[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.''

                          ____________________