|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Home > D.C. > Research > Congress > CRW > Page | |
|
 |
| ||||||
|
|
|
||||
Congressional Record Weekly UpdateMay 6-10, 2002Return to the Congressional Report Weekly. 1A) DOE's Little Secret
Recently, Mr. Speaker, Nevadans have become aware of some very disturbing information about these DOE claims. In its final environmental impact statement, the DOE evaluated the handling, transporting and disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain. Although 131 sites across this country contain this nuclear waste and although the waste at these sites require individual attention due to radioactivity dangers, the Department of Energy has entirely neglected to evaluate the effect of waste transportation of at least 54 different sites. Mr. Speaker, this negligence is simply unacceptable. In considering the dangers of hauling nuclear waste across the country, through our neighborhoods, near our schools and parks, it is obvious that the DOE should have investigated these important facilities. Most of these facilities are research reactor sites at major universities and significant commercial research and fuel fabrication plants. Shipping the high level radioactive waste from these facilities is a hazardous undertaking that cannot be ignored, and the DOE has done so. Similar movement of research reactive fuel has been explored in the past. In just one instance, after a mandatory preparation of an extensive report, several years of analysis, and two arduous legal challenges, a shipment of foreign research reactor fuel was transported to North Carolina. The question is, shall Americans stand by and wait for a mistake in shipping this hazardous research reactor fuel or will we demand that the DOE take into account these 54 sites before it presents our government with a proper environmental analysis? Clearly, the Department of Energy has altogether ignored a vast and critical component of its Yucca Mountain project. Mr. Speaker, Americans should be outraged at this negligence, and again, I ask that we take a closer look at the reports handed over to us by the DOE. Finding a solution to our Nation's nuclear waste problem should be a process of justice, sound science and integrity, not one of carelessness and political expediency. Mr. Speaker, the Yucca Mountain project is not an equitable solution. It is not a trustworthy solution or a suitable solution to our nuclear waste problem. I urge all my colleagues to make a responsible decision on this potentially devastating resolution tomorrow. Vote no on the Yucca Mountain project. Vote no tomorrow on House Joint Resolution 87.
1B) Nuclear Threat Reduction Campaign Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, the disintegration of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago resulted in economic and political chaos. The Soviet Union possessed more than 10,000 nuclear weapons, and dozens of nuclear weapons production facilities sprawled across 11 time zones. As a result of the economic collapse, funding fell short for security at nuclear weapons storage and production facilities. This left dangerous amounts of deadly weapons and materials vulnerable to theft. Since 1991, there have been countless documented cases of individuals stealing plutonium and uranium from the former Soviet Union. So far, we believe no ''nuclear smuggler'' has taken enough material to make a nuclear device. The real problem is the uncertainty of the unknown. Since the end of the Cold War, we have done a great deal to curb the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. The United States has taken the lead in the international community to help Russia secure its nuclear weapons and material. The Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the sister programs at the Department of Energy are truly ''defense by other means.'' The Defense Department's program is more commonly known as the Nunn-Lugar program, in recognition of its creators, my colleague from Indiana, Dick Lugar, and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. Because of these two men, we face less of a threat from the Soviet Union's nuclear legacy than we would have otherwise. The Department of Defense has focused on destroying nuclear weapons and improving security over weapons in transit and storage. The Department of Energy has focused its own threat reduction efforts on locking up uranium and plutonium that could be used in a nuclear weapon and helping develop peaceful, commercial job opportunities for weapons scientists. The investments made in these programs to secure Soviet nuclear weapons and materials have truly been in our national interest. However, as far-reaching as these programs have been, they were not designed to address some of the terrorist threats we now face. In particular, there are three gaps in our nuclear threat reduction policies that need to be dealt with. First, these programs do not apply to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. Second, these programs do not address the threat of radiological materials. Third, these programs do not deal with preventing terrorist sabotage of nuclear power plants. Expanding our threat reduction programs globally is an important priority. So far, most of our efforts have focused on the dangerous situation in the former Soviet Union. This makes sense, since most of the under-secured nuclear weapons useable material is located in that part of the world. However, we need to pay more attention to the smaller amounts of weapons material in other parts of the world that are not under tight enough lock and key. This means building up security at every type of nuclear facility worldwide, including nuclear power plants, processing facilities, storage sites and other related buildings. We also need to start focusing on radiological materials. And by radiological materials, I am referring to highly radioactive substances other than weapons-useable uranium or plutonium. A ''dirty bomb'' combines radioactive material that could be found at nuclear power plants, medical facilities or other industrial sites with explosives. This weapon would not be as immediately destructive as a nuclear bomb. But it would cause significant physical, environmental, economic, and psychological damage to our citizens, and to our national security. Indeed, intelligence reports indicate that Osama bin Ladin has been actively pursuing the materials to develop a ''dirty bomb.'' In fact, he called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction a ''religious duty.'' In addition, there have been reports of meetings between Pakistani nuclear weapons scientists and al-Qaeda operatives and between Iraqi officials and al-Qaeda representatives. We will never know what went on at these meetings. But we must take every step possible to thwart their evil plans. Finally, we will contribute to our national security by improving nuclear power plant security outside the United States. The Department of Energy has been working for years to improve the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. This is to prevent the possible repeat of the Chernobyl disaster. However, to date, protecting these plants from terrorist sabotage has never been addressed. Before the tragedies of September 11, we never thought such an attack was realistic. Now that our reality has changed, we are providing greater security to protect our power plants here at home. These efforts will serve as good models to upgrade the security at nuclear plants in Russia and elsewhere. Today I am introducing a bill that would help bolster our national security by improving the security of all nuclear and radiological material worldwide. My bill addresses each of the three gaps in our current efforts that I have just identified. First, it calls on the Department of Energy in cooperation with the Departments of State and Defense to develop a program that would encourage all countries to adhere to the highest security standards for their nuclear material wherever it is used or stored; Second, it requires the Department of Energy to establish a systematic approach for securing radiological materials other than uranium and plutonium outside the United States; and Third, it directs the Department of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to develop plans for preventing terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants outside the United States. This bill is a cost-effective and short-term way to counter current threats to our national security and it promotes world cooperation in securing nuclear materials. Already, this bill has gained the endorsement of several world leaders in the field of nuclear non-proliferation, including: Dr William Potter, Director of the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies; Dr. Graham Allison, former Assistant Secretary of Defense; and Rose Gottemoeller, former Deputy UnderSecretary at the Department of Energy. At this time I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from each of these individuals and organizations be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES, Monterey, CA, April 29, 2002.
