[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 76 (Thursday, May 10, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3890-H3911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2017
General Leave
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3053.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kustoff of Tennessee). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 879 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3053.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 0910
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3053) to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Rothfus in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am going to have a lot of people wanting to come to the
floor, so I will abbreviate my opening remarks and just address a few
questions that are going to be raised.
First, I just want to highlight the fact that you are going to hear a
lot about local, consensus-based decisionmaking, and then you are also
going to hear about closeness of proximity. This chart kind of
highlights what we are talking about.
The red is Federal Government land. The Federal Government land is
larger than 31 countries on the Earth. You have three different
sections. You have the national test and training range. You have the
national security site. You have also some Fish and Wildlife/Interior
land, bigger than many of our States in our Union. So, to my
colleagues, I want to make sure they have in perspective the size of
the area that we are talking about: bigger than the State of
Connecticut and areas that people are going to talk about.
That is one question that will be addressed. Another question will be
the fear of tourism, because Las Vegas gets 42 million tourists a year,
and they seem to be concerned that this might affect that industry. And
then it dawned on me that the city of Chicago gets 55 million tourists
a year--55 million--and they have over 10,000 metric tons of spent
nuclear fuel in Chicagoland.
So I want to make sure that my friends in Nevada understand that that
should not be a terrible concern when Chicago seems to be doing well
with tourism on that issue.
Also, there will be a debate about transportation. I just want to
call attention, Mr. Chairman, through you to my colleagues that we
operate a nuclear Navy. That nuclear Navy has to have the power systems
refueled. That means new nuclear fuel goes there. That means spent
nuclear fuel goes off the nuclear Navy ships. That is on the ocean.
That is either on the Atlantic Ocean or on the Pacific Ocean. This
spent fuel goes to Idaho, which means that we transport, safely, spent
nuclear fuel, and we have done it for decades.
Those are the three main contentions you will hear with this bill. I
am going to allow my colleagues to talk about all the great benefits of
this bill.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H3891]]
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, October 6, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop: On June 28, 2017, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce ordered favorably reported H.R. 3053, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017. This bill was
additionally referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
I ask that the Committee on Natural Resources not insist on
its referral of the bill so that H.R. 3053 may be scheduled
for consideration by the Majority Leader. This concession in
no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future
referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee
on Natural Resources represented on the conference committee.
Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and your
response in the bill report and in the Congressional Record.
Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the
extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over
matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further
opportunities to work with you this Congress.
Sincerely,
Greg Walden,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, October 6, 2017.
Hon. Greg Walden,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning
H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017,
which was additionally referred to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
In the interest of permitting you to proceed expeditiously
to floor consideration, I will allow the Committee on Natural
Resources to be discharged from further consideration of the
bill. I do so with the understanding that the Committee does
not waive any jurisdictional claim over the subject matter
contained in the bill that fall within its Rule X
jurisdiction. I also request that you support my request to
name members of the Committee on Natural Resources to any
conference committee to consider such provisions. Finally,
please include this letter in the report on the bill and into
the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure
on the House floor.
Thank you again for the very cooperative spirit in which
you and your staff have worked regarding many issues of
shared interest over the Congress.
Sincerely,
Rob Bishop,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, October 13, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thornberry: Thank you for your letter
concerning H.R. 3053, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of
2017, which was additionally referred to the Committee on
Armed Services.
I appreciate your willingness to waive your committee's
further consideration of H.R. 3053, and I agree that by
waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on Armed
Services does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over
the subject matters contained in the legislation which fall
within its Rule X jurisdiction. I will urge the Speaker to
name members of your committee to any conference committee
which is named to consider such provisions.
In addition, I agree that the DOE Record of Decision
concerning rail corridor siting will not impinge on the
activities of the Department of Defense and Department of
Energy at the Nevada Nuclear Security Site and the Nevada
Test and Training Range.
Finally, I will place a copy of your letter and this
response into the committee report on H.R. 3053 and into the
Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on
the House floor.
Sincerely,
Greg Walden,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 13, 2017.
Hon. Greg Walden,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning H.R.
3053, the ``Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017.''
There are certain provisions in the bill which fall within
the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services.
In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important
legislation, I am willing to waive this committee's further
consideration of H.R. 3053. I do so with the understanding
that by waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on
Armed Services does not waive any future jurisdictional claim
over the subject matters contained in the legislation which
fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge
the Speaker to name members of this committee to any
conference committee which is named to consider such
provisions.
The decision to waive this committee's consideration is
also based, in part, on an agreement with the Committee on
Energy and Commerce that the DOE Record of Decision
concerning rail corridor siting will not impinge on the
activities of the Department of Defense and Department of
Energy at the Nevada Nuclear Security Site and the Nevada
Test and Training Range.
Please place a copy of this letter and your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest, and our mutual
understanding that a rail siting will not impede DoD and DoE
sites, into the committee report on H.R. 3053 and into the
Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on
the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in
which you have worked regarding this matter and others
between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act.
First, let me recognize the hard work done by Mr. Shimkus on this
bill. He has been tireless in this effort. And to his and his staff's
credit, he has worked with us to make what I believe are a number of
improvements to the given bill. Regardless of your position on nuclear
energy, we have to acknowledge the reality that tens of thousands of
tons of waste already exist. This is a problem for over 120 host
communities across our country, and it will not be solved by continuing
to ignore it.
{time} 0915
But even if you do not represent one of those communities, all of our
constituents are paying for this waste. Decades ago, the Federal
Government entered into agreements to remove it from nuclear plants.
Deadlines have been missed, and now all taxpayers have a legal
liability of over $34 billion, which is being paid from the Treasury's
Judgment Fund.
In my view, the most important thing this bill does is set up a path
forward on interim storage, which will allow spent nuclear fuel to be
stored in a consolidated location on a temporary basis while a
permanent repository is pursued.
The bill includes language based upon a proposal developed by our
colleague, Doris Matsui, to allow the Secretary of Energy to enter into
an agreement to establish an interim storage pilot program, which can
move forward directly after enactment.
Consolidating waste at a small number of sites instead of 121
communities across our country will help ensure waste is managed more
safely and securely while allowing those 121 sites to begin to be
redeveloped for other purposes.
I know a number of our colleagues have concerns with this bill, and I
understand their position. And many Members that support this bill,
including myself, have not passed judgment on the merits or final
disposition of the Yucca Mountain project. That is why Members of the
minority demanded a number of troubling Nevada-related provisions be
removed from the bill during the committee process.
This bill will not rubber-stamp the Yucca permitting application. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will still need to adjudicate the many
remaining issues with the application, and it will need appropriations
in order to do so.
I know we will hear about the challenges of transporting spent fuel
to a final repository, but the reality is nuclear material is already
moved around our country today without incident due to strict safety
requirements. The only alternative to not moving this waste is keeping
it spread out in 121 locations for tens of thousands of years.
Overall, this bill is a step in the right direction toward beginning
to address our Nation's very difficult nuclear waste issues, which is
why it was reported out of committee by a vote of 49-4.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the full Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the chairman
on the Subcommittee on Environment, Mr. Shimkus, whose, I think, life's
work is on the floor today in many respects. Nobody has been more
tenacious in this effort to get permanent,
[[Page H3892]]
safe, and secure nuclear waste storage for America than John Shimkus,
and so I thank Mr. Shimkus for his good work there.
The bill we are considering today reinforces the promise that the
United States Congress, on behalf of the Federal Government, made to
our constituents a generation ago. Today, we are keeping that promise.
We will accept responsibility for and properly dispose of radioactive
waste.
This is long overdue. Americans across the country, from Maine to
southern California, from Florida to the Pacific Northwest, are
watching today, and they are expecting us to act.
The Department of Energy's Hanford site is just up the mighty
Columbia River from where I live and where I grew up. That area and
those workers helped us win World War II, and the site's nuclear
program was instrumental in projecting peace through strength
throughout the Cold War.
While the community has been a constructive partner in support of our
vital national security missions, it did not agree to serve as a
perpetual storage site for the resulting nuclear waste. Fifty-six
million gallons of toxic waste sitting in decades-old metal tanks at
Hanford--these are those tanks that were being constructed to hold this
waste. They are now buried in the ground. The only entry point is right
here.
The amount of waste stored at Hanford would fill this entire House
Chamber 20 times over. According to a recent Government Accountability
Office report, the oldest of these tanks, some of which date back to
the 1940s, have single-layer walls or shells. They were built to last
20 years. They will be almost 100 years old by the estimated end of
their waste treatment.
The Department of Energy has reported that 67 of these tanks are
assumed or known to have leaked waste into the soil. There is an
understandable sense of urgency in the Northwest behind the cleanup
efforts that are under way at Hanford.
H.R. 3053 will provide the pathway to clean up the contaminated
Hanford site. You see, the waste from Hanford will end up in a secure
permanent storage site that we believe will be Yucca Mountain. These
tanks will be drained and cleaned out, the waste classified and put
away.
This bill keeps our commitment to energy consumers, too, who are
legally bound to pay for a nuclear waste management program. These
consumers in 34 States, including Oregon, have paid the Federal
Government in excess of $40 billion. Even after the last administration
stalled the project, ratepayers continued to hand over nearly $800
million annually to develop the repository, until finally the courts
stepped in and directed the fee collection be halted because no
repository was being constructed. That money was paid to the U.S.
Treasury for a specific purpose. We have a legal and moral obligation
to advance the program for which ratepayers paid.
Now, my friends in Nevada should have confidence the Yucca Mountain
repository will protect public health and the environment. The
completion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's impartial safety
review will answer the many questions raised by the State of Nevada and
provide an independent determination if the site meets the required 1-
million-year environmental protection standard. That is right, 1
million years.
Consolidating the Nation's nuclear material for disposal is better
for the environment than the status quo, where these materials sit
around in 121 communities in 39 States, or tanks like this.
The legislation authorizes the Department of Energy to contract with
private companies to store nuclear waste while DOE finishes the
rigorous scientific analysis of the repository design and the
associated Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process. An interim
storage facility can bring added flexibility to DOE's disposal program
and may provide a more expeditious near-term pathway to consolidate
spent nuclear fuel.
The longer the government delays, the greater the potential
consequences. The legal cost of inaction, a bill paid by every American
taxpayer, is staggering. Today, taxpayers pay an average of $2 million
every day--every day--in legal claims because we as a government have
not done what was promised decades ago. We are doing that today with
this legislation.
Cumulatively, we are on the hook for nearly $134 billion. That
increases every day we delay action. Instead of contributing to an
escalating national debt, this money could be better spent to support
our men and women in uniform, deal with the opioid crisis, or a whole
myriad of other things. By acting today, we will eventually turn off
that penalty phase and start the productive phase.
At the end of the day, this bipartisan legislation is good for our
communities around the country and their safety. It is good for
consumers and fiscal sanity. It is good for the environment for secure
storage. It is good for taxpayers, and it is good for national security
as well.
So I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have put so
much work into this--Mr. Tonko and certainly Mr. Shimkus. I urge all
our colleagues to support H.R. 3053. Let's put an end to these tanks
before they put an end to us.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), our outstanding ranking member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our ranking member, Mr.
Tonko.
I rise in support of H.R. 3053. Congress first passed the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act back in 1982, but more than 35 years later, we still
do not have a national solution to address the safe storage of spent
nuclear fuel. Instead, it continues to sit on site at our Nation's
nuclear power plants.
This becomes a concern as more and more nuclear power reactors are
scheduled to shut down in the coming years, including the Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey. As these reactors shut down,
the surrounding communities are realizing that the nuclear waste
currently stored at these sites will be there indefinitely when the
plant closes, absent a workable national solution. This situation
underscores the need for interim storage solutions to bridge the gap
until a permanent repository is licensed and constructed.
The bill before us today is a bipartisan compromise that was reported
out of the Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 49-4. Democrats
on the committee, especially Representative Matsui, worked with Mr.
Tonko to craft a bipartisan compromise that establishes an interim
storage pilot program, which will allow for consolidated temporary
storage of spent nuclear fuel, with priority given to waste currently
stored at decommissioned nuclear power plants.
This will allow us to consolidate waste at a single site instead of
121 sites in communities around the country. One consolidated site will
help ensure it is managed more safely and securely, while allowing
communities with decommissioned plants to begin working towards
redeveloping those sites.
Now, some of the opponents of this bill have focused on claims that
spent nuclear fuel could be transported through many congressional
districts across the country, and that is true. Spent nuclear fuel will
ultimately need to be transported from power plants to an interim
storage facility or repository. But moving nuclear material by rail and
truck has occurred frequently for decades, and the NRC notes that
thousands of shipments have occurred over decades without incident.
So regardless of your position on the Yucca Mountain project--I know
people feel strongly on both sides of that, but regardless, spent
nuclear fuel will need to be transported somewhere in the U.S. unless
all of the spent fuel is to be left at the site of a nuclear power
plant that may no longer even produce power.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a balanced bill that I support, just as it
is also supported by the AFL-CIO, the IBEW, and the other building
trades. It will begin the process of moving waste out of communities,
particularly those home to a shut down nuclear power plant. It will
also help fulfill the commitment to taxpayers who have paid more than
$50 billion dollars into the nuclear waste program.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. I thank both Mr.
Shimkus, the
[[Page H3893]]
main sponsor who worked so hard; obviously, Mr. Tonko; Ms. Matsui; and,
of course, the chairman of our committee, Mr. Walden, as well.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I particularly commend John Shimkus, the
chairman of the subcommittee, who helped shepherd this bill through;
Chairman Walden; Ranking Member Pallone and others; Mr. Tonko. It is
truly a bipartisan work of art; 49-4 is what this bill passed in our
committee.
I can remember way back when when President Reagan was in office and
signing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in the Rose Garden. He said: We
are going to keep our promise. The Federal Government is going to take
care of nuclear waste. That is going to happen.
Well, here we are now nearly 50 years later. I can remember the
Upton-Towns bill back in the 1990s, a bill that did very much along the
lines of what this bil does. We came within just a vote or two of
having it overridden by the U.S. Senate, stopping it in its tracks. So,
decades later, here we are again.
In my district, we have two nuclear plants. Both of them have run out
of room in their storage, so they have dry casks that are literally a
John Shimkus baseball throw away from Lake Michigan.
Every one of these 100-some sites across the country is in an
environmentally sensitive area, and at some point they are going to run
out of room. In Michigan, we have got two other sites that also have
dry casks in addition to the two in my district.
So we spent nearly $40 billion. Enough time has gone by. We need to
deal with this. And for those who are against this bill, your
alternative is just keeping it there--just keeping it in California,
just keeping it on that pristine river, just keep it on the Great Lakes
for however long. That is not the answer. This bill is.
Because it is bipartisan, I am confident that not only will we have
the votes to get this thing through today, but we are going to get it
ultimately to the President.
So, again, I want to thank our leadership on both sides of the aisle
for getting this thing done.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3053. I
thank Ranking Member Tonko and Chairman Shimkus for their hard work on
this very difficult subject.
This is a bipartisan bill that seeks a solution on how to remove and
dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This
bill recognizes the need to consolidate interim storage in an integral
waste management program.
{time} 0930
H.R. 3053 authorizes the Department of Energy to either develop its
own consolidated interim storage facility or contract with private
entities for such development. The bill also authorizes the development
of one pilot CIS facility that is not linked to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's decision on the Yucca Mountain license application, and
provides a solution for nuclear waste stranded at sites without an
operating reactor.
