[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12029-12030]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          HOUSE RESOLUTION 402

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 
Christopher Smith, as we have introduced a resolution condemning the 
transport of certain types of nuclear waste, commonly known as mixed 
oxide fuel, containing plutonium and uranium, through international 
waters. And we urge the countries that produce the waste to keep such 
nuclear waste within their borders.

                              {time}  1830

  Madam Speaker, last month two British-flagged vessels left France 
with 1.8 tons of plutonium bound for Japan. They are scheduled to 
arrive in port at some point this month. From what has been made 
public, the shipment is to travel via the Cape of Good Hope, across the 
southern Indian Ocean, then through the Tasman Sea between Australia 
and New Zealand, and then through the southwest Pacific Ocean, and 
finally to Japan.
  The plutonium itself is contained within what is commonly known as 
MOX fuel, a toxic mixture of plutonium and uranium oxide. The MOX will 
be used by Japanese electric utilities to power their nuclear energy 
plants.
  Madam Speaker, mixed oxide fuel containing plutonium and uranium is 
legal. The release of even a small amount of it during transport over 
thousands of miles of open sea, whether as a result of accidents or 
malicious intent, would cause serious health and environmental harm to 
surrounding areas. That has always been made clear.
  But MOX poses a far more ominous threat. With the right technology, 
it can be reprocessed into weapons-grade material. And according to 
reputable estimates, enough plutonium is contained in the MOX currently 
headed towards Japan to produce more than 200 nuclear bombs. Every 
Member of this Chamber, Madam Speaker, knows that al Qaeda and its 
networks would like nothing better than to get their hands on enough 
fissile material to build a nuclear explosive device or a radiological 
bomb, however crude, and to detonate it where it can do the most harm. 
We and our allies around the world have committed our best 
intelligence, military and civilian officials, to work around the clock 
to eliminate the possibility of that ever happening.
  And yet by permitting the transport of MOX over open seas, obviously 
we are providing terrorists one more avenue of attack for getting 
access to the nuclear materials they have so long coveted.
  Indeed, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency said that the risk of 
hijacking a ship carrying nuclear materials, while small, could not be 
ruled out.
  Madam Speaker, piracy has become an obvious problem around the globe. 
So far this year just in the waters of Somalia alone, pirates have 
attacked 61 ships. More than a dozen of those vessels remain in the 
pirates' hands to this very day. One of them, a Ukrainian cargo ship, 
actually contained military equipment--33 battle tanks.
  Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that everyone here remembers the 
recent hijacking of the Maersk Alabama off the Somali coast, and the 
heroic actions of Captain Richard Philips and his crew of 21 members. 
The ship was captured by four Somali pirates on

[[Page 12030]]