DEAR SENATOR CARNAHAN: As the director of the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies, I have long been involved in research and training activities designed to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I have focused especially on proliferation risks associated with the former Soviet Union and have sought to enhance the safety and security of fissile material and nuclear facilities in that region. As you are well aware, this task has acquired even greater urgency in the aftermath of September 11, as has the need to consolidate and secure the smaller amounts of fissile material that are inadequately safeguarded in other parts of the world. Although the highest priority should be given to consolidating, securing, and reducing the global stocks of fissile material--the stuff of nuclear weapons--it also is important for more attention and resources to be devoted to countering nuclear threats posed by the sabotage of nuclear power plants, research reactors, and spent fuel storage sites, and the risks associated with so-called ''dirty bombs'' or radiological dispersal devices, which could be made by matching conventional explosives with radioactive source material. These dangers, while global in nature, are especially acute in Russia due to the amount of nuclear material present, the absence of adequate safeguards, and the vulnerability of many nuclear facilities to sabotage and/or terrorist attack. Although experts at Russian nuclear facilities have highlighted these vulnerabilities for a long time, their remediation has not typically been a high priority for U.S. nonproliferation assistance. In light of these serious nuclear dangers, I strongly support your efforts to develop new legislation to counter nuclear terrorism and to improve the security of fissile and radiological material and nuclear facilities both in Russia and worldwide. In this regard, there are many useful lessons to be learned from the decade of U.S.-Russian collaboration in cooperative threat reduction, a topic many of my staff and I have analyzed carefully. Please feel free to contact me if you would like more detailed information on our prior work or if I can be of any assistance to you as you pursue your exceptionally timely and important legislation. Sincerely,
Director, CNS and CRES and
-- HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Cambridge MA, April 30, 2002.
DEAR SENATOR CARNAHAN: I am writing to support your draft legislation focused on addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism. As a member of the Baker-Cutler panel and a longtime Russia watcher, I have seen with my own eyes security systems for potential bomb material that would make it an easy task for terrorists to steal. As a former Senator, now Ambassador Howard Baker has testified to his colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ''I don't mean to be unduly philosophical or psychological about it, but it really boggles my mind that there could be 40,000 nuclear weapons, or maybe 80,000 in the former Soviet Union, poorly controlled and poorly stored, and that the world isn't in a near-state of hysteria about the danger.'' And the problem is not limited to Russia: around the world, there are dozens of facilities with enough highly enriched uranium or a bomb--some of them civilian research facilities with a single night watchman and a chain link fence providing the only security. In the aftermath of September 11, with Osama bin Laden declaring that acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a ''religious duty,'' allowing such conditions to continue would pose an unacceptable threat to the security of the United States and the world. If a nuclear weapon were to fall in the hands of those who organized the September 11 attacks, there would be no threats and no negotiations. Tens of thousands of innocent victims would die in a flash; if the bomb were in lower Manhattan, it would destroy everything up to Grammercy Park. That terrible vision must guide our efforts now, and our sense or urgency. We must be asking ourselves: ''on the day after a U.S. city is destroyed in a nuclear blast, what would we wish we had done to prevent it?'' And then we must take those actions now, a quickly as we practically can. What is needed is a fast-paced, focused effort to eliminate stockpiles of potential bomb material wherever they are no longer needed, while instilling rapid security upgrades wherever these materials will remain. The goal should be to attain a stringent, global standard for security for all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials--for if these cannot be stolen, then terrorists cannot get the means for a nuclear attack. At the same time, we must be doing more to guard against potential Chernobyls caused by terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities or terrorist acquisition and use of radiological material for a ''dirty bomb.'' Thus the objectives outlined in your legislation are precisely what is needed. Should this legislation become law, the security of the United States would be measurably improved, and our children and grandchildren will thank you. I commend you for your leadership in this crucial endeavor. Let me know if I can be of any assistance in pushing it through. Sincerely, Graham T. Allison,
-- CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, Washington, DC, April 12, 2002.
DEAR SENATOR CARNAHAN: Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Rose Gottemoeller, and I am a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment. I have previously served in senior positions both in and out of the U.S. government, most recently (until October 2000) as Deputy Undersecretary of Energy for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nonproliferation and National Security. From 1994 to 1997, I was Deputy Director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, after serving in 1993 and 1994 as the White House National Security Council Director responsible for denuclearization of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Prior to that time, I was at the RAND Corporation as a senior researcher on issues related to Soviet defense and arms control policy. Based on my long experience working on nuclear security issues, I strongly believe that more needs to be done, both in the former Soviet Union and throughout the rest of the world, to ensure a safe and secure future for all Americans. For the better part of the last ten years, the United States has borne the brunt of helping Russia and its neighbors improve security of its civilian and military facilities that house weapons-useable fissile material. As you know, the United States has contributed millions of dollars to secure the Soviet nuclear legacy, but not out of altruism: it is clearly in our national interest to do so. While I strongly believe that the support of the U.S. must continue, I now also emphasize that the only way to develop a comprehensive effort to address poorly secured nuclear materials in other parts of the world is for our friends and allies to shoulder some of the burden. The security of nuclear material is in every country's best interest, and every country should be an active participant. Thus far, most cooperative efforts to improve the physical protection of nuclear materials have taken place in the former Soviet Union. This is logical, given that most weapons-usable fissile material is located in that region of the world, and much of it has been adequately protected since the break-up of the USSR. However, particularly since September 11th, I believe that we all need to pay more attention to the smaller caches of fissile material that exist in other parts of the world. Many of them are not protected to a level commensurate with international standards. [Page: S3963] GPO's PDF
