[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3844-H3850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3053, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2017
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 879 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 879
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3053) to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
115-69. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 879, providing for consideration of
an important piece of legislation, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2018. The rule provides for consideration of this
measure under a structured rule, making three amendments offered by the
minority in order. This legislation passed out of the Energy and
Commerce Committee on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis by a vote of
49-4, and has been a comprehensive effort spearheaded by my colleague
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) over several Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, in 39 States and in 121 communities across this country,
including in the Tri-Cities community in my home district, in the great
State of Washington, the Federal Government continues to fail to meet
its obligation to collect and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste. This spent fuel and waste is generated as a
result of commercial nuclear power production, and as a byproduct of
our Nation's nuclear defense activities, including used fuel from
nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers and from the legacy
waste created from uranium and plutonium development as nuclear weapons
deterrents.
No one knows the magnitude of impact stemming from the development of
these nuclear deterrents more than the Tri-Cities community, where the
Hanford Site played a major role within the Manhattan Project during
World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. It was because of the
extraordinary work of the more than 50,000 workers at Hanford that we
were able to end World War II, and later the Cold War.
However, this work came with great repercussions. The Hanford Site
contains 56 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste, and is one
of the world's largest nuclear cleanup efforts. Fifty-six million
gallons, Mr. Speaker, enough to fill this room that we are standing in
today more than 20 times.
This amount of radioactive waste has been a legacy issue in my
district since the 1940s. My constituents fully understand the impacts
holding this waste has on the region. The Federal Government must keep
its commitment to collect and dispose of it to a permanent repository.
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2018, would make great strides in addressing this
very problem. H.R. 3053 would, rightfully, move forward with the
licensing of the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada as the first
permanent geological repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste.
First designated by Congress in 1987 as the location for these
materials to be disposed of, the site has undergone extensive
scientific and technical evaluations. In 2002, the U.S. Department of
Energy concluded that Yucca Mountain met all of the requirements to
serve as a permanent repository. In
[[Page H3845]]
2008, DOE applied to construct the repository, but the Obama
administration illegally terminated the effort for what appeared to be
political, rather than scientific, reasons. Fortunately, for our
Nation, and for the communities like the Tri-Cities, this
administration has stated its firm commitment to getting this project
back on track and moving forward.
Not only does central Washington continue to store the legacy waste
from Hanford, but it is also home to the only nuclear power plant in
the Pacific Northwest, the Columbia Generating Station. While H.R. 3053
provides for a path forward for a long-term solution for waste disposal
at Yucca Mountain, it also authorizes DOE to contract with a private
company to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel for the very first
time.
Communities that host nuclear power production sites across the
country have, for far too long, been held responsible for the
management of spent fuel, even though, under law, it is the legal
obligation of the Federal Government to collect and dispose of it. This
legislation directs DOE to initiate a program to consolidate and
temporarily store commercial spent nuclear fuel during the development,
construction, and initial operation of a repository.
H.R. 3053 provides for other innovative and necessary management
tools for waste, including encouraging DOE to take ownership of spent
nuclear fuels from facilities that have ceased commercial operation,
and allowing the Department to enter into contract with private storage
facilities.
The legislation also protects taxpayers by reducing legal
liabilities. Consumers of nuclear energy across the country have paid
over $42 billion into the nuclear waste fund, with nearly $40 billion
still waiting to be spent to dispose of nuclear waste. This includes
more than $200 million from Washington State ratepayers.
What have they received from the Federal Government for paying of
these fees, Mr. Speaker?
Absolutely nothing. Not one ounce of waste has been collected, which
is the very purpose of the fund.
This legislation will reform the fund to protect ratepayers by
assuring there is a definite answer on the Yucca Mountain repository
prior to restarting the fee collection.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of visiting the Yucca Mountain
facility. While it may seem to some like just a dusty 5-mile tunnel
bored 1,000 feet deep in a remote Nevada desert, I found it to be an
impressive site and full of potential. The Federal Government has spent
decades, and billions of American taxpayer dollars, studying the best
place for a repository. The conclusion was that Yucca Mountain is now
the legal repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste under the law.
I cannot express more ardently the importance of moving this effort
forward, both for my district and districts around the Nation. This
legislation takes a great leap forward for a long-term solution, while
also tackling serious impacts and disparities of the current situation
facing these communities.
Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward rule, allowing for considering
of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. I
encourage my colleagues to support the rule, as well as the underlying
legislation, to address this vital issue for our entire Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse)
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of
this measure, H.R. 3053.
As my good friend alluded to, this legislation has bipartisan support
and takes an important step towards permanently securing nuclear waste
in our country.
{time} 1230
Thirty-six years ago, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
In doing so, this institution created a formal process for constructing
a permanent geological repository for the growing amount of nuclear
waste across our country.
This particular provision established a scientifically based,
multistage process for selecting an eventual site of permanent storage
for highly radioactive nuclear waste, delineated the Federal
Government's responsibilities for the transportation of spent nuclear
fuel, and created a dedicated funding source for disposing of nuclear
material.
Five years after passing the NWPA and following significant
congressional review of the Department of Energy studies, it was
determined that the facility be built at Yucca Mountain. However, after
many subsequent years of planning, licensing, and construction, the
project has stalled--at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
The question of how to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear
waste has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. Even with
the statutory requirements put in place by the NWPA nearly four decades
ago, no permanent solution is currently available for safely storing
high-level radioactive waste in a consolidated, secure location.
Rather, spent nuclear fuel is stored at nuclear reactors across the
country. Many of these facilities have been shut down, or soon will be,
without any solution to the long-term problem.
For obvious reasons, the issue of nuclear waste storage at plants
across the country is of great concern to the surrounding communities,
especially as some nuclear plants are shuttered early. The longer we
wait, the greater the problem will become.
H.R. 3053, the underlying legislation, directs the Secretary of the
Department of Energy to create a program to consolidate and temporarily
store commercial spent nuclear fuel during the development,
construction, and initial operation of a national repository. The
legislation provides the Energy Department with consolidated storage
options to help fulfill the Federal Government's obligations to take
possession of spent nuclear fuel in other States that are waiting for a
permanent repository.
This bill, although I have some concerns, is a good step forward.
This is a complicated issue, and I believe this institution has come
together to present at least a viable option for addressing a very
serious need.
Mr. Speaker, in taking up this legislation, the Rules Committee has
acted for the second time in just a few weeks to bring bipartisan
legislation to the House floor. While the bill we are debating today is
certainly not perfect, it is, nonetheless, an example of what can be
accomplished through compromise and bipartisan cooperation. This type
of process should not be the exception to the rule. It should be the
standard operating procedure for the House of Representatives.
I mention this because we all know this is, by and large, not the
case. Instead of working together, we have witnessed dozens of
controversial and partisan bills pushed through the House through a
closed process designed to silence the minority and even voices within
the Republican majority. That is wrong, and for the sake of this
institution, it cannot continue.
Using the closed process, my Republican friends recently pushed
through one of the largest tax giveaways in American history. They did
so at the expense of middle class families across the country, passing
the bill without so much as a single hearing or bipartisan
conversation.
According to the latest survey by the National Association for
Business Economics, the massive tax cuts have not made any difference
in businesses' hiring plans. Rather, almost every week, we hear of
corporations using their millions of dollars in handouts to buy back
stock and pad the pockets of their investors. It is no wonder most
Americans haven't seen their paychecks go up.
In a few years, when the tax breaks expire--that is right, they are
only temporary--the few families across the country who benefit will
recognize the tax scam for what it really is: an empty bag of goods
that added nearly $2.5 trillion to the national debt.
My friends on the other side are even contemplating paying for part
of their tax plan by retroactively eliminating funding for a number of
programs, and the children's healthcare program is one of them.
[[Page H3846]]
Let me say that again. In order to pay for the tax cuts for
millionaires and large corporations, my Republican colleagues are
suggesting cutting billions of dollars from healthcare programs for
vulnerable children.
How dare they.
The closed process isn't just about what is being rammed through the
House; it is about what is being blocked altogether.
Americans across our Nation continue to be victims of gun violence,
yet Congress has failed to pass even basic commonsense reforms like
banning bump stocks or fixing our background check system.
More than 26,000 children and teens have been killed in gun violence
since 1999. This year alone, 500 teens and over 100 children have been
killed or injured by guns. People are killed every single day, and this
body has done nothing but prevent sensible reforms from even being
considered.
Another example is DACA. Eighty-three percent of Americans say they
favor continuing the DACA program, as do a majority of the Members of
this House, and that includes Republicans and Democrats; yet the
majority refuses to bring up the Dream Act for a vote.
