[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23019-23029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               PRICE-ANDERSON REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2983) to extend indemnification authority under 
section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and for other purposes, 
as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Price-Anderson 
     Reauthorization Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY.

       (a) Indemnification of Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     Licensees.--Section 170 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Licenses'' and 
     inserting ``Licensees''; and
       (2) by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``August 1, 2017''.
       (b) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--
     Section 170 d.(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2210(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 
     2002'' and inserting ``August 1, 2017''.
       (c) Indemnification of Nonprofit Educational 
     Institutions.--Section 170 k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(k)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 
     2002'' each place it appears and inserting ``August 1, 
     2017''.

     SEC. 3. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT.

       Section 170 b.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2210(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the second proviso of the third sentence--
       (A) by striking ``$63,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$94,000,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$10,000,000 in any 1 year'' and inserting 
     ``$15,000,000 in any 1 year (subject to adjustment for 
     inflation under subsection t.)''; and
       (2) in subsection t.--
       (A) by inserting ``total and annual'' after ``amount of the 
     maximum'';

[[Page 23020]]

       (B) by striking ``the date of the enactment of the Price-
     Anderson Amendments Act of 1988'' and inserting ``July 1, 
     2001''; and
       (C) by striking ``such date of enactment'' and inserting 
     ``July 1, 2001''.

     SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LIABILITY LIMIT.

       (a) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--
     Section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) Indemnification agreements.--In an agreement of 
     indemnification entered into under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) may require the contractor to provide and maintain 
     the financial protection of such a type and in such amounts 
     as the Secretary shall determine to be appropriate to cover 
     public liability arising out of or in connection with the 
     contractual activity; and
       ``(B) shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such 
     liability above the amount of the financial protection 
     required, in the amount of $10,000,000,000 (subject to 
     adjustment for inflation under subsection t.), in the 
     aggregate, for all persons indemnified in connection with the 
     contract and for each nuclear incident, including such legal 
     costs of the contractor as are approved by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Contract Amendments.--Section 170 d. of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Contract amendments.--All agreements of 
     indemnification under which the Department of Energy (or its 
     predecessor agencies) may be required to indemnify any person 
     under this section shall be deemed to be amended, on the date 
     of enactment of the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 
     2001, to reflect the amount of indemnity for public liability 
     and any applicable financial protection required of the 
     contractor under this subsection.''.
       (c) Liability Limit.--Section 170 e.(1)(B) of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the maximum amount of financial 
     protection required under subsection b. or''; and
       (2) by striking ``paragraph (3) of subsection d., whichever 
     amount is more'' and inserting ``paragraph (2) of subsection 
     d.''.

     SEC. 5. INCIDENTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Amount of Indemnification.--Section 170 d.(5) of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(5)) is amended 
     by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
       (b) Liability Limit.--Section 170 e.(4) of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS.

       Section 170 p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(p)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and 
     inserting ``August 1, 2013''.

     SEC. 7. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.

       Section 170 t. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(t)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust the amount of 
     indemnification provided under an agreement of 
     indemnification under subsection d. not less than once during 
     each 5-year period following July 1, 2001, in accordance with 
     the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index 
     since--
       ``(A) that date, in the case of the first adjustment under 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(B) the previous adjustment under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 8. PRICE-ANDERSON TREATMENT OF MODULAR REACTORS.

       Section 170 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) For purposes of this section only, the Commission 
     shall consider a combination of facilities described in 
     subparagraph (B) to be a single facility having a rated 
     capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more.
       ``(B) A combination of facilities referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is 2 or more facilities located at a single 
     site, each of which has a rated capacity of 100,000 
     electrical kilowatts or more but not more than 300,000 
     electrical kilowatts, with a combined rated capacity of not 
     more than 1,300,000 electrical kilowatts.''.

     SEC. 9. APPLICABILITY.

       The amendments made by sections 3, 4, and 5 do not apply to 
     a nuclear incident that occurs before the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON ASSUMPTION BY UNITED STATES 
                   GOVERNMENT OF LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN FOREIGN 
                   ACCIDENTS.

       Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``u. Prohibition on Assumption of Liability for Certain 
     Foreign Accidents.--Notwithstanding this section or any other 
     provision of law, no officer of the United States or of any 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     Government may enter into any contract or other arrangement, 
     or into any amendment or modification of a contract or other 
     arrangement, the purpose or effect of which would be to 
     directly or indirectly impose liability on the United States 
     Government, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the United States Government, or to otherwise directly or 
     indirectly require an indemnity by the United States 
     Government, for nuclear accidents occurring in connection 
     with the design, construction, or operation of a production 
     facility or utilization facility in any country whose 
     government has been identified by the Secretary of State as 
     engaged in state sponsorship of terrorist activities 
     (specifically including any country the government of which, 
     as of September 11, 2001, had been determined by the 
     Secretary of State under section 620A(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, section 6(j)(1) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979, or section 40(d) of the Arms 
     Export Control Act to have repeatedly provided support for 
     acts of international terrorism).''.

     SEC. 11. SECURE TRANSFER OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2201-2210b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:
       ``Sec. 170C. Secure Transfer of Nuclear Materials.--
       ``a. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall establish a 
     system to ensure that, with respect to activities by any 
     party pursuant to a license issued under this Act--
       ``(1) materials described in subsection b., when 
     transferred or received in the United States--
       ``(A) from a facility licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission;
       ``(B) from a facility licensed by an agreement State; or
       ``(C) from a country with whom the United States has an 
     agreement for cooperation under section 123,
     are accompanied by a manifest describing the type and amount 
     of materials being transferred;
       ``(2) each individual transferring or accompanying the 
     transfer of such materials has been subject to a security 
     background check by appropriate Federal entities; and
       ``(3) such materials are not transferred to or received at 
     a destination other than a facility licensed by the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission or an agreement State under this Act or 
     other appropriate Federal facility, or a destination outside 
     the United States in a country with whom the United States 
     has an agreement for cooperation under section 123.
       ``b. Except as otherwise provided by the Commission by 
     regulation, the materials referred to in subsection a. are 
     byproduct materials, source materials, special nuclear 
     materials, high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, 
     transuranic waste, and low-level radioactive waste (as 
     defined in section 2(16) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
     1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(16))).''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and from time to time thereafter 
     as it considers necessary, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     shall issue regulations identifying radioactive materials 
     that, consistent with the protection of public health and 
     safety and the common defense and security, are appropriate 
     exceptions to the requirements of section 170C of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954, as added by subsection (a) of this 
     section.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect upon the issuance of regulations under 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this section or the 
     amendment made by this section shall waive, modify, or affect 
     the application of chapter 51 of title 49, United States 
     Code, part A of subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, 
     part B of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, and 
     title 23, United States Code.
       (e) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 170C. Secure transfer of nuclear materials.''.

     SEC. 12. NUCLEAR FACILITY THREATS.

