[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 2, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H13419-H13424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   RADIOACTIVE IMPORT DETERRENCE ACT

  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 515) to prohibit the importation of certain low-
level radioactive waste into the United States, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 515

       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 ``Radioactive Import 
     Deterrence Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 19 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2015 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 276 the following new section:
       ``Sec. 277. Importation of Low-Level Radioactive Waste.--
       ``a. Except as provided in subsection b. or c., the 
     Commission shall not issue a license authorizing the 
     importation into the United States of--
       ``(1) low-level radioactive waste (as defined in section 2 
     of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2021b)); or
       ``(2) specific radioactive waste streams exempted from 
     regulation by the Commission under section 10 of the Low-
     Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021j).
       ``b. Subsection a. shall not apply to--
       ``(1) low-level radioactive waste being returned to a 
     United States Government or military facility which is 
     authorized to possess the material; or
       ``(2) low-level radioactive waste resulting from the use in 
     a foreign country of nuclear material obtained by the foreign 
     user from an entity in the United States that is being 
     returned to the United States for management and disposal.
       ``c. The President may waive the prohibition under this 
     section and authorize the grant of a specific license to 
     import materials prohibited under subsection a., under the 
     rules of the Commission, only after a finding that such 
     importation would meet an important national or international 
     policy goal, such as the use of waste for research purposes. 
     Such a waiver must specify the policy goal to be achieved, 
     how it is to be achieved, and the amount of material to be 
     imported.
       ``d. A license not permitted under this section that was 
     issued before the date of enactment of this section may 
     continue in effect according to its terms, but may not be 
     extended or amended with respect to the amount of material 
     permitted to be imported.''.
       (b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents for 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 276 the following new item:

``Sec. 277. Importation of low-level radioactive waste.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative

[[Page H13420]]

days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous 
material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act is a bipartisan 
bill that would ban the importation of low-level radioactive waste 
unless the President provides a waiver.
  Low-level radioactive waste is generated by medical facilities, 
university research labs, and utility companies. This waste is 
generated all over the United States, but finding permanent disposal 
sites has proven difficult. Currently, 36 States and the District of 
Columbia have only one approved site to store all the waste generated 
by those industries. That site is located in Utah. The site stores 99 
percent of the United States' low-level radioactive waste.
  However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently considering 
the importation of 20,000 tons of Italian low-level waste to be 
permanently disposed of at the Utah site. This would be the largest 
importation of foreign waste ever.
  The United States stands alone as the only country in the world that 
imports other countries' radioactive waste for permanent disposal. 
Other countries are reading the signs that the U.S. is poised to become 
a nuclear dumping ground. Permit applications are also pending for the 
importation of Brazilian and Mexican waste.
  Foreign waste threatens the capacity that we have set aside in this 
country for the waste generated by our domestic industries. It is 
critical that Congress protect that capacity by prohibiting these 
imports.
  I support nuclear power as part of our energy mix. 104 commercial 
nuclear plants in the United States help to provide 20 percent of our 
Nation's energy needs. If we are going to support the continued growth 
of our domestic nuclear industry, we must ban the practice of disposing 
of other countries' radioactive waste. We must reserve that capacity 
for our domestic needs.