1C) Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 115(e)(4) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the joint resolution. The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: H.J. Res. 87 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there hereby is approved the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a repository, with respect to which a notice of disapproval was submitted by the Governor of the State of Nevada on April 8, 2002. UNFUNDED MANDATES POINT OF ORDER Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of H.J. Res. 87. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of H.J. Res. 87. Section 425 states that a point of order lies against legislation which either imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of $58 million against State and local governments or when the committee chairman does not publish, prior to floor consideration, a CBO cost mandate of any unfunded mandate in excess of $58 million against State and local entities. H.J. Res. 87 will in effect set the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended in 1987 into action. The bill reads in part, ''Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that there hereby is approved the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada for a repository.'' In other words, Madam Speaker, passage of this resolution will green-light the Yucca Mountain project, thus allowing for shipment of high level nuclear waste beginning in the year 2010 and continuing for the next 38 years. Thus, passage of H.J. Res. 87 clearly places an unfunded mandate on our taxpayers. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) makes a point of order that the joint resolution violates section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentleman has met his threshold burden to identify the specific language in the joint resolution on which he predicates the point of order. Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit: ''Will the House now consider the joint resolution?" The gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) will be recognized for 10 minutes and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, passage of H.J. Res. 87 will undoubtedly put a process in place that will exceed the $58 million threshold outlined in section 425 of the act. Instead of looking at what the CBO score tells us, let us look at what it does not tell us. What the CBO is unable to tell us is how much it will cost our local community to implement the Nuclear Waste Management Act, as far as preparing our State and local governments for the enormous cost of safety monitoring these tens of thousands of high level nuclear waste shipments that are going to occur throughout our community. Madam Speaker, by the CBO's inability to score the total cost of this project, again a project receives a green light upon passage of the legislation currently before us, there might as well not even be a CBO score. The chairman of the committee has fulfilled his obligation to publish a cost estimate for H.J. Res. 87; however, the CBO cost only gives the House the recommended 5-year cost projection. As we know, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, shipments of high level nuclear waste to Nevada will not even begin until the year 2010, about 8 years from now. With the CBO unable to give a cost estimate on the Yucca Mountain project's total price tag, passage of H.J. Res. 87 provides the Federal government a blank check to proceed with this project. In the end, the Federal Government will demand that our State and local governments spend billions of dollars over the next four decades to prepare for those shipments that will traverse their respective States and districts. Neither the Department of Energy nor Congress has anticipated or provided for the massive costs that will be incurred by States and local governments if we pass this legislation. The paltry $17 million budgeted by the Department of Energy in its fiscal year 2003 budget will not come close to covering these costs. States and local governments will be left with billions of dollars in unfunded expenses which would not be incurred except for the Federal high level radioactive waste program. Some may counter this argument by saying that we can recommend on the Nuclear Waste Fund, established by Congress, to pay for the cost of Yucca Mountain. Well, consider this argument: Current estimates put the Nuclear Waste Fund at about $17 billion. That balance pales in the comparison to the total construction and compliance costs at Yucca Mountain of almost $60 billion. What is more, the nuclear power industry faces an uncertain economic future. Let me point out a few of the problems facing the industry. The industry is supposed to be responsible for paying the costs associated with the nuclear waste disposal. No nuclear power plants have been built since 1978. More than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. The nuclear power industry's troubles include nuclear high power plant construction costs, relatively low costs for competing fuel, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, as well as regulatory compliance costs. Electric utility restructuring, which is currently under way in several States, could also increase the competition faced by existing nuclear plants. High operating costs have resulted during the past decades in the shutdown of nearly 20 U.S. commercial reactors before the completion of their 40-year license operating period. Madam Speaker, the viability of the Nuclear Waste Fund is directly related to the continued viability of the nuclear utility industry. Taxpayers are not supposed to fund the program. The program is supposed to be funded by the nuclear energy industry and the ratepayers who purchase and benefit from their electricity. The price tag of this project will be tremendous. Not in the next 5 years, as outlined by the CBO score, but in 8 years, and the subsequent 4 decades beyond that. Madam Speaker, 8 years from now the Department of Energy will begin filling your roads and highways and railways with high level nuclear waste. The cost to even begin preparing our first responders will be staggering, let alone the cost of any clean-up associated with one of 400 accidents the Department of Energy tells us that we are to prepare for when they begin these shipments. I ask that delegates call their State governors and ask does room exist in their budget to meet these needs and these expensive costs? Ask your local [Page: H2181] Again, the DOE tells us that accidents happen. This is not spilled milk. An accident involving shipments of high level nuclear waste requires more than a mop and bucket of water to clean up. Imagine the cost of the training just to prepare for a potential response to one of these accidents. Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 87 is an unfunded mandate. The CBO cannot tell us whether or not carrying out the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by passing this resolution will exceed the $58 million threshold. And because CBO cannot give us this information, we must assume that the threshold can and will be exceeded. Now some tell us not to worry, that DOE and Congress will ensure the necessary funding will be provided at the right time. If this is the case, Madam Speaker, where are we going to get the money? What programs will have to be cut to pay for this irresponsible policy? Will we cut the Department of Defense budget as we carry out this long, protracted war against terrorism? Will we cut out Medicare or any possibility of implementing a prescription drug benefit for our seniors? Or will we allow ourselves to drive the Social Security trust fund at the same time our baby boomer generation sits on the brink of retirement? Assuming the DOE begins shipment in 2010 as planned, Congress would have to budget $3.6 billion per year beginning with this year's budget in order to provide adequate funding for States. The fact is, Madam Speaker, as with every other issue we debate in this body, the money has to come from somewhere and somewhere always leads to the taxpayers in this great country. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfunded mandate and support the point of order I just made. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) opposed to the point of order? Mr. TAUZIN. Yes, Madam Speaker, I am. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana for 10 minutes. Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to this effort to block consideration of this very bipartisan consideration. Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman well and he is my friend and I know his intentions are good. He is doing everything that he thinks is in the best interest of his State. And I think we all can respect that. But, very frankly, this point of order is completely without foundation and it is clearly just an effort to obstruct consideration of House Joint Resolution 87, a resolution that was reported out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 41 to 6, an incredibly bipartisan vote. When my committee filed its report on House Joint Resolution 87, it included a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. This is it here. And the Congressional Budget Office report literally satisfies one of the requirements under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. This CBO cost estimate thoroughly reviewed the budget impacts of this resolution, and it did not identify any new mandates in this resolution that would fall under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The CBO cost estimate, in fact, further clarified that even if some minor costs of State and local governments did fall under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, these costs would not exceed the thresholds established under UMRA. Let me quote from the CBO estimate directly: ''H.J. Res. 87 could increase the costs that Nevada and some local governments would incur to comply with certain existing Federal requirements. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, UMRA, is unclear about whether such costs would count as new mandates under UMRA. In any event, CBO estimates that the annual direct costs incurred by State and local governments over the next 5 years would total significantly less than the threshold established in the law ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation).''