       (a) Study.--The President, in consultation with the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission and other appropriate Federal, State, 
     and local agencies and private entities, shall conduct a 
     study to identify the types of threats that pose an 
     appreciable risk to the security of the various classes of 
     facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Such study shall take 
     into account, but not be limited to--
       (1) the events of September 11, 2001;
       (2) an assessment of physical, cyber, biochemical, and 
     other terrorist threats;
       (3) the potential for attack on facilities by multiple 
     coordinated teams of a large number of individuals;
       (4) the potential for assistance in an attack from several 
     persons employed at the facility;
       (5) the potential for suicide attacks;
       (6) the potential for water-based and air-based threats;
       (7) the potential use of explosive devices of considerable 
     size and other modern weaponry;

[[Page 23021]]

       (8) the potential for attacks by persons with a 
     sophisticated knowledge of facility operations;
       (9) the potential for fires, especially fires of long 
     duration; and
       (10) the potential for attacks on spent fuel shipments by 
     multiple coordinated teams of a large number of individuals.
       (b) Summary and Classification Report.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     President shall transmit to the Congress and the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission a report--
       (1) summarizing the types of threats identified under 
     subsection (a); and
       (2) classifying each type of threat identified under 
     subsection (a), in accordance with existing laws and 
     regulations, as either--
       (A) involving attacks and destructive acts, including 
     sabotage, directed against the facility by an enemy of the 
     United States, whether a foreign government or other person, 
     or otherwise falling under the responsibilities of the 
     Federal Government; or
       (B) involving the type of risks that Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission licensees should be responsible for guarding 
     against.
       (c) Federal Action Report.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date on which a report is transmitted under subsection 
     (b), the President shall transmit to the Congress a report on 
     actions taken, or to be taken, to address the types of 
     threats identified under subsection (b)(2)(A). Such report 
     may include a classified annex as appropriate.
       (d) Regulations.--Not later than 270 days after the date on 
     which a report is transmitted under subsection (b), the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall issue regulations, 
     including changes to the design basis threat, to ensure that 
     licensees address the threats identified under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B).
       (e) Physical Security Program.--The Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission shall establish an operational safeguards response 
     evaluation program that ensures that the physical protection 
     capability and operational safeguards response for sensitive 
     nuclear facilities, as determined by the Commission 
     consistent with the protection of public health and the 
     common defense and security, shall be tested periodically 
     through Commission approved or designed, observed, and 
     evaluated force-on-force exercises to determine whether the 
     ability to defeat the design basis threat is being 
     maintained. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``sensitive nuclear facilities'' includes at a minimum 
     commercial nuclear power plants, including associated spent 
     fuel storage facilities, spent fuel storage pools and dry 
     cask storage at closed reactors, independent spent fuel 
     storage facilities and geologic repository operations areas, 
     category I fuel cycle facilities, and gaseous diffusion 
     plants.
       (f) Control of Information.--In carrying out this section, 
     the President and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall 
     control the dissemination of restricted data, safeguards 
     information, and other classified national security 
     information in a manner so as to ensure the common defense 
     and security, consistent with chapter 12 of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954.

     SEC. 13. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY RULES FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
                   NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

       Section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8)(A) It shall be a condition of any agreement of 
     indemnification entered into under this subsection that the 
     indemnified party comply with regulations issued under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(B) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall issue 
     industrial health and safety regulations that shall apply to 
     all Department of Energy contractors and subcontractors who 
     are covered under agreements entered into under this 
     subsection for operations at Department of Energy nuclear 
     facilities. Such regulations shall provide a level of 
     protection of worker health and safety that is substantially 
     equivalent to or identical to that provided by the industrial 
     and construction safety regulations of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR 1910 and 1926), and 
     shall establish civil penalties for violation thereof that 
     are substantially equivalent to or identical to the civil 
     penalties applicable to violations of the industrial and 
     construction safety regulations of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Administration. The Secretary shall amend 
     regulations under this subparagraph as necessary.
       ``(C) Not later than 240 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, all agreements described in 
     subparagraph (B), and all contracts and subcontracts for the 
     indemnified contractors and subcontractors, shall be modified 
     to incorporate the requirements of the regulations issued 
     under subparagraph (B). Such modifications shall require 
     compliance with the requirements of the regulations not later 
     than 1 year after the issuance of the regulations.
       ``(D) Enforcement of regulations issued under subparagraph 
     (B), and inspections required in the course thereof, shall be 
     conducted by the Office of Enforcement of the Office of 
     Environment, Safety, and Health of the Department of Energy. 
     The Secretary shall transmit to the Congress an annual report 
     on the implementation of this subparagraph.
       ``(E) This paragraph shall not apply to facilities and 
     activities covered under section 3216 of the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2406).''.

     SEC. 14. UNREASONABLE RISK CONSULTATION.

       Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``v. Unreasonable Risk Consultation.--Before entering into 
     an agreement of indemnification under this section with 
     respect to a utilization facility, the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission shall consult with the Assistant to the President 
     for Homeland Security (or any successor official) concerning 
     whether the location of the proposed facility and the design 
     of that type of facility ensure that the facility provides 
     for adequate protection of public health and safety if 
     subject to a terrorist attack.''.

     SEC. 15. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``w. Financial Accountability.--(1) Notwithstanding 
     subsection d., the Attorney General may bring an action in 
     the appropriate United States district court to recover from 
     a contractor of the Secretary (or subcontractor or supplier 
     of such contractor) amounts paid by the Federal Government 
     under an agreement of indemnification under subsection d. for 
     public liability resulting from conduct which constitutes 
     intentional misconduct of any corporate officer, manager, or 
     superintendent of such contractor (or subcontractor or 
     supplier of such contractor).
       ``(2) The Attorney General may recover under paragraph (1) 
     an amount not to exceed the amount of the profit derived by 
     the defendant from the contract.
       ``(3) No amount recovered from any contractor (or 
     subcontractor or supplier of such contractor) under paragraph 
     (1) may be reimbursed directly or indirectly by the 
     Department of Energy.
       ``(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any nonprofit entity 
     conducting activities under contract for the Secretary.
       ``(5) No waiver of a defense required under this section 
     shall prevent a defendant from asserting such defense in an 
     action brought under this subsection.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall, by rule, define the terms 
     `profit' and `nonprofit entity' for purposes of this 
     subsection. Such rulemaking shall be completed not later than 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall not apply to any agreement of indemnification entered 
     into under section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 16. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       (a) Repeal of Automatic Remission.--Section 234A b. (2) of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(b)(2)) is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.
       (b) Limitation for Nonprofit Institutions.--Subsection d. 
     of section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2282a(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``d. Notwithstanding subsection a., a civil penalty for a 
     violation under subsection a. shall not exceed the amount of 
     any discretionary fee paid under the contract under which 
     such violation occurs for any nonprofit contractor, 
     subcontractor, or supplier--
       ``(1) described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) 
     of such Code; or
       ``(2) identified by the Secretary by rule as appropriate to 
     be treated the same under this subsection as an entity 
     described in paragraph (1), consistent with the purposes of 
     this section.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not apply to any violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 occurring under a contract entered into before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Rulemaking.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     issue a rule for the implementation of the amendment made by 
     subsection (b).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2983, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 23022]]

  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor the Price-Anderson 
Reauthorization Act of 2001, H.R. 2983. After several months of hard 
work, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has produced a bipartisan 
bill that ensures swift compensation to the public in the unlikely 
event of a nuclear accident and encourages the future development of 
nuclear power.
  Nuclear power currently provides over 20 percent of the Nation's 
electricity. This bill paves the way for the development of a new 
generation of smaller, safer and more affordable nuclear power 
reactors. The bill also extends indemnification to the Department of 
Energy contractors engaged in important nuclear work at several sites 
across the country, including nuclear weapons research and nuclear 
waste cleanup. Without reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, we 
could risk losing some of the best contractors that the Department of 
Energy relies upon.
  In addition to reauthorizing these important programs, H.R. 2983 also 
dramatically improves security at our Nation's nuclear power plants in 
response to the widespread concerns over terrorist threats.
  I would like to give special commendation to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his focus on this part of the bill.
  To ensure that radioactive materials are transported securely, the 
bill would also require, for the first time, background checks on all 
individuals involved in the transfer of dangerous nuclear radioactive 
materials licensed by the NRC and require manifests to accompany the 
transfer and receipt of radioactive materials that could pose a 
terrorist threat.
  To enhance physical security at nuclear power plants, the bill would 
require the President to conduct a comprehensive threat assessment for 
existing nuclear plant security at existing nuclear power plants.