This bill will help us create a path toward permanent storage, while
also being inclusive and transparent about the process. One of the key
additions to this bill is that it will reestablish the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. It also increases assistance to
States and tribes for transportation safety, which is important when
transporting radioactive materials.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to put our heads in the sand about
nuclear waste. There are about 120 sites across the country that store
nuclear waste on a so-called temporary basis. With this situation, a
serious accident is virtually inevitable. Nuclear waste can be
transported and stored safely for the generations needed. This is
really an engineering problem, and America has some of the best
engineers in the world. We can do this.
H.R. 3053 is an important step toward safe storage, and I urge my
colleagues to support this well-crafted legislation.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
Chairman Shimkus' bill, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of
2018.
This legislation is important not only because of what it means to
the future of clean energy opportunities for this country, but also
what this means for our communities. Nuclear energy has become a safe
and effective way to generate energy, all while not producing
greenhouse gas emissions.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act would finally put in place a
permanent repository for the waste generated by nuclear energy
production that powers millions of homes and businesses across the
country. We began this process nearly 30 years ago, and today we move
it forward.
My good friend's legislation authorizes the disposal of spent nuclear
fuel in a safe, permanent place. Right now, spent fuel is sitting on
nuclear energy sites around the country, leaving our communities open
to larger vulnerabilities and possible attacks or accidents.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3053, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act.
Finding a way forward on the future of our Nation's nuclear waste
storage is no easy task. But I believe we have arrived at a bipartisan
agreement on nuclear waste storage that we need to advance today to
address this issue.
I would first like to thank Chairman Walden and Ranking Member
Pallone, and Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko for their
outstanding leadership, and thank all of my colleagues who worked on
this in committee because it wasn't easy, but we worked together in a
bipartisan way.
This bill will authorize the Department of Energy to establish and
maintain interim storage facilities to hold nuclear waste until there
is a clear decision on the national repository.
Also, included in this bill is an amendment I offered at the full
committee with my good friend, Fred Upton. This important amendment
expresses the sense of the Congress that the governments of the United
States and Canada should not allow permanent or long-term storage of
spent nuclear fuel or other radioactive waste near the Great Lakes.
Mr. Upton and I were proud to get this amendment included on behalf
of every Member of the Great Lakes region.
The Great Lakes account for 20 percent of the world's fresh water
supply, and it is absolutely critical for millions of Americans who
rely on them for drinking water, jobs, and their way of life.
Nearly 1/10th of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes Basin,
and more than 35 million people, with approximately 24 million of them
being Americans, rely on the Great Lakes.
This provision reinforces the importance of the healthy Great Lakes
Basin, free of nuclear storage.
Mr. Chairman, I commend all of my colleagues one more time for their
good work in crafting a bipartisan agreement that will ensure nuclear
waste is stored at secure storage facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shimkus
for his work on this legislation.
I have long been an advocate for nuclear waste policy like this for
Yucca Mountain.
Since 1982, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was created, ratepayers
in this Nation have paid, as part of their utility bill, over $40
billion. In South Carolina, that means ratepayers have paid $1.3
billion for the construction and operation of what we now know as Yucca
Mountain.
Currently, in South Carolina, there are over 4,500 tons of spent
nuclear fuel in temporary storage from commercial reactors. At the
Savannah River Site, we have both research and military nuclear waste
sitting in vitrified glass ready to go to a long-term repository.
[[Page H3894]]
The law of the land, passed in 1992, is for Yucca Mountain to be a
long-term repository for this Nation's waste. It is time to move
forward and give the ratepayers--not the taxpayers, but the
ratepayers--what they paid for, and this legislation moves in the right
direction.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to my colleagues supporting this
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Tonko for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act.
In Sacramento, our publicly owned utility stores spent nuclear fuel
at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, despite the fact that
the plant has been decommissioned for many, many years, and that the
Federal Government has a responsibility to take the fuel.
The continued presence of the spent fuel at Rancho Seco has a direct
impact on electricity rates in my district, and prevents the site from
being redeveloped. That is why I have continuously been supportive of
an interim storage facility for spent fuel.
Today, it is the most viable path to consolidate the fuel housed in
over 120 communities across the country. For the last two Congresses, I
have cosponsored a bipartisan bill to explicitly authorize the
Department of Energy to enter into agreements for consolidated interim
storage.
I believe that a stand-alone piece of legislation that creates a
pathway for interim storage is the commonsense next step in our
national nuclear waste management strategy.
I was opposed to the initial version of H.R. 3053 that came before
the Energy and Commerce Committee last year. It tied Yucca Mountain,
which I have major concerns with, to interim storage.
Linking these two policies together would effectively maintain the
status quo for decommissioned sites across the country, which is
unacceptable. That is why I have worked on a bipartisan basis to ensure
that the interim storage policy in this bill is decoupled from a
permanent repository.
After negotiations in committee, the bill we are considering now
authorizes the use of one consolidated interim storage site and creates
a path to move spent fuel to that site before a final decision is made
on a permanent geologic repository.
It is critically important that we have further clarified the
regulatory pathway for interim storage. For that reason, I will be
supporting this bill today, despite some of its provisions that I
believe are less than ideal.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for working with me in a
collaborative and bipartisan manner to ensure the Federal Government
finally takes the spent fuel stranded in so many of our communities
nationwide.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), who is on the committee, and has been
doing great work to deal with his constituents.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear
Waste Policy Amendments Act. This is an enormous achievement for
Chairman Shimkus, who has worked so hard, and so long, to make this day
a reality.
The Nation needs a safe, environmentally conscious plan to dispose of
this waste. This plan is bipartisan and sensible.
New Jersey is home to four nuclear reactors at three generating
stations: Oyster Creek, Hope Creek, and Salem. Oyster Creek will be
closing this October.
In the congressional district I serve, these plants account for about
half of the power generation and 90 percent of the carbon-free
electricity. New Jersey's nuclear plants avoid 14 million tons of
carbon emissions each year.
The Public Service Enterprise Group, FirstEnergy, and Exelon are
doing their part in storing their station's spent nuclear fuel on-site,
but we need a permanent site. The expertise and know-how of the Federal
Government has a responsibility to my constituents and to the American
people. I want the 3,000 metric tons of nuclear waste out of New Jersey
and consolidated in a national protected facility.
New Jersey ratepayers have contributed nearly $2 billion to the
Department of Energy's Nuclear Waste Fund to dispose of nuclear waste
at a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. My constituents should see
a return on that investment. New Jersey is one of the top State
contributors to this fund. It is time for the government to hold up its
end of the bargain and permanently remove this waste from New Jersey
and other States.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill
because I believe that it makes it more likely that a future interim
storage site--potentially one in New Mexico--becomes a permanent home
for nuclear waste.
I know that these are tough issues, and I agree that we have a
responsibility to address the waste issues that result from our country
entering the atomic age.
However, addressing nuclear waste is not our only responsibility.
Seventy years ago, rural New Mexico became ground zero for the
detonation of the first nuclear bomb. This marked the beginning of
sickness and suffering for generations of people who lived and grew up
in the Tularosa Basin.
``That atomic bomb,'' Gloria wrote to me, ``has caused anguish to so
many people in New Mexico. . . . The people from New Mexico have
suffered physically, mentally, and financially. And we are all here in
hope that you will find a way to help us.''
It has been over 70 years since the Trinity Test. Seventy years, and
the Federal Government has done almost nothing to recognize or
compensate those impacted by that test. They are not alone.
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to
begin to right this wrong. However, we have since learned that there
are many more individuals who are sick or dying because they worked in
the uranium industry, lived near a mining operation, or lived downwind
from a test. The Navajo, Hopi, and Yavapai Apache Indian Reservations
were particularly affected.
That is why I have repeatedly introduced the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act Amendments to compensate those workers. We have had
Navajo elders travel out here to Washington, D.C., and ask us in
Congress, ``Are you waiting for us all to die to solve this problem?''
The Rules Committee rejected amendments that I offered.
Why in the world is it that the people of New Mexico, where the first
bomb went off, are the only ones that are left out of protections?
People in Nevada, Colorado, and Utah are included, but New Mexico has
been left out. The first place the bomb was tested, these people
weren't given a warning. All they saw was a light flash when they were
in their kitchens or outside working.
Mr. Chairman, this deserves action, and I hope I can work with my
colleagues to get this done.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act.
This bill is an opportunity to give the Department of Defense and our
Nation's nuclear plants a proper place to store spent fuel. It also
relieves a burden on our nuclear plants, which provide a critical
source of resilient baseload power to our electric grid. Furthermore,
nuclear plants provide good jobs to communities across the Nation, many
of which are in economically distressed areas.
Unfortunately, several nuclear power plants are prematurely closing
because of government policies. For a long time, I have repeatedly
warned the executive branch about the national security risks if too
many plants deactivate. I am glad to hear some Members across the aisle
are actually acknowledging this problem, at least partially.
In April, I met with Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station workers. I
told my constituents that I would do everything I can to protect their
jobs and the Nation's grid, and I meant it.
This bill addresses some of the uncertainty and added costs the
industry
[[Page H3895]]
faces, and it is one step in helping to secure those jobs and the
reliability and resiliency of our electric grid.
{time} 0945
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, today we must decide if you are going to double down on
policies that have been an abject failure for the last three decades or
if you will chart a new course that doesn't repeat the same mistakes of
previous Congresses.
The first ``Screw Nevada'' bill was passed in 1982, and since that
time, Nevada's residents, elected officials, business leaders, and
health and environmental groups have steadfastly opposed the Yucca
Mountain repository.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from over 100 groups in
opposition.
City of Las Vegas,
Las Vegas, NV, May 7, 2018.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steve Scalise,
House Majority Whip,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sirs: In 1987 Congress voted for the Department of
Energy (DOE) to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain without the support of Nevada. Now, the House of
Representatives is planning to consider H.R. 3053, The
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. I am writing to express
my vehement opposition to this legislation.
Yucca Mountain would cost U. S. taxpayers billions of
dollars and require the dangerous transportation of nuclear
waste across every state in the country before it arrives in
Nevada, which, by the way, produces no nuclear waste These
transports journey through communities in the nation whose
infrastructures are well-known to be rated at the dangerously
low, D+ level by highly renowned associations of engineers
and scientific professionals. Bridges and tunnels have not
been reinforced in decades, railroad tracks are faulty (as we
well know!), and roads are beyond needing repair and
replacement. No matter the transport vehicle used, the cargo
travels on challenged routes which are unknown to the public
and at times undeclared!
In my tenure as Mayor, every year I have warned my fellow
Mayors of the dangers of this transportation, and every year
the Mayors across the nation have passed a resolution at
their annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting requiring that
the U.S. Department of Energy instead focus on deactivating
and/or repurposing radioactive waste on site. High-priority
research is needed to identify methods for the safe treatment
and storage of radioactive waste at origination locations in
order to mitigate the health and environmental risks of
transporting low, high and mixed level waste to offsite
treatment facilities. Even Mayors with nuclear waste on their
doorsteps understand the dangers of transporting this waste
As Mayor of Las Vegas, I am fortunate to preside over a
beautiful city that is home to over 600,000 residents in one
of the fastest-growing areas in the nation boasting over 2.4
million residents. Additionally, 42 million visitors choose
the Las Vegas valley as a destination annually. Yucca
Mountain is less than 100 miles away from this gem in the
desert. I believe that DOE's Nuclear Regulatory Commission
should be required to have support from state, local and
tribal governments before constructing a nuclear waste
repository anywhere in the country Therefore, I urge you and
your colleagues to vote down H.R. 3053, which rejects science
and ignores our steadfast opposition
Sincerely,
Carolyn Goodman,
Mayor.
____
Las Vegas Metro
Chamber of Commerce,
Las Vegas, NV, May 7, 2018.
Re The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, H.R.
3053.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Greg Walden,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank Pallone,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker, Madam Leader, Chairman Walden, and
Ranking Member Pallone: The Las Vegas Metro Chamber of
Commerce/ (``Metro Chamber'') is Nevada's largest and most
diverse business organization, representing thousands of
employers who employ more than 200,000 Southern Nevadans. As
the Voice of Business in our state, its mission is to help
Nevada businesses succeed and create jobs. This includes
protecting our members from initiatives or legislation at all
levels of government that could hinder our state's economy,
impede job creation, and hamper development of our local
workforce.
As such, the Metro Chamber has been actively engaged with
Members of Congress, federal government agencies, Nevada's
Constitutional officers, state legislators, local government
leaders and entities, trade groups, employers, and residents
of the State of Nevada regarding its strong steadfast
opposition for more than two decades to the proposed Nuclear
Waste Repository Site at Yucca Mountain.
The Metro Chamber's position regarding the proposed Nuclear
Waste Repository Site at Yucca Mountain has not changed with
the introduction of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2018. The Las Vegas Metro Chamber continues
to strongly oppose a Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca
Mountain, as well as the transportation and storage of any
nuclear waste in Nevada, because of the potential negative
effect it could have on the safety and health of the visitors
and residents of Southern Nevada, as well as the chilling
long-term effect it could have on the economy.
The proposed legislation would allow for the storage of
approximately 110,000 metric tons of nuclear waste less than
90 miles from Las Vegas, and is a significant concern to the
business community and residents as it could pose a national
security and health threat. The close proximity of such a
facility to Las Vegas could also damage the tourism-based
economy of Southern Nevada. In 2017, Southern Nevada hosted
approximately 42.2 million visitors, whose direct and
indirect economic impact is $58.8 billion. This translates to
about a total of 391,000 jobs and $16.4 billion in wages for
our region. The reality is that Southern Nevada is the
economic engine of the State, and it is incumbent on all
stakeholders of our region's economy and future prospects for
growth to protect the well-being of all of our residents and
visitors.
The potential terrorist threats, environmental impacts, and
transportation challenges, as well as the safety of storing
nuclear waste material, are too great of a risk on our
region's economy. Residents and visitors must feel safe in
their communities and the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca
Mountain could fundamentally undermine that safety.
Unfortunately, the passage of H.R. 3053 may only elevate Las
Vegas' profile for a potential terrorist attack. We cannot
risk such a scenario, since any incident with the transport
or storage of nuclear waste could have a severe and negative
economic impact on Southern Nevada's economy.
The Metro Chamber is also adamantly opposed to the
temporary storage of any nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain,
which includes reprocessed fuel. The reprocessing of nuclear
waste requires large amount of water, which is a concern to
businesses, local governments, residents and regional water
agencies since the region remains in a severe drought.
In addition, Nevada is ranked by the U.S. Geological Survey
as the fourth most active seismic area in the United States.
The potential for seismic activity in the region raises
serious questions about the logic and prudency of storing
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Seismic activity in the
region is another reason why Yucca Mountain is not a feasible
or practical site for the storage of nuclear waste.
The storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain should not
only be a concern for Southern Nevadans but also for the
residents of 329 Congressional Districts in 44 states that
nuclear waste shipments must pass through to get to Yucca
Mountain. The transport and safety of these shipments need to
be part of a national conversation and the potential impacts
of any incident during transportation of these casks by rail
and truck should not be underestimated. While the people of
Southern Nevada have been vigilant about the potential
dangers of the transportation of this toxic material, fellow
citizens across the country who live in states through which
this waste would be transported may not be aware and deserve
the opportunity to learn the facts about how this plan would
impact their lives and livelihoods.