[Time: 12:15] In other words, CBO is saying we are not sure we even count those costs; but if we did, they do not meet the threshold of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Finally, CBO notes that H.J. Res. 87 contains no new private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Madam Speaker, the CBO report speaks for itself. It is very, very clear. We may hear that the real costs that should be considered are those that occur after the 5-year period that CBO has looked at. Well, for better or worse, whether we like it or not, whether we think the law ought to be different, our rules only require CBO to look at 5 years and not into the indefinite future; and what CBO has told us in this report is that there are simply no costs that cross the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act limits, the thresholds for those 5 years. The law is satisfied. Our rules are satisfied. We ought to proceed with the consideration of this important resolution. The Chair will put the question when this debate is over on this point of order, and the question will be whether we should proceed or not. I will ask all Members who support this resolution to vote ''yes.'' We should proceed because this point of order is completely without foundation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will remind my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, that shipments will not begin until 8 years from today, not the 5 years as recommended in the CBO score. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for yielding me the time. I find it very ironic that this Congress is willing to put nuclear waste in a hole in the Nevada desert for 10,000 years, yet we are talking about a 5-year unfunded mandate. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's point of order. It is bad enough that we are set to vote on a resolution that will approve the Yucca Mountain project that has costs ranging from $56 billion to $308 billion. Nobody knows exactly how much this project will cost. This money is supposed to come from the nuclear waste fund, but the fund only has $17 billion in it. Where is the rest of this money going to come from? Are the proponents of this foolhardy project proposing to raise taxes, dip into the Social Security trust fund? This proposal only gets worse. If we approve Yucca Mountain, more than 108,000 shipments of deadly nuclear waste will be rolling across our Nation's highways and railroads, through 43 States for the next 38 years on its way to Yucca Mountain. As it passes through each of the 703 counties along the proposed transportation routes, local law enforcement and first responders must be prepared for the worst. And if the worst happens, where is the money going to come from to clean up the mess, the destruction, the devastation? I see no provision in the budget to cover these enormous costs. This is an unfunded mandate to our local governments. We know from the DOE's own assessment that we can expect anywhere from 50 to over 300 accidents. Our firefighters and first responders must be specially trained to deal with these nuclear waste shipments and the accidents that will occur. The nuclear waste fund does not have the money to pay for this, so the unknown costs are going to have to be made up by local government and the American taxpayers. We will be asking citizens who have no part in creating nuclear waste and have no benefits from nuclear energy to fund the nuclear industry so they can move dangerous nuclear waste through their own backyards. If we approve this resolution, the American taxpayer will once again be [Page: H2182] None of these alternatives are acceptable to me, and I doubt outside the nuclear industry and the nuclear industry's friends here in the United States Congress that these alternatives would not be acceptable to anyone else in our country. Yucca Mountain is a financial boondoggle that flies in the face of fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this point of order. Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for yielding me the time. Obviously, I rise against this point of order of my good friend from Nevada. I am shocked, shocked and amazed, that he would think that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and I would present a bill on the floor that had an unfunded mandate. I am one of the most conservative Members of this body, and I am joined by one of the most distinguished conservative Members, he would say moderate, progressive, Members on the other side of the aisle; and for us to bring forward an unfunded, an unfunded mandate is just beyond the pale. I would point out that since we passed a Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, we have collected over $15 billion in the nuclear waste fund. Every time a nuclear plant generates a kilowatt of electricity, one mil, which is \1/10\ of a cent, goes into this fund; and we are collecting about $750 million a year as we speak into this fund. So this is far from being an unfunded mandate. This is the most overfunded, unmet, unobligated, unconstructed thing that we could have ever done in Federal Government. I would also point out, as my good friend, the full committee chairman, has already pointed out, that when we passed this resolution on a bipartisan basis out of the committee, we sent it to the Congressional Budget Office; and they have given us the requisite report that the chairman has a copy of that says quite clearly that the costs of this for the next 5 years are well under the threshold of the Unfunded Mandate Act. There are a number of reasons for people to be opposed to the underlying resolution. My good friend from Nevada is certainly entitled to oppose it, but there is no reason to support the point of order that it is an unfunded mandate. Nothing, Madam Speaker, could be further from the truth. When it comes to the end of the debate, I certainly hope that the Speaker will throw out this scurrilous point of order so that we can get on with the debate, have a debate on the underlying bill and then hopefully support the underlying bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and myself have put to the body. Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time and ask that we put the question with the request that all Members who support this resolution vote ''yes'' when the Speaker puts the question. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is: Will the House now consider House Joint Resolution 87. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 308, nays 105, not voting 21, as follows: Aderholt Akin Allen Andrews Armey Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett Bartlett Barton Bass Bentsen Bereuter Berry Biggert Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Blunt Boehlert Bonilla Bono Boozman Borski Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Bryant Burr Callahan Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Cardin Carson (OK) Castle Chabot Chambliss Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Collins Combest Cooksey Costello Cox Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cubin Culberson Cummings Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis, Jo Ann Deal Delahunt DeLay DeMint Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Etheridge Evans Everett Fattah Ferguson Flake Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Frank Frelinghuysen Frost Ganske Gekas Gillmor Gilman Goode Goodlatte Gordon Goss Graham Granger Graves Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Grucci Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hansen Hart Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill Hilleary Hilliard Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hyde Isakson Issa Istook Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Kanjorski Kaptur Keller Kennedy (MN) Kerns Kildee Kilpatrick King (NY) Kingston Kirk Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Lampson Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Maloney (CT) Manzullo Mascara McCarthy (NY) McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntyre McKeon Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Mica Miller, Dan Miller, Gary Miller, Jeff Mollohan Moran (KS) Morella Murtha Myrick Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Obey Olver Osborne Otter Oxley Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pitts Platts Pomeroy Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Quinn Ramstad Regula Rehberg Reynolds Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ross Roukema Royce Rush Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sandlin Saxton Schaffer Schrock Scott Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simmons Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Snyder Spratt Stearns Stenholm Strickland Stump Sullivan Sununu Sweeney Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Tiberi Toomey Towns Turner Upton Visclosky Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Watkins (OK) Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Wu Wynn Young (FL) Abercrombie Ackerman Baca Baldwin Becerra Berkley Berman Blumenauer Bonior Boswell Capps Capuano Condit Conyers Davis (CA) Davis, Tom DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Diaz-Balart Doggett Eshoo Farr Filner Gallegly Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gonzalez Harman Hinchey Holt Honda Hooley Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jones (NC) Kelly Kennedy (RI) Kucinich Langevin Lantos Lee Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Luther Lynch Maloney (NY) Markey Matheson Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCollum McDermott McGovern McKinney McNulty Meehan Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller, George Mink Moore Napolitano Oberstar Ortiz Owens Pallone Pelosi Pence Pombo Radanovich Rahall Rangel Reyes Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rothman Roybal-Allard Sabo Sanchez Sanders Schiff Serrano Sherman Slaughter Smith (WA) Solis Souder Stark Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Velazquez Waters Watson (CA) Weiner Woolsey Young (AK) Boehner Burton Buyer Carson (IN) Coyne Crane Hall (OH) Jones (OH) Kind (WI) [Page: H2183] Kleczka Moran (VA) Nadler Ose Riley Sawyer Schakowsky Simpson Smith (TX) Stupak Traficant Waxman