                              {time}  1530

  The President must report to Congress on what actions the Federal 
Government will take to address these threats from, and I quote from 
the bill, ``enemies of the United States,'' including foreign 
governments. In consultation with the President, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission must also revise its design basis threat regulations to 
ensure that nuclear power plants are adequately protected.
  Finally, the bill would require that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission periodically evaluate security at nuclear power plants 
through what are called force-on-force exercises, in cooperation with 
the industry.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank a number of Members 
without whom we would simply not be here on the floor this afternoon. 
First and foremost is the principal sponsor of the bill, the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who will speak later on in 
this debate. She has played a critical role, not only in committee, but 
also in working out the differences with other committees of 
jurisdiction. I would also like to thank the ranking member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is on the 
floor and will speak later; the ranking member of the subcommittee that 
I share jurisdiction with, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), 
whom I do not see on the floor, but perhaps he will be later. I would 
also like to thank our full committee chairman, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who is not here at the moment, but who has been 
a vital part of the negotiations.
  I would also like to commend other committee chairmen for their 
cooperation in resolving some very difficult technical disputes and 
jurisdictional issues as we brought this bill to the floor; and they 
are the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 
the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the 
chairman of the Committee on Science, who have all played a vital role 
in this legislation coming to the floor as expeditiously as it has.
  Madam Speaker, the extensive public protections provided by the 
Price-Anderson Act work. I am pleased to present a reauthorization bill 
that extends and improves on those protections. This legislation is by 
no means a perfect bill; but it is a very, very good piece of work. We 
will, of course, review the suggestions of the administration, and we 
will work with the other body as they move their bill in, hopefully, a 
similarly bipartisan fashion.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the passage of this legislation, especially 
using the suspension process, which eliminates all ability for any 
Members to amend this deficient piece of legislation.
  I would like to begin first by saying that while I oppose the 
legislation, I am beholden to the chairmen of the committee and the 
subcommittee for the courteous way in which they treated the minority 
and the respectful way in which we have handled, on a bipartisan basis, 
the antiterrorist components of this legislation, which has received 
unanimous support on both sides. However, I would like to note that the 
overarching bill is something that still resists any logical analysis 
in terms of why Congress should be subsidizing a private sector 
industry.
  The nuclear power industry was really born about 45 or 50 years ago, 
and we were all told as a people, watching the Mickey Mouse Club, that 
this was going to be a wonderful new industry, that it was going to 
harness our friend, the atom. It was going to be safe, it was going to 
be efficient, it was going to be cheap. But, they said, maybe not that 
safe, because we cannot find any insurance company that will give us 
any insurance, because they think we are a very dangerous industry. So 
they came to Congress as an industry with their hat in hand asking us 
if we would provide for a 10-year period, while the industry was in its 
infancy, insurance protection so that there was a limited liability in 
the event that there was a serious accident at a nuclear power plant. 
That was supposed to end in 1967.
  Well, here we are in the year 2001, and we are being asked, once 
again, to extend this protection, this government subsidy of the 
insurance that the industry, the nuclear industry must obtain. Now, 
that, even at the same time that we are being told that a new 
generation of plants are coming on line, pebble bed reactors, that are 
going to be so safe that we will never have to worry about accidents.
  So I had an amendment which I requested be put in order out here 
which would be that before any one of these companies could avail 
themselves of this Price-Anderson protection, that they had to first 
have gone to an insurance company and tried to obtain insurance for 
what they say is a very safe industry, so that we can end the 
government subsidy. But what we are being told is that, no, that would 
ruin the industry, that one must be an anti-nuclear zealot if one 
believes that an industry should go to the private sector and ask if 
they can obtain insurance so that the Federal taxpayer does not have to 
pick up the tab.
  Now, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave as he watches a Republican-
controlled Congress extend congressional taxpayer subsidies to this 
industry.
  Madam Speaker, when we were all teenagers all getting our licenses 
for the first time, there was always one kid in our neighborhood who 
always got into accidents, time after time, three accidents, five 
accidents, 10 accidents; and then that kid, and we all know his name in 
our own neighborhood, he lost his insurance and he went into the 
assigned-risk pool, and his insurance rate was very high; but he could 
keep his license. Only as his behavior improved could he potentially 
work his way out of that pool.
  What we have done here historically is we have created a one-
industry, assigned-risk pool. We have assumed that the nuclear industry 
is so risky it cannot get insurance in the private sector. Today, even 
though we are being told

[[Page 23023]]