Thank you for allowing the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of
Commerce to offer its concerns and strong opposition as
associated with the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository
Site, as proposed by H.R. 3053.
Sincerely,
Mary Beth Sewald,
President & CEO.
Michael Bolognini,
Chairman, Board of Trustees.
Hugh Anderson,
Chairman, Government Affairs.
____
May 7, 2018.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members,
the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 3053,
the ``Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017'' (115th
Congress, 1st Session). This bill will put our nation's
nuclear waste storage policy on the wrong track yet again. It
ignores environmental concerns, states' rights and consent to
host the waste in the first instance, and attempts to
truncate public review in order to force a ``solution''--
either Yucca Mountain or a new consolidated interim storage
site--that have both proven to be unworkable. Rather than
blindly charge forward at the cost of public safety and
public resources, we urge Congress to reject this bill and
start the important and necessary work on a comprehensive set
of hearings to commence building a publicly accepted, consent
based repository program.
[[Page H3896]]
The bill you will vote on retains the flaws contained in
its earlier forms. Some of these harms include unwise efforts
to recommence the licensing process for proposed repository
at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. This is a project certain to fail
the NRC's licensing process due to the geology and hydrology
of the site that make it unsuitable for isolating spent
nuclear fuel for the required time. Next, the draft
legislation suggests going forward with a consolidated
storage proposal before working out the details of a
comprehensive legislative path to solve the nuclear waste
problem, entirely severing the link between storage and
disposal, and thus creating, an overwhelming risk that an
interim storage site will determine or function as de facto
final resting place for nuclear waste. The draft provides no
safety, environmental or public acceptance criteria, only
speed of siting and expense. This is precisely the formula
that produced the failure of the Yucca Mountain process and
made it, as the previous administration noted,
``unworkable.''
Other provisions conflict with the well-established and
necessary requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. Doing so exacerbates the public
interest community's (and that of Nevada) objection of the
last two decades--that the process of developing, licensing,
and setting environmental and oversight standards for the
proposed repository has been, and continues to be, rigged or
weakened to ensure that the site can be licensed, rather than
provide for safety over the length of time that the waste
remains dangerous to public health and the environment.
This bill was largely changed for the worse in committee.
The bill now sets us on path to go forward in the next few
years with a consolidated storage proposal before working out
the details of a comprehensive legislative path to solve the
nuclear waste problem and, frankly, creates an overwhelming
risk that an interim storage site in New Mexico, Utah, or
even Texas (although the Texas site just requested that its
license application be held in abeyance) will be the de facto
final resting place for nuclear waste.
This will not work. It is likely those states will, in some
form or another, resist being selected as the dumping ground
for the nation's nuclear waste without a meaningful consent
based process and regulatory authority that garners both
public acceptance and a scientifically defensible solution.
Further, and also just as damning, it sets up yet another
attempt to ship the waste to Yucca Mountain irrespective of
its certain likelihood of failing the regulatory process, or
seek to revive the licensed Private Fuel Storage site that
has been strongly opposed in Utah or even open up New
Mexico's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility for
spent nuclear fuel disposal despite strong opposition and
contrary to 25 years of federal law. The latter site also was
designed and intended for nuclear waste with trace levels of
plutonium, not spent fuel (and we note, a site that has
already seen an accident dispersing plutonium throughout the
underground and into the environment, contaminating 22
workers, and thus the site was functionally inoperable for
years). All of this runs precisely counter to the core
admonition of the previous administration's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future (``BRC'') that
``consent'' come first.
The waste will not be going anywhere for years and it
should be incumbent on Congress to fix problems in a
meaningful fashion, not attempt an expedient solution that is
destined to fail, again.
Our concerns, many of which were detailed above or in
earlier letters, remain. We would be pleased to work with any
representative on a feasible, constructive path forward, but
this legislation would put the nation's nuclear waste storage
policy on the wrong track yet again and we urge you to reject
it. Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
350Kishwaukee; 350NYC; Abalone Alliance Safe Energy
Clearinghouse; Albuquerque Center for Peace and Justice;
Alliance for a Green Economy; Alliance for Environmental
Strategies; Alliance for Nuclear Accountability; Alliance to
Halt Fermi 3; Baltimore Nonviolence Center; Basin and Range
Watch; Bellefonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team; Mothers
Against TN River Radiation; Beyond Nuclear; California
Communities Against Toxics; Cape Downwinders; Chesapeake
Physicians for Social Responsibility; Citizen Action New
Mexico; Citizen Power; Citizens Action Coalition of IN;
Citizens Awareness Network; Citizens Education Project.
Citizens' Environmental Coalition; Citizens for
Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping; Citizens' Resistance at
Fermi 2 (CRAFT); Clean Water Action; Coalition for a Nuclear
Free Great Lakes; Code Pink: Women for Peace; Concerned
Citizens for Nuclear Safety; Concerned Citizens for SNEC
Safety; Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone; Consumers
Health Freedom Coalition; Council on Intelligent Energy &
Conservation Policy; Crabshell Alliance; Cumberland Countians
for EcoJustice; CT Coalition Against Millstone; Don't Waste
Arizona; Don't Waste Michigan; Ecological Options Network
(EON); Energia Mia; Energy Justice Network; Environmental
Defense Institute.
Environmental Working Group; Fairmont, MN Peace Group; Food
& Water Watch; Frack Free Illinois; Franciscans for Justice;
Friends of the Earth; Georgia Women's Action for New
Directions (Georgia WAND); Grandmothers Mothers and More for
Energy Safety; Great Basin Resource Watch; Great Lakes-
Environmental Alliance; Green State Solutions, Iowa; Ground
Zero Center for Nonviolent Action; HEAL Utah; Hip Hop Caucus;
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater; Indian Point Safe Energy
Coalition; Indigenous Rights Center; Indivisible South Bay
Los Angeles; Kawartha lakes land trust; Lacuna Acoma
Coalition for a Safe Environment (LACSE).
League of Conservation Voters; League of Women Voters of
the United States; LEPOCO Peace Center; Los Alamos Study
Group; Mankato Area Environmentalists; Merrimack Valley
People for Peace; Michigan Safe Energy Future, Kalamazoo MI
Chapter; Michigan Safe Energy Future, Shoreline Chapter;
Michigan Stop the Nuclear Bombs Campaign; Milwaukee
Riverkeeper; Missouri Coalition for the Environment; Mountain
States Mennonite Conference; Multicultural Alliance for a
Safe Environment; Native Community Action Council; Natural
Resources Defense Council; Network for Environmental &
Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ; Nevada
Nuclear Waste Task Force; New England Coalition on Nuclear
Pollution; No More Fukushimas; No Nukes NW.
North American Climate, Conservation and Environment
(NACCE); North American Water Office; Northwest Environmental
Advocates; Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Nuclear Energy
Information Service; Nuclear Free World Committee; Dallas
Peace and Justice Center; Nuclear Information and Resource
Service; Nuclear Issues Study Group; Nuclear Watch New
Mexico; Nuclear Watch South; Nukefree.org; Nukewatch; Oak
Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance; On Behalf of Planet Earth
our developing world; OurRevolution Ocala; Partnership for
Earth Spirituality; Peace Action; Peace Action of Michigan;
Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Physicians for Social Responsibility--Chesapeake;
Physicians for Social Responsibility--Kansas City; Physicians
for Social Responsibility--Los Angeles; Physicians for Social
Responsibility--Oregon; Physicians for Social
Responsibility--San Francisco Bay Area Chapter; Pilgrim
Legislative Advisory Coalition PLAC; Pilgrim Watch; Planet
Cents. Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety
and Security (PRESS); Proposition One Committee; Public
Citizen; Public Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE);
Public Watchdogs; Rachel Carson Council; Radiation and
Public Health Project; Radiation Truth; Redwood Alliance;
Residents Organized for a Safe Environment; Riverkeeper;
ROAR (Religious Organizations Along the River).
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center: Safe Utility
Meters Alliance NW (SUMA-NW); San Clemente Green; San Luis
Obispo Mothers for Peace; San Onofre Safety; Save The River /
Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper; Seacoast Anti-Pollution
League; Sierra Club; Snake River Alliance; Southern Alliance
for Clean Energy; Southern Illinois Against Fracturing Our
Environment; Southwest Research and Information Center; Stand
Up/Save Lives Campaign; Straits Area Concerned Citizens for
Peace, Justice and the Environment (SACCPJE); SUN DAY
Campaign; Support and Education for Radiation Victims (SERV);
Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition;
Task Force on Nuclear Power, Oregon and Washington Physicians
for Social Responsibility; Tennessee Environmental Council;
Tewa Women United.
Texas River Revival; The Colorado Coalition for Prevention
of Nuclear War; The Lands Council; The Nuclear Resister; The
Peace Farm; Thomas Merton Center; Three Mile Island Alert;
Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy; Touching Earth Sangha;
Toxics Action Center Campaigns; Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities
Against a Radioactive Environment); Uranium Watch; Ursuline
Sisters of Tildonk, U.S. Province; UUFHC (Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship of Harford County); Vermont Citizens
Action Network; Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance;
Veterans For Peace Golden Rule Project; Veterans For Peace
Chapter 74; Western States Legal Foundation; West Valley
Neighborhoods Coalition.
Women's Energy Matters; Women's International League for
Peace and Freedom Des Moines Branch; Women's International
League for Peace and Freedom Fresno Branch; Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom Monterey County
Branch; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Pittsburgh Branch; Women's International League for Peace and
Freedom Santa Cruz Branch; Youth Arts New York.
____
May 8, 2018.
Dear Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
undersigned organizations and businesses write to express our
vehement opposition to H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2017, which is scheduled to be considered
by the House of Representatives this week.
By reviving licensing activities for Yucca Mountain as a
nuclear waste repository, this legislation has the potential
to adversely impact citizens and businesses located in
Nevada.
Yucca Mountain is located just 90 miles from the world's
premier tourist, convention and entertainment destination in
Las Vegas, Nevada, which welcomed nearly 43 million visitors
last year. Las Vegas is once again on pace to meet or break
that number with over
[[Page H3897]]
10 million visitors already accounted for in 2018. The
Greater Las Vegas area is one of the fastest growing in the
U.S. with a population that now exceeds 2.1 million people
according to an estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau. Safety
and security remain a top priority for all Americans and any
problems with the transport of more than 110,000 metric tons
of nuclear waste to the site throughout the country, or
issues with its storage there, would bring potentially
devastating consequences to the local, state and national
communities. Moreover, with taxes on Nevada's tourism
industry providing 42 percent of the state general fund, even
a modest decline in visitors' perception about the region
could have severe negative implications for the state's
economy and future growth.
We stand with the many concerned citizens, small business
operators and bipartisan members of the Nevada delegation in
staunch opposition to any attempt to restart the repository
licensing process and will work tirelessly to ensure that
radioactive waste is never stored anywhere near the world's
entertainment capital in Las Vegas.
We strongly urge members to vote against this flawed
legislation and, instead, explore alternative solutions that
respect state sovereignty and do not put Nevada's citizens
and economy at risk.
Sincerely,
Geoff Freeman, President and CEO--American Gaming
Association; Virginia Valentine, President--Nevada Resort
Association; Mary Beth Sewald, President and CEO--Las Vegas
Metro Chamber of Commerce; Rossi Ralenkotter, CEO--Las Vegas
Convention & Visitors Authority; James Murren, Chairman and
CEO--MGM Resorts International; Joe Asher, CEO--William Hill
U.S.; Keith Smith, President and CEO--Boyd Gaming
Corporation; Mark P. Frissora, President and CEO--Caesars
Entertainment; Sheldon Adelson, Chairman and CEO--Las Vegas
Sands Corporation; Timothy J. Wilmott, CEO--Penn National
Gaming.
____
UNITEHERE!,
New York, NY, May 8, 2018.
Oppose H.R. 3053, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of
2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: UNITE HERE represents more workers in
Nevada than any other union in the country. Our Nevada
affiliate, Culinary Local 226, represents 60,000 workers who
are the backbone to the tourism and hospitality industry of
the Strip. The role of our union is to fight for what's best
for these 60,000 workers and their families, and in the case
of H.R. 3053 the best interest of our members is clearly to
vote no and oppose all attempts to license a nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain.
Turning Yucca Mountain into a nuclear dumping ground will
put all 60,000 UNITE HERE members of Culinary 226 and their
families at enormous risk, along with all 2.1 million people
living in the Greater Las Vegas area. Yucca Mountain is
dangerously close to where our members and their families
live, as well as to the economic heartbeat of Nevada that
keeps the economy afloat--only 90 miles from the Las Vegas
Strip.
The continued health of our members and their families in
Nevada is on stake with your vote on H.R. 3053. To keep
60,000 UNITE HERE workers safe in Nevada, we urge you to
oppose H.R. 3053.
Sincerely,
D. Taylor,
International President.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, you have heard that the legislation before you
now, ``Screw Nevada 2.0,'' is a work of compromise, a bipartisan
effort, not perfect, but a step forward. Well, that, frankly, is an
opinion. It is not the facts. Here are the facts:
The legislation overrides environmental laws, allowing the EPA to
move the goalposts in terms of radiation limits to ensure that nothing
will ever interfere with the agenda of the nuclear industry.
It sets up a consent-based process for the establishment of an
interim storage facility but imposes a permanent facility at Yucca
Mountain.
It increases the amount of nuclear waste to be dumped in Nevada by 37
percent, 110 metric tons more that were not considered in any of the
environmental or safety studies being used to justify the project.
It also removes the prohibition currently in law that prohibits
Nevada from being the de facto interim storage facility until a
permanent one can be licensed.
It was also changed after passing out of committee to address the
high scoring costs, making it less likely that we get host benefits.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Nevada.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, also, contrary to the sponsor's comments, the
area around Yucca Mountain is not some desolate area. It has iconic
wildlife, endangered species, and Native American artifacts.
Also, the proposed facility sits above the water table and on an
active fault and can only be reached by roads that travel through 329
of your congressional districts.
Finally, like New Mexico, the people in Nevada have suffered from
tests of atomic weapons that the government told us: Don't worry; it
will be safe.
In short, this bill does nothing to really address the root of the
problem, and I urge Members to vote against it.
It has cost us 36 years and $15 billion, and all we have to show for
it is a hole in the ground. We should be doing consent-based
decisionmaking that will move us forward and not continue this failed
policy that is bad politics and bad policy.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a subcommittee chair of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, for this
important legislation.
This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that, it has already been
said, puts our country back on the right track in honoring that
commitment that was made by the Federal Government to safely collect
and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste.
It has been noted here this morning that, under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, Congress assigned the responsibility for spent
nuclear fuel to the Federal Government; but today, because the Federal
Government has failed to honor this commitment, spent nuclear fuel sits
idle in 121 communities across 39 States.
It was back in 1987 that Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the
permanent repository for nuclear waste, but despite collecting more
than $40 billion from taxpayers, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository has yet to be completed.
The legislation before us today offers important reforms for our
country's nuclear waste policy. It utilizes Yucca Mountain as our main
point of nuclear waste storage, while directing the Department of
Energy to move forward with a temporary storage program as it works on
the Yucca Mountain facility.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague again for his legislation, and I urge
my colleagues to support H.R. 3053.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Illinois has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Kihuen).
Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Chair, today I rise to speak in opposition to H.R.
3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act.
Mr. Chair, I find it offensive. I sit here and listen to all my
colleagues, and they all want to send nuclear waste to the State of
Nevada. They are all generating this nuclear waste, and they want to
send it to my backyard right in the Fourth Congressional District.
Bottom line is this, Mr. Chair: If you generate nuclear waste, you
should keep it in your own backyard. Don't be sending it to our
backyard.
I have met with various people out at Nellis Air Force Base and
Creech Air Force Base and the Hawthorne Army Depot. These are very
important military installations in the Fourth Congressional District
for our entire country. They don't want this nuclear waste passing
through their own backyard.
It is offensive. It is offensive that we have a State that depends on
tourism, that depends on people coming into the State, and we want to
bring all this nuclear waste to my backyard. We want to send it to
Yucca Mountain, a place that hasn't even been deemed safe.
It is disappointing, Mr. Chair, that we have all this nuclear waste
and we can't pick any other place in the country. It has to be
somewhere where we have military bases. It has to be somewhere where it
hasn't been deemed safe, where there is seismic activity. Just a few
weeks ago, there was an earthquake there.
Mr. Chair, I am seriously concerned for Nevadans. I am seriously
concerned for our military bases. I am concerned about our tourists who
are going to be
[[Page H3898]]
coming from all over the country. I am concerned about every single one
of the congressional districts and its constituents where this nuclear
waste is going to be traveling through. These are some serious concerns
that have been brought up that none of us, none of my colleagues have
been able to address.
Mr. Chair, I am here to oppose this project. I am here to speak on
behalf of 80 percent of Nevadans who oppose bringing nuclear waste to
our backyard, and I am here to send a message that we are going to
continue fighting this tooth and nail right here in Congress, in the
Senate, here in the House, and, also, if need be, we are going to
continue fighting this in the legal courts.
Mr. Chair, I am here to speak in opposition and to speak on behalf of
all Nevadans.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters), who has been very helpful in this
project.
Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R.
3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018.
At the decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station just
south of my district, 1,800 tons of spent nuclear fuel sits along the
Pacific coastline. This spent nuclear fuel must be moved for safety and
environmental reasons, but also out of fairness to American taxpayers.
To date, California ratepayers have contributed more than $2 billion
to the Nuclear Waste Fund, with the promise those funds would help
establish a permanent storage facility. H.R. 3053 authorizes interim
storage, a necessary step to move spent nuclear fuel out of our
communities and into interim storage facilities, until a permanent
storage solution is established.
Mr. Chair, I speak on behalf of my constituents, who say the time to
fix this problem is now. The Federal Government owes it to the American
people to fulfill its obligation and take ownership of spent fuel.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for his
leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
3053.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Rosen).
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today and stand with the overwhelming majority of
Nevadans who wholeheartedly oppose our State becoming the dumping
ground for the rest of the Nation's nuclear waste.
Based on the Department of Energy's own studies, Yucca Mountain is
unfit as a repository site for nuclear waste because of the impact it
would have on national transportation. We are talking about shipping up
to three loads of radioactive waste per week to Nevada by rail or truck
for over 50 years.
Here is a map of what the proposed routes would look like. Dangerous
waste would go through 329 congressional districts across this country.
To the Members representing these districts: Do you consent to high-
level radioactive waste barreling down your highways and your train
tracks? Are you prepared to face your constituents at home and tell
them that you voted to put their safety at risk?
Yucca Mountain would also jeopardize our national security and the
readiness of our Air Force by compromising military activities at the
Nevada Test and Training Range, the largest air and ground military
training space in the contiguous United States.
Instead of spending billions more in hard-earned taxpayer dollars on
this ill-conceived project, let's work on converting the site into
something that will keep our families safe and still create jobs.
My bill, the Jobs, Not Waste Act, which I offered as an amendment to
H.R. 3053, would prohibit DOE from moving forward with its plan until a
number of other job-creating alternatives for Yucca Mountain are
considered. It is an innovative and forward-thinking solution to
repurpose this site for something useful.
Mr. Chair, I urge Congress to stop wasting time and taxpayer money on
Yucca Mountain and finally realize just how dangerous and costly this
project will be. It is past time we identified viable alternatives for
this project while finding a safe, long-term repository in a State that
consents to its siting.
The CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, as a military pilot, Air Force pilot, I think it is
important to note that this will not affect range operations at Nellis
Air Force Base.
My district is home to four nuclear power plants, and I have seen
firsthand the hard work and dedication of the men and women who work
there. These plants not only provide clean, reliable power, but also
create good jobs, and they strengthen our communities.
In 1982, the government made a commitment to these communities.
Congress and the President approved Yucca Mountain over 15 years ago.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded it can safely store spent
fuel there for 1 million years.
In Illinois alone, ratepayers have contributed over $3 billion to the
Nuclear Waste Fund, and Illinois houses more spent fuel than any State.
Today is about following through on our commitments. We must reassure
communities like La Salle and Byron, that put their trust in the
government, that they can continue to make clean, reliable nuclear
power as well as have a safe place to store it.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman and my Illinois colleague, John
Shimkus, for being a tireless advocate for making good on this
commitment.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Amendments Act.
Next to me is a picture of Haddam Neck, Connecticut, which is a
pristine part of the State where the Connecticut River and the Salmon
River come together. Where the circle is on the photograph, there are
43 casks of spent nuclear power uranium rods that, again, today, pretty
much cordon off that whole area. If you drove up in a car, you would be
met by a platoon of heavily armed security guards who, for good reason,
have to patrol that area every single day because of the dangerous
material that is stored there. That has been the case for over 20
years.
It costs Connecticut ratepayers $10 million a year, again, for a site
that should be long overdue for renovation and access to folks from all
over the world because of its rich archeological and historical area.
This bill provides a way out for this area, along with 120 other
sites across the country, where host communities have been saddled with
storage of spent nuclear fuel because of the fact that this country has
been unable to come together with a coherent policy. This bill provides
a way out.
Mr. Chair, I congratulate the proponents on both sides of the aisle
for getting us to that place.
Waterford, Connecticut, is also home to Dominion, a nuclear power
plant with a similar situation that, again, is long overdue for change.
I also just want to note, as the Representative from Groton,
Connecticut, the home of the nuclear Navy--it was where the Nautilus
was first launched in 1956--we have, as a country, been transporting
spent nuclear fuel for aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines for
decades by land and by sea safely and efficiently, and the notion that
we can't do this for our civilian nuclear power facilities is, frankly,
just demonstrably untrue.
{time} 1000
We can do this, and this bill provides, as I say, a mechanism for an
interim storage that is sensible, that is logical, and is bipartisan.
Again, I congratulate the proponents and strongly urge a ``yes'' vote
on this measure later this morning.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his
leadership on this vital issue.
The Federal Government asked Americans to pay roughly $40 billion in
taxes and interest with the promise the government would operate a
national
[[Page H3899]]
repository. Thirty-seven years later, no repository, and my district is
hampered with the burden of maintaining 40 spent fuel casks, with more
on the way.
Now, while on-site storage is done in a very safe and highly secure
manner, it is simply not appropriate. In fact, in 1991, the United
States Department of the Interior agreed, stating: ``The imposition of
risk upon the Prairie Island Indian community is an unreasonable
burden.''
Prairie Island is just one community shouldering this burden. The
city of Red Wing and the citizens of Goodhue County expect better.
In fact, my constituents reminded me that, by law, the repository
should have been open in 1998, stating: But it is not our
responsibility to remind Congress to do its job. They are right.
I urge my colleagues to uphold our promise and vote in favor of this
bill.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4053,
and I thank Chairman Shimkus for the great leadership he has provided
on this bill on this really significant issue.
This bill authorizes the construction of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear
waste storage site, which would alleviate the burden of incredible risk
that is now borne by communities throughout the country, such as in my
district, where homes are not far located from the closed San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station.
That, and many other plants throughout the Nation, have closed their
doors in decades. Yet, Congress has yet to agree how to safely store
that waste, and what is really important is we must store the waste.
But while we develop new nuclear energy technologies, that we are
capable of doing, that are safe, and produce less of their own waste,
and can consume the waste of older plants, I reminded Secretary of
Energy Perry of that yesterday; but, in the meantime, until that
technology--by the way, it is sinful that we have not developed that
technology, which we are capable of, that could eat this waste.
But until we do, having safe storage at Yucca Mountain makes all the
sense to me and is safe for my constituents.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3053, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. As a cosponsor of this
legislation, I understand the importance of enacting critical reforms
to our nuclear waste management strategy, reforms that are long
overdue.
Mr. Chairman, I have the great honor of representing Georgia's 12th
Congressional District, which is home to every nuclear reactor in our
State, and we are leading the way in the new nuclear.
At Plant Vogtle, in my district, there are thousands of spent fuel
rods being held in spent fuel pools and dry cask storage containers,
and in the next few years we are going to double the number of nuclear
reactors online at Vogtle.
H.R. 3053 would help pave the way to quickly establish a permanent
geological repository to dispose of the waste that currently sits in
121 communities across America, including those in Georgia-12. This
process has gone on far too long, and now it is time for Congress to
act and pass this commonsense legislation.
I want to thank Subcommittee Chair Shimkus for his work and diligence
on this matter, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to join me in voting ``yes'' for this bill.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, our
ranking member, for allowing me to speak.
I rise in support of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments
Act of 2018. Congress, back in 1982, passed the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, directing the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to open a permanent repository for our Nation's spent
nuclear fuel. Now, Congress is slow, but this is amazing how we haven't
dealt with this.
Over three decades later, America is still without a repository,
leaving tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste vulnerable to acts
of terror or other catastrophes.
If you say you are for all-of-the-above for power generation, then
you need to vote for this bill, because if we are really going to use
nuclear power, which we get about 20 percent in Texas, we need a place
to put that waste, and not just on the sites where we produce it.
There was a decision made in the 1980s it would be out in Yucca
Mountain, and that wasn't our decision, but that is there, and it is
Federal property. That is where we exploded atomic bombs during the
testing. Nobody is going to build condos on that property, because I
was out there with the chairman of the committee.
Until the day we find interim storage to ensure 70,000 tons of spent
fuel sitting in our Nation's nuclear plants are safe from harm at an
interim storage facility, there is one proposed in west Texas that the
folks out there want it.
I ask my colleagues to support this bill so we ca finally move the
ball forward on safely storing our Nation's spent nuclear fuel.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise too, in support of this bill, and I
want to single out Chairman Shimkus for his tireless work. He stood up
in conference after conference after conference, insisting that we move
forward. This bill has been, indeed, a long time coming.
This is about a national solution to a national problem. Each of the
States could come up with their own navies, their own armies. We tried
that once in South Carolina. It didn't work out so well.
But it is important that we, again, have a national solution to a
national issue; that is certainly the case with nuclear waste. This is
about moving past politics to policy. This thing has been held up for
years based on politics.
I don't begrudge anybody in Nevada for pushing and using every tool
in the toolkit in holding it off, but this is ultimately moving to
policy.
This is about not building a mountain of waste in South Carolina and
a whole lot of other interim sites across this country. We have a fault
line at the Savannah River Site, and there are similar security
concerns with the plethora of different sites that we have across this
country. Consolidating makes sense from a security standpoint.
Finally, this is about giving people what they paid for, $40 billion
nationally, over $1 billion in South Carolina paid by ratepayers.
I thank the chairman for acting on this bill.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. Handel).
Mrs. HANDEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois,
Representative Shimkus, for his steadfast leadership on this very
important issue.
I rise today, as well, to lend my support to H.R. 3053, the Nuclear
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018.
Mr. Chairman, America lacks the necessary geological repository for
important nuclear power resources. Because of this, spent nuclear fuel
currently sits idle in over 100 communities across 39 States. This
deficiency has cost electricity ratepayers over $40 billion with little
to nothing to show for the exorbitant cost.
H.R. 3053 makes long overdue reforms to the Nuclear Waste Fund and
facilitates the formal licensing process for the repository at Yucca
Mountain. It provides a commonsense, bipartisan interim solution for
the safe storage of nuclear waste.
Most importantly, H.R. 3053 ensures that this safe, efficient form of
energy can continue to expand and be utilized in the United States,
such as Georgia's Plant Vogtle.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3053 is much-needed legislation that will finally
ensure the safe disposal of nuclear waste
[[Page H3900]]
in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I can't think of a more unrewarding,
difficult, fruitless issue to be asked to be the leader on than trying
to find a solution to high-level nuclear waste. Can you imagine if,
when you get elected to Congress, you are called into the Speaker's
office or the minority leader's office and said: Now, I know you are
young and bright and everything, but we want you to take the lead on
something that we haven't been able to solve in 30 years.
Well, that is what John Shimkus and Congressman Tonko have been
tasked to do. There is not a more unpleasant issue in the 30-something
years I have been in the House than this issue.
Having said that, it is probably one of the most important issues to
solve. We have, at one time, over 100 operating nuclear reactors. They
generate electricity every day, and they use and eventually consume
their nuclear fuel rods. And when they have been used up, you can't put
them on the curb and tell the trash to pick them up.
Now, Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus have worked, not just this Congress,
but the last Congress, and in the case of John Shimkus, probably the
last six Congresses, seven Congresses, to try to solve this.
We have a bipartisan bill today. I predict it is going to get in the
neighborhood of 260 to maybe 300 votes. It solves the problem. And the
key, in my opinion, to what they have done is that they have
allowed for an interim storage facility in a State that approves it
beforehand.
You are going to have States compete to accept this high-level
nuclear waste on an interim basis, and you make a path forward to
finish the licensing process, or make a negative determination in
Nevada at Yucca Mountain.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. BARTON. You are going to have a way to begin, if this bill
becomes law, to get the waste that is now stored on-site at
deactivated, in some cases, nuclear power plants, consolidated to
interim storage, make a decision on Yucca, ``yea'' or ``nay,'' and if
it is ``yea'' then begin that process.
This is a very good effort. It should pass the House, it should pass
the Senate, and the President should sign it. And then we will finally,
after almost 40 years, begin to solve high-level nuclear waste issues
in America.
I thank both the leaders on this bill, and I hope we get a ``yes''
vote.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am not closing yet. We are waiting for the majority whip.
Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a couple of issues, of course, that
have been raised. In my brief opening statement I reminded the folks--
and I see my colleague from Chicagoland on the floor--Chicago gets 55
million visitors a year. In Chicagoland there are 10,000 metric tons.
That is in the community, that is where there are condos, and it is
right there.
This proposed long-term repository is 90 miles away from Las Vegas.
It is a mountain in a desert. If it gets approved, final adjudication.
And what has held up the final adjudication? Politics on the
appropriation matter, which I think this bill is going to help solve,
because once we get a good vote--my colleagues, I don't think we voted
on an authorization bill, on this issue on an authorization bill, since
2002.
{time} 1015
That is when the State of Nevada objected, per the law. They were
allowed to do that. We had a chance, then, to override that veto.
Because, as Mark Sanford said, this is a national problem that demands
a national solution.
So the law laid out an opportunity to hear the complaints from the
State of Nevada and say ``yes'' or ``no.'' They said ``no.''