Just put it down here for a vote; that is all. The 26 measures for
guns that are reasonable, put it down here for a vote. If it doesn't
pass, then at least we can say to the American people that we tried to
do something about gun violence and we tried to do something about the
Dream Act.
Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to the American people to
consider legislation in a transparent and serious manner, and the
legislation that we are considering today is exactly that kind of
situation, something that doesn't happen nearly enough. I commend my
colleagues for their bipartisan work on H.R. 3053, but it is absurd
that bipartisan work is such a rarity, and that is worthy of comment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for joining me in
support of this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, getting back to my State of Washington and the legacy of
the Federal Government's work at Hanford, like I said, they left behind
56 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste that is currently
being stored in 177 underground tanks in temporary storage.
I had the fortune of being able to join a bipartisan congressional
tour of Yucca, of the Yucca Mountain site, to see firsthand what we
were talking about. Under the law, Yucca is the Nation's permanent
nuclear repository.
What I saw deep beneath the mountain in a remote desert that is
between, I think, 90 and 100 miles north of Las Vegas--it has been
referred to as the most studied site on Earth. But imagine this: being
inside a 5-mile-long tunnel with 1,000 feet of rock above your head and
1,000 feet of rock below your feet. That is what we are talking about.
The Federal Government has spent $15 billion over decades preparing
the site as the Nation's sole permanent nuclear repository. Yucca has
been deemed safe by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC. A
recent safety evaluation found that the site could safely isolate spent
nuclear fuel for 1 million years.
Mr. Speaker, the prospect is that Yucca could stand in two different
ways: it could be a monument to billions of dollars in government waste
instead of being a monument to a solution that we promised every
American in this country.
I hope it is the latter, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, few people in this body understand the dynamics of Yucca
Mountain as do the Members from the State of Nevada. One of my good
friends is on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and on
the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I have had the pleasure of being on
the Rules Committee and hearing her make presentations with reference
to this matter. She speaks very clearly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms.
Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind words
and for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I represent Las Vegas, which is the heart of southern
Nevada. We have over 2 million people, and we welcome 40 million people
from around the world every year. Let me give you a different
perspective.
I have been fighting Yucca Mountain since the 1980s. I do know these
issues. I appreciate some of the points that have been made, but some
of them are just incorrect. H.R. 3053 is a flawed piece of legislation,
and it just doubles down on bad policy and bad politics.
I testified in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee on this
bill when it was first introduced last year and noted many of the flaws
in the legislation, flaws that remain in the bill.
I also presented a map that showed that, if this waste is taken to
Nevada, it will go through over 300 of our Members' districts: past
their schools, past their churches, past their businesses, in their
backyards. So I want them to keep that in mind as they focus on Nevada.
Other flaws with the bill: First, the bill would bust the cap for the
amount of highly radioactive nuclear waste that would be dumped in
Nevada. The bill arbitrarily increases the amount by 37 percent, 37
percent over what was authorized in 1987. But what is more, not one of
the environmental impact studies, the five-volume safety evaluation
report, or any scientific document that relates to Yucca Mountain has
studied the impact of increasing that original 70,000-metric-ton cap.
So this would not only increase it, they haven't even studied what the
impact of the increase would be.
The bill also deems approved changes in the EPA's radiation
protection standards for Yucca Mountain prior to the NRC's final
licensing document. This leads one to conclude that, no matter what
challenge they face, they will just figure out a way to get around it
regardless of what the science says.
Proponents of this legislation also say that, well, you will get
generous host benefits if you take this facility. Well, that is just
another falsehood. The provisions in the bill that were changed after
it passed the committee in order to bring down the cost of the bill and
address the massive scoring issues make our getting those benefits much
less likely.
These benefits have to be approved by future Congresses appropriating
hundreds of millions of dollars. You don't really think they are going
to do that, do you? They shut down the government twice just this year
alone over disagreements on spending.
If this legislation were about good policy or addressing the issue or
getting the technicalities correct, I would be standing here supporting
it, but I just cannot do that the way it is written.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress first passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
as you heard, in 1982. It was amended in 1987 just to look at Nevada,
not any of the other sites. We call that the ``Screw Nevada'' bill.
Well, we call it that because you didn't have Nevada wanting it to
come there. You didn't have the science to put it there. You just
screwed Nevada and stuck it there.