that this industry is safer than ever and the new generation of pebble 
bed reactors will never have an accident, we are told that even that 
new generation, the baby nukes, are still going to have to live with 
the crimes, the sins, of their father. It is a foreshadowing of 
history, that they too will be too risky. I think that is terrible, 
this cycle of dependency that these baby nukes are now trapped in, that 
they cannot go out into the private sector, that they cannot try to 
obtain insurance, that they are not going to be requested to do so. I 
think it is wrong for an industry to tell every subsequent generation 
of power plants that they are going to be subsidized by the Federal 
Government.
  So I oppose Price-Anderson. I think it is unfair to this next 
generation of nuclear power plants to be trapped in this cycle of 
dependency, and I hope that today we are able to defeat this measure.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who has worked 
very hard on this issue, and others, to get energy legislation through 
this Congress, and also the chairman and the ranking member of the full 
Committee on Commerce, who have reached what I think is a good, 
bipartisan reauthorization of this bill, as well as the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  Price-Anderson is something that is not exactly a common household 
word in America; and I think it is important, particularly given the 
remarks of my colleague from Massachusetts, to explain what this does 
and how this works.
  About 44 years ago they set up a system that goes like this: every 
nuclear power plant in the country has to buy, must buy the maximum 
amount of commercially available insurance they can get; and right now, 
that is about $200 million worth of insurance. In addition to that, the 
law requires that they have a mutual insurance pool where for every 
reactor, every company has to put in $88 million into that pool, which 
means the industry itself is insuring itself up to the maximum amount 
that is available on the commercial market and then ensuring each other 
up to $9.5 billion in lawsuits. Then, the law says that the Congress 
would be responsible for anything beyond that.
  There is absolutely no subsidy. In fact, in 44 years, taxpayers have 
not spent one dime in insuring this industry, because there have not 
been the losses and the safety record has been very good.
  The reality is it works. Over the last 44 years, there have been 206 
claims against the nuclear industry, and compensation, total 
compensation of $191 million, all of which has been covered by the 
commercial insurance that is required to be purchased by nuclear power 
companies.
  What this really means, though, is that a company can build a 
reactor. They can go to the capital markets and be assured that they 
are going to be able to get the capital to build the next generation of 
nuclear power. Twenty percent of our electricity in this country comes 
from nuclear energy. We need a balanced, long-term plan for energy in 
this country; and it must include nuclear energy.
  Madam Speaker, this bill reauthorizes a very successful piece of 
legislation which is now being looked at as a model for what we should 
do for terrorism insurance, so that our Main Street companies can get 
the capital they need to operate their companies, build jobs, and 
survive. I think the amendments that are in this bill, in the 
reauthorization bill are good ones. I have been working with the 
Committee on Armed Services and will continue to work with the Naval 
Nuclear Reactor Program to make sure that none of these changes 
adversely impacts or reduces the excellent safety record of our Naval 
Nuclear Reactor Program.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2983. I thank 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my good friend, for 
yielding me this time. I also commend him for his work on the Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. I commend the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his labors in that regard, and 
also the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin), my good friend. The bill was reported from the committee 
by a voice vote, and in a strong bipartisan vote besides.
  The bill makes important improvements in current law, particularly 
with respect to the Department of Energy contractors. These contractors 
perform important and often hazardous work for the country in the areas 
of research, management of nuclear ponds materials, and environmental 
cleanup.
  Since its enactment in 1957, the Price-Anderson Act has provided for 
full indemnification of these contractors, some of whom originally 
worked for $1 a year. This has meant that the taxpayers are obligated 
to reimburse contractors working for the Department of Energy and its 
predecessors for any and all liability to the public in connection with 
any nuclear accident. This complete insulation from liability is unique 
in Federal contracting law and suspends one of our legal system's most 
useful incentives for proper conduct by businesses, and that is the 
knowledge that they can be held accountable for their misconduct if it 
results in injury to others.
  While Price-Anderson's total indemnification policy may have been 
appropriate when it was enacted over 40 years ago, it is no longer 
necessary and no longer warranted. I do commend very much the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the committee, for working 
with me on a compromise that holds for-profit contractors accountable 
for harm caused by their intentional misconduct and that of their 
corporate officials. With respect to nonprofit contractors, such as 
universities who run our national laboratories, the compromise subjects 
those entities to civil penalties for violation of DOE nuclear safety 
regulations. I feel these provisions should have been more stringent; 
but they are, nonetheless, significant and valuable reforms. Again, I 
wish to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of 
the subcommittee; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the 
ranking member; and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their 
work in fashioning this compromise.
  I believe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) should be 
congratulated for the important reforms he brought to the committee's 
attention, which were adopted after a useful, bipartisan effort by all 
of the members of the committee. As my colleagues know, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is a tireless advocate, both for his 
communities and for others in which DOE nuclear facilities are located. 
His amendment ends the Department's exemption from OSHA worker-safety 
requirements, something badly needed and much overdue, and directs the 
Department to adopt equivalent safety regulations. This amendment was 
included in the bill only by his dogged determination and great effort.
  I do want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey), who worked with the chairman and me to address matters of 
nuclear security that have become more important in light of the events 
of September 11.

                              {time}  1545

  That amendment, sponsored by the three of us, the Markey-Tauzin-
Dingell amendment, requires the President to define those types of 
threats that could be rightly handled by our Armed Forces, such as 
attacks by hostile aircraft, and to develop a plan for addressing these 
threats.
  For these threats that do not fall into this initial category, the 
bill requires NRC to revise its design basis

[[Page 23024]]

threat to ensure that the operators of nuclear facilities, including 
decommissioned reactors, are providing adequate protection to the 
public.
  The legislation, in a second fashion, requires NRC to establish and 
oversee a rigorous program of force-on-force exercises to ensure that 
each nuclear facility will be able to respond adequately to any 
terrorist threat.
  Third, the Markey-Tauzin-Dingell amendment directs NRC to use its 
long-held authority over the movement of radioactive materials to 
establish a cradle-to-grave system for tracking movements of these 
materials that could pose a threat to the public health, to the public 
safety, or to the common defense if they fall in the wrong hands.
  The language instructs the NRC to ensure that all those involved in 
the movement of these materials have been subject to a timely 
background check by appropriate Federal entities such as the FBI.
  Fourth, the amendment requires NRC within 1 year of enactment to 
issue a rule exempting from the new manifest and background check 
requirements shipments of these materials, particularly 
radiopharmaceuticals that do not pose a threat to the public health, 
safety, or well-being.
  This is a good proposal, and the amendment does great good. It is a 
meaningful bipartisan compromise that represents not only a great step 
forward in protection of our nuclear facilities and more secure 
movement of our nuclear materials, but manifests real bipartisan 
cooperation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It should be passed. It is 
far better than existing law.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I wish to engage the 
gentleman from Texas in a colloquy.
  Madam Speaker, section 16 contains two provisions of concern to the 
Committee on Science regarding the management of Department of Energy 
labs by certain contractors.
  Madam Speaker, the Battelle Memorial Institute manages several DOE 
facilities and was explicitly named in the 1988 Price-Anderson 
legislation as an entity exempt from civil penalties. In section 16(b) 
of H.R. 983, the Committee on Science notes that the exemption for 
such-named entities is eliminated. However, the current amendments 
limit civil penalties to be paid by nonprofit institutions to the 
discretionary fee.
  Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) provide assurances that 
the legislative intent of section 16(b) is to include institutions such 
as Battelle Memorial Institute and that he expects the Secretary of 
Energy to include Battelle in the Secretary's rulemaking under section 
16(b)?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman, and 
the committee agrees with what the gentleman just said.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have 
one more question for the distinguished chairman.
  Under section 16(b), H.R. 2983 limits civil penalties to be paid by 
such contractors to no more than the amount of the discretionary fee.
  Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) agree that the 
appropriate definition for ``discretionary fee'' is contained in the 
committee report on H.R. 2983, which specifies that the discretionary 
fee refers to that portion of the contract fee which is paid based on 
the contractor's performance?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I agree, on behalf of the committee. We agree with the 
gentleman's assessment.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas. I look forward to working with him on this matter and on other 
important issues in the future.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson 
Reauthorization Act.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the ranking members, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Boucher), as well as other sponsors of this legislation; and also 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), especially for her work 
in bringing this legislation to the floor. I appreciate that. This is 
an important piece of work, and she has done great service.
  I also would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their hard 
work to amend the bill and strengthen the safety of our nuclear 
industry and increase the accountability of our Department of Defense 
contractors.
  Although this legislation does not come to the floor without some 
controversy, I think it represents a good bipartisan effort to move 
important legislation forward.
  The Price-Anderson Act establishes a method to provide for timely 
compensation to citizens who are injured in the event of a nuclear 
incident or accident at a nuclear reactor or at a DOE facility where 
nuclear activities are performed.
  It is our hope that such an accident will never happen, but I would 
not want injured citizens to be denied compensation should such an 
unfortunate accident occur. This legislation provides assurances that 
the public will be compensated appropriately.
  I am particularly pleased that an amendment that I offered in the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce is included in this legislation. 
Again, I would like to express my thanks to the chairman and to the 
ranking member for their support of this provision.
  My amendment orders DOE to issue industrial and construction health 
and safety rules that are as protective as OSHA rules already in place 
at private industrial and construction sites. DOE's Office of 
Environment, Safety, and Health will enforce these safety standards by 
issuing fines and penalties for any violations, just as it currently 
does for nuclear safety.
  Section 13 of this bill strives to create industrial and construction 
safety rules which are substantially equivalent or identical to those 
regulations enforced by OSHA. In my opinion, there is no reason that 
the enforcement of industrial safety standards at our DOE facilities 
should differ from the enforcement of standards at commercial sites. I 
thank those who worked on this bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Rockwall, Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Science and a former distinguished ranking 
member of the subcommittee that I chair, and one of the most 
distinguished Members of this body.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I of course rise in support of H.R. 2983. I rise as 
one who represents the oil patch in Texas. Yet, I recognize the need 
for nuclear energy as a supplemental source.
  I also recognize the fact that energy is such that nations have to go 
to war for it. We sent Japan hurtling into war 50 years ago. We sent 
450,000 kids to the desert 6 years ago. That was for energy. We have to 
solve our energy problems.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the ranking member, and those that the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) thanked. I want to thank the very capable gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for the work that he has done.
  I have sat by him for 21 years. While he never saw a nuclear plant he 
liked, he has never seen an issue that he could not debate, and do it 
masterfully; and he is a gentleman.
  I serve on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on