The law laid out the opportunity for the national legislative body
and the President of the United States to decide to accept or reject
that.
I think this Chamber vote was about 350 to reject the State of
Nevada's opposition. The Senate rejected it on a voice vote.
So we have been through this numerous times. We know where the
majority of Representatives are, and we know where the majority of
Senators will be. We have just got to move. We have got to address this
national problem with a national solution.
Another issue that was just touched on by Chairman Walden, he spent a
lot of time on it, is spent nuclear fuel. This is ratepayers also
helping pay for our defense waste obligations. The nuclear weapons and
winning the Cold War created stockpiles of nuclear waste, toxic sludge,
in areas in four States primarily. Primarily, Washington State, also
South Carolina. Ratepayers are going to help safely dispose of that.
So when you take the national defense problem and the spent nuclear
fuel problem, we are moving forward in that direction.
Nevadans are not uniformly opposed to the repository. In fact, nine
of the surrounding counties have passed resolutions to move forward, at
least with the adjudication.
And as my colleagues from Nevada know, I have been to that State
quite a few times, and we talked to many, many people on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, it is very rare that we consider a perfect bill. This
is not the bill Mr. Pallone or I would have written on our own, and I
do not think it is a bill Mr. Shimkus would have wanted on his own
either, but that is the nature of compromise.
I again want to thank Mr. Shimkus and his staff for their willingness
to work with us to address a number of our concerns with the initial
bill.
And I want to acknowledge the hard work done by Tuley Wright, Rick
Kessler, and other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee
minority staff, who worked so diligently on this legislation.
I truly understand the concerns raised by my colleagues in
opposition, especially those from the Nevada delegation, and I
sympathize with many of their arguments, but the reality is our Nation
has a substantial amount of nuclear waste, and we as a Nation need a
plan to address it.
We are dealing with the constraints of legislation passed some 30
years ago, and within those constraints, I believe this bill is a step
in the right direction to address our Nation's nuclear waste issues.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to also thank the staff on both
sides for their work. This is the way legislation is supposed to move.
You have hearings. In Energy and Commerce, we really have four: a
subcommittee hearing markup, subcommittee markup, full committee
markup, then we go through the process. So our staff has done a
tremendous job.
I also want to thank Ranking Member Pallone and Ranking Member Tonko
for their friendship and their actually good negotiating skills. As
they have told me many times, they have changed this bill through their
diligence, and that has got us here to a better product.
I will end up on three quick points. We have raised them before.
We can transport this safely. We have done it for decades.
Every day, taxpayers are paying from all 50 States into the Judgment
Fund because of our failure to meet our legal obligations. I think it
is almost $800 million a year that we pay because we are breaking the
law.
Independent scientific analysis of the Yucca Mountain repository
found the site can safely dispose of nuclear waste for 1 million years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H3901]]
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, today, my colleagues and I will vote on H.R.
3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. H.R. 3053
provides practical reforms to ensure that the federal government
fulfills its legal obligation to dispose of nuclear waste currently
present in 121 communities across 39 states. The federal government is
20 years behind in implementing this disposal program. As a result,
current litigation costs have totaled more than $6 billion--mounting to
nearly $800 million a year and approximately $34 billion in future
liabilities. I am proud to support this legislation, and I ask my
colleagues to vote for H.R. 3053.
H.R. 3053 reforms the program's broken financing mechanism. The
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established the Nuclear Waste Fund
financed through the collection of fee receipts paid by nuclear
utilities and ratepayers. However, under current scorekeeping, these
receipts are credited as offsetting mandatory receipts rather than
discretionary appropriations in the federal budget. Consequently, the
program cannot be adequately funded because the collected fees are not
credited toward discretionary appropriations for future program
expenditures.
Addressing the budgetary classification of these fees prior to the
Department of Energy resuming their collection is a top priority. In
order for this program to operate as intended, the collection of these
fees must be classified as discretionary spending. H.R. 3053
accomplishes this by offsetting future spending for nuclear waste
management as discretionary spending and ensuring long-term funding for
the program. The circumstances of the Nuclear Waste Fund are unique due
to the delay in implementation of the program and the resulting
litigation. As a result, both the fee collections and the program's
subsequent spending need equivalent budgetary classifications.
The scorekeeping treatment in the bill should not be viewed as a
precedent for future legislative activity in other, unrelated programs.
We are 20 years behind fulfilling this program's promise. We owe it
to the taxpayer, ratepayer, and nuclear industry to pass H.R. 3053 and
uphold our legal and contractual obligations to collect nuclear waste.
I support the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018 and urge its
passage.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-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.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 3053
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE
Sec. 101. Monitored retrievable storage.
Sec. 102. Authorization and priority.
Sec. 103. Conditions for MRS agreements.
Sec. 104. Survey.
Sec. 105. Site selection.
Sec. 106. Benefits agreement.
Sec. 107. Licensing.
Sec. 108. Financial assistance.
TITLE II--PERMANENT REPOSITORY
Sec. 201. Land withdrawal, jurisdiction, and reservation.
Sec. 202. Application procedures and infrastructure activities.
Sec. 203. Pending repository license application.
Sec. 204. Limitation on planning, development, or construction of
defense waste repository.
Sec. 205. Sense of Congress regarding transportation routes.
TITLE III--DOE CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
Sec. 301. Title to material.
TITLE IV--BENEFITS TO HOST COMMUNITY
Sec. 401. Consent.
Sec. 402. Content of agreements.
Sec. 403. Covered units of local government.
Sec. 404. Termination.
Sec. 405. Priority funding for certain institutions of higher
education.
Sec. 406. Disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
Sec. 407. Updated report.
TITLE V--FUNDING
Sec. 501. Assessment and collection of fees.
Sec. 502. Use of Waste Fund.
Sec. 503. Annual multiyear budget proposal.
Sec. 504. Availability of certain amounts.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 601. Certain standards and criteria.
Sec. 602. Application.
Sec. 603. Transportation safety assistance.
Sec. 604. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
Sec. 605. West Lake Landfill.
Sec. 606. Subseabed or ocean water disposal.
Sec. 607. Sense of Congress regarding storage of nuclear waste near the
Great Lakes.
Sec. 608. Budgetary effects.
TITLE I--MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE
SEC. 101. MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE.
(a) Proposal.--Section 141(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10161(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``1985'' and inserting ``2019''; and
(B) by striking ``the construction of'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
``(C) designs, specifications, and cost estimates
sufficient to--
``(i) solicit bids for the construction of one or more such
facilities; and
``(ii) enable completion and operation of such a facility
as soon as practicable;'';
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``this Act.'' and
inserting ``this Act; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) options to enter into MRS agreements with respect to
one or more monitored retrievable storage facilities.''; and
(3) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) The Secretary shall, not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act
of 2018, publish a request for information to help the
Secretary evaluate options for the Secretary to enter into
MRS agreements with respect to one or more monitored
retrievable storage facilities.''.
(b) Additional Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Section 141 of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10161) is further amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(2)--
(i) by striking ``If the Congress'' and all that follows
through ``monitored retrievable storage facility, the'' and
inserting ``The''; and
(ii) by striking ``construction of such facility'' and
inserting ``construction of a monitored retrievable storage
facility''; and
(B) by striking subsections (d) through (h).
(2) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (34), by striking ``the storage facility''
and inserting ``a storage facility''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(35) The term `MRS agreement' means a cooperative
agreement, contract, or other mechanism that the Secretary
considers appropriate to support the storage of Department-
owned civilian waste in one or more monitored retrievable
storage facilities as authorized under section 142(b)(2).
``(36) The term `Department-owned civilian waste' means
high-level radioactive waste, or spent nuclear fuel,
resulting from civilian nuclear activities, to which the
Department holds title.''.
(3) Technical amendments.--Section 146 of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10166) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``such subsection'' and
inserting ``subsection (f) of such section''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``this subsection'' and
inserting ``this section''.
SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION AND PRIORITY.
Section 142 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10162) is amended by striking subsection (b) and
inserting the following:
``(b) Authorization.--Subject to the requirements of this
subtitle, the Secretary is authorized to--
``(1) site, construct, and operate one or more monitored
retrievable storage facilities; and
``(2) store, pursuant to an MRS agreement, Department-owned
civilian waste at a monitored retrievable storage facility
for which a non-Federal entity holds a license described in
section 143(1).
``(c) Priority.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall prioritize storage of Department-owned
civilian waste at a monitored retrievable storage facility
authorized under subsection (b)(2).
``(2) Exception.--
``(A) Determination.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the
Secretary determines that it will be faster and less
expensive to site, construct, and operate a facility
authorized under subsection (b)(1), in comparison to a
facility authorized under subsection (b)(2).
``(B) Notification.--Not later than 30 days after the
Secretary makes a determination described in subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall submit to Congress written
notification of such determination.''.
SEC. 103. CONDITIONS FOR MRS AGREEMENTS.
(a) Amendment.--Section 143 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10163) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 143. CONDITIONS FOR MRS AGREEMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may not enter into an MRS
agreement under section 142(b)(2) unless--
``(1) the monitored retrievable storage facility with
respect to which the MRS agreement applies has been licensed
by the Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.);
``(2) the non-Federal entity that is a party to the MRS
agreement has approval to store Department-owned civilian
waste at such facility from each of--
[[Page H3902]]
``(A) the Governor of the State in which the facility is
located;
``(B) any unit of general local government with
jurisdiction over the area in which the facility is located;
and
``(C) any affected Indian tribe;
``(3) except as provided in subsection (b), the Commission
has issued a final repository decision; and
``(4) the MRS agreement provides that the quantity of high-
level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at the site of
the facility at any one time will not exceed the limits
described in section 148(d)(3) and (4).
``(b) Initial Agreement.--
``(1) Authorization.--The Secretary may enter into one MRS
agreement under section 142(b)(2) before the Commission has
issued a final repository decision.
``(2) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this subsection--
``(A) for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2022, the
greater of--
``(i) $50,000,000; or
``(ii) the amount that is equal to 10 percent of the
amounts appropriated from the Waste Fund in that fiscal year;
and
``(B) for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2025, the
amount that is equal to 10 percent of the amounts
appropriated from the Waste Fund in that fiscal year.
``(3) Priority.--
``(A) In general.--An MRS agreement entered into pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall, to the extent allowable under this
Act (including under the terms of the standard contract
established in section 961.11 of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations), provide for prioritization of the storage of
Department-owned civilian waste that originated from
facilities that have ceased commercial operation.
``(B) No effect on standard contract.--Nothing in
subparagraph (A) shall be construed to amend or otherwise
alter the standard contract established in section 961.11 of
title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
``(4) Conditions.--
``(A) No storage.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Secretary may not store any Department-owned civilian
waste at the initial MRS facility until the Commission has
issued a final repository decision.
``(B) Exception.--
``(i) Finding.--The Secretary may make a finding that a
final repository decision is imminent, which finding shall be
updated not less often than quarterly until the date on which
the Commission issues a final repository decision.
``(ii) Storage.--If the Secretary makes a finding under
clause (i), the Secretary may store Department-owned civilian
waste at the initial MRS facility in accordance with this
section.
``(iii) Notice.--Not later than seven days after the
Secretary makes or updates a finding under clause (i), the
Secretary shall submit to Congress written notification of
such finding.
``(iv) Reporting.--In addition to the requirements of
section 114(c), if the Secretary makes a finding under clause
(i), the Secretary shall submit to Congress the report
described in such section 114(c) not later than 1 month after
the Secretary makes such finding and monthly thereafter until
the date on which the Commission issues a final repository
decision.
``(C) No effect on federal disposal policy.--Nothing in
this subsection affects the Federal responsibility for the
disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear
fuel, or the definite Federal policy with regard to the
disposal of such waste and spent fuel, established under
subtitle A, as described in section 111(b).
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Final repository decision.--The term `final
repository decision' means a final decision approving or
disapproving the issuance of a construction authorization for
a repository under section 114(d)(1).
``(2) Initial mrs facility.--The term `initial MRS
facility' means the monitored retrievable storage facility
with respect to which an MRS agreement is entered into
pursuant to subsection (b)(1).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 143
in the table of contents for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 143. Conditions for MRS agreements.''.
SEC. 104. SURVEY.
Section 144 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10164) is amended--
(1) by striking ``After the MRS Commission submits its
report to the Congress under section 143, the'' and inserting
``(a) In General.--The'';
(2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``for a monitored retrievable storage facility'' and
inserting ``for any monitored retrievable storage facility
authorized under section 142'';
(3) in paragraph (6), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(4) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(5) by adding after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) be acceptable to State authorities, affected units of
local government, and affected Indian tribes.
``(b) Request for Proposals.--The Secretary shall issue a
request for proposals for an MRS agreement authorized under
section 142(b)(2) before conducting a survey and evaluation
under subsection (a), and shall consider any proposals
received in response to such request in making the
evaluation.''.
SEC. 105. SITE SELECTION.
Section 145 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10165) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``select the site evaluated'' and inserting
``select a site evaluated'';
(B) by striking ``the most''; and
(C) by inserting ``authorized under section 142(b)(1)''
after ``monitored retrievable storage facility''; and
(2) by striking subsection (g).
SEC. 106. BENEFITS AGREEMENT.
Section 147 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10167) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``the Secretary intends to construct and
operate under section 142(b)(1)'' after ``storage facility'';
and
(2) by inserting ``or once a non-Federal entity enters into
an MRS agreement under section 142(b)(2),'' after ``section
145,''.
SEC. 107. LICENSING.
(a) Review of License Application.--Section 148(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10168(c)) is
amended by striking ``section 142(b)'' and inserting
``section 142(b)(1)''.
(b) Licensing Conditions.--Section 148(d) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10168(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``has issued a license
for the construction of a repository under section 115(d)''
and inserting ``has issued a final decision approving or
disapproving the issuance of a construction authorization for
a repository under section 114(d)(1)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or construction of the
repository ceases''.
SEC. 108. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 149 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is
amended by inserting ``authorized under section 142(b)(1)''
after ``a monitored retrievable storage facility''.
TITLE II--PERMANENT REPOSITORY
SEC. 201. LAND WITHDRAWAL, JURISDICTION, AND RESERVATION.
(a) Land Withdrawal, Jurisdiction, and Reservation.--
(1) Land withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights and
except as provided otherwise in this section, the lands
described in subsection (c) are withdrawn permanently from
all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under the
public land laws, including the mineral leasing laws, the
geothermal leasing laws, and the mining laws.
(2) Jurisdiction.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, jurisdiction over the withdrawal is vested in the
Secretary. There are transferred to the Secretary the lands
within the withdrawal under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
concerned on the effective date described in subsection
(j)(1).
(3) Reservation.--The withdrawal is reserved for use by the
Secretary for development, preconstruction testing and
performance confirmation, licensing, construction, management
and operation, monitoring, closure, postclosure, and other
activities associated with the disposal of high-level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.).
(b) Revocation and Modification of Public Land Orders and
Rights-of-Way.--
(1) Public land order revocation.--Public Land Order 6802
of September 25, 1990, as extended by Public Land Order 7534,
and any conditions or memoranda of understanding accompanying
those land orders, are revoked.
(2) Right-of-way reservations.--Project right-of-way
reservations N-48602 and N-47748 of January 2001, are
revoked.