                              {time}  1415

  The bill is the product of a bipartisan cooperation and has received 
multiple hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I urge my 
colleagues to stand firm against the importation of foreign radioactive 
waste and support this bipartisan bill.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
     Hon. Henry Waxman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 515, the 
     ``Radioactive Import Deterrence Act.'' As you know, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means has received a sequential 
     referral on this bill.
       To expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means will forgo action on this bill. 
     This is being done with the understanding that the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce will confirm in the legislative 
     history of the bill that the President's discretion to waive 
     section 277(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 applies to 
     any important national or international policy goal, and is 
     not limited to the use of waste for research purposes.
       The Committee on Ways and Means is forgoing action on the 
     bill with the understanding that it does not in any way 
     prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or 
     similar legislation in the future.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 515, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     this bill.
       Once again, thank you for your work and cooperation on this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rangel: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 515, the ``Radioactive Import Deterrence Act of 2009.'' 
     The Committee on Energy and Commerce recognizes the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Ways and Means in 
     H.R. 515, and I appreciate your effort to facilitate 
     consideration of this bill.
       Your letter accurately stated that the report of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce on H.R. 515 will confirm 
     that the President's discretion to waive section 277(a) of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 applies to any important 
     national or international policy goal, and is not limited to 
     the use of waste for research purposes. I also concur that by 
     forgoing action on the bill the Committee on Ways and Means 
     does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to 
     its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or similar 
     legislation in the future, and I would support your effort to 
     seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving this legislation.
       I will include our letters on H.R. 515 in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of the bill and in the 
     Committee report on H.R. 515. Again, I appreciate your 
     cooperation regarding this legislation and I look forward to 
     working with the Committee on Ways and Means as the bill 
     moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Henry A. Waxman,
                                                         Chairman.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Tennessee is a scholar and perspicuous individual, 
very talented, but Shakespeare said, ``To err is human,'' and in this 
case, the gentleman from Tennessee has erred particularly in this bill. 
So I stand here not in support of his grand bill.
  I think many in Congress are perhaps frustrated that we're not 
focusing on domestic nuclear waste disposal issues that obviously need 
to be resolved if we're ever to revitalize our nuclear energy. Instead, 
we're talking about this bill. In fact, this bill is going to hurt 
businesses that are trying to create jobs and promote economic growth. 
It will actually discourage it.
  The administration has irresponsibly turned its back on the Yucca 
Mountain waste repository site, leaving us with no clear plan to 
dispose of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel and 
leaving taxpayers liable for potentially billions of dollars in 
damages.
  Now this bill, Mr. Speaker, does not focus on high-level radioactive 
waste, but rather it focuses on what is known as a Class A radioactive 
waste. Now, my colleagues, this is the lowest of lowest levels of 
radioactive waste. Now, supporters of this bill will say that we lack 
sufficient capacity in the United States for this waste. Let's talk 
about what the GAO says.
  They have testified the Class A waste disposal capacity is simply not 
a problem in the short term or the long term. GAO had some real 
concerns about disposal capacity for what is known as Class B and C 
waste, but not Class A waste.
  Now, what does this legislation do to deal with spent nuclear fuel or 
the impending Class B and C waste disposal crisis? Nothing. Nothing is 
done. Instead, it would prevent U.S. companies from competing in the 
global marketplace by restraining trade in this very low-level waste.
  Now, a lot of us will hear the word ``radioactive'' and this is 
perhaps a word that is radioactive to lawmakers, but it should not 
frighten us once we understand this is the same kind of waste that you 
find in a home smoke detector. I think everybody in this Chamber, as 
well as everybody in the House, probably has a smoke detector in their 
home. So that is the type of low-level waste we're talking about.
  I want American companies and American workers to participate fully 
in the international nuclear renaissance. You know, it's happening in 
China certainly, including the handling of low-level waste. This is an 
anti-jobs and anti-trade bill. It would simply ban Americans from the 
marketplace. And so that's why, reluctantly, many on this side of the 
aisle oppose this legislation and voted against it when it was before 
the full Energy and Commerce committee.
  I am also concerned that this bill may have negative unintended 
consequences on top of the intended ones. In addition to restricting 
the ability of U.S. companies to bid on secure foreign contracts, this 
bill may prevent U.S. companies in the future from working 
cooperatively with foreign companies on other nuclear projects. The 
bill would prohibit the importation of low-level waste into the United 
States unless it is being sent to a Federal Government or military 
facility or other limited exceptions.

[[Page H13421]]

  So I do not believe that the importation of limited amounts of 
common, very low-level waste raises disposal capacity issues. The GAO 
didn't think so either. At the same time, I do not believe that if U.S. 
nuclear companies are to participate in the global nuclear services 
market and compete effectively with foreign-owned companies, they must 
simply be able to manage and dispose of the low-level waste incidental 
to their work and subject to NRC's already strict regulations and 
requirement. So think about that. We already have in place through the 
NRC the necessary regulations and requirements. This is going to 
overlap on that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to create jobs. We cannot pass new trade 
barriers that put our own employers and workers at a competitive 
disadvantage, which I think simply this bill would do.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to my friend from Utah (Mr. Matheson), the coauthor of this 
bipartisan bill.
  Mr. MATHESON. I thank Mr. Gordon for yielding.
  Before I begin my comments, I have a copy of a resolution that was 
passed by the Salt Lake County Council in support of the Writ Act to 
include in the Record.