[[Page 23025]]

Science. As the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, I 
also want to thank the Committee on Science members, the gentleman from 
New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Energy, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), and the ranking 
member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Madam Speaker, the Committee on Science has asked for and was granted 
referral of the bill. However, we were able to find a solution to the 
problem without having to go to the mark-up.
  It certainly is my intent that all laboratory contractors have 
coverage; and I believe we have found a way to ensure that coverage 
will apply to this exceptional situation.
  Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2983. This 
legislation is nothing more than a giant government subsidy to keep the 
nuclear industry afloat.
  Opposition to Price-Anderson runs the political gamut. Environmental 
groups like Public Citizen oppose Price-Anderson because it hurts our 
environment. Rather than investing resources in renewable energy, this 
bill would further our reliance on nuclear energy, thus exacerbating 
our problems with nuclear waste.
  On the right, even the conservative Cato Institute states that if 
nuclear power is a better investment than gas or coal-fired power, then 
no amount of government help is necessary. If it is not, then no amount 
of government help will make it so.
  This legislation mandates that it is the American taxpayer who will 
pay the financial costs of cleaning up a nuclear accident. It has been 
estimated that a worst-case scenario accident could cost more than $300 
billion to clean up. The total insurance coverage provided under this 
act is $9.4 billion. It is the American taxpayer who will make up the 
difference.
  Madam Speaker, both Liberals and Conservatives oppose Price-Anderson 
because it artificially supports an industry that is not trusted by the 
American public, and not supported by the American investor. Nuclear 
energy is dangerous, and it is this danger that prevents investors from 
being interested in nuclear power.
  Price-Anderson not only subsidizes the production of nuclear energy, 
it also subsidizes the production of nuclear waste. Although the 
nuclear industry has lobbied for years to dump its garbage at Yucca 
Mountain, located just outside my rapidly-growing hometown of Las 
Vegas, it is not a safe place to permanently store nuclear waste. The 
geology of Yucca Mountain is unsound. Nuclear waste risks contaminating 
the ground water throughout southern Nevada and California.
  Even if this administration is successful in its efforts to ram a 
nuclear dump down our throats, it will take more than 50 years before 
77,000 tons of nuclear waste is moved from its current locations across 
the United States and relocated to Yucca Mountain.
  At the same time, Price-Anderson subsidies keep the nuclear industry 
afloat, creating more and more waste, so even as the waste is shipped, 
more waste is being created and stored at the reactors. Any central 
repository represents only a temporary solution. Waste will continue to 
be stored at taxpayer-subsidized reactors, posing both security and 
environmental hazards.
  I have heard representatives of the nuclear interests argue that the 
events of September 11 emphasize the need for a central repository. 
This is not just an erroneous statement, but the most blatant political 
misuse of those tragic events. A central repository would do nothing to 
diminish the threat at active reactor sites and would offer only one 
more attractive target. When we include each individual nuclear waste 
transport, there would be thousands more inviting targets for potential 
terrorist attacks.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose the reauthorization of Price-Anderson because 
it makes our country a more dangerous place to live. Nuclear energy 
cannot survive on its own, and I think it is nothing short of highway 
robbery that we ask the American taxpayer to subsidize a product that 
endangers their very health and safety.
  Nuclear energy creates Nuclear waste. There is no way of getting 
around that. Long term options for disposing of nuclear waste, such as 
transmutation, are emerging, but they have not yet been fully 
developed. I would urge my colleagues to support research into the 
decontamination, and safe disposal, of nuclear waste, so we can solve 
this problem, once and for all. But in the meantime, I urge all my 
colleagues to oppose this measure until the nation finds a safe, 
realistic, and economically feasible method of dealing with nuclear 
waste.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support research on 
decontamination and safe disposal. I urge all of my colleagues to 
oppose this measure until the Nation finds a safe, realistic, and 
economically feasible method for dealing with nuclear waste.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in yielding me time to speak on this issue.
  I appreciate the hard work of this committee, but I rise in 
opposition to the bill.
  First and foremost, it has no business on the suspension calendar. It 
is not a simple, noncontroversial bill, and members of this assembly 
should be given an opportunity to fully express their concerns and 
fully debate the reauthorization.
  Madam Speaker, it is not about changing rules for existing plans, 
although many argue that the Price-Anderson Act has long been an 
unwarranted subsidy enjoyed by the nuclear industry.
  The question is, where are we going to go from here? The gentlewoman 
from New Mexico was correct, there is a little bit of coverage. Two 
hundred million dollars sounds like a lot, and $88 million in addition 
to the pool, but look at what happened in the World Trade Center: just 
the collapse of an office tower, and we see tens of billions of dollars 
that are being brought forward, rocking the potential for the insurance 
industry.
  There is big money that is going to be involved if we have a serious 
nuclear accident; and I think it is very easy to document by any 
impartial group that it will go far beyond $200 million, far beyond 
$288 million, and will stretch, in a realistic form, to something that 
deals with $9.5 billion, as she talks about.
  I live in the Pacific Northwest. We are going to spend maybe $100 
billion and not do an adequate job cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear 
Plant, and that is something that has not been subjected to a meltdown.
  If smaller, safer plants make sense, so be it. Allow the smaller, 
safer plants to go forward like any other industry would, and be able 
to cover their own liability. If they make sense, the private sector 
will provide coverage.
  I would strongly suggest that if we have to continue subsidizing the 
production of energy, that this body can find far more productive, 
safer, economically viable alternatives in terms of renewable energy. 
If we are going to throw hundreds of billions of dollars, let us do 
something that is going to stabilize our energy future, something that 
has been long ignored, rather than taking a path for an industry that, 
after 50 years, should be mature enough to stand on its own legs with 
this new generation.