[Time: 12:47] Messrs. McNULTY, GALLEGLY, KUCINICH, INSLEE, UDALL of Colorado, STARK, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ''yea'' to ''nay.'' Messrs. CALVERT, HINOJOSA, and HERGER changed their vote from ''nay'' to ''yea.'' So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. REQUEST TO TABLE H.J. RES. 87 Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act, be tabled. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Nevada? Mr. TAUZIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman under my reservation to explain her unanimous consent request. Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the General Accounting Office, the independent investigative arm of Congress, recently recommended that the Yucca Mountain project not be approved at this time. The GAO recommended that the government solve 293 outstanding scientific problems before the project be approved. After careful examination of these scientific problems, the GAO estimated that the Department of Energy would need at least 4 more years, until 2006, to resolve these problems. The report concluded, ''We question the prudence and practicality of making such a recommendation at this time given the express statutory time frames for a license application and the significant amount of work remaining to be done.'' In addition, there are still enormous and serious questions regarding the transportation of nuclear waste. The casks that will transport the waste have not yet even been created, and no cask has been tested full scale. In light of 9/11, several government agencies have begun a review of the safety and security of nuclear waste transport. The result of these reviews is not yet complete. It is clear that we are moving ahead on this resolution prematurely. It is not in the best interest of the public, and it does not reflect sound public policy. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act be tabled until 2006 when the scientific studies are completed. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard. Pursuant to section 15(e)(4) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and a Member opposed each will control 1 hour. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed? Mr. MARKEY. Yes, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will control 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for 1 hour. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the Chair will consider one of the most important public health and safety issues facing the Nation, the development of a centralized and permanent geologic disposal site for our country's nuclear waste, wastes that are laying around all over the country in temporary storage at nuclear facilities. At present, high level nuclear wastes are stored in 77 sites in more than 30 States in every region of the country. Most of these waste sites are located near a nuclear power plant where spent nuclear fuel is carefully stored, and nuclear waste storage sites are also located at former DOE weapons production facilities like the Hanford site, where liquid radioactive waste is stored in tanks. Every one of these waste sites shares one common aspect: They were all designed for temporary storage of these dangerous wastes, not for long-term storage. The Yucca Mountain site is located 90 miles away from Las Vegas. It is isolated on remote Federal land of the Nevada test site, 14 miles away from the closest residence, and it is safe and secure. The waste will be stored more than 600 feet underground, and more than 500 feet above the water table. The waste will be held in steel containers, and the containers will be placed under a titanium shield. Further, not only is the air space around Yucca already restricted, but an existing security force at the Nevada test site will protect the area. This is a comprehensive defense-in-depth approach. The Committee on Energy and Commerce held an exhaustive hearing on this issue last month. We heard from witnesses representing all sides of the Yucca Mountain debate, including scientists, politicians, regulators, and public interest groups. Not a single witness identified a significant scientific or technical reason not to move forward with this important project. They also gave me an opportunity to clarify some of the concerns frequently expressed by the opponents of the Yucca Mountain site, and the hearing was very good for that purpose. For example, opponents of Yucca Mountain want us to stop this important project because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified certain unresolved technical issues. However, the NRC had testified and the DOE has agreed that the DOE is on a path toward resolving every single one of those technical issues, and the Secretary of Energy committed to answer every one before licensing is possibly complete or approved. In fact, 60 of those issues should be resolved this year. Further, the NRC will not approve the construction license for Yucca Mountain unless every single one of those issues are thoroughly and properly addressed. The opponents of Yucca Mountain will argue that we should stop the project because the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board believes the science of Yucca Mountain is weak to moderate. However, at the hearing the board pointed out that no individual technical issue would automatically eliminate Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Waste Board also testified that confidence in DOE science estimates can be increased. I understand that this issue is of great concern to the elected leaders of Nevada, and I sympathize with their plight. I hope that the debate today can focus on a discussion of the facts rather than an effort to manufacture unrealistic and implausible fears in the minds of the public regarding this project. A vote in favor of H.J. Res. 87 will simply move the Yucca Mountain project forward to the next stage of review; but even with congressional approval of this resolution today, construction will not proceed at Yucca Mountain unless it passes strict health and safety requirements set up by EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On February 15, 2002, the President recommended on the advice of DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham that Congress approve the Yucca Mountain site even if the State of Nevada disapproves. Based upon our review and understanding of DOE's extensive scientific work, I am prepared to support this important policy decision, and I hope Members do, too. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his extraordinary work on this, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for their cooperation, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his support for our effort. I want all Members of this House to know this bill came out of our committee by a 41-6 bipartisan vote. It is sponsored and cosponsored in a bipartisan way. It is supported in a bipartisan way. This is the right thing for America. And we stand as Americans united to get this important resolution passed so that we can set our nuclear industry back on a current safe path; and, indeed, make room for future improvements in the nuclear industry in this country, as well as the environmental cleanup of sites that demand early rather than late attention. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality for purposes of control. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? There was no objection. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic occasion. Twenty years ago on this floor we passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In that bill there was a decision made by Congress that there would be 5 geologic repositories that would be studied, and ultimately 2 would be selected, 1 on the east of the Mississippi and 1 to the west of the Mississippi. But between 1982 and 1987, two factors raised their heads: One, parochialism. The States of Texas, of Washington, of Louisiana, of Tennessee, of New Hampshire, in other words, all of the States that were being considered that had powerful political delegations, said take our States off the list. And the search was begun by this body to find one State that had just two Members of Congress and two Senators because that is the way ultimately in 1987 when the Congress revisited the issue that it was resolved; not on scientific grounds, not on the basis of finding the best geologic repositories east and west of the Mississippi, but rather selecting the smallest State with the smallest number of elected representatives, and that turns out to be the State of Nevada, which was delivered the nuclear queen of spades by every other State that did not want it in their State. Now, what happens? Well, then ultimately any Member who opposes science being trumped by politics is called anti-nuclear by the States that do not want it in their States, even though in most of those States they have nuclear power plants. We wind up in this Alice-in-Wonderland debate where the poor State of Nevada is here now raising the point that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified the fact that there are still 293 unresolved environmental health and safety issues, and asking the Congress and asking the administration to wait until those issues are resolved until any movement forward is made on the issue. But because of a second major issue, special interest, that is the nuclear power industry, the Congress, as they did in 1982, as they did in 1987, says no, we cannot wait. We must now continue forward. It is this indifference to the very legitimate concerns that are being raised by the State of Nevada which should be most troubling to Members here today. The nuclear power industry may want this. Other States that could have been considered for the repository, and might have been better long term 10,000-year locations for the waste, may want this. States that have 6 or 8 nuclear reactors in them but do not want the nuclear repository and want the waste out of their State may want this, but it is wrong for us to move forward today when we can move forward next year or the year after if the 293 environmental health and safety questions have not been resolved, because the decision we make today creates an inexorable pressure on investments already made, decisions already made that will buy us those environmental health and safety decisions over the next 2 and 3 years, and ultimately bad decisions will be made that will compromise the environment.
