[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23959-23962]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003, 
                         OFFERED BY MR. INSLEE

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Inslee moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 6 be instructed to 
     confine themselves to the matters committed to conference in 
     accordance with clause 9 of rule XXII of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives with regard to ``high-level 
     radioactive waste'' as defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Act of 1982 and other provisions of Federal law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I advise other Members we do not intend to take our 
entire allotted time. We hope to go through this fairly expeditiously.
  This is a motion brought to assure that nothing happens in the 
conference report that could jeopardize completion of our statutorily-
mandated mission for the Department of Energy to complete the cleanup 
of about 100 million gallons of high-level radioactive

[[Page 23960]]

waste now at various sites in the United States.

                              {time}  1500

  As Members know, we have created by an act of 1982, the obligation to 
complete a cleanup of those wastes that have been created by the 
Department of Defense activity, and this does refer to waste that is 
not commercial but rather through the Department of Defense.
  In my State, for instance, there are 53 million gallons at Hanford, 
at Savannah River, there are several million gallons, in New York 
State, in Idaho, and we need to complete this cleanup. Unfortunately, 
for a variety of reasons the concern has been expressed that in the 
conference committee there could be an attempt to essentially give 
unfettered discretion to the Department of Energy to reclassify this 
waste, essentially give it a different name, rather than to complete 
with the certain rigor and completion of the type of cleanup that is 
now mandated in Federal law.
  We think it is very important to clean up this waste rather than just 
to rename this waste. So we are bringing this motion to essentially 
move in that direction in this conference report.
  I may note that we consider this a bipartisan effort. Attorneys 
general from the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and South 
Carolina, both Democrats and Republicans alike, have written to the 
Department of Defense urging that we work together with the States and 
the Federal Government to find a technological solution to these last 
remnants of the 100 million gallons, rather than try to end run through 
the conference committee.
  So we look forward to working on a bipartisan basis. My friend, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) certainly has knowledge of 
Hanford and others to work through this, but we want to make sure we do 
not go through the back door of the conference committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to my friend that there is no back 
room. We are doing everything in the front room.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Washington State (Mr. Hastings), from the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me time. I thank the committee for their work on this and 
taking the position that they have had that they are simply not going 
to move forward on these delicate issues and extremely important issues 
with the States that are affected by this without the concurrence of 
those agencies within those States. I appreciate the gentleman taking 
that position.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say very bluntly, as I can, that the Department 
of Energy language that was proposed and potentially proposed in this 
conference report was simply not acceptable to any of the States that 
were involved. I know they were not acceptable in my case because in 
the past I have been focused on trying to get these issues resolved 
with our State Department of Ecology who has jurisdiction in Washington 
State at Hanford. Because these things will not move forward, the 
acceleration that we have had success with at all of these sites, will 
not move forward unless you have the cooperation; and I have been 
focussed on getting that sort of cooperation enacted.
  But I have to state what frustrates me in my case and specifically at 
Hanford is that I know, genuinely know, at that time Department of 
Energy and the Department of Ecology want to get this site cleaned up 
in a safe and timely manner. But I also have to say to be here on the 
floor and condemn the language that DOE had suggested does not solve 
this problem, and it will not resolve the long-term disputes that may 
arise in the future. So I do not consider that. This passed and will 
pass, of course, unanimously. This is not really a victory for the 
States. It is not a victory for the DOE.
  The reason I say that, once again, Mr. Speaker, is to reemphasize the 
States, in my case the State of Washington Department of Ecology and 
DOE have the shared responsibility to resolve these matters and to move 
forward and keeping the cleanup, the acceleration, timely and safe for 
the workers at all these sites.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to continue to work on this to try to resolve 
this because, in my view, the most important thing we can do for our 
constituents is to make sure that this acceleration and cleanup goes in 
a timely and safe manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I once again want to thank the subcommittee chairman, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the committee as a whole for 
their commitment to making sure that any legislation that is offered 
has the concurrence and the input of the States that are involved.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, South Carolina is an unenviable host to one of the 
largest concentrations of military-generated radioactive waste in our 
country, if not in the world. There are over 37 million gallons of 
highly-radioactive waste stored in 49 single-lined tanks at the 
Savannah River site. This waste contains over 400 million curies of 
radioactivity and represents potentially the single most hazardous 
threat to the environment and to the people of South Carolina and 
Georgia, and for that matter, the whole region because it sits atop the 
Tuscaloosa aquifer.
  There are millions more gallons of this kind of waste stored at DOE 
sites from upper New York State to Washington State.
  Over the years, the Department of Energy has worked with these 
States, my own State of South Carolina, to develop plans to manage the 
waste by separating out the highly-radioactive contents, transform it 
into a glass waste solid, suitable for shipment to a national 
repository for ultimate disposal, and until then, store it on-site in a 
special interim storage facility. The remaining waste, the residue 
containing relatively small amounts of radioactivity, is supposed to be 
mixed with a special sort of concrete and disposed of on-site.
  Recently, the Department of Energy proposed to dispose directly of 
approximately 20 million additional curies of this high-level 
radioactive waste right there on-site, at the Savannah River site, 
which is a major change in plans. This amount of waste on-sight will 
require about 300 years of oversight and maintenance.
  The Department of Energy, DOE, however, ran into a problem with this 
approach. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires this type of high-level 
waste to be disposed of at a national repository. So to implement that 
proposal, the Department decided simply to reclassify the waste. They 
would not call it high-level waste anymore.
  Well, they ran into another problem. The United States District Court 
ruled that the DOE order reclassifying this waste violated the 
statutory law, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The four affected States, 
Idaho, Washington, Oregon and South Carolina, all filed briefs in 
opposition to DOE's proposal and in effect they prevailed.
  South Carolina, along with three other States involved in the 
district court action, has offered through a joint letter with the 
other States to the Secretary of Energy to work with the Department of 
Energy to develop a waste classification strategy that will ensure 
effective and cost effective and timely disposal of high-level waste in 
a matter that is consistent with the court decision. We are not trying 
to hold anybody up. I can assure you that the House Committee on Armed 
Services, on which I sit, is willing to work with the Department of 
Energy in next year's authorization process to address this matter in 
the proper form, with hearings, with questions and with the right kind 
of legislation.
  But instead of engaging in earnest, the Department decided to appeal 
the district court decision but also to come to Congress with this 
proposal, to