                              {time}  1600

  I strongly urge a no vote. We need to deal with Price-Anderson in a 
broader context. It ought not to be on the suspension calendar. This 
assembly needs to look at alternative ways of subsidizing energy 
production. I would suggest continuing a subsidy for the nuclear power 
energy is not the alternative to follow.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire from the Chair how much time 
is remaining on either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) has 9\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page 23026]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself that remaining 1 minute.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman from 
Massachusetts yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
cannot say hello in 1 minute. I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I will use some of that time to praise the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the process that he put in place 
for us to, on the one hand, pass a particularly odious piece of 
legislation which I historically have opposed but at the same time 
sweetening it with a provision that will deal with a palpable threat to 
our society, which is that the terrorist organizations that are under 
the control of Osama bin Laden have clearly indicated that nuclear 
power plants are near the top of their list of targets if they could 
successfully pull off one of those attacks.
  So built into this legislation is something which I think every 
Democrat and every Republican can support wholeheartedly. It requires 
the President to do an immediate assessment of the current 
vulnerabilities of the plants to terrorist attack and what aspect of 
the defense of these plants should be the responsibility of the Federal 
governments.
  It secondly requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do a rule-
making to upgrade its rules on the design basis threat which 
establishes the parameters for what the licensees need to defend 
against.
  Third, it requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue new 
rules to enhance the security of transportation of nuclear materials.
  Fourth, it codifies into law the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 
operational safeguards response evaluation preparedness which tests 
security at nuclear plants through force-on-force exercises.
  So this is actually going to be a quite important new addition to the 
law. My hope is that we can work with the Senate expeditiously to put 
this on the books so that we can move forward in providing the real 
security that Americans want, especially those who live within a 10-
mile radius of nuclear power plants, that they are not in fact subject 
to a successful terrorist attack.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I would take mild umbrage to the statement of my good 
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), that this is an 
odoriferous piece of legislation. I think it is sweet smelling like a 
rose. But to the extent that it has offended his olfactory organs, let 
me simply say it is less odious than it was because of his efforts; and 
I want to commend him on those efforts.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few points for the record. 
There has been some discussion in the debate, Madam Speaker, about a 
subsidy for the nuclear industry. Price-Anderson is nothing more than a 
last-resort indemnification of the nuclear power industry. In a similar 
fashion, we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation which 
guarantee $100,000 for every savings account and every bank account in 
this country. There is private insurance that has to kick in before 
that, but as a last resort the FDIC guarantees every depositor's 
account up to $100,000.
  I would also point out the Federal Housing Administration has a home 
mortgage program. Many first-time buyers get their mortgage through an 
FHA mortgage, which again guarantees that mortgage. There is private 
market with private insurance, homeowners insurance, but the FHA is the 
guarantor of last resort.
  Madam Speaker, I would also point out that in the mid-1980s when we 
had the collapse of the savings and loan industry, the Federal 
taxpayers, as guarantors of last resort, put $125 billion into the 
economy to guarantee mortgages that were failed and institutions in the 
S and L industry that failed. We hoped to recoup that money over time, 
but it is expected that somewhere between $125 billion and $500 billion 
was paid out to guarantee the solvency of the savings and loan industry 
in the mid-to-late 1980s.
  I could point to our farm programs where again we have price support 
programs in place to guarantee farmers some minimal financial support 
if the market does not operate as they had hoped that it will. So 
Price-Anderson, which has been on the books for over 50 years, was put 
into place to guarantee that in a very, very worst-case scenario there 
would be some guarantee if we had one of these worst-case catastrophes 
which we have not had. In the most serious incident that we had, the 
Three Mile Island incident, $187 million was paid out, well within the 
$200 million per reactor private sector insurance cap. So as I am 
standing on the floor today we have not had an instance where the 
Federal taxpayers have been at risk.
  As has been pointed out by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
and others, the bill before us is an improved bill. It has increased 
penalties for gross and willful misconduct by contractors.
  It has an elimination of profit in the case that something egregious 
is done by the contractor. So it is a better bill than the current law.
  We are on the verge of a new generation of nuclear power reactors 
that are safer, less expensive to operate, more efficient, will provide 
electricity, we hope, for future generations of American consumers.
  Now is not the time to change the Price-Anderson Act in a negative 
way. Instead, it is the time to improve it, to pass it with a strong 
bipartisan vote to the Senate, and that is exactly what this piece of 
legislation does.
  I again want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and others 
for their strong work on this, the committee staffs on both sides, my 
personal staff, especially my intern from the Nuclear Electric 
Institute, Mr. Jason Remer, for his strong work in this area.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, to pay off a wager that I had on the A&M-
Texas game where I bet on the Aggies, my great team, and they 
unfortunately were on the low side of the score 24 to 7, I want to wish 
the Longhorns God speed this week in the Big 12 championship game 
against the Colorado Buffaloes and say that I cannot bring myself to 
say the Longhorn slogan but would say Go Longhorns.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I would say Hook 'em Horns.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
can say that; I cannot.
  Mr. MARKEY. Why is that? I do not think people would understand why 
the gentleman cannot say that.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, where I come from, that dog just 
will not hunt.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2983 and of 
H. Con. Res. 267, a resolution which I introduced on November 13, 2001.
  Nuclear energy is one of our Nation's vital sources of energy. 
Nuclear energy accounts for 20 percent of all U.S. electricity 
generation and more than 40 percent of the electricity generation in 10 
states in the Northeast, South, and Midwest. Currently, there are 103 
nuclear energy plants operating at 64 sites in 31 States.
  With this in mind, it is my belief that Congress must act to 
reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act of 1957. The Price-Anderson Act of 
1957 was created to encourage the development of our nascent nuclear 
industry. It is time that we commit to encouraging the development of 
the industry once again. The nuclear energy industry is a vital element 
in our attempt to become energy independent. In the times we find 
ourselves, we must realize that reliance on foreign sources of energy 
is foolish at best and ultimately dangerous to our national security. 
We must encourage development of all our domestic sources--from 
traditional sources like oil, natural gas, and clean coal to high-tech, 
next-generation sources like

[[Page 23027]]