 A Resolution of the Salt Lake County Council Opposing the Importation 
  of Foreign Nuclear/Radioactive Waste and Its Disposal in the United 
                                 States

       Whereas, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been 
     asked for a license to import radioactive waste from 
     dismantled nuclear reactors in Italy;
       Whereas, Italy, which currently stores its nuclear/
     radioactive waste at power plants and other sites throughout 
     Italy, has no permanent repository for this waste, has four 
     closed nuclear power stations and other nuclear facilities 
     with nuclear/radioactive waste, and for the past number of 
     years has been unable to construct a waste disposal facility 
     due to strong citizen opposition;
       Whereas, due to having closed facilities and citizen 
     opposition to construction of any new facilities, Italy 
     reportedly has no nuclear waste disposal plan and is seeking 
     assistance from other countries to manage different types of 
     nuclear waste;
       Whereas, if allowed, foreign radioactive/nuclear waste 
     would be transported and
       Whereas, if granted by the NRC, the importation license 
     would allow almost ten times more waste to be imported for 
     disposal than the total amount authorized by prior NRC 
     importation licenses;
       Whereas, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, the Utah Radiation 
     Control Board, and a regional regulatory board, the Northwest 
     Interstate Compact, have opposed this waste being brought 
     into Utah;
       Whereas, a declaratory judgment action has been filed and 
     is currently being actively litigated to determine whether 
     the Northwest Interstate Compact has jurisdiction over the 
     importation of the waste and the legal authority to block the 
     transportation and storage of this foreign waste in Utah;
       Whereas, the NRC has delayed making a decision on the 
     proposal until the litigation against the Northwest 
     Interstate Compact has been resolved;
       Whereas, nearly four thousand people submitted comments to 
     the NRC, the vast majority overwhelmingly opposing the 
     proposed importation license;
       Whereas, granting approval to this or similar proposals 
     could open the door to the United States becoming the world's 
     nuclear/radioactive waste dump and create a disincentive for 
     foreign nations to dispose of their own nuclear/radioactive 
     waste;
       Whereas, other contracts have been solicited for additional 
     foreign nuclear/radioactive waste disposal from entities in 
     the United Kingdom, Mexico, Brazil and other countries which 
     would directly impact Salt Lake County;
       Whereas, nuclear/radioactive materials will be shipped over 
     oceans, into ports, and, potentially, through Utah cities and 
     counties, including Salt Lake County, with the exact types 
     and classifications of these materials not determined until 
     after they have been imported;
       Whereas, dumping large quantities of foreign nuclear/
     radioactive waste in the U.S. will only constrain further our 
     domestic disposal capacity, result in the need for expanded 
     or new nuclear/radioactive waste dump sites and increase the 
     risk to public health, safety and the environment;
       Whereas, neither the United States Congress nor the NRC 
     ever intended that domestic nuclear/radioactive waste sites 
     be used for the commercial importation of foreign nuclear/
     radioactive waste;
       Whereas, importing foreign waste only serves private 
     companies and their shareholders; and
       Whereas, many of the probable transportation corridors run 
     through Salt Lake County, risking public health and safety 
     with, every shipment, not to mention the financial 
     responsibility imposed on the County and its residents in 
     preparing for and responding to incidents.
       Now, Therefore, the County Council hereby resolves that it 
     supports the prohibition on the transportation of foreign 
     generated nuclear/radioactive waste through Salt Lake County;
       Now, Therefore, the County Council further resolves that it 