[[Page 23961]]

amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow DOE to determine how much 
high-level waste it can reclassify and directly dispose of it at 
several sites, including the Savannah River site. These provisions were 
not included in either bill, House or Senate. There were no hearings in 
either committee, House or Senate. This was to be added to the 
conference report as an out-of-scope provision.
  If enacted, this proposal would allow DOE virtual carte blanche to 
reclassify high-level radioactive waste. This will create lower 
standards for storing, lower standards for treating, lower standards 
for processing these radioactive materials, making it all the more 
likely that some day a dreaded accident will occur, and we will have 
irreparable harm done to our ground water, our streams, the Tuscaloosa 
aquifer, affecting not just South Carolina but Georgia and much of the 
Southeast.
  It should not come as any surprise, therefore, that the attorneys 
general of all four States have vigorously objected in writing to DOE's 
legislative proposal. In fact, these AGs have called the changes wholly 
unnecessary.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to change a law as important as the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act in this manner, at the 11th hour, without 
hearings, without a full discussion by all the stakeholders as an out-
of-scope provision to a conference report, is inappropriate in this 
case, and is a precedent that we, as a Congress, should not create for 
future cases.
  So I commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his 
motion; and I urge every Member of the House on both sides of the aisle 
to vote to add this instruction to the conferees on the pending bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
for a question.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify the 
point, that it is your intent, as the subcommittee chairman and the 
chairman of the committee, that you will not proceed on this sort of 
legislation without the concurrence of the States that are affected, 
which, of course, are South Carolina, Idaho and Washington State.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that is not only my understanding, 
that is also the full committee chairman's understanding, and that is 
the understanding of the chairman of the conference, Senator Domenici.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his commitment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not be long-winded.
  Let me simply say, we do not oppose the Inslee amendment on the 
motion to instruct the conferees. We are prepared to accept it. We 
think it is an amendment that has merit, obviously, as we have heard 
from the other gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) who just spoke. These are issues that 
are serious and that need to be addressed.
  We can say that we had no intention to put in any language on this 
issue in the conference report unless we did have concurrence and 
agreement of the States and the Department of Energy. It is an issue 
that we are working on seriously.
  It is unlikely that there will be specific language on this issue in 
the conference report, but certainly, if we consider it, we will work 
with the gentleman who offered the motion to make sure that the States 
involved are consulted with.
  Let me indicate at the outset that this side is prepared to accept 
the motion. As the gentleman knows, it is nonbinding.
  Let me also inform the gentleman that this issue is not one that 
either the Chairman of the conference from the other body or I are 
actively seeking to put into the conference report.
  Having said that, DOE's high level waste problem is a complex issue 
that deserves the attention of the Congress. The Energy and Commerce 
Committee held a hearing on this issue in the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee in July. We heard testimony from the States 
of Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina, where much of DOE's 
radioactive wastes are located.
  At the hearing, the GAO recommended that Congress clarify the high 
level waste definition, so that DOE can settle on a strategy and move 
forward with cleanup plans at Hanford, Savannah River, Idaho, and other 
sites. Due to a recent Federal district court decision, it is uncertain 
whether DOE can proceed with its cleanup plans at these sites.
  It is important that DOE reach agreement with the affected States on 
the appropriate solution to this matter. Without clarification of DOE's 
authorities with respect to high level wastes, we may experience 
cleanup delays as DOE tries to settle this in the courts. DOE has 
recently estimated that if Congress does not address this matter, we 
may incur an additional $60 billion in cleanup costs.
  The gentleman from Washington should know that following the filing 
of his motion on Tuesday, we were informed by the Department of Energy 
that they are in advanced negotiations with affected governors on a 
solution. So while I have no objection to the motion today, I do want 
to put the House on notice that if the DOE and the affected States 
arrive at some kind of agreement, then I do anticipate that the 
administration will request that we include it in the conference report 
on H.R. 6. Not having seen the agreement, of course, I can't say with 
any certainty whether I will recommend honoring that request, but I 
intend to give it every consideration should it be transmitted.