April 8 last month. The captain surrendered himself to ensure the 
safety of his crew, only to end up in a lifeboat with the pirates for 4 
days while the FBI attempted to negotiate his release.
  Thankfully, Captain Richard Philips was rescued on April 12, but our 
Navy SEALs, justifiably, had to kill three of the hostage-takers. In 
the aftermath of that event, Somali pirates have issued threats to 
specifically target American interests in this region.
  We know that it doesn't cost much to hire a band of Somali pirates 
and that they are not fussy about their clientele. While the ships in 
question may not sail over Somali waters, they will likely pass through 
the Straits of Malacca, the vital link between the Indian and Pacific 
Oceans.
  But make no mistake, those straits are plied by their own bands of 
pirates. Indeed, according to the International Maritime Bureau, these 
and nearby waters have been ranked the world's most dangerous sea 
routes. In the year 2004, 40 percent of all pirate attacks in the world 
took place in the Straits of Malacca and nearby Indonesian waters.
  Of course, terrorists need not hire pirates to do their dirty work. 
In the year 2002, al Qaeda operatives rammed a boat rigged with 
explosives into a French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen.
  The two particular vessels transporting the MOX from France to Japan, 
the Pacific Pintail and the Pacific Heron, are not without protection. 
They are armed with five 30 millimeter Naval cannons. In addition, a 
group of armed police officers from the United Kingdom Office of Civil 
Nuclear Security is on board.
  However, a study done by the U.S. Department of Energy concludes that 
due to the risk of attack on nuclear shipments, there is a need to 
provide ``continuous backup support for the vessel by military security 
assets.''
  In 1992, a shipment of 1.7 tons of MOX nuclear material from France 
to Japan was escorted by a Japanese Coast Guard vessel. This time, the 
public does not know what sort of a dedicated Naval vessel or vessels 
are escorting the ships.
  The Pentagon concluded in its own assessment of sea shipments of 
plutonium that ``even if the most careful precautions are observed, no 
one could guarantee the safety of the cargo from a security incident, 
such as an attack on the vessel by small, fast craft, especially armed 
with modern anti-ship missiles.''
  Madam Speaker, thus the transport of this nuclear waste poses not 
only the environmental hazard we have long been concerned about, but 
also a nontrivial terrorist or even nuclear danger as well.
  I ask my colleagues, is the practice of transporting these lethal 
nuclear waste materials across international waters worth the risk? I 
say absolutely not.
  It's time for the countries of the world that produce nuclear waste 
to keep it within their own borders. That will be a first step.
  Madam Speaker, make no mistake, transport of nuclear materials even 
within a country's borders poses serious risks. Nuclear fuel is 
dangerous stuff. According to the Nuclear Information and Resource 
Service, ``A person standing 3 feet from unshielded irradiated fuel 
would receive a lethal radiation dose in 10 seconds.'' Moreover, the 
shipping containers in which radioactive waste are transported over 
land typically are designed to withstand, at most, a 30-mile per hour 
crash into an immovable object.
  I am certain that every Member of this Chamber studiously obeys the 
speed limits, but I am not aware of too many highways with a speed 
limit of 30 miles an hour. What I find particularly disconcerting is 
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not tested these shipping 
casks. Instead, the commission depends on the reliability of computer 
simulations.
  A Nuclear Information and Resource Service fact sheet also states, 
``The more severe an accident, the more likely that radioactive 
material would be released into the environment.'' A low- speed 
accident could unseat a valve or damage a seal, releasing radioactive 
particulates into the environment. The same event could crack the 
brittle metal tubing around the fuel.''
  In response to a 2001 Baltimore rail accident involving dangerous 
chemicals, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, ``Everyone 
needs to recognize that transporting dangerous materials is very 
difficult. The leaking hydrochloric acid in Baltimore is nothing 
compared to the high-level radioactive waste proposed for the Yucca 
Mountain site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. A speck the size of a 
pinpoint would kill a person. What we should do with nuclear waste is 
leave it where it is.''
  Madam Speaker, even just within our own domestic borders, we have 
become a deeply divided nation concerning the storage of nuclear waste 
materials within our own country. Years ago in its so-called infinite 
wisdom, Congress decided to build a multibillion-dollar storage 
facility at Yucca Mountain in the State of Nevada. Were the people or 
the residents of Nevada ever given an opportunity to have a say in the 
process, despite strong objections from its congressional delegation 
and State government officials?
  If I were a resident of Nevada, I would certainly object to the whole 
idea of other States shipping their nuclear waste and materials into my 
backyard. The question that comes to mind, Madam Speaker, what town, 
what city, what rural farm areas are going to be used or designated for 
shipments by truck, by train, by car, by airplanes? What guarantees are 
there that these shipments are not going to be subjected to terrorist 
attacks or even by accident?
  Remember the oil spill of Valdez in Alaska, Madam Speaker? Everybody 
said it was absolutely safe to conduct such shipments of oil. Well, it 
happened, and the same thing can also be said if nuclear waste 
materials were shipped from other States to Yucca Mountain in the State 
of Nevada.
  Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with our majority leader, 
Senator Harry Reid, expressing his concerns. I urge my colleagues to 
join me and Congressman Smith in calling for an end to this even more 
dangerous and in my opinion needless practice of shipping MOX nuclear 
waste materials over the open oceans. I ask my colleagues to support 
House Resolution 402.

                          ____________________