fuel cells and advanced nuclear reactor designs and even renewable 
sources like hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar power.
  Madam Speaker, nuclear power is an important key to achieving energy 
independence. Nuclear power is also considered potentially more 
dangerous and more volatile than other sources. The most serious 
nuclear incident in U.S. history happened at Three Mile Island-Unit 2, 
in my congressional district. A catastrophe was averted, but the memory 
of this incident--along with the disaster at the Chernobyl plant in the 
former U.S.S.R.--has led many to question the role of nuclear power.
  The Price-Anderson Act goes far to assuage the concerns of 
communities around nuclear facilities. During the Three Mile Island 
incident, the financial assistance Price-Anderson was designed to 
provide served as an assurance to many communities in my district. 
Today we must use Price-Anderson to assuage a new fear. That is the 
fear of a terrorist attack against a nuclear facility. I praise the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce for the inclusion of language that 
would require the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct a study 
of the vulnerability of licensed nuclear facilities to certain threats, 
and report to Congress on that study. This is necessary to keep our 
nuclear facilities safe in the future. Before September 11, many would 
have thought this unnecessary, but today we see it as vital.
  I have introduced H. Con. Res. 267 for this very reason. I firmly 
believe that a thorough, Federal study of the security measures in 
place now, and those needed in the future, at all of our Nation's 
nuclear facilities should be conducted immediately. My legislation 
would raise the possibility of making the Federal Government 
responsible for nuclear plant security, and call upon the President to 
order an interagency study of security at nuclear facilities be 
conducted by the NRC, the Defense Department, the Department of 
Transportation, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central 
Intelligence Agency immediately.
  I am pleased with the steps Governor Ridge of the Office of Homeland 
Defense continues to take to prepare the country for future acts of 
terrorism. One of those steps was to issue, in conjunction with the 
NRC, an alert to Governors to take necessary steps to bolster security 
at our Nation's nuclear power plants. Thirty-one States are home to 
over 100 nuclear facilities. Twenty-two Governors, after receiving the 
Homeland Defense security alert, ordered State troopers and local 
police officers to temporarily augment the private security at the 
facilities in their States. Nine Governors, including Governor 
Schweiker of Pennsylvania, decided to call up National Guard units to 
bolster security at their nuclear facilities. However, the use of 
National Guard forces has raised many questions. Why some States and 
not others? How large a force will be necessary? How long will they be 
there? Are they properly trained for such a mission? Are their efforts 
coordinated with law enforcement and private security? And who will 
fund these units?
  My legislation calls upon President Bush to make the use of military 
forces at nuclear plants a primary focus of the federal interagency 
study to be commissioned. The Department of Defense and Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission must move forward with other relevant agencies 
toward developing standards to ensure that National Guard units, Coast 
Guard units, Army and Air Force units are used appropriately, are 
adequately trained, and highly coordinated with law enforcement and 
private security forces. Moreover, my resolution calls upon the 
President to recognize the need for Federal funding for National Guard 
units called upon to perform security duties at nuclear power plants 
nationally. The National Guard has a unique dual role. They serve under 
State authority or Federal authority, depending on their mission. 
President Bush has recognized the national importance of protecting our 
national transportation system by funding National Guard units 
stationed at airports and train stations across the country. The 
resolution also calls upon the President to similarly recognize the 
national importance of nuclear plant security by funding those units 
sent to nuclear power plants.
  Additionally, my resolution calls upon the President to direct the 
FDA, NRC, and FEMA to take all necessary steps to begin stockpiling 
supplies of potassium iodide in communities within the Emergency 
Planning Zones of each of the 64 nuclear power sites across the 
country. Potassium iodide can effectively counteract some of the more 
serious debilitating effects of radiation poisoning. A potential 
accident at a nuclear facility can result in leakage of radioactive 
iodine. Studies show that alacritous use of potassium iodide tablets 
can prevent the onset of thyroid cancer, a by-product of radioactive 
iodine exposure. Stockpiling of potassium iodide tablets simply makes 
sense. It is another important way we can do everything within reason 
to make sure our communities are free from the fear of insecurity.
  Madam Speaker, I commend the Bush administration for the actions 
taken to make America more secure. More will be done. My sense-of-the-
Congress resolution helps point the Government in the direction it must 
move over the next months. I thank Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Pitts and Mr. 
Platts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for their active support in 
joining me in this measure. And, I ask that all Members of Congress and 
the Senate support our measure.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I would like to lend my strong support 
for the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. I commend my 
colleague Heather Wilson for introducing this timely bill and her work 
on the Energy and Commerce Committee to ensure bipartisan 
participation.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee's Special Panel on 
Department of Energy Reorganization and with two national defense 
laboratories in my district, I believe that the timely renewal of the 
Price-Anderson Act is absolutely essential for the continued operations 
and cleanup of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities.
  As several of my colleagues who have National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) sites in their districts know, the defense 
production sites and former sites are operated by experienced, uniquely 
qualified contractors who ensure that viability of our nuclear 
deterrent and the safe disposition of excess nuclear materials and 
waste. Price-Anderson gives us critical protection while fostering 
progress on environmental and quality management of many of the world's 
most radioactively contaminated facilities.
  The legislation passed out the Energy and Commerce Committee ensures 
a sufficient contractor base and places a strong emphasis on 
accountability. Current civil and criminal penalties contained in 
Price-Anderson, combined with DOE's inherent authority to adjust fees 
based on performance or terminate contracts, ensure contractors are 
accountable. This mix will help DOE contractors continue their 
dedication to safely maintaining America's nuclear stockpile, while 
they continue cleaning up the environmental legacy of the cold war, and 
ensuring worker safety and health.
  On a broader level, a straightforward Price-Anderson reauthorization 
is necessary to ensure that the public has the financial resources 
available to cope with a nuclear accident, covering expenses from 
evacuation to medical care to property damage. The strict liability 
regime imposed by Price-Anderson in the unlikely case of a major 
accident ensures money starts flowing where it's needed without legal 
wrangling. This expedited process visibly benefits the public. In fact, 
during the Three Mile Island accident, Price-Anderson financial 
assistance meant that the needs of people in the surrounding 
communities were met.
  Finally, important, timely measures have been added to the Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act, that address the threat of terrorism to 
our nuclear facilities. These provisions include measures to safeguard 
the transportation of nuclear materials and several steps that address 
potential threats to nuclear facilities.
  Mrs. Wilson's bill is timely. It matches bipartisan proposals for 
reauthorization in the Senate and tracks both recommendations made to 
Congress under the previous administration and the National Energy 
Policy developed by the Bush administration.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. Passage of this bill is critical 
to the future development of nuclear power. Nuclear power is essential 
for maintaining a balanced diversity of fuel sources to feed the 
Nation's growing electricity needs. This bill also includes several 
provisions that will strengthen physical security at nuclear power 
plants regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I would 
like to describe some of the actions that NRC has taken in the 
aftermath of the September 11 attacks, and also describe how this bill 
will help NRC and the Federal Government manage emerging threats at 
nuclear plants.
  The events of September 11 have necessitated a review of security at 
our Nation's 103 operating nuclear power reactors. The NRC is in the 
process of conducting a top-to-bottom review of the security at these 
reactors. The NRC is interacting with the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, other Federal law enforcement and intelligence 
organizations, the military, and the newly established Office of 
Homeland Security so that necessary changes to NRC's programs consider 
pertinent information from all relevant Federal agencies.

[[Page 23028]]

  In the process of this review, however, we should not unnecessarily 
cause fear among those who reside near these nuclear facilities. First, 
the Nation's 103 nuclear reactors are among the most hardened 
structures in the country. Nuclear power plants are designed to 
withstand extreme events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and 
earthquakes, in addition to objects propelled at great force into the 
structures. The NRC has in fact required that three nuclear power 
reactors be able to withstand certain aircraft strikes due, in part, to 
the location of those power reactors to airports or runways. The 
analysis of those reactors to withstand aircraft crashes did not result 
in design changes because the plants were already sufficiently hardened 
as a result of the design to protect them against natural and internal 
events.
  While nuclear power reactors are among the most strong and most 
secure facilities in the United States, they have not been specifically 
analyzed to consider attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s, 
and nuclear power plants were not specifically designed to withstand 
such crashes. This does not necessarily mean, however, that they are 
not capable of withstanding a strike, because in light of their 
inherent robustness, they may in fact prove capable. The NRC is 
appropriately evaluating ways to assess the effects of a deliberate 
aircraft impact and resulting fires and explosion on the reactor 
containment building and support structures. The NRC should conclude 
that study with all deliberate speed.
  The committee-reported bill contains several provisions pertaining to 
the security of nuclear power reactors. Congressman Markey, with the 
support of the committee chairman and ranking minority member, offered 
one nuclear safety amendment which directs the President, in 
consultation with the NRC and other appropriate Federal, State, and 
local agencies and private entities, to conduct a study of nuclear 
facility security and to report to Congress on the study's findings 
within 270 days of the amendment's enactment. The President must 
classify threats as either an attack by ``an enemy of the United 
States'' or as ``the type of risks that NRC licensees should be 
responsible for guarding against.'' This study will address what is at 
heart a national question of policy: the role of the Federal Government 
with respect to nuclear facility security. It is meant to delineate 
those threats that should be the responsibility of the Federal 
Government and those threats that should be the responsibility of the 
nuclear industry.
  The Presidential study is to take into account not only the threats 
of September 11 and ``air-based threats,'' but also the potential for 
attacks my multiple coordinated teams of a large number of individuals; 
the potential for assistance is an attack from several persons employed 
at the facility; the potential for suicide attacks; and the potential 
for water-based threats, as well as other threats. The President must 
report to Congress on actions taken, or to be taken, to address the 
types of threats identified as ``enemy of the United States'' threats. 
Such ``enemy of the United States'' threats could very well include 
September 11-type attacks, regardless of the nationality of the 
perpetrators. In preparing the report, the President will need to 
consider the defensive capabilities of private corporations and those 
of the government.
  The NRC must promulgate regulations addressing the threats the 
President identifies as the type of risks that NRC licensees should be 
responsible for guarding against. The NRC is required to update its 
regulations pertaining to the design basis threat (DBT), based, in 
part, on whether the President's study identifies new threats that 
conflict with the DBT as currently set forth in NRC regulations. It may 
be, however, that the majority of threats in the President's study are 
deemed to be ``enemy of the United States'' threats, and, in such 
cases, the NRC would not be required to expand its regulations in this 
area.
  The amendment also requires the NRC to establish a program to test 
the response of reactor personnel to mock attacks. The NRC must approve 
or design, observe and evaluate force-on-force exercises to determine 
whether the ability to defeat the design basis threat is being 
maintained. This provision gives the NRC flexibility to text and 
implement a Safeguards Performance Assessment (SPA) pilot program 
currently under development or to continue its current Operational 
Safety Response Evaluation (OSRE) program. As the committee report 
points out, the NRC must be active in the preparation of the testing 
program. The language, however, does not mandate the use of, or 
otherwise codify the existing OSRE program; nor does it prohibit the 
use of the SPA program. Rather, it gives the NRC the flexibility it 
needs to run a program of its own choosing, provided that the key 
elements specified in the bill are contained in the program.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