[Time: 13:00] Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the pending measure and urge its approval by the House. The legislation takes the next necessary step in a statutorily prescribed process for establishing a site for the permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. I want to begin these remarks by commending Chairman TAUZIN of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce, subcommittee Chairman BARTON, and also the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of our full committee, for their diligence and their persistence in taking this necessary step. I am a cosponsor with them of the legislation which is pending that will move the process forward. A permanent secure site for the disposal of high level waste must be established. Forty-five thousand metric tons of waste now reside on-site at nuclear reactors in 72 locations across the Nation. This temporary siting of spent fuel at reactor sites poses both a security threat and an environmental threat. In my view, arguments that previously had been made that the permanent disposal of waste in dry cask storage at these 72 reactor sites as an alternative to the establishment of a secure central repository for the waste hold far less credence today after September 11 than they did before. I think we really have no alternative to the development of a central, secure disposal site. The passage of the measure that is now before the House is essential to the development of that site. While arguments will be made that more could be learned about the proposed Yucca Mountain site, I would note that the recommendation of the Secretary of Energy in January of this year that Yucca Mountain be chosen for permanent waste disposal is based on fully 20 years of scientific investigation. The site characterization work required under section 113 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has been carried out. The public hearings focusing on the Yucca Mountain site required by section 114 of the act have been held. If Congress passes the legislation now pending before the House, which overrides the disapproval of the President's site designation that was issued by Governor Guinn of Nevada on April 8, construction activities could not commence at the site until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completes a full technical and scientific review of the site and also a review of the proposed disposal methods at the site and then issues a license for site construction. No site will ever be found to be perfect for the disposal of high level nuclear waste, but I am persuaded that the studies which have already been conducted and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission review that is still to come provides sufficient assurances that the appropriate nature of the Yucca Mountain site has been established and will justify approval of the legislation now before us. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to note that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a long tradition of addressing many of our Nation's most important public policy challenges in a thoughtful and a bipartisan manner. With the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality having approved this resolution by a vote of 24-2 and the full Committee on Energy and Commerce having approved it by a majority of 41-6, nowhere has our committee's bipartisan tradition and cooperation been more in evidence than in our efforts to resolve the Nation's nuclear waste disposal problems. For that bipartisan cooperation, I again want to commend the committee's leadership on both sides of the aisle for moving expeditiously on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this resolution by the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing the outrage felt throughout Nevada about this ill-advised proposal. Eighty-three percent of the people I represent vehemently oppose Yucca Mountain. Nevada does not use nuclear energy. Nevada does not produce one ounce of nuclear waste. Yet Nevada is being asked to carry the weight of a burden we have had no part in creating. I grew up in Las Vegas. Long before I came to serve in Congress, I have been fighting against this proposal to transport 77,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste across 43 States to be stored for 10,000 years in a hole in the Nevada desert. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act charged the Department of Energy with the task of studying multiple potential repository sites to determine which would be the best to provide geologic containment of nuclear waste. [Page: H2185] Almost immediately, it became apparent that Yucca Mountain could not contain the waste by natural geologic barriers as required by law, so the DOE simply changed the rules. The waste would be stored in man-made canisters for 10,000 years. Then it was discovered that those canisters would quickly corrode, so they added titanium drip shields. Even with all of these man-made barriers, there still had to be gerrymandering groundwater regulations to set up contamination zones. We have deviated so far from the original intent of the proposal. We have allowed the DOE and the EPA to set standards that endanger the environment and human health. Yet no one seems to be willing to pull the plug on this foolhardy idea. This Nation has a serious waste problem. Every year our reactors create 2,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste. The only method of disposal this country has ever seriously studied is shipping the waste across the country and dumping it 90 miles outside of my hometown of Las Vegas, the fastest growing city in the country. But there are major problems with this plan. A central repository would not mean, let me emphasize, not mean that reactor sites around the country would be cleaned out. That is a myth. According to the government's shipping plans, in the year 2036, when Yucca Mountain is filled to capacity, there would still be 44,000 tons of nuclear waste stored at the reactor sites. That means that after 38 years of shipping high level waste through our cities and our towns, we will have reduced on-site storage of nuclear waste by a mere 4 percent. Why would we want to risk shipping nuclear waste across 43 States for 38 years if it makes no difference in the amount of waste stored on-site throughout the country? There are also very serious scientific concerns with the proposed dump. Yucca Mountain is located in an earthquake and volcanic eruption zone. Studies have shown that groundwater can travel through fissures in the mountain in a very short time frame, dissolve the waste and contaminate groundwater supplies, releasing deadly toxins into the environment of the Southwest. Recently an independent investigation by the General Accounting Office found that there were 293 unresolved scientific questions that the government had failed to address, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board expressed limited confidence in the DOE's work, calling it ''weak to moderate.'' Would any of us get on an airplane if the FAA said it had only limited confidence in the pilot's ability to take off and land? Would any of us drive across a bridge if its structure was described as weak to moderate? Would any of us take medication if the FDA said there were still 293 unresolved questions about its safety? The answer is obvious. The answer is no. Yet with Yucca Mountain, that is exactly what we are going to do. The nerve of this administration to pretend that this decision is based on sound science. If Congress approves this project, as many as 108,000 shipments of nuclear waste will travel through 43 States en route to Yucca Mountain. The government's own statistical models show that we can expect between 50 and 300 accidents involving nuclear waste. People make mistakes. Accidents happen. But an accident involving nuclear waste would be catastrophic, exposing whole communities to radiation and destroying the environment for thousands of years. The cost of evacuation and remediation would be astronomic, not to mention the unspeakable cost of human suffering. An even more devastating scenario would be a terrorist attack. We already know that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are looking for the material to go in a dirty bomb. These waste transports are exactly the type of target rich environment they are looking for. In the wake of 9/11, we cannot afford to be naive and believe that we are safe from people who would give