     urges the NRC to not approve the request to import and 
     dispose of foreign low-level nuclear/radioactive waste; and
       Now Therefore, the County Council further resolves that it 
     urges Utah's legislative delegation to support the 
     Radioactive Deterrence Act (RID), HR 515 and S. 232, which 
     would prohibit the importation of foreign nuclear/radioactive 
     waste, thereby alleviating the health and safety risks of 
     transporting such materials through Salt Lake County.
  Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee has held two hearings 
on this issue: one in the previous Congress and one in this Congress. 
And during those hearings, we really flushed out this issue in a way 
that I think makes some pretty clear points that justify moving this 
bill.
  First of all, what was established is that there is confusion about 
what U.S. policy is relative to importation of radioactive waste from 
foreign countries. There really is a gap in policy here because as our 
low-level radioactive waste has developed over the last two or three 
decades, foreign waste wasn't even really considered. It just wasn't 
conceived that we would even take waste from other countries.
  As Mr. Gordon indicated, no other country in the world takes another 
country's radioactive waste, and I think that appears to have been the 
assumption in terms of when policies have been determined in this 
country.
  But what has happened in the last few years is that there are efforts 
and contracts being signed to move waste from Italy; there is 
discussion about Brazil, Mexico, Great Britain, to move low radioactive 
waste to this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says we have 
no authority to determine whether or not waste from foreign countries 
should be allowed into this country.
  So then we turn to the next regulatory body that we have in this 
country, and that is the system of State-run compacts that was 
established in Federal law primarily in 1980 and 1985. And the nuclear 
waste compacts are the ones who also have this role in deciding how to 
handle low-level radioactive waste.
  The State of Utah happens to be a member of the Northwest Compact. 
When this proposal to move waste from Italy was put before the Compact, 
the Compact, with the State of Utah opposing the importation of this 
waste, the Compact agreed with the State of Utah and moved to disallow 
this shipment. At this point, the matter was taken to the courts. The 
Federal district courts have ruled the Compact courts have no authority 
to stop this either. That case is currently on appeal.
  But what this points out--and the reason I walk through these steps--
is to illustrate that there's a lot of confusion out there and everyone 
is pointing in a different direction of who's in charge of this issue. 
It seems to me this issue ought to be addressed by Congress. It's up 
from a public policy perspective to discuss whether or not as a policy 
of this country we should accept another country's radioactive waste. I 
happen to think we shouldn't. No other country in the world does. I 
don't think we should either. There has been mention that this is a 
restraint of trade issue in preventing U.S. companies from competing. I 
don't know of any other country that takes imported waste.
  For trade to exist, you have goods and services going in both 
directions, not just in one. I don't understand how this in any way 
could be described as a restraint of trade.
  Secondly, the capacity of this country for handling low-level waste 
is an issue because from what I have heard, not many States want to 
have a nuclear waste site for this low-level waste even though you have 
heard descriptions that this low-level waste may be no more dangerous 
than what's in a smoke detector. When you talk about tons and tons of 
this low-level radioactive waste, not a lot of States are lining up to 
take it.
  And as we move forward as a country in a climate-constrained world 
where I believe--and I support development of nuclear power plants 
which, in addition to high-level fuel rods, do generate low-level 
waste--we need to have a location in this country to dispose of that 
low-level waste.