{time} 1245
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman from Nevada an additional 1
minute.
Ms. TITUS. Well, this is just more of the same. It is politics, pure
and simple. It is three decades later. We have heard we spent $15
billion. All you got is a hole in the ground. This is ``Screw Nevada
2.0.''
I am going to offer an amendment that allows for consent-based
decisionmaking, which was the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation,
and I hope that we can go in that direction. You allow consent-based
for interim storage, why not for permanent storage? That would be the
way to solve this problem. That would be the way to move us forward. We
wouldn't waste billions more and decades more in terms of time.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me quote the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
[[Page H3847]]
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who said that:
Overall, this legislation is a balanced step in the right
direction that will benefit ratepayers, taxpayers, and those
living near nuclear facilities housing nuclear waste.
So I am happy to have his support for this legislation as well.
And just a couple of points from the gentlewoman from Nevada, whom I
deeply respect and take her perspective on this with a great deal of
gravity.
The transportation issue has been brought up several times. Nuclear
waste is transported in this country already, and I have just got to
tell you, the vessels, the containers that I have witnessed that this
waste is being temporarily stored in and used for transportation,
literally, is missile-proof. I mean, it is in containers that are very
solidly contained and in such a way that the safety factor is many
times over to ensure that, in case of any incident, that there would be
no contamination.
As far as the language, it is true that the bill would allow the
potential increase of storage capacity at Yucca Mountain. However,
there is a strict process of approval that would have to be gone
through in order to increase the amount of nuclear waste stored at
Yucca Mountain, so it is not a given, passing this legislation. It
would be something that would go through a very long, strict process.
I just have to say that we would gladly have entertained any
amendments to clarify or perfect language along those lines as far as
the storage amounts in Yucca Mountain.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When debating a bill as significant as this one, it is imperative
that the people's House allow as much debate and as open a process as
possible. Sadly, the Rules Committee did not even allow all Members
from Nevada, whose State this bill will impact the most, to offer their
amendments on the House floor.
Once again, this majority picked winners and losers and limited
debate to just a select few amendments. This is unfortunate but all too
common an event during the 115th Congress.
To block a Member from offering an amendment to a bill that would
impact their district, in particular, is to block a Member from
representing their constituents. I might add, there were five Members,
Democratic and Republican, from the Nevada delegation who were present
at the Rules Committee last night.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule to allow the people's House to debate and vote
on Representative Rosen of Nevada's amendment, which was blocked by the
Rules Committee.
Her amendment, which is a thoughtful proposal, would delay licensing,
planning, or construction of the nuclear repository at the Yucca
Mountain site until the Director of OMB studies the economic viability
and job-creating benefits of alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain
site.
It is bothersome to me that we have had most of the discussion here
already without talking about reprocessing; and I asked last night how
much research is being done, of the distinguished chairman of the
committee, who, I believe, has done an incredibly good job in offering
up bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. As I said previously, the members of the Nevada
delegation know more about this issue than all the rest of us combined.
So to discuss our proposal, yet another clear voice that came to the
Rules Committee last night and her amendment was not made in order.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), a
member of the Armed Services Committee, and the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, if today's vote on the previous question
fails, we have the opportunity to vote on my amendment, the Jobs, Not
Waste amendment, a proactive and innovative proposal to turn Yucca
Mountain into something useful, a project that would create jobs
without threatening the health and safety of Nevadans and other
Americans across this country.
My amendment would prohibit the Department of Energy from moving
forward with its current plan to ship nuclear waste by truck and rail
through 329 congressional districts to Yucca Mountain until the Federal
Government considers a number of other job-creating alternatives,
including defense activities, like a command facility for unmanned
aircraft systems, scientific research, the development of a secure
electronic data center, or renewable energy generation.
One of the arguments I regularly hear from proponents of Yucca
Mountain is that it will create jobs and that we have already invested
billions in building a repository at this sight. Well, I am here to say
that we can still create jobs without having to take on monumental
health and safety risks that come with transporting over 100,000 metric
tons of hazardous and lethal nuclear waste.
Congress should have the opportunity to vote on my amendment because
it would give Members a chance to find a smart, strategic solution that
repurposes this dangerous and costly project. This amendment gives us
an opportunity to convert Yucca Mountain into a facility that could
still provide economic opportunity, drive innovation, and create new,
good-paying jobs.
