evacuation plans in the event of a successful
terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant means that we are failing to
do what is needed to ensure that citizens living near plants such as
the Indian Point reactor right outside of New York City are fully
protected against the threat of a terrorist attack.
And third and finally, my amendment addresses the decision to weaken
nuclear materials transportation requirements: section 14011 of the
House-passed bill, requiring the NRC to establish a system to better
ensure the security of nuclear materials transferred to, from, or
within the United States. This provision originated as an amendment I
authored that has now passed the House twice in H.R. 6 in this Congress
and as part of Price-Anderson reauthorization last year.
The latest Republican conference report draft, in contrast, limits
the NRC's regulations to the security of imports or exports of nuclear
materials, failing to cover the transportation of these materials
within our own country. This limitation is inexplicable in light of the
fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Congress in 2002 that
there are 2 million radioactive sources in the United States and that
each year there are on average 300 reports of lost or stolen or
abandoned radioactive materials.
The NRC also reported at that time that in the past 5 years, there
have been 1,495 reports of lost, stolen, or abandoned radioactive
materials; 835 these have not been found. According to the NRC, a
radioactive source as small as 1Curie, if dispersed by a bomb, ``could
spread low-level contamination over an area up to several city blocks,
possibly resulting in restriction of the area until the area was
surveyed and decontaminated.'' But the Republican energy conferees have
exempted transfers of these radioactive materials within the country
from the new nuclear security requirements. That makes no sense.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion today and send a strong
message to the House and Senate Republican energy conferees that this
body insists on tougher protections against a terrorist attack on our
Nation's nuclear facilities; that this body insists on tougher
protections against the threat of a radiological dirty bomb; and that
this body rejects secret, back-room talks that result in the weakening
of critical antiterrorism protections.
I heard the majority leader earlier make reference to the fact that a
motion to instruct might just reflect what the Members in this body are
feeling that day. That is not what the provisions that we are talking
about reflect. They reflect what has happened on this House floor
several times with the Members voting for it. In fact, taking it out
reflects what, in my opinion, a small number of Members and nuclear
industry officials might feel on any particular day. But they do not
capture what the consensus was that was reached by House Members and
the general public about what must be done to enhance nuclear security.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We are not going to oppose the Markey motion to instruct conferees. I
have listened to his comments closely and would say that they do
reflect the changes as outlined. I would point out that while the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is absolutely correct that
the House has passed twice the issues that he refers to in his comments
in the Senate conference with the House last year, Senate conferees,
which at that time were a majority of Democrats, voted to strip all the
provisions out that he has just alluded to and that the energy bill
that we went to conference with with the Senate this year had none of
these provisions in; and the provisions that he alluded to in his
motion to instruct, section 14011, 14012(d), and 14013, are in the
conference report. They have been changed in the ways that he said.
Section 14011 did apply to domestic and international shipments. In
the conference report, it does only apply to international; so he is
correct on that. 14012(d), the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr.
Markey) amendment that has passed the House did say ``shall'' and the
conference report will come back with ``may''; so he is correct on
that. And section 14013, the Department of Homeland Security as passed
by the House did require a consultation before the grant of a Price-
Anderson indemnification agreement. And also before the issuance of a
license for a new facility, as it is going to come out of conference,
it will apply only to those issuances of a new license.
So he is right in his characterization of the changes. So we get down
to a situation, is the glass half full or half empty; and since the
Senate had none of these provisions last year or this year, as a
conferee, I would suggest to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) that the glass is half full as opposed to the glass is half
empty. Changes have been made; but we still have the issues in play,
not as strong as he would wish them to be, but they are still in the
bill, and it will be good public policy to make these changes that he
supports. So I would hope that, while we support the motion to instruct
conferees, the truth of the matter is that most of the conferring has
been done. We expect to have this bill on the floor sometime next week.
It is very unlikely we are going to reopen the conference; but
certainly if it were to be reopened, we would support the gentleman
from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion because since the House has
already passed what the motion is instructing us to support, we have
every reason to continue to support it knowing that it is a bicameral
body and that the House does not always get everything it wants when we
are negotiating with the Senate.
So I support the motion to instruct and commend my friend for all his
good work in this area over many years and pledge that we will continue
to work together not just on this conference report but on future bills
to make our nuclear facilities the best and the safest in the world.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
(Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, as a conferee to the energy bill, I rise in
strong support of the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion
to instruct conferees, and I want to commend him for his long history
of leadership on the issue of nuclear security, which is the subject of
this motion.
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear the chairman of the
subcommittee accept the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey)
motion, but I do want to make two points: point one, that this motion
should be accepted because of the substance of the gentleman from
Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment; and, two, because of the
process.