up their own lives to end ours. Yucca Mountain will do nothing to fix the nuclear waste problem in our country. It will greatly exacerbate our vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks. With every truck, rail and barge shipment, our homeland security becomes more and more difficult to defend. The Yucca Mountain project will put us all at risk by transporting ''mobile Chernobyls'' through our communities, small towns and cities. If we cannot move the waste safely, then we should not be moving it at all. Many of my colleagues ask if there is an alternative. The PECO utility in Philadelphia has reached an agreement with the government in which the Department of Energy will take title to the waste, allowing the government to protect it in reinforced secure facilities without moving it around the country, and at the same time allowing the utility to lower its tax payments and its bottom line. In the long term, our country needs to invest its resources into emerging technologies seeking solutions to reduce volume, toxicity and half-life of nuclear waste. We also need to develop alternative renewable energy sources to relieve our dependence on foreign oil and nuclear power. Almost 50 years ago, the Department of Energy came to Nevada and asked us to bear the brunt of atomic testing. They assured Nevada test site workers and other citizens in my State that sound science demonstrated these tests were not harmful. Many of these workers are now dead, their families devastated, and this government can never clean up that legacy. Now the Department of Energy is coming to Nevada yet again and asking us to put trust in them like they did our parents and our grandparents. Well, this Congresswoman and mother of two is going to stand up to the Federal Government and say, no, I will not let my children become the cancerous legacy of the DOE's disingenuous promise of safety and sound science. I urge Members to vote ''no'' on this resolution. It is a bad one. It is a bad one for our families. It is a bad one for our country. Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a distinguished member of our committee and a lieutenant colonel of the Army Reserves. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this joint resolution. I am also proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. The vote that Congress will be taking today says that after 20 years of exhaustive scientific analysis the government is ready to designate Yucca Mountain--a barren, windswept desert ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas--a safe site and move to the licensing phase for the development of an underground disposal facility. The industry, environmental, labor, consumer and business groups have applauded the President and Secretary Abraham for making this decision on sound science. The administration is acting responsibly to fulfill the Federal Government's longstanding obligation to the American people to safely isolate and dispose of used nuclear fuel and defense waste. Now Congress must act to affirm President Bush's decision and advance the Nation's energy, economic and environmental security. There has been and will be a lot of discussion today on transporting of nuclear waste. Numerous Members have come before this body and have expressed concerns about the safety of transporting spent nuclear fuel. The truth is their concerns are misguided. You cannot argue with the fact that almost 3,000 safe shipments of used nuclear fuel have taken place without any release of radioactive material. That is right. On some 3,000 occasions, used fuel has traveled by truck or rail across the country, including almost 500 in my home State of Illinois. The reason you probably have not heard about this is because not one of these shipments has threatened the environment or public safety. States like Illinois, which currently has 11 nuclear reactors and gets almost half of our electricity from nuclear power, have gone to great lengths to set up a system that will ensure safe transportation of nuclear waste through the State and across State lines.
[Time: 13:15] They inspect the trucks and trains; they inspect the roads, the rail lines. They have set up emergency response systems with local governments. They coordinate all routes with the Federal Government; and most of all, they ensure that the citizens of Illinois remain safe. Transporting spent nuclear material is safe. It has been proven to be safe, and there is no reason to doubt that it will remain safe. The State of Nevada has a tremendous nuclear legacy, as identified by this recently approved Nevada State license plate. The State of Nevada can again fulfill their nuclear legacy and continue to aid this Nation and our citizens by safely storing high-level nuclear waste for our country. I ask all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the transportation of this waste will require over 96,000 truck shipments over 4 decades. Almost every major east-west interstate highway and mainland railroad in the country will experience high-level waste shipments. More highly-radioactive waste will be shipped in the first full year of repository operations than has been transported in the entire 5-decade history of spent fuel shipments in the United States. The Department of Energy proposes to directly impact 44 States and many of the major metropolitan areas in the Nation. At least 109 cities with populations exceeding 100,000, including my constituents in Cleveland, Ohio, will be subjected to repeated shipments with minimal safeguards. Highway shipments alone will impact at least 703 counties with a combined population of 123 million people. Nationally, 11 million people reside within one-half mile of a truck or rail route. This never-before-attempted radioactive materials transportation effort will bring with it many risks, including potentially serious economic damage and property value losses in cities and communities along shipping routes. The poorly tested transportation casks may be vulnerable to highway accidents and security breaches. Because of a lack of rail facilities to several reactors, the Department of Energy will use barge shipments to move this waste to a port capable of transferring the 120-ton cask to a train. Some of these shipments will occur on the Great Lakes, the world's largest source of fresh water. Over 35 million people living in the Great Lakes basin use it for drinking water. The Federal Government must radically improve the safety and security of these shipments, and that is the purpose of the Nuclear Waste Transportation Protection Amendments Act of 2002 which I have introduced. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would, one, require comprehensive nuclear waste transportation safety programs; two, protect populated communities; three, establish that the oldest fuel first should be shipped; four, require full-scale cask testing; five, require State and local route consultations; six, private carrier prohibitions; seven, advanced notification; and, eight, safety precautions. Vote against this legislation. Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by recognizing the outstanding efforts the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), our committee chairman; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our ranking member; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), our subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), our ranking subcommittee member. They have done an excellent job on a very important piece of legislation. As an original cosponsor, I rise to wholeheartedly support this legislation. As we discuss energy self-sufficiency and national security, we must keep in mind that nuclear energy is an important part of a balanced energy portfolio. This Nation has 103 reactors that have a unique ability to power economic growth without polluting our air. This is the only expandable, large-scale electricity source that avoids emissions. Nuclear power is reliable and affordable, with production costs lower than coal and natural gas plants. Today, nuclear energy produces 20 percent of our electricity and is essential to our national security. However, it is important to recognize that there must be permanent disposal of nuclear waste. This is a reality which must be addressed and which we are trying to deal with here today. Electricity consumers under the National Nuclear Waste Policy Act have committed $18 billion since 1983 to pay for the disposal and storage of nuclear waste. The