[[Page H13422]]

  When the GAO did analyze the site in Utah to discuss the capacity 
issue, as was pointed out during the Congressional hearings before the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, it was pointed out that the GAO only 
looked at 1 year's worth of data for how much waste was put in, and 
they just took that volume from that year and projected it out into the 
future, which I'm a little disappointed that GAO would make such an 
elementary mistake in terms of how you project a trend, because the 1 
year they used, in terms of the volume that was deposited that year, 
was a particularly low year in terms of volumes of waste.
  And in fact, even with that assumption, they projected that it would 
go out maybe somewhere between 20 and 30 years. That is not necessarily 
a long amount of time when you talk about storage of low-level waste in 
this country. That is not a long amount of time when you consider the 
issue that most States don't want one of these sites located in their 
State. And I would submit that if you take the longer view of the life 
cycle of a nuclear power plant, that 20 to 30 years is not an 
excessively long amount of time, that's the storage capacity we've got 
at this site.
  By the way, the GAO report also did not assume any foreign 
radioactive waste would be going in the site when it made its analysis 
of what the capacity was.
  So I think this is a good bill. I think this addresses a gap in 
policy today. I think it will create greater certainty for the future 
of the nuclear industry in this country. I think it aligns the United 
States with the rest of the world in how we deal with importation of 
radioactive waste.
  I want to thank Mr. Gordon for his leadership on this issue. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time I have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Sixteen minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I think if you try to look at this issue in a broad sence, around the 
world a lot of countries are actually building nuclear power plants and 
there's also countries that are decommissioning them. There are 
currently 436 nuclear reactors worldwide with 53 under construction. 
China currently has 16 reactors under construction. So this renaissance 
is occurring. It's global.
  So I think if you're going to have companies that are involved with 
the construction and decommission of nuclear power plants and they want 
to say, Okay, I want to bid, these countries will accept the bid from 
the United States; but if the United States is limiting them in how 
they're getting rid of low level radioactive waste, it's going to make 
it more difficult for that company to compete.
  Again, this is not a serious problem. As far as I know, there has not 
been any indirect harm to individuals because of this. I obviously view 
this bill--the authors have crafted as a safety measure, and I respect 
that. But low level radioactive waste, as I mentioned, is in smoke 
detectors as well as exit signs.
  So the implementation of this bill is going to be more regulatory, 
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is already doing this. So why 
would we need this bill?
  And I think, as pointed out earlier in my statement, we have so many 
other Class B and Class C waste capacity problems that we should really 
be concentrating on and not this form of class, which is a very low 
radioactive class.
  So I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a serious problem. I 
respect the authors and what they are trying to do; but, I think 
there's not a need for this kind of regulatory overlay with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, which has already done a wonderful job for 
decades.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues not to support 
and vote ``no'' on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I have to say that my friend from Florida is making a valiant effort. 
I just want to talk to you about a couple of things.
  First of all, Shakespeare also says ``don't rope a dope me.'' This is 