(c) Land Description.--
(1) Boundaries.--The lands and interests in lands withdrawn
and reserved by this section comprise the approximately
147,000 acres of land in Nye County, Nevada, as generally
depicted on the Yucca Mountain Project Map, YMP-03-024.2,
entitled ``Proposed Land Withdrawal'' and dated July 21,
2005.
(2) Legal description and map.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior shall--
(A) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing a
legal description of the withdrawal; and
(B) file copies of the maps described in paragraph (1) and
the legal description of the withdrawal with the Congress,
the Governor of the State of Nevada, and the Archivist of the
United States.
(3) Technical corrections.--The maps and legal description
referred to in this subsection have the same force and effect
as if they were included in this section. The Secretary of
the Interior may correct clerical and typographical errors in
the maps and legal description.
(d) Relationship to Other Reservations.--The provisions of
subtitle A of title XXX of the Military Lands Withdrawal Act
of 1999 (sections 3011-3023 of Public Law 106-65) and of
Public Land Order 2568 do not apply to the lands withdrawn
and reserved for use by the Secretary under subsection (a).
This Act does not apply to any other lands withdrawn for use
by the Department of Defense under subtitle A of title XXX of
the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999.
(e) Management Responsibilities.--
(1) General authority.--The Secretary shall manage the
lands withdrawn by subsection (a) consistent with the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.), this section, and other applicable law. The Secretary
shall consult with the Secretary concerned in discharging
that responsibility.
(2) Management plan.--
(A) Development.--The Secretary, after consulting with the
Secretary concerned, shall develop a management plan for the
use of the withdrawal. Within 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the
management plan to the Congress and the State of Nevada.
(B) Priority of yucca mountain project-related issues.--
Subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), any use of the
withdrawal for activities not associated with the Project is
subject to
[[Page H3903]]
conditions and restrictions that the Secretary considers
necessary or desirable to permit the conduct of Project-
related activities.
(C) Department of the air force uses.--The management plan
may provide for the continued use by the Department of the
Air Force of the portion of the withdrawal within the Nellis
Air Force Base Test and Training Range under terms and
conditions on which the Secretary and the Secretary of the
Air Force agree concerning Air Force activities.
(D) Other non-yucca-mountain-project uses.--The management
plan shall provide for the maintenance of wildlife habitat
and shall provide that the Secretary may permit non-Project-
related uses that the Secretary considers appropriate,
including domestic livestock grazing and hunting and trapping
in accordance with the following requirements:
(i) Grazing.--The Secretary may permit grazing to continue
where established before the effective date described in
subsection (j)(1), subject to regulations, policies, and
practices that the Secretary, after consulting with the
Secretary of the Interior, determines to be necessary or
appropriate. The management of grazing shall be conducted in
accordance with applicable grazing laws and policies,
including--
(I) the Act commonly known as the ``Taylor Grazing Act''
(43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.);
(II) title IV of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.); and
(III) the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43
U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).
(ii) Hunting and trapping.--The Secretary may permit
hunting and trapping within the withdrawal where established
before the effective date described in subsection (k)(1),
except that the Secretary, after consulting with the
Secretary of the Interior and the State of Nevada, may
designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting
or trapping is permitted for reasons of public safety,
national security, administration, or public use and
enjoyment.
(E) Mining.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), surface
or subsurface mining or oil or gas production, including
slant drilling from outside the boundaries of the withdrawal,
is not permitted at any time on lands on or under the
withdrawal. The Secretary of the Interior shall evaluate and
adjudicate the validity of all unpatented mining claims on
the portion of the withdrawal that, on the date of enactment
of this Act, was under the control of the Bureau of Land
Management. The Secretary shall provide just compensation for
the acquisition of any valid property right.
(ii) Cind-R-Lite mine.--Patented Mining Claim No. 27-83-
0002, covering the Cind-R-Lite Mine, shall not be affected by
establishment of the withdrawal set forth in subsection
(a)(1). In that event, the Secretary shall provide just
compensation.
(F) Limited public access.--The management plan may provide
for limited public access to the portion of the withdrawal
under Bureau of Land Management control on the effective date
described in subsection (j)(1). Permitted uses may include
continuation of the Nye County Early Warning Drilling
Program, utility corridors, and other uses the Secretary,
after consulting with the Secretary of the Interior,
considers consistent with the purposes of the withdrawal.
(3) Closure.--If the Secretary, after consulting with the
Secretary concerned, determines that the health and safety of
the public or the common defense and security require the
closure of a road, trail, or other portion of the withdrawal,
or the airspace above the withdrawal, the Secretary may
effect and maintain the closure and shall provide notice of
the closure.
(4) Implementation.--The Secretary and the Secretary
concerned shall implement the management plan developed under
paragraph (2) under terms and conditions on which they agree.
(f) Immunity.--The United States and its departments and
agencies shall be held harmless and shall not be liable for
damages to persons or property suffered in the course of any
mining, mineral leasing, or geothermal leasing activity
conducted on the withdrawal.
(g) Land Acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire lands and
interests in lands within the withdrawal. Those lands and
interests in lands may be acquired by donation, purchase,
lease, exchange, easement, rights-of-way, or other
appropriate methods using donated or appropriated funds. The
Secretary of the Interior shall conduct any exchange of lands
within the withdrawal for Federal lands outside the
withdrawal.
(h) Material Requirements.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no Federal, State, Interstate, or local
requirement, either substantive or procedural, that is
referred to in section 6001(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (42 U.S.C. 6961(a)) applies with respect to any
material--
(1) as such material is transported to a repository for
disposal at such repository; or
(2) as, or after, such material is disposed of in a
repository.
(i) Definitions.--
(1) Nuclear waste policy act of 1982 definitions.--For
purposes of this section, the terms ``disposal'', ``high-
level radioactive waste'', ``repository'', ``Secretary'', and
``spent nuclear fuel'' have the meaning given those terms in
section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10101).
(2) Other definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(A) the term ``withdrawal'' means the geographic area
consisting of the land described in subsection (c);
(B) the term ``Secretary concerned'' means the Secretary of
the Air Force or the Secretary of the Interior, or both, as
appropriate; and
(C) the term ``Project'' means the Yucca Mountain Project.
(j) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this
section shall take effect on the date on which the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission issues a final decision approving the
issuance of a construction authorization for a repository
under section 114(d)(1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(d)) (as so designated by this Act).
(2) Exceptions.--Subsections (c), (e)(2)(A), (h), (i), and
(j) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 202. APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Status Report on Application.--Section 114(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(c)) is
amended by striking ``the date on which such authorization is
granted'' and inserting ``the date on which the Commission
issues a final decision approving or disapproving such
application''.
(b) Application Procedures and Infrastructure Activities.--
Section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10134(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Commission shall consider'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) Applications for construction authorization.--The
Commission shall consider'';
(2) by striking ``the expiration of 3 years after the date
of the submission of such application'' and inserting ``30
months after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 2018'';
(3) by striking ``70,000 metric tons'' each place it
appears and inserting ``110,000 metric tons''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Applications to amend.--If the Commission issues a
construction authorization for a repository pursuant to
paragraph (1) and the Secretary submits an application to
amend such authorization, the Commission shall consider the
application to amend using expedited, informal procedures,
including discovery procedures that minimize the burden on
the parties to produce documents. The Commission shall issue
a final decision on such application to amend within 1 year
after the date of submission of such application, except that
the Commission may extend such deadline by not more than 6
months if, not less than 30 days before such deadline, the
Commission complies with the reporting requirements
established in subsection (e)(2).
``(3) Infrastructure activities.--
``(A) In general.--At any time before or after the
Commission issues a final decision approving or disapproving
the issuance of a construction authorization for a repository
pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may undertake
infrastructure activities that the Secretary considers
necessary or appropriate to support construction or operation
of a repository at the Yucca Mountain site or transportation
to such site of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste. Infrastructure activities include safety upgrades,
site preparation, the construction of a rail line to connect
the Yucca Mountain site with the national rail network
(including any facilities to facilitate rail operations), and
construction, upgrade, acquisition, or operation of
electrical grids or facilities, other utilities,
communication facilities, access roads, and nonnuclear
support facilities.
``(B) Environmental analysis.--If the Secretary determines
that an environmental analysis is required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to an
infrastructure activity undertaken under this paragraph, the
Secretary need not consider alternative actions or a no-
action alternative. To the extent any other Federal agency
must consider the potential environmental impact of such an
infrastructure activity, the agency shall adopt, to the
extent practicable, any environmental analysis prepared by
the Secretary under this subparagraph without further action.
Such adoption satisfies the responsibilities of the adopting
agency under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
and no further action is required by the agency.
``(C) No grounds for disapproval.--The Commission may not
disapprove, on the grounds that the Secretary undertook an
infrastructure activity under this paragraph--
``(i) the issuance of a construction authorization for a
repository pursuant to paragraph (1);
``(ii) a license to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste; or
``(iii) any other action concerning the repository.''.
(c) Connected Actions.--Section 114(f)(6) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)(6)) is amended
by striking ``or nongeologic alternatives to such site'' and
inserting ``nongeologic alternatives to such site, or an
action connected or otherwise related to the repository to
the extent the action is undertaken outside the geologic
repository operations area and does not require a license
from the Commission''.
SEC. 203. PENDING REPOSITORY LICENSE APPLICATION.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to require the Secretary to amend or
otherwise modify an application for a construction
authorization described in section 114(d) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(d)) pending as of
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. LIMITATION ON PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, OR
CONSTRUCTION OF DEFENSE WASTE REPOSITORY.
(a) Limitation.--The Secretary of Energy may not take any
action relating to the planning, development, or construction
of a defense waste repository until the date on which the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a final
[[Page H3904]]
decision approving or disapproving the issuance of a
construction authorization for a repository under section
114(d)(1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10134(d)) (as so designated by this Act).
(b) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``atomic energy defense activity'', ``high-
level radioactive waste'', ``repository'', and ``spent
nuclear fuel'' have the meanings given those terms in section
2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101);
and
(2) the term ``defense waste repository'' means the
repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear
fuel derived from the atomic energy defense activities of the
Department of Energy, as described in the draft plan of the
Department titled ``Draft Plan for a Defense Waste
Repository'' published on December 16, 2016.
SEC. 205. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION ROUTES.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Energy
should consider routes for the transportation of spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste transported by
or for the Secretary under subtitle A of title I of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10131 et seq.) to
the Yucca Mountain site that, to the extent practicable,
avoid Las Vegas, Nevada.
TITLE III--DOE CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
SEC. 301. TITLE TO MATERIAL.
Section 123 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10143) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Delivery'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--Delivery'';
(2) by striking ``repository constructed under this
subtitle'' and inserting ``repository or monitored
retrievable storage facility''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Contract Modification.--The Secretary may enter into
new contracts or negotiate modifications to existing
contracts, with any person who generates or holds title to
high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel of
domestic origin, for acceptance of title, subsequent
transportation, and storage of such high-level radioactive
waste or spent nuclear fuel (including to expedite such
acceptance of title, transportation, and storage of such
waste or fuel from facilities that have ceased commercial
operation) at a monitored retrievable storage facility
authorized under subtitle C.''.
TITLE IV--BENEFITS TO HOST COMMUNITY
SEC. 401. CONSENT.
Section 170 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10173) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking ``shall offer'' and
inserting ``may offer'';
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``shall'' and inserting
``may'';
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) by inserting a comma after ``repository''; and
(B) by inserting ``per State,'' after ``facility''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Consent.--The acceptance or use of any of the
benefits provided under a benefits agreement under this
section by the State of Nevada shall not be considered to be
an expression of consent, express or implied, to the siting
of a repository in such State.''.
SEC. 402. CONTENT OF AGREEMENTS.
(a) Benefits Schedule.--The table in section 171(a)(1) of
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10173a(a)(1))
is amended to read as follows:
``BENEFITS SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event MRS Repository
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Annual payments prior to first spent fuel receipt......... $5,000,000 $15,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Upon first spent fuel receipt............................. $10,000,000 $400,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Annual payments after first spent fuel receipt until $10,000,000 $40,000,000''.
closure of the facility......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Restrictions on Use.--Section 171(a) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10173a(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``paragraph (7)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (7) and (8)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) None of the payments under this section may be used--
``(A) directly or indirectly to influence legislative
action on any matter pending before Congress or a State
legislature or for any lobbying activity as provided in
section 1913 of title 18, United States Code;
``(B) for litigation purposes; or
``(C) to support multistate efforts or other coalition-
building activities inconsistent with the siting,
construction, or operation of the monitored retrievable
storage facility or repository concerned.''.
(c) Contents.--Section 171(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10173a(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively; and
(3) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of
this subsection), by striking ``in the design of the
repository or monitored retrievable storage facility and''.
(d) Payments by Secretary.--Section 171(c) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10173a(c)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(c) Payments by Secretary.--The Secretary shall make
payments to the State of Nevada under a benefits agreement
concerning a repository under section 170 from the Waste
Fund. The signature of the Secretary on a valid benefits
agreement under this subtitle shall constitute a commitment,
but only to the extent that all amounts for that purpose are
provided in advance in subsequent appropriations Acts, by the
Secretary to make payments in accordance with such
agreement.''.
SEC. 403. COVERED UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
(a) In General.--The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
172 the following new section:
``SEC. 172A. COVERED UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
``(a) Benefits Agreement.--Not earlier than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary may
enter into a benefits agreement with any covered unit of
local government concerning a repository for the acceptance
of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel in the
State of Nevada.
``(b) Content of Agreements.--In addition to any benefits
that a covered unit of local government may receive under
this Act, the Secretary shall make payments to such covered
unit of local government that is a party to a benefits
agreement under subsection (a) to mitigate impacts described
in section 175(b).
``(c) Payments From Waste Fund.--The Secretary shall make
payments to a covered unit of local government under a
benefits agreement under this section from the Waste Fund.
``(d) Restriction on Use.--None of the payments made
pursuant to a benefits agreement under this section may be
used--
``(1) directly or indirectly to influence legislative
action on any matter pending before Congress or a State
legislature or for any lobbying activity as provided in
section 1913 of title 18, United States Code;
``(2) for litigation purposes; or
``(3) to support multistate efforts or other coalition-
building activities inconsistent with the siting,
construction, or operation of the repository.
``(e) Consent.--The acceptance or use of any of the
benefits provided under a benefits agreement under this
section by any covered unit of local government shall not be
considered to be an expression of consent, express or
implied, to the siting of a repository in the State of
Nevada.
``(f) Covered Unit of Local Government Defined.--In this
section, the term `covered unit of local government' means--
``(1) any affected unit of local government with respect to
a repository; and
``(2) any unit of general local government in the State of
Nevada.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Benefits agreement.--Section 170(a)(4) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10173(a)(4)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(4) Benefits and payments under this subtitle made
available pursuant to a benefits agreement under this section
or section 172A may be made available only in accordance with
such benefits agreement and to the extent that all amounts
for that purpose are provided in advance in subsequent
appropriations Acts.''.
(2) Limitation.--Section 170(e) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10173(e)) is further amended by
inserting ``under this section'' after ``may be in effect''.
(3) Table of contents.--The table of contents for the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 note) is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 172, the
following:
``Sec. 172A. Covered units of local government.''.
SEC. 404. TERMINATION.