                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2003.
     Hon. Billy Tauzin,
     Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In early August, I transmitted to the 
     Congress a legislative proposal designed to assure that the 
     Department of Energy would remain able to exercise its 
     longstanding authority to classify radioactive waste from 
     reprocessing according to the risk it presents to human 
     health and safety. This authority has been cast in doubt by a 
     recent District Court decision. Failure to resolve this 
     uncertainty could result in decades of delay in cleanup and 
     increased risk to public health and safety.
       In response to issues raised by stakeholders regarding this 
     proposal, the Department has been in discussions with 
     interested parties concerning revised language. These 
     discussions remain ongoing. Legislation of this nature is a 
     priority for the Department because it is critical to 
     allowing us to proceed with confidence with our plans to 
     accelerate cleanup at the sites where this material is 
     located.
       Contrary to some press reports, the Department is not 
     seeking authority to ``reclassify'' high level waste so as to 
     dispose of it anywhere other than at a repository for spent 
     fuel. Rather, to repeat, all we are seeking is confirmation 
     from Congress of our longstanding authority to classify 
     various material from reprocessing according to the risk it 
     presents so that it can be disposed of in a manner 
     appropriate to those risks. Any waste classified as low-level 
     waste would have to meet performance standards for disposal 
     of low-level waste.
       Our hope is that if a negotiated solution is reached, it 
     can be included in the H.R. 6 Conference Report.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Spencer Abraham.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a great advocate for the State 
of Nevada.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Inslee motion to 
instruct conferees.
  As everybody in this body knows, the State of Nevada has been 
unfairly and inappropriately singled out as the Nation's only high-
level nuclear waste dump. I am strongly opposed to tens of thousands of 
tons of radioactive waste being stored in a repository in Yucca 
Mountain less than 90 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada.
  I am also concerned about other DOE actions that could jeopardize the 
safety of millions of Americans throughout the country.