not B and C material. We're talking about A material.
  We're both pro-nuclear. We would like to see additional nuclear power 
help us deal with our climate change, but he says this is not a serious 
problem. Well, it's a very serious problem if you are a lab, if you are 
a hospital, if you are a utility and you have no place to take your 
low-level radioactive waste.

                              {time}  1430

  For 37 States, there is no place else to go but Utah. And when that 
runs out, it is out. And so that is a very serious problem.
  He says it is going to hurt business. It is not going to hurt 
business. There is a finite amount of space there. Either you put in 
American waste or foreign waste; it is the same amount. So there is no 
business going to be hurt there.
  And finally, ``don't worry about it, it is a smoke detector.'' Well, 
if it is only smoke detectors, why are we putting up barbed wire fence, 
why do we have guards, and why does it have to stay there permanently? 
It is much more than that. There are serious problems here. This is a 
matter of American competitiveness. For that reason, I think that this 
bipartisan bill does need to pass.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time because I 
think the gentleman from Tennessee has additional speakers.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I regret that my friend from 
Florida has no one here to defend him today, and I yield such time as 
he may consume to Mr. Chaffetz, another person who this will directly 
impact in Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work Mr. Gordon has done 
on this bill with broad, bipartisan support, and I appreciate the 
leadership of Jim Matheson, who has led out on this issue for years.
  In short, for those of you who are supportive of the nuclear 
industry, and like me want to see the expansion of the nuclear 
industry, we need to make sure that we reserve the capacity so we can 
deal with the waste. We won't be able to have expansion unless we have 
the capacity to actually store the waste.
  And for those of you who don't want to see any sort of expansion of 
the nuclear industry, then why in the world would you ever want to take 
nuclear waste from foreign countries?
  I am a very strong supporter of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear 
reactors in America provide the United States with roughly 20 percent 
of its electricity, yet we have built no new reactors since 1978. That 
is why I am a cosponsor of the American Energy Act, which establishes 
the national goal of bringing 100 new nuclear reactors online over the 
next 20 years. Achieving this goal is important for our economy, our 
environment, and for energy independence. This is why facilities like 
the one located in Clive, one of the best in the Nation and really the 
best in the world, need to dedicate their capacities to storage of 
American products. Expansion of our nuclear capacity will be nearly 
impossible if we allow our storage facilities to become saturated with 
foreign nuclear waste.
  I support this bill and oppose the importation of waste into the 
country based on the basic laws of supply and demand. If the waste 
generated by Italian companies is so valuable, then why do businesses 
in Europe not step up to the plate? There is a reason why: With $1 
billion on the line, there is not one place in Europe that is willing 
to step up and take it. It is dangerous. It is very dangerous. The 
answer, I would argue, is that other European countries do not want to 
take the risk of importing waste into their country. It is not a risk 
that I want to take for the State of Utah or for my country. And I 
believe that by passing this bill, I am confident that market forces 
will find a place for the waste somewhere other than the United States, 
and we can continue to propel the nuclear industry forward in the 
United States of America.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I noticed that the advocates for the opponent all have these people 
from