Relaunching the failed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storing
experiment will also cost the taxpayers an additional $80 billion to
complete, minimum. Let me repeat that: $80 billion, minimum.
Instead of spending billions more of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on
the project that is destined to fail, that will inevitably put Nevada
families and your families in your districts at risk, let us consider
these forward-thinking opportunities.
I strongly urge you to do what is smart and fiscally responsible,
what is right for the health and safety of all of our constituents, by
making my amendment in order. I therefore ask all Members to vote
``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who has been carrying the banner for the Yucca
Mountain project for many Congresses.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee for
bringing this bill to the floor tomorrow. I appreciate the due
diligence they did on scrutinizing those amendments that could be
additive to it and also the one from my colleague, Representative
Titus, so we can really put aside this debate on a consensus-based
issue because we need to help educate the American people. We need to
help educate our colleagues.
In the State of Nevada, 90 percent of all the land is owned by the
Federal Government, and a big portion of that is at this location.
When people say ``not in my backyard,'' we think they are talking
about the Rayburn Building. Not in my backyard, in this debate, we are
talking about Baltimore. But in between here and Baltimore, there is
desert; and in the 60-mile radius is a fenced-in enclosure where we
used to set off atomic weapons and groundbursts. So there is a place in
this land that is called Yucca Flats, and some of us have seen that.
Yucca Flats is where we did atomic testing.
We need to make sure people understand this debate. Big area of land,
Federal Government, really, the local consensus is us. It is the
Federal Government. We are the landowners of this property.
This is a tough decision. No one wants nuclear waste or defense
waste. I am glad my colleague, Mr. Newhouse, is managing this bill,
because I have been out to his location. In Hanford, we have a lot of
defense waste there.
So what are we trying to do? We will flesh this out more, obviously,
tomorrow, but this issue is a multigeneration debate which we in this
Chamber get a chance to move forward again after a long delay.
[[Page H3848]]
This goes back to World War II. This goes back to the atomic age.
This goes back to winning the Cold War. This goes back to our weapons
programs. When that occurred, they said: Now we have got this
technology; let's use it for civil electric generation.
The government wanted to encourage that because we wanted to have
nuclear scientists and we wanted to have energy generation, but we also
wanted to have the experience and the expertise of nuclear scientists
and engineers who could move back and forth from the private sector to
the defense sector for our Nation's security, and, hence, we agreed.
In 1982, we had to address the spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power
sites and we had to address the defense waste that is predominantly in
Congressman Newhouse's district, a lot of it in South Carolina. There
is a little bit in New York. We have some left in Colorado. That is
just the defense waste, not including the 39 States and 121 locations
that have nuclear fuel--a national issue, a national concern, and we
are moving forward to a national solution.
In 1982, under the Reagan administration, they said: Well, how are we
going to pay for this? So they decided to charge ratepayers who are
using electricity that has been generated by nuclear power a fee, a
fee-based system to help the industry find a location to store their
spent fuel and for us to clean up the defense sites--pretty good
proposal.
Years later, they are trying to find the location. They do three
analyses. Yucca Mountain was on the top three of these three. Then, as
I will mention tomorrow, Senator Johnson and a guy named John Dingell
said: Yucca Mountain, we need to move forward.
So that was in 1987. Then we started generating the movement to get
to a point where, under the law, the State of Nevada could say, ``We
reject the proposal,'' which they did. The law then said the Federal
Government could veto their objection, which we did.
{time} 1300
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, we had an administration that put a pause
on that for about 8 years, and now we are ready to move forward again.
We have got an administration that wants to fund the licensing process.
I see my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui) is on the floor,
and she has worked on interim; what do we do with the waste before we
put it in the final repository?
There are what I call dead plants--probably not the proper word--we
have plants that are no longer generating electricity, but they have
waste on site.
Can't we consolidate those for the benefit of the Nation and get them
away from some of our more pristine areas?
The answer is ``yes.'' That is what we tried to with the bill. We are
going to accept a couple amendments that have been brought forward by
some Democrat colleagues on, I think, financing, or evaluation of the
money and what do we do to the cities and how do we help them
redevelop. And I will encourage my colleagues to support those when we
have that debate.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is not an easy process in the Rules Committee.
This is a step to get it to the floor. I appreciate the kindness that
was shown to me yesterday, and I look forward to joining with you all
tomorrow.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend, who serves on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and is a former member of the Rules Committee, so
she understands our process extremely well and has done extraordinary
work on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act.