Section 173 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10173c) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``under this title if'' and inserting
``under this title'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``concerning a
repository or a monitored retrievable storage facility, if''
before ``the site under consideration''; and
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Secretary
determines that the Commission cannot license the facility
within a reasonable time'' and inserting ``concerning a
repository, if the Commission issues a final decision
disapproving the issuance of a construction authorization for
a repository under section 114(d)(1)''; and
(2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Termination by State or Indian Tribe.--A State,
covered unit of local government (as defined in section
172A), or Indian
[[Page H3905]]
tribe may only terminate a benefits agreement under this
title--
``(1) concerning a repository or a monitored retrievable
storage facility, if the Secretary disqualifies the site
under consideration for its failure to comply with technical
requirements established by the Secretary in accordance with
this Act; or
``(2) concerning a repository, if the Commission issues a
final decision disapproving the issuance of a construction
authorization for a repository under section 114(d)(1).''.
SEC. 405. PRIORITY FUNDING FOR CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION.
(a) In General.--Subtitle G of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10174 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:
``SEC. 176. PRIORITY FUNDING FOR CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION.
``(a) In General.--In providing any funding to institutions
of higher education from the Waste Fund, the Secretary shall
prioritize institutions of higher education that are located
in the State of Nevada.
``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `institution
of higher education' has the meaning given that term in
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 note) is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 175, the
following:
``Sec. 176. Priority funding for certain institutions of higher
education.''.
SEC. 406. DISPOSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL.
Section 122 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10142) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Any economic benefits derived from the retrieval of spent
nuclear fuel pursuant to this section shall be shared with
the State in which the repository is located, affected units
of local government, and affected Indian tribes.''.
SEC. 407. UPDATED REPORT.
Section 175(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10174a(a)) is amended by striking ``Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 1987'' and inserting ``Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 2018''.
TITLE V--FUNDING
SEC. 501. ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF FEES.
(a) In General.--Section 302(a)(4) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``(4) Not later than'' and inserting the
following:
``(4) Assessment, collection, and payment of fees.--
``(A) Assessment of fees.--Not later than'';
(B) by striking ``the date of enactment of this Act'' and
inserting ``the date of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2018''; and
(C) by striking ``collection and payment'' and inserting
``assessment'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``collection of the
fee'' and inserting ``such amount'';
(3) in the third sentence, by striking ``are being
collected'' and inserting ``will result from such amounts'';
(4) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``a period of 90
days of continuous session'' and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting ``the date that is 180 days
after the date of such transmittal.''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Collection and payment of fees.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018,
the Secretary shall establish procedures for the collection
and payment of the fees established by paragraph (2) and
paragraph (3), or adjusted pursuant to subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Limitation on collection.--The Secretary may not
collect a fee established under paragraph (2), including a
fee established under paragraph (2) and adjusted pursuant to
subparagraph (A)--
``(I) until the date on which the Commission issues a final
decision approving or disapproving the issuance of a
construction authorization for a repository under section
114(d)(1); and
``(II) after such date, in an amount that will cause the
total amount of fees collected under this subsection in any
fiscal year to exceed 90 percent of the amounts appropriated
for that fiscal year for purposes described in subsection
(d).
The limitation in subclause (II) shall not apply during a
fiscal year if, at any time during that fiscal year, the
Waste Fund has a balance of zero.
``(iii) Payment of full amounts.--Notwithstanding the
noncollection of a fee by the Secretary pursuant to clause
(ii) in any fiscal year, a person who has entered into a
contract with the Secretary under this subsection shall pay
any uncollected amounts when determined necessary by the
Secretary, subject to clause (ii), for purposes described in
subsection (d).''.
(b) Authority To Modify Contracts.--The Secretary of Energy
may seek to modify a contract entered into under section
302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10222(a)) before the date of enactment of this Act to ensure
that the contract complies with the provisions of such
section, as amended by this Act.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 302(a) of
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and
(3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``126(b)''; and
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``insure'' and inserting
``ensure''.
SEC. 502. USE OF WASTE FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 302(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``maintenance and
monitoring'' and all that follows through the semicolon at
the end and inserting ``maintenance and monitoring of any
repository or test and evaluation facility constructed under
this Act;'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``to be disposed of'' and
all that follows through the semicolon at the end and
inserting ``to be disposed of in a repository or to be used
in a test and evaluation facility;'';
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``at a repository site''
and all that follows through the end and inserting ``at a
repository site or a test and evaluation facility site and
necessary or incident to such repository or test and
evaluation facility;'';
(4) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(5) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) payments under benefits agreements for a repository
entered into under section 170 or 172A.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 117(d) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10137(d)) is amended by
inserting ``designated with respect to a repository'' after
``such representatives''.
SEC. 503. ANNUAL MULTIYEAR BUDGET PROPOSAL.
Section 302(e)(2) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(42 U.S.C. 10222(e)(2)) is amended by striking
``triennially'' and inserting ``annually''.
SEC. 504. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS.
Section 302 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10222) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Limitation on Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date of first spent
fuel receipt at a repository, no amount may be appropriated
in any fiscal year for activities relating to the repository,
including transportation of additional spent fuel to the
repository and operation of the repository, unless the
applicable amount required with respect to the repository
under section 171(a)(1)(B) or section 171(a)(1)(C) is
appropriated for that fiscal year.
``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the terms `spent
fuel' and `first spent fuel receipt' have the meaning given
such terms in section 171(a).
``(g) Offsetting Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Fees collected after the date of
enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018
pursuant to subsection (a) shall be credited to the Waste
Fund and available, to the extent provided in advance in
appropriation Acts and consistent with the requirements of
this section, to carry out activities authorized to be funded
from the Waste Fund.
``(2) Offsetting collection.--Fees collected in a fiscal
year pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be deposited and
credited as offsetting collections to the account providing
appropriations for such activities and shall be classified as
discretionary appropriations as defined by section 250(c)(7)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(7)).
``(3) Estimates.--For the purposes of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et
seq.) and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621
et seq.) and for determining points of order pursuant to that
Act or any concurrent resolution on the budget, an estimate
provided under those Acts for a provision in a bill or joint
resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that provides discretionary appropriations, derived
from amounts in the Waste Fund, for such activities shall
include in that estimate the amount of such fees that will be
collected during the fiscal year for which such appropriation
is made available. Any such estimate shall not include any
change in net direct spending as result in the appropriation
of such fees.''.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 601. CERTAIN STANDARDS AND CRITERIA.
(a) Generally Applicable Standards and Criteria.--
(1) Environmental protection agency standards.--
(A) Determination and report.--Not later than 2 years after
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final decision
approving or disapproving the issuance of a construction
authorization for a repository under section 114(d)(1) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(d)) (as so
designated by this Act), the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall--
(i) determine if the generally applicable standards
promulgated under section 121(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10141(a)) should be updated; and
(ii) submit to Congress a report on such determination.
(B) Rule.--If the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency determines, under subparagraph (A), that
the generally applicable standards promulgated under section
121(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10141(a)) should be updated, the Administrator, not later
than 2 years after submission of the report under
subparagraph (A)(ii), shall, by rule, promulgate updated
generally applicable standards under such section.
(2) Commission requirements and criteria.--Not later than 2
years after the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency
[[Page H3906]]
promulgates updated generally applicable standards pursuant
to paragraph (1)(B), the Commission shall, by rule,
promulgate updated technical requirements and criteria under
section 121(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10141(b)) as necessary to be consistent with such
updated generally applicable standards.
(b) Site-Specific Standards and Criteria.--Nothing in this
section shall affect the standards, technical requirements,
and criteria promulgated by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for the Yucca Mountain site under section 801 of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note).
SEC. 602. APPLICATION.
Section 135 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10155) is amended by striking subsection (h) and
redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h).
SEC. 603. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ASSISTANCE.
Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10175(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(c) Training and Assistance.--
``(1) Training.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by striking ``The Waste Fund'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Assistance.--The Secretary shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations, provide in-kind, financial,
technical, and other appropriate assistance, for safety
activities related to the transportation of high-level
radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel, to any entity
receiving technical assistance or funds under paragraph (1).
``(3) Source of funding.--The Waste Fund''.
SEC. 604. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT.
(a) Amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.--
Subsection (b) of section 304 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10224(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Director.--
``(1) Functions.--The Director of the Office shall be
responsible for carrying out the functions of the Secretary
under this Act. The Director of the Office shall report
directly to the Secretary.
``(2) Qualifications.--The Director of the Office shall be
appointed from among persons who have extensive expertise and
experience in organizational and project management.
``(3) Tenure.--The Director of the Office may serve not
more than two 5-year terms.
``(4) Service during interim period.--Upon expiration of
the Director's term, the Director may continue to serve until
the earlier of--
``(A) the date on which a new Director is confirmed; or
``(B) the date that is one year after the date of such
expiration.
``(5) Removal.--The President may remove the Director only
for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
If the President removes the Director, the President shall
submit to Congress a statement explaining the reason for such
removal.''.
(b) Transfer of Functions.--
(1) Amendment.--Section 203(a) of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7133(a)) is amended by striking
paragraph (8).
(2) Transfer of functions.--The functions described in the
paragraph (8) stricken by the amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be transferred to and performed by the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, as provided in section
304 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10224).
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 2(17) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(17)) is amended by
striking ``section 305'' and inserting ``section 304''.
SEC. 605. WEST LAKE LANDFILL.
Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall submit to Congress a report containing the final remedy
to be implemented at the West Lake Landfill and the expected
timeline for implementation of such final remedy.
SEC. 606. SUBSEABED OR OCEAN WATER DISPOSAL.
(a) Prohibition.--Section 5 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10104) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Nothing in this Act'' and inserting:
``(a) Effect on Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972.--Nothing in this Act''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Subseabed or Ocean Water Disposal.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law--
``(1) the subseabed or ocean water disposal of spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste is prohibited;
and
``(2) no funds shall be obligated for any activity relating
to the subseabed or ocean water disposal of spent nuclear
fuel or high-level radioactive waste.''.
(b) Repeal.--Section 224 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, and the item relating thereto in the table of contents
for such Act, are repealed.
SEC. 607. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING STORAGE OF NUCLEAR
WASTE NEAR THE GREAT LAKES.
It is the Sense of Congress that the Governments of the
United States and Canada should not allow permanent or long-
term storage of spent nuclear fuel or other radioactive waste
near the Great Lakes.
SEC. 608. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
(a) Statutory PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary effects of
this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be
entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to
section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
(b) Senate PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary effects of this
Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be entered
on any PAYGO scorecard maintained for purposes of section
4106 of H. Con. Res. 71 (115th Congress).
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 115-
665. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Keating
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 115-665.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VI, add the following section:
SEC. 609. REQUIREMENT FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SUMMARY.
The Department of Energy shall include a financial
statements summary in each audit report on the Department of
Energy Nuclear Waste Fund's fiscal year financial statement
audit.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressman Shimkus
for his support of this amendment. I would also like to thank
Congressman Tonko as well, and express my support for the underlying
bill, which will, among many other things, prioritize decommissioned
nuclear plants for removal of spent waste.
The hard work to come to this stage has been important, and we are
finally moving forward.
In 2015, news broke that the nuclear plant in my district would be
decommissioned in 2019. Unfortunately, this plant has also been in the
news quite a bit because of significant safety concerns. So the
communities back home are intimately aware of the safety and security
risks to local neighborhoods and plant employees, and local officials
and stakeholders have worked hard to hold plant operators accountable
to prepare for all the risks presented, and to demand a plan for what
happens after the plant is decommissioned so that the families and the
businesses in my district are not left high and dry.
I offered a number of amendments to H.R. 3035, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act. They included efforts to strengthen local
stakeholder engagement, to support funding for communities where spent
nuclear fuel is awaiting transfer, to ensure the safe storage of spent
nuclear fuel at decommissioned or soon-to-be decommissioned plants. And
I offered these amendments because of the safety of the communities
that are affected by nuclear plants and the nuclear storage sites, the
importance of that being recognized.
And while some of these ideas weren't included in the particular
bill, the amendment I offer now is fundamental to making sure that they
will be ultimately addressed.
Congress created the Nuclear Waste Fund to fund a solution to
civilian nuclear waste that would provide for safe disposal in a
permanent repository. These funds came from funds paid by ratepayers
and generated by tens of billions of dollars, $31 billion as of 2014,
to support a solution for dealing with nuclear waste in a safe and
secure manner.
And in the issuance of what is happening with this fund, the
administration ceased making an easy-to-read summary to be part of
that. The American people deserve to know just how this fund is being
managed, and that any expenditure is actually necessary or justified
and publicly reported and easily digested by local officials and the
public as a whole.
[[Page H3907]]
For this, transparency really is key. We should be making it as easy
as possible for the public and the officials that oversee this fund,
and my amendment does just that by requiring a clear, plain English
summary to accompany annual reporting on the Nuclear Waste Fund's
financial status.
The information about the fund should not be only accessible to those
who can understand the technical information contained in the full
report. When communities like mine are working as hard as they can
possibly work under the circumstances to make sure that they keep
families safe, we should be making every possible tool available to
them to achieve this goal.
Transparency around the fund created by ratepayers and intended to
support a permanent solution to the safety risks they face from nuclear
waste is only one piece of that, but an important piece.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time opposition, but I do not
oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating). I think this is a very needed amendment.
I would say one of the most frustrating things about this process,
and my colleagues on the other side know, is that we passed this bill
in June of last year. And then we had the funding, and the money, and
the debate, and the trust fund, and appropriators and budgeters.
Anything we can do to clear out and get some clear guidance on the
money, we may have to then move to another piece of legislation to
really clarify. Our bill does that for new revenue coming in, so I
think it is a great addition, and I appreciate him coming down.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr.
Shimkus) for his leadership on this issue. For so long we have been
trying to get a solution and to get proper use made out of Yucca
Mountain and the billions of dollars that ratepayers all across the
Nation have spent.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan amendment as
well that is brought forward by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Keating) to bring more light to show the ratepayers of the country what
is exactly happening with this Nuclear Waste Fund.
But the underlying bill is critical to our national energy strategy
because, for decades, going back to the 1980s, this country, through
Congress, established that there will be a national nuclear waste
storage facility, and yet it has gone unused. The money has gone
unutilized, and there is no facility right now that is working.
We have got to make this work for the ratepayers all across the
country who pay billions of dollars into this fund. We need a national
repository for spent nuclear fuel. This bill finally achieves that.
I congratulate my friend, Mr. Shimkus, for spending years finally
getting us to a point where we can move this bill across the House
floor, and hopefully the Senate moves this bill to the President's desk
so we can finally resolve this long-lasting issue that ratepayers all
across the Nation deserve to have an answer to.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to end by saying I know there
are some rumblings out there about what is this litigation fund being
paid for and who is paying for it?
The United States Government is being sued. We have to make these
payments because we are not abiding by the law. It is not the private
industry.
There are rumblings out there about: Oh, we are relieving the nuclear
industry of reliability. That is absolutely false. We are going to
protect U.S. taxpayers from the liability that we are paying because
the Federal Government is not complying with the law.
And I want to make that straight. That is accountability, that is
transparency. That is what my colleague Mr. Keating is doing.
And with that, I support his amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
{time} 1030
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Tonko), who has worked tirelessly on this issue as well and with a
strong spirit of bipartisan cooperation on this bill.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I know that this
takes the issue and the response of this bill and makes it even
stronger. With that in mind, I thank my colleague and those with whom
he worked on this amendment for their input, and for, again, an
amendment that makes the response so much stronger.