Federal Government has spent $7 billion in this same period to study Yucca Mountain, and we are right now overdue in fulfilling our commitment to electricity consumers. In my own State of Maryland, consumers have paid $237 million into the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund since 1983. We in the State of Maryland are expecting the Federal Government to reach a conclusion. I believe the rest of the country feels the same. Yucca Mountain is a safe site for all Americans. Currently, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored in 131 above-ground facilities in 39 States. Mr. Speaker, 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of these sites. One central site provides more protection for this material than do the existing 131 sites. After 20 years of research, billions of dollars of carefully planned and reviewed scientific field work, the Department of Energy has concluded that the repository at Yucca Mountain brings together the location, the natural barriers, and the design elements most likely to protect the health and safety of the public, including those Americans living in the immediate vicinity. Used nuclear fuel storage in current power plants is safe, but nuclear power plants are not designed for long-term disposal. Permanent disposal, permanent long-term disposal will be managed by the Federal Government under this bill. The fuel will be stored 1,000 feet underground where it will be more secure. Now, many people today have talked about transportation issues. We have empirical experience. After 45 years of experience and 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel by rail and by truck, no radiation releases, no fatalities, injuries or environmental damage have occurred because of the radioactivity of the cargo. The Department of Energy will coordinate transportation routes with local and State officials so local communities will not be excluded from this process. When operational, there will only be one or two shipments per day. This is the reality. This is the challenge that Congress has been asked to address. With 20 percent of our electricity produced by nuclear power plants, how do we dispose of it? We have studied it for 20 years. The American taxpayers have paid billions of dollars to have it disposed of. We have a site and we have sound science. I urge us to pass this resolution and dispose of nuclear waste. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers). (Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this proposal. Under this particular plan, over 100,000 train, truck, and barge shipments, each carrying deadly, high-level nuclear waste, would have to go through 45 States, over 300 congressional districts, and hundreds of cities and towns; and 77,000 tons of nuclear waste would have to be relocated, which would require up to 108,000, 108,000 truck, rail, and barge shipments over 38 years. Based on the Department of Energy estimates, a nuclear waste shipment would have to leave a site somewhere in the United States every 4 hours for 24 years. Three thousand barge shipments may be necessary, including shipments on the world's largest fresh water source, the Great Lakes, which surround my beautiful State, to reach this plant. So far, over 16 million Americans would be projected to live within a half mile of proposed nuclear transportation routes. The shipping containers now available cannot resist explosives or fires associated with truck and rail accidents. Proponents speak with a confidence belied by actual experience. The entire history of nuclear shipments to date [Page: H2187] We will hear from other speakers that legitimate doubts exist as to the safety of the proposed site and that even if approved, the Yucca Mountain solution does not come close to solving the Nation's nuclear waste problem. After 30 to 40 years of continuous shipping of nuclear waste through our cities and towns, so much more waste will have been produced, but there will be hardly a dent in today's problem. Additionally, the cost of the Yucca Mountain project is spiraling out of control. A few years ago, the Energy Department said it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Now they say it is $56 billion. Independent estimates of the costs soar into the hundreds of billions, some up to $309 billion. The nuclear waste trust fund has only $11 billion in it. Where is the money going to come from? More taxes? Social Security? How will we pay the cost of this proposal? Taxpayers should not end up footing the bill for the power industry's spent fuel. ''No'' is the right vote. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to apologize to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). In the motion on the point of order, I was trying to be humorous and if I offended the gentleman in any way, I am prepared to ask that my own words be taken down, because the last thing in the world I want this body or the country to feel is that I do not have the utmost and total respect for the gentleman from Nevada and the fine work that he has done on behalf of his constituents. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity. Certainly I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and his words are very serious to me. I want the gentleman to know that we take this debate very seriously. I appreciate the gentleman's concern and his remarks, and certainly no offense was taken. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to move a resolution that would move forward the process that would ultimately result in a site being selected to store high-level nuclear waste that has been generated primarily by our civilian nuclear reactors in this country. Those reactors have been generating electricity for the American people for the last approximately 40 years. Today, 20 percent of our Nation's electricity is generated by nuclear power generators. At the time those power plants were put into operation, there was not a plan on where to store the high-level nuclear waste, because at that time it was assumed that the Congress and the industry and the various advocacy and stakeholder groups would mutually agree on a plan and a site, or sites. That has not happened for a number of reasons. Nuclear power has become very controversial. The issue of where to store the waste has been used as a surrogate on whether one was for or against nuclear power, which brings us to today. In 1987, we passed a series of amendments in an appropriations bill that said we are going to store this waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Since that time, we have spent approximately $7 billion trying to determine whether, in fact, that was a wise decision. There have been hundreds of thousands of studies, hundreds of thousands of man-hours spent conducting studies, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, to determine whether it is safe to store the high-level nuclear waste out at Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy submitted a recommendation to the President; the recommendation to the President said that they think it is safe. The outside policy review board that has the watchdog opportunity has said that that recommendation is weak to moderate, but the technical issues that are outstanding can be resolved in the next several years. So this resolution simply says the Governor's objection to that decision, the Governor of Nevada, the State in which the repository would be located, not withstanding that the Congress goes on record telling the Department of Energy that it can go ahead and go forward with the licensing application process to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Now, I would point out that there is nothing absolutely certain in life except death. We are all going to die. In the interim, we want to make our lives as positive and as constructive as possible; and in the modern era we want energy sources that are safe and efficient and reliable to make our lives as constructive as possible. Those that oppose the repository at Yucca Mountain because it is not 100 percent certain that over the next 400,000 years there is absolutely no way that something wrong can go wrong are asking for the impossible.
[Time: 13:30] I cannot guarantee that when I walk out of this Chamber to go back to my office, if I cross the street, that a car will not hit me. I do not think it will, but I cannot guarantee that I will not have some sort of an accident just walking from here back to the Rayburn Office Building. The probabilities