[[Page 23962]]

  The DOE is trying to arbitrarily redefine nuclear waste stored in 
tanks in Washington and South Carolina and Idaho, that have already 
been classified as high-level, as low-level waste to avoid dealing with 
the problems it faces in the cleanup and disposal of high-level nuclear 
waste. Some might claim that DOE's plan would stop more waste from 
going to Nevada. The truth is that Yucca Mountain is already projected 
to be full.
  As Nevadans know all too well, the DOE never lets the facts stand in 
the way of its decision making. The residents of Washington and South 
Carolina and Idaho are now finding out what the people of Nevada have 
known for years. The Department of Energy makes up the rules as it goes 
along. If it confronts an obstacle that it is unable to overcome, it 
simply changes the rules.
  Rather than working with the States and local residents and the EPA 
to find a solution based on sound science, DOE is trying to ramrod 
through Congress its decision to change the classification. The courts 
have told the DOE no. The States have told the DOE no. And now the DOE 
has turned to the Members of Congress in a last-ditch effort to get its 
way.
  Congress should not enable the DOE to reclassify this waste without 
regard to human health or the environment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Inslee motion to instruct to send 
a message to the DOE that it must learn to live within the rules and 
within the law.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) who represents the third 
district, which is down river in the Columbia River from the Hanford 
site.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for 
yielding me the time, and I thank my colleague also from the other side 
of the Cascade Mountain.
  The reason I am concerned about this, since I represent Vancouver, 
Washington, we call it America's Vancouver, it is on the banks of the 
Columbia River, and it is down river from Hanford. For years, DOE has 
assured us that they had the cleanup under control. We have thousands 
of gallons of liquid waste in unlined single-wall tanks, and we were 
assured that they would not leak into the aquifer for hundreds of 
years. In fact, we have discovered already that there is nuclear 
material in that aquifer and that aquifer connects directly to the 
Columbia River.
  The solution to our problems of disposing of radioactive waste is not 
to redefine them and say the problem's gone away because we came up 
with a new definition. That is essentially what the Department of 
Energy is asking to do, and I applaud my colleague for this motion. I 
thank the Chair of the committee for rejecting that.
  So I am glad we are going to support this, but I would say this is 
troubling to me that the Department of Energy has even made this 
request because I think it raises questions about their good faith, 
that they believe that the solution to cleaning something up is to 
define that it is already clean and we do not have a problem. I urge 
the chairman of this committee to insist that such language not be 
allowed to exist in a final conference report and would urge my fellow 
colleagues, should that language somehow get in, to reject it strongly.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just as a closing comment, Mr. Speaker, the one message we hope that 
comes out of today is that when we have 100 million gallons of 
material, that if we spread a coffee cup of it on this floor in the 
House, it would be a lethal dose for everyone here. This is material 
that our constituents on a bipartisan, bicoastal basis want to make 
sure gets cleaned up in reality, rather than just in rhetoric; and that 
is why I think this motion is very important.
  I am very appreciative of my friend, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings), and his efforts to work with the Departments and the 
States to try to hammer out some solution to this. I know he has been 
personally involved in trying to find that solution. I appreciate his 
efforts. We appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) in 
accepting this and moving this forward. He has also acted with honor 
and great wisdom, and I look forward to passage of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We will not oppose the motion to instruct the conferees, and we thank 
the gentleman for offering it and the individuals who spoke in favor of 
it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support Representative Inslee's Motion 
to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 6, the Energy Bill. This motion instructs 
the conference committee to not add a provision that would allow the 
Department of Energy to reclassify high-level waste. I oppose the 
provision because it jeopardizes the health of citizens in Oregon, 
Washington, South Carolina, and Idaho. Of particular concern to me is 
radioactive waste stored in Hanford, WA, that has already contaminated 
ground water near the Columbia River. I believe this is one of the 
greatest environmental threats we face in the Pacific Northwest.
  I also oppose the provision because it circumvents a legal decision 
made last July by a Federal district judge in Idaho. We should not 
allow defendants unhappy with a court decision to run to Congress for a 
quick fix solution. Furthermore, Congress needs to resolve 
controversial issues through careful consideration and debate. The 
proposed provision was in neither the House nor Senate bills, and was 
not subject to debate or vote. Most importantly, Congress did not hold 
hearings to hear from experts on both sides of this contentious issue.
  This issue is too important to play political games. The Department 
of Energy should focus efforts on being a better partner with States to 
devise an efficient and effective solution that is agreeable to the 
people who live and work near the contaminated sites. All four States 
oppose the provision indicating that the department has not yet found a 
common ground solution.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee) is entitled to close. Does he wish to do so?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________