With that, I plan to support the amendment.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to thank everyone who
has worked so hard: Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Tonko, and all of the people who
are finally moving this ahead. It is a very important issue in terms of
our energy. It is very important in terms of safety of our communities.
We have finally got the ball rolling, so again, I thank them for their
hard work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Schneider
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 115-665.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 609. STRANDED NUCLEAR WASTE.
(a) Stranded Nuclear Waste Task Force.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a task
force, to be known as the Stranded Nuclear Waste Task Force--
(A) to conduct a study on existing public and private
resources and funding for which affected communities may be
eligible; and
(B) to develop immediate and long-term economic adjustment
plans tailored to the needs of each affected community.
(2) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Stranded Nuclear Waste Task Force
shall complete and submit to Congress the study described in
paragraph (1).
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Affected community.--The term ``affected community''
means a municipality that contains stranded nuclear waste
within the boundaries of the municipality, as determined by
the Secretary.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(3) Stranded nuclear waste.--The term ``stranded nuclear
waste'' means nuclear waste or spent nuclear fuel stored in
dry casks or spent fuel pools at a decommissioned or
decommissioning nuclear facility.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Schneider) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment
which would help those communities saddled with housing our Nation's
stranded nuclear waste while the Federal Government has failed to meet
its legal obligation to find a permanent repository.
This is something my constituents understand all too well. The former
Zion Nuclear Power Station, located on valuable lakefront property in
Zion, Illinois, has housed more than 2 million pounds of spent nuclear
fuel since the plant's closure in 1998.
This waste, situated on the very shores of Lake Michigan, is both an
extreme environmental hazard and a severe burden to the quality of life
of the residents of Zion--deterring economic investment, depressing
home values, and driving up property taxes to fill the void of local
revenue.
Zion is not alone. Across the country, there are 17 nuclear power
plants at various stages of decommissioning with even more announced
closures slated for years ahead. In these communities, plants are
typically the largest employer in the area; and when they close and
waste is stored on site, it is devastating to the local communities.
[[Page H3908]]
My amendment seeks to help these communities access desperately
needed Federal resources until waste is moved--waste that is, quite
literally, stranded in these communities due to the Federal
Government's inaction. Specifically, my amendment would require the
Secretary of Energy to assemble a task force to work across all Federal
agencies to identify existing resources and funding opportunities that
could assist communities with decommissioning plants where waste is
being stored.
In addition, the task force would work with communities in the
decommissioning process to develop a transition plan to mitigate the
economic damage when a plant closes. Communities like Zion, Illinois,
have been forced to shoulder the burdens of storage with no
compensation in return.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and help our
communities get the Federal help they are owed.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), my friend.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my fellow Great Lakes Member,
Representative Schneider, for yielding the time. I also want to thank
the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Congresswoman
Lowey, for offering this amendment.
I rise in support of this effort to help communities that are left
with radioactive waste after the closure of a nuclear power plant. The
Great Lakes region, I might point out, has no energy umbrella like the
Bureau of Reclamation for the 17 Western States, or for portions of the
South, the Tennessee Valley Authority, that can help communities
readjust on a large scale for energy disruptions or changes.
In my district of northern Ohio, the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station is scheduled to be shuttered. We are not waving the white flag
just yet, but this community and its people need the tools to cope with
the aftermath, should the worst happen.
When nuclear power plants close, the impact on local economies, due
to the loss of jobs and tax revenue, will be severe. For years, the
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station has provided 700 good jobs and
generated $20 million a year in tax revenue for a rural county, called
Ottawa County, in which $12.1 million each year goes to its school
district. That 900-megawatt power plant does more than produce power.
It builds community.
This major financial support could disappear and leave the community
and that entire county struggling to support schools, law enforcement,
and roads. Therefore, I strongly support this amendment to help these
communities adjust, as necessary, to access Federal resources and make
a plan for economic revitalization.
I thank Congressman Schneider for offering this commonsense
amendment, one that is so vitally necessary, especially across the
Great Lakes region, which is so often neglected. I also want to thank
Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko for their leadership and urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Shimkus) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois--
one of the Chicagolanders that I talk about--for bringing this
amendment. I use his district--and I have used it for years--to talk
about the challenges that we face if we do nothing.
This authorization bill is designed to start doing something, and,
actually, it is designed to help us comply with the law that is already
written.
Zion is the perfect example of the need to move spent nuclear fuel to
an interim site and then a final geological repository, thus, freeing
up, obviously, great lakefront opportunities on the Great Lakes for
redevelopment that would help this community that suffered because of
the closure.
I am glad the gentleman is here. I appreciate the amendment. I am
going back to what Mark Sanford said: This is a national problem. We
need a national solution. That is what we are trying to do now in a
bipartisan manner. Good job. I thank the gentleman for offering the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey), my friend and a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Schneider) for working with me on this very important amendment.
Indian Point Energy Center, in my district, is scheduled to cease
operations in 2021. When the plant closes, the village of Buchanan will
be left with a large amount of stranded nuclear waste on site.
This amendment would help Buchanan and the town of Cortlandt access
vital resources for economic redevelopment. Until the Department of
Energy takes title to nuclear waste and removes it from our
communities, the Federal Government must do all it can to support these
de facto interim storage sites.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider) has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I have the right to close. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider) has the
right to close.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I again thank my colleague. I don't know if
he was in the Chamber when I mentioned that Chicagoland has 55 million
visitors and 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. We would like to
solve that problem. The gentleman's amendment helps the communities as
we transition. It is additive to the overall bill. I am happy to
support it.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 10, 2018, on page H3908, the following appeared: Mr. Chair,
I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chair, how
much time do I have remaining? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Schneider) has 30 seconds remaining. Mr.
SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr.
SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I again thank my colleague.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. Chair, I urge
adoption of the amendment. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chair, how much time
do I have remaining? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Schneider) has 30 seconds remaining. Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair,
I have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr.
SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. The Acting
CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider) has the right
to close. Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I again thank my colleague.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois for
his hard work on this and his support.
I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding, and I stand in support of the amendment.
I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from New York
for their hard work on the amendment and for the sensitivity shown the
people in host communities for our nuclear facilities across our
country.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and encourage our colleagues
to do likewise.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate all of the support. I
appreciate the work of my colleagues. I urge all of my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Titus
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 115-665.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, strike line 1 and all that follows through the end
of the Rules Committee Print, and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Waste Informed
Consent Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the terms ``affected Indian tribe'',
``affected unit of local government'', ``high-level
radioactive waste'', ``repository'', ``Secretary'', ``spent
nuclear fuel'', ``unit of general local government'', and
``Waste Fund'' have the meanings given the terms in section 2
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
SEC. 3. CONSENT BASED APPROVAL.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may not make an expenditure
from the Waste Fund for the costs of the activities described
in paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 302(d) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)) unless the
Secretary has entered into an agreement to host a repository
with--
(1) the Governor of the State in which the repository is
proposed to be located;
(2) each affected unit of local government;
(3) any unit of general local government contiguous to the
affected unit of local government if spent nuclear fuel or
high-level radioactive waste will be transported
[[Page H3909]]
through that unit of general local government for disposal at
the repository; and
(4) each affected Indian tribe.
(b) Conditions on Agreement.--Any agreement to host a
repository under this Act--
(1) shall be in writing and signed by all parties;
(2) shall be binding on the parties; and
(3) shall not be amended or revoked except by mutual
agreement of the parties.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Titus) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is also supported by my
Nevada colleague (Mr. Kihuen) is very simple and straightforward. It
sets up consent-based site decisionmaking as an alternative to
``Screwing Nevada 2.0,'' which just continues the process that has
lasted 36 years, has cost $15 billion, is going nowhere in the Senate,
and has nothing to show for it but a big hole in the ground.
Consent-based siting, on the other hand, is fair. Nevada doesn't want
your nuclear waste. We didn't get any benefits from it, and we didn't
generate it. But Texas and New Mexico do want it, so why not let them
have it?
It is also a sound policy. It was the number one recommendation of
the esteemed Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Now,
you can argue the politics, you can distort the science, you can assert
it is the law--as though a 1982 policy is the Ten Commandments--but you
can't have the truth.
Now, my colleagues don't want this dangerous waste in their backyards
any more than Nevadans do. I get that. That is pretty easy to
understand. But it is funny, they didn't mind the jobs; they didn't
mind the tax revenue, the cheap power, and the political support they
got from the nuclear power industry over the years that it has existed.
Now, they just want somebody else to clean up their mess.
Well, I say, instead of screwing Nevada one more time, why don't we
really work together so we can finally and effectively solve the
problem? We could do this with consent-based siting for both interim
and permanent storage facilities. This would be a real solution that
could take us into the future. So I would urge my colleagues to support
the Titus amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the State of Nevada has
benefited from the nuclear age. It helped us win World War II. Also,
Nevada pays for our inability to comply with the law because,
nationally, we pay out of the Judgment Fund. So the taxpayers of the
State of Nevada are paying, through Federal tax liabilities, for us not
complying with the law. So I just want to make that straight.
There are two main problems with my colleague's amendment. One is--
and it is just the language--it is a striking bill, which says that,
all of this debate of interim storage that we are having, her amendment
strikes that. All of the discussion about how we are trying to protect
the ratepayers--especially in the future--her amendment strikes that.
Her amendment strikes the final regulatory review of the Yucca
Mountain site. The NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in their
safety evaluation report that Yucca Mountain would be safe for 1
million years.
{time} 1045
Current law allows the State of Nevada to challenge that, but my
colleague's amendment strikes that. And what we have done in this
legislation is we have said: We understand the concerns of the State of
Nevada. Current law says: Because you vetoed it, you get no benefits.
In this bill, we said: That is not fair. We are going to allow the
State of Nevada to receive the benefits that they request in moving
forward. Your amendment strikes that, so your amendment strikes the
opportunity for the State of Nevada to get any benefits once we move
forward.
The other part of the problem with this amendment is the terminology
is very vague as to local government entities. And we think that is
probably intentional. It is intentional so that you can never get a
number of local entities to ever decide. We kind of looked at, based
upon the way the language is written, who would be considered. Well, a
local entity, a community in the State of Utah, Minersville, population
887, 300 miles from the site, could be able to veto this national
solution to a national problem.
Now, that means--and I can't wait to visit Minersville someday--that
they are going to have more power than the Federal Government and this
Chamber. They are going to have the veto authority over the State of
New Jersey or the State of Illinois or the State of--I don't know how
many States came here to debate on this bill. Quite a few.
So a couple problems: the first problem is, it is a strike amendment,
which means everything that you have done, all those adjustments that I
have worked in a bipartisan manner, throw them out; and that you cannot
get to understand the universe of local communities that would have a
veto over this national solution to a national problem.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I would just respond to two things. I thank the gentleman
for recognizing what Nevada did to help win the Cold War. We were the
site of atomic testing for years. We still bear those scars. But this
is not about military waste; this is about commercial waste.
Second, while I appreciate the chairman's concern about Nevada and
giving us benefits, the health and safety of Nevadans is not for sale
to the nuclear power industry.
Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio), my colleague and the ranking member of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I think we can agree on one thing. The status quo is not acceptable.
Dispersed around the country in wet pools, in insecure casks--right. We
need to deal with that. This is not the perfect solution, and it is
destined to fail in the Senate.
Why do we commission blue ribbon commissions of experts--are we the
experts?--and then ignore their advice? They made four major points:
the solution must be adaptive, it must be staged, it must be consent-
based, and it must be transparent.
This bill assumes we are going into Yucca Mountain, which has been
proven to be geologically unstable and unsuitable. Therefore, this
amendment should be adopted. The bill should fail.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I am glad my friend from Oregon mentioned
the blue ribbon commission. The blue ribbon commission was told: Do not
consider Yucca Mountain. So come on. Really? Pull out the blue ribbon
commission and say ``this is the truth'' when they were told: Consider
everything else, but you can't consider the law of the land.
Preposterous.
To my colleague, Chairman Walden--actually in Oregon--this is
Hanford. These are the tanks next to the Columbia River, which goes
next to Oregon. And you are saying it has no defense-related provisions
for this bill? Come on now. Let's move forward.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are advised to direct their remarks to the
Chair, not to each other.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, that is in Washington. It is not in Oregon.
If you don't even know where Hanford is, I am not sure you really
understand what took place there.
I would just say: The law of the land, that is a great argument. You
forgot about that argument when you tried to repeal ObamaCare 60 times
and have done everything you can to roll back Dodd-Frank. So law of the
land is a pretty weak, specious argument.
This is not just about the safety of Nevada. This is about doing what
is right, finding a policy that will work, that is based on consent,
that the experts say is the way to go, that has a chance to get out of
the Senate and really move us forward so we do quit wasting time, so we
do quit wasting money, and we find a real solution to
[[Page H3910]]
an issue that does affect the entire Nation.
That is why it should be consent based. That is why I think we should
support this amendment and oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I would say again, please keep in mind that
this has an opportunity to pass. It will really solve the problem. It
will not turn the clock back to an old way that has failed, that is
faulty science, bad politics, and even worse policy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 80,
noes 332, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 178]
AYES--80
Amodei
Bass
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Correa
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeSaulnier
Doggett
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hastings
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Maloney, Carolyn B.
McCollum
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pocan
Polis
Raskin
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Schakowsky
Schiff
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Wilson (FL)
NOES--332
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barragan
Barton
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bost
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Cheney
Clark (MA)
Clay
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crist
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Demings
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jayapal
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lesko
Levin
Lewis (MN)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McEachin
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--16
Black
Budd
Crowley
DeLauro
Deutch
Gottheimer
Granger
Jenkins (WV)
Jones
Kuster (NH)
Labrador
Marchant
Pittenger
Rogers (KY)
Rush
Speier
{time} 1115
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Messrs. BIGGS, BISHOP of
Michigan, SWALWELL of California, NEAL, and Ms. FUDGE changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. KHANNA, and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida). The question is on
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Poe
of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida,
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 3053) to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and for
other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 879, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 340,
noes 72, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 179]
AYES--340
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barragan
Barton
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
[[Page H3911]]
Blackburn
Blum
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Clark (MA)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Demings
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lesko
Levin
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Marshall
Mast
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price (NC)
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Rutherford
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--72
Amash
Amodei
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boyle, Brendan F.
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Correa
Crist
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeSaulnier
Doggett
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hastings
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Khanna
Kihuen
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren
Love
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Massie
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Nadler
Napolitano
O'Rourke
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Schakowsky
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Vargas
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Black
Budd
Crowley
DeLauro
Deutch
Gottheimer
Granger
Grijalva
Jenkins (WV)
Jones
Kuster (NH)
Labrador
Marchant
Pittenger
Rogers (KY)
Speier
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1124
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 179 on H.R. 3053,
I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted
``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, on May 10, on final passage of
H.R. 3053, The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017, I
inadvertently cast my vote contrary to my own intentions. I intended to
vote ``no'' on that bill.
Personal Explanation
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber
for rollcall vote 178. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Additionally, on rollcall No. 179, I was inadvertently recorded as
voting ``nay.'' I support H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2017, and my vote should be recorded as ``yea.''
____________________