[[Page H13423]]

Utah. I just wonder if that is a coincidence. I see the gentleman from 
Tennessee has no one except people from Utah. But I am going to reveal 
a secret to him that perhaps he didn't know and the people from Utah 
didn't know that fortunately on this side we had the clairvoyance to 
find out. In checking with the Utah facility, we found that they do, 
indeed, have the capacity to take this low-level waste, not just for 
another year, but for decades and decades.
  So I know the people on that side say this is not true, but the 
information we are getting back, which is probably news to the 
gentleman from Tennessee, is that the facility is capable of taking 
this type of waste. So I would just indicate that our main concern is 
that those companies who are trying to do business in this renaissance 
for nuclear construction are going to be hampered because of this bill.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Roe) such time as he may consume.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 515 is a worthy attempt to 
deal with an issue that deserves a long-term solution: our ability to 
store processed nuclear waste. I think all Members want to ensure we 
have adequate storage space, and I commend the gentleman from Tennessee 
for trying to deal with this complicated issue. I fundamentally support 
the gentleman's goal, which is to stop the long-term storage of foreign 
waste in our country. The problem, however, is the bill will stop any 
operation that safely imports, processes, or exports low-level nuclear 
material in this country.
  A company in my district processes the waste and returns it to its 
country of origin, which does not impact the long-term domestic 
storage. This legislation would prohibit them from doing this and 
impact jobs at a time when jobs are scarce.
  I certainly would like to work with my esteemed colleague from 
Tennessee to make changes in this legislation that would achieve this 
goal of halting the permanent storage of foreign waste while allowing 
companies that safely process and export this material to continue to 
do so.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to add that the 
gentleman had a very balanced approach to it in his statement. Also, he 
is from the great State of Tennessee so we have a balanced opinion from 
one side to the other from the great State of Tennessee.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my time is coming to an end, but I could share some of 
my time with my friend from Florida if he would like to volunteer the 
State of Florida as a repository for some of this low-level radioactive 
waste.
  Mr. STEARNS. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. I would consider that proposal. Will you withdraw this 
bill?
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Once you get it sited, then this bill may 
not be necessary.
  Mr. STEARNS. During the process we are waiting to get sited in 
Florida, will you just put this bill onto a back burner?
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I don't think that would be the responsible 
thing to do for our country.
  And for that reason, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Matheson) to clarify one of the earlier statements.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to clarify one comment made 
by the gentleman from Florida about capacity in Utah.
  It is interesting the company is telling people that they have so 
much capacity. They made a commitment to our Governor that they were 
not going to ask for any increase in the license capacity compared to 
what they have. It so happens when they came to testify before the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, in their written testimony they included 
tables that assumed great expansion of this site. But the State of Utah 
has not licensed that expansion. They made a commitment to our Governor 
that they weren't going to apply for an increase in size from the 
license capacity that exists today.
  So I am not sure if they are talking out of both sides of their mouth 
now, if they are telling the other side that they have plenty of 
capacity, but I would just put it on the record that that company is on 
record that they said they would not make a license request to increase 
the capacity at the site.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. If the gentleman would stay there, 
reclaiming my time, the Northwest Compact, did they volunteer to take 
this radioactive waste?
  Mr. MATHESON. The imported waste?
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Yes.
  Mr. MATHESON. The Northwest Compact, as I made some reference to in 
my earlier statement, voted against taking this waste.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. And what was the Governor's position?
  Mr. MATHESON. The Governor of Utah was opposed to it. The State of 
Utah was opposed to it.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. What action did the company then take?
  Mr. MATHESON. The company then took the State and the Northwest 
Compact to court.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. They sued them? You mean they sued them to 
make them take this?
  Mr. MATHESON. They took this action to Federal court because they 
disagreed with the decision of the State of Utah and the Northwest 
Compact.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I'm shocked. I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to attempt to reply 
to my colleagues.
  As I understand it, this appeal process went through, and it is still 
in court, and so the final judgment has not been made. I think the 
gentleman from Utah sort of illustrates what I think is true: the 
company says they have the capacity to handle this.
  But the overall position, I think, of many of us is that this 
legislation is going to hurt U.S. companies who are trying to compete 
with other global nuclear services in the marketplace. And as I pointed 
out, this is a global and highly technical and competitive industry, 
and it is growing, and we should not handicap companies who wish to 
compete in it.
  Class A radioactive waste is very minimal. We have been able to take 
care of it. For decades and decades, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
has been able to take care of it. They have testified that it is not a 
problem. It is not a problem for the long term or short term.
  I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I say to my friend from Florida, I am not sure how much water this 
cup will hold, but when it is full, it is full. Now I am not sure how 
much, and we can talk about how much radioactive material that the Utah 
site can hold, but when it is full, it is full, and there will be no 
more space left. We need to recognize that.
  In conclusion, let me just say this is very simple, very simple. 
There is only one Nation in the world that allows other countries to 
ship their radioactive waste to that country for permanent disposal, 
and that is the United States. Quite frankly, it was a loophole because 
it was never expected that that would happen. So what we are doing with 
this legislation is simply bringing it into compliance with the rest of 
the world, saying that our country will not accept radioactive waste, 
and there are 20,000 tons ready to come in, as well as other countries 
asking to bring that waste in.
  We are simply saying we are going to abide by what all the others 
countries do, and they say if you have radioactive waste, if you are 
going to be producing radioactive waste, you need to take care of it, 
just like every other country. I think that is fair. I think it is 
reasonable.
  Mr. STEARNS. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I yield to my friend from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.
  To you folks, when you hold up that glass, there is another glass in 
Texas that is willing to take this low-level radioactive waste. You 
should know that. We are not just talking about the plant in Utah.