    (this statement has been coordinated by omb with the concerned 
                               agencies)

     H.R. 2983--Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001 (Rep. 
         Wilson (R) NM and 8 cosponsors)
       The Administration supports reauthorization of the Price-
     Anderson Act, which provides liability protection for 
     government contractors and the nuclear industry and assures 
     prompt and equitable compensation for the public in the 
     unlikely event of a nuclear accident. The Administration 
     commends the House for its efforts to extend Price-Anderson's 
     important indemnification objectives. To assure the future of 
     nuclear energy, liability coverage must continue for nuclear 
     activities conducted by the Department of Energy and by 
     licensees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as 
     contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers of both.
       The Administration remains committed to enacting 
     legislation that will reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act in 
     its current form, and looks forward to working with Congress 
     to improve provisions in the bill concerning financial 
     accountability, safety, and security. The Administration 
     hopes to work with Congress to ensure that the bill achieves 
     its intended effect without detracting from the quality of 
     potential contractors, fostering unnecessary regulations, or 
     compromising security, anti-terrorism, or non-proliferation 
     efforts.

  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, currently, nuclear security requirements 
at licensed nuclear facilities do not reflect the risk of terrorism 
that they face in the post September 11, 2001-world. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has recognized that the containment buildings 
housing nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand an attack of 
September 11 proportions. An even more vulnerable target includes spent 
nuclear fuel pools which contain more radioactivity than a reactor core 
and are located outside of the containment structure. Unfortunately, 
H.R. 2983 contains specific provisions intended to facilitate the 
construction of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), a design that 
does not include a protective containment structure.
  The blanket indemnities granted to Department of Energy contractors 
by the Price-Anderson Act, even in cases of willful misconduct and 
gross negligence, runs counter to the goal of comprehensive security at 
licensed nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, America knows far too well 
the effects of willful misconduct on buildings and locations that do 
not house radioactive waste. Exposing facilities that do is an 
egregious violation of public trust and safety. As a Congress, we 
should not provide disincentives to ensuring public safety. If we pass 
H.R. 2983, we will be doing just that.
  Besides worrying about terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors, nuclear 
waste transports, or nuclear waste storage sites, taxpayers are 
concerned abut having to foot the bill in cases of disaster. Americans 
are expected to purchase their own insurance, yet the nuclear industry 
asks Americans to pay for theirs. The Price-Anderson Act limits the 
financial responsibility of the nuclear industry by awarding special 
protections that no other industry has received. This limitation not 
only insulates the industry from financial risks but creates an 
inherent subsidy by relieving the costs of fully insuring against the 
risk of an accident. All other businesses insure to a reasonable limit 
against potential liabilities and risk loss of assets if the level of 
insurance is inadequate. This insurance is a normal cost of doing 
business, which is then reflected in the price of the product or 
service provided by that business. The Price-Anderson Act gives the 
nuclear industry an unfair business advantage. By eliminating the cost 
of purchasing adequate insurance, the Act makes nuclear power appear 
cheaper to consume than it truly is.
  Madam Speaker, I do not support the Federal Government being used as 
an insurance provider of this magnitude. The nuclear industry should be 
required to purchase insurance like everyone else is expected to--
through the private market. I do not support H.R. 2983 and urge my 
colleagues to reconsider its placement on the suspension of the rules 
calendar.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record 
the following language that is missing from the Price-Anderson 
Reauthorization Act of 2001, but that I feel should have been included. 
The effect of this language would be to clarify that Indian tribes are 
covered under the act, and to ensure that in the event of a nuclear 
incident on an Indian Reservation which renders such land 
uninhabitable, the tribe would be compensated with other lands of 
comparable size and value.

       42 U.S.C. 2014(s) is amended to read:
       (s) The term ``person'' means (1) any individual, 
     corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, 
     public or private institution, group, Government agency other 
     than the Commission, any State or any political subdivision 
     of, or any political entity

[[Page 23029]]

     within a State, any Indian tribe, band, nation or other 
     organized group or community of Indians, any foreign 
     government or nation or any political subdivision of any such 
     government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal 
     successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing.
       42 U.S.C. 2014(w) is amended to read:
       (w) the term ``public liability'' means any legal liability 
     arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident or 
     precautionary evacuation (including all reasonable additional 
     costs incurred by any Indian tribe, band, nation or other 
     organized group or community of Indians or a State, or a 
     political subdivision of a State, in the course of responding 
     to a nuclear incident or a precautionary evacuation), except: 
     (i) claims under State or Federal workmen's compensation acts 
     of employees of persons indemnified who are employed at the 
     site of and in connection with the activity where the nuclear 
     incident occurs; (ii) claims arising out of an act of war; 
     and (iii) whenever used in subsections (a), (c) and (k) of 
     section 2210 of this title, claims for loss of, or damage to, 
     or loss of use of property which is located at the site of 
     and used in connection with the licensed activity where the 
     nuclear incident occurs. In the case of an Indian tribe with 
     trust or reservation lands located within one mile of the 
     site of a nuclear incident, ``public liability'' includes the 
     loss of use of trust or reservation lands. In the event of a 
     nuclear incident which renders such trust of reservation 
     lands uninhabitable, upon meaningful consultation with the 
     Indian tribe, other lands of comparable size and value shall 
     be placed in trust for the tribe and shall have the same 
     status for all purposes of Federal, State and Indian law as 
     did the uninhabitable lands. ``Public liability'' also 
     includes damage to property of other persons indemnified: 
     Provided, That such property is covered under the terms of 
     the financial protection required, except property which is 
     located at the site of and used in connection with the 
     activity where the nuclear incident occurs.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2983, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________