We worked in a bipartisan manner in the Energy and Commerce Committee
to ensure there is language in this bill that provides a responsible
path forward for consolidated interim storage.
When this bill was first presented in committee, the licensing of an
interim storage facility was linked to a final decision on Yucca
Mountain.
As someone who is critical of Yucca Mountain and its chances of ever
being completed, I found that to be unacceptable. It meant that our
Nation's nuclear waste could continue to be stranded at decommissioned
plants in California and across the country. That is not sustainable.
However, through bipartisan negotiations, we were able to
successfully agree on language that creates a separate path to interim
storage, decoupling it from a permanent repository.
That is the primary reason why I am supporting the bill today.
This is an issue that directly impacts my constituents and many
others across the country. My local utility, the Sacramento Municipal
Utility District or, as we call it, SMUD, currently maintains the
decommissioned Rancho Seco nuclear power plant. SMUD has reiterated how
important it is for the redevelopment of the site, that we have a plan
for consolidating spent fuel at a safe, licensed facility.
Moving spent fuel will enable SMUD to expand their adjacent solar
development or environmental mitigation area.
Consolidated interim storage is currently the most viable solution to
our Nation's spent fuel challenge. And there are private applicants
that want to take this fuel. Today's bill strengthens the regulatory
pathway that allows them to do so.
This bill also funds transportation safety, ensuring that we build on
our country's decades-long history of safely moving spent fuel.
While I don't believe every provision of H.R. 3053 is ideal, it is a
balanced step in the right direction, and that is why I will vote
``yes'' for this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by again commending the committees
involved in presenting this legislation, and for doing so in a
bipartisan manner.
While the underlying bill we are debating today is not perfect, it
is, nonetheless, an example of what can be accomplished through
bipartisan work.
In bringing up this bill, the Republican leadership has, perhaps,
tipped its hand. It has demonstrated that it is capable of working with
the minority and allowing for mature debate and compromise worthy of
this institution. I hope this trend continues. I suspect that it will
not.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me say, it is a pleasure to manage a rule with my
friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and my hands are wide open, not
tipped whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have spent over $15 billion in
research and development of the Yucca Mountain project. It would be
utterly foolish, in my estimation, to literally flush this time,
energy, and capital down the drain, particularly as the Department of
Energy has deemed that the site has met all the requirements to move
forward with the licensing process.
The rule we have debated here today provides for consideration of
very, very important legislation, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2018, which would jump-start this vital effort to
move the Yucca Mountain plan forward.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak in favor of this rule, and I
urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 879 and the
underlying legislation to provide relief and a long-term plan for
communities like those in my district and those in Mr. Hastings' State
of Florida, and the rest of our districts around the Nation.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 879 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if
offered by Representative
[[Page H3849]]
Rosen of Nevada or a designee. That amendment shall be
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
SEC. 206. STUDYING THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF ALTERNATIVE USES
OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy may not take any
action relating to the licensing, planning, development, or
construction of a nuclear waste repository at 6 the Yucca
Mountain site until--
(1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
submits to Congress, and makes available to the public, a
study on the economic viability and job-creating benefits of
alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site as outlined in
GAO Report 11-847, published on September 16, 2011,
including--
(A) defense activities, such as a command facility for
unmanned aircraft systems;
(B) a secure electronic data center;
(C) the development of renewable energy sources; and
(D) scientific research; and
(2) Congress holds a hearing on the alternative uses under
subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1).
(b) Definition. In this section, the term ``Yucca Mountain
site'' has the meaning given such term in section 2 of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Trott). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 189, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 173]
YEAS--223
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
NAYS--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
[[Page H3850]]
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Castor (FL)
Gutierrez
Harris
Hoyer
Jenkins (WV)
Jones
Kuster (NH)
Labrador
LaMalfa
Messer
Pittenger
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Royce (CA)
Smith (TX)
Zeldin
{time} 1333
Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 184, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 174]
AYES--224
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
PRESENT--1
Amodei
NOT VOTING--19
Castor (FL)
Cohen
Davidson
Doggett
Duffy
Gutierrez
Hoyer
Huizenga
Jenkins (WV)
Jones
Kuster (NH)
Labrador
Messer
Pittenger
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Royce (CA)
Smith (NE)
Woodall
{time} 1341
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 174.
____________________