[[Page H13424]]

  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Reclaiming my time, and I will yield right 
back to you, has that site been certified?
  Mr. STEARNS. I think it is in the process of being certified. And 
there are other States that are willing to do the same thing.
  If you don't mind, your colleague from Tennessee has a question for 
you.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Thank you for yielding.
  Is it a problem to have the waste brought into this country and then 
shipped out back to the country of origin or wherever it is disposed 
of? We have a company in our district that does that.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Reclaiming my time, I understand that, and I 
am sympathetic to that. The difficulty is where that waste has been 
separated. I have talked to them personally, and they have said that 
they don't ship it all back, that they keep some of it here. And there 
are difficulties. Once you combine an A level with a B or C level, 
there are additional problems.
  Now I am sympathetic to your concerns. We want to continue with that 
dialogue. I hope that can be rectified. But so far, we do not have 
that. And that is not before us today. What we have before us today is 
a very simple proposition: Is the United States going to be the only 
country in the world that is going to use our limited storage space to 
permanently dispose of tons and tons of radioactive waste from other 
countries? That is the question before us today, and we have a 
bipartisan bill that tries to answer that.
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague for allowing me the time to speak.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I understand that Mr. Terry, a member of our 
committee, is on his way. He is going to have to get here pretty soon. 
As a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, I think he would want me to say 
on his behalf that it is not in the interest of Nebraska, his home 
State, to have no other place to send their radioactive waste, whether 
it is from a hospital, from a lab, or anywhere else, but to Utah. And I 
would say that he would be very concerned with what Nebraska is going 
to do with that waste if there is no other place to send it. I am sure 
that he could say it much more eloquently than me.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 515, the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act, a bipartisan bill 
introduced by Congressmen Gordon, Matheson and Terry. This important 
legislation will ban the importation of low-level radioactive waste 
into the United States. This is a bipartisan bill, cosponsored by 80 
House Members, including 20 Democratic and 4 Republican members of the 
full Energy and Commerce Committee.
  H.R. 515 was drafted in response to an attempt to bring 20,000 tons 
of Italian low-level nuclear waste into the United States to be 
processed in Tennessee and disposed of in Utah. Italy wants to ship 
their waste to the United States because they have no disposal 
capabilities of their own. And Italy is by no means the only country in 
this position.
  In fact, the United States is the only nuclear waste-producing 
country in the world which allows for the importation and disposal of 
foreign nuclear waste. No other country does, and for good reason! Why 
should the United States take Italian nuclear waste if they won't take 
ours? I think the answer is simple: this House will not allow the 
United States to be the world's nuclear dumping ground.
  H.R. 515 will preserve U.S. low-level nuclear waste disposal sites 
for U.S. low-level nuclear waste. Today, we have a few sites in the 
country which dispose of our low-level waste. For the moment, this is 
adequate. However, it is extremely difficult to establish new disposal 
sites. It is only practical that we carefully manage our existing 
domestic low-level nuclear waste disposal capacity to ensure that we do 
not face a crisis in the future. This will be even more critical if new 
nuclear reactors are built in this country.
  Not only would H.R. 515 preserve existing disposal sites for our own 
waste, but it would maintain the integrity of the Low Level Waste 
Compact System, and protect the States from being forced to accept 
foreign nuclear waste.
  When Congress established the Low Level Waste Compact System, we did 
not intend for the compacts to handle foreign waste. We empowered the 
States to establish sites for common use within the various regions, 
and specifically allowed them to exclude waste from outside those 
regions. This bill will responsibly fix a loophole which was never 
intended to exist.
  If we fail to protect the Low Level Waste Compact System, what were 
supposed to be domestic disposal sites could be turned into global 
nuclear waste dumps. If that occurs, we could end up in a position 
where many States are unable--or unwilling--to participate in these 
compacts at all, leaving domestic companies with nowhere to go to 
dispose of their radioactive waste. That would not be a good 
development for the nuclear industry, or for the Nation.
  This bill moved through the Energy and Commerce Committee under 
regular order, and received bipartisan support. It was reported 
favorably by the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment to the full 
Committee by a voice vote, and the Energy and Commerce Committee sent 
the bill to this Floor by a strong vote of 34-12.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
legislation today.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 515, the 
Radioactive Import Deterrence Act. This legislation will preserve our 
ability to regulate the importation of low-level radioactive waste 
produced in U.S. facilities such as clothing and items that are used in 
hospitals, research facilities, and nuclear power plants.
  These low-level waste products are generated throughout the country, 
including Nebraska, which has two nuclear power plants and several 
medical facilities that generate these low-level waste materials that 
require processing and storage.
  This legislation would bar the NRC from issuing licenses authorizing 
the importation of foreign low-level radioactive waste, unless waived 
by the President to meet national or international policy goals. It 
also exempts waste generated by the U.S. government or the military.
  The United States is the only nation that allows imports of low-level 
radioactive waste from other countries. If we do not impose the ban on 
importation, the United States could easily become the preferred 
dumping ground for low-level radioactive waste from around the globe. 
This could be a problem since 36 states that do not have access to a 
waste compact--like Nebraska--have access to only one disposal site 
located in the State of Utah. Also, 94 out of 104 commercial nuclear 
plants in the United States us the same commercial facility as those 36 
states to dispose of their low-level waste.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not become the low-level radioactive waste 
disposal dump for the entire world. Other countries that are now using 
or developing nuclear power and have medical facilities generating this 
waste should build and operate their own storage facilities and not put 
American communities at risk for taking care of this radioactive waste.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 515.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. At this time, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 515, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. 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 motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________