Madam Speaker, on substance, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr.
Markey) motion is right on the money. The House-passed version of the
energy bill contained important language pertaining to nuclear
security. This language in H.R. 6 addresses a chronic failure on the
part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten up security at our
nuclear power plants around the country. This language passed the House
and was marked up in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It is
important that this language remains in the bill as a critical national
security plank to protect our citizens from a terrorist attack. The
fact that the latest draft of the conference report significantly
weakens these security requirements is very disturbing and very
perplexing. I know that the ranking member of the committee indicated
that there was an acceptance on the part of the Republican conferees to
accept this language. However, Madam Speaker, I just want to emphasize
the fact that this was not done in a way that we can be proud of here
in the House in regards to how this event came about.
Madam Speaker, I just want to say that the second reason to vote for
the motion is the lousy process that has infected this entire
conference committee. The Republican conferees altered these important
nuclear security provisions behind closed doors and without any input
from Democratic conferees who sit on the committee of jurisdiction. And
it is inexcusable that
[[Page H9780]]
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), myself, and other
Democratic members, especially from the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, had no opportunity to discuss this important matter with our
Republican counterparts.
{time} 1445
For this reason alone, and in the name of a rational and deliberative
process, I urge the Members of the House to accept this motion to
instruct. Let us send a message that this bill is far too important to
be discussed behind closed doors, without any input from the minority
members of the conference committee.
Madam Speaker, I add that it is really shameful and harmful to the
democratic process for the Democratic conferees to not be included in
the full deliberations of the conference committee.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, just to reiterate that we do not oppose the motion to
instruct, and we support the gist of the gentleman's motion to instruct
in terms of the policy. The House has already supported it twice, and
the committee supported it twice. We just have to get the other body to
support it, which, unfortunately, they have been unwilling to do in its
totality.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Members will refrain from
characterizing action or inaction of the other body, including urging
the Senate to take a specific action.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I said ``the other body.'' What
did I say wrong?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will refrain from characterizing the
other body.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
in order to conclude this debate.
Madam Speaker, without question, back in 1787 when a deal was being
cut on the construction of the Union and the small States demanded
that, rather than equal representation for all States, that another
body be created in order to represent them, that other body that was
created at the time has developed peculiar characteristics that,
unfortunately, are manifesting themselves here on the House floor
today.
There are many who look back with regret that that deal was ever cut,
the grand compromise in the Constitution, allowing for that
disproportionate influence, and I see nodding bipartisan agreement on
the Republican side on this subject.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I think that agreement that the
gentleman alluded to in the Constitution was one of the biggest
mistakes in the Constitution.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
very much. I regret that Texas was not part of the Union at the time.
Perhaps they could have exercised some influence in that final decision
making.
But the other body, as it likes to be called, and I understand why in
many instances, this is a good example of where anonymity is something
to be much desired and sought, that the other body here, according to
the majority, is calling all the shots in terms of nuclear security,
which is a premise which I doubt is actually accurate. I do believe
that it was a bicameral Republican decision to take out the nuclear
security issues, since we know that the Democrats in the Senate, like
the Democrats in the House, are searching the corridors of this
building trying to find where the meetings are taking place. We have no
idea.
We do know this though, that reports are rampant that the bill, when
it comes out on the House floor, is going to be loaded with billions of
dollars of subsidies for the nuclear industry. I understand it is that
time of the year where the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries just
really think that they deserve billions of dollars in subsidies for
each one of their industries from the taxpaying public, even though
they are the wealthiest industries in the United States.
But, it seems to me, the least that the nuclear industry should be
willing to accept are antiterrorism provisions that are attached to the
nuclear gifts which it appears the Republican House and Senate and
White House is willing to, and I am sorry I said ``Senate,'' I meant
the other body, that they appear willing to confer upon them.
They should accept those additional safety measures, because the
public, without question, gave an additional measure of wholehearted
support to the President in his campaign to eradicate the threat of
Saddam Hussein to the world because of his nuclear mujahideen, because
of the contention he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons
program.
Here, domestically, we know that nuclear power plants are similarly
at the top of the terrorist target list for al Qaeda, and it seems to
me the nuclear industry is acting in an irresponsible fashion in not
accepting reasonable measures being adopted which guarantee that
terrorists cannot be successful in using domestic nuclear materials to
terrorize our country.
So I regret that that language has been removed, and at this point I
urge an ``aye'' vote on this motion to instruct.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that it is
not in order to characterize the actions or inactions of the Senate.
The Chair would clarify for all Members that referring to the Senate
as ``the other body'' does not cure such an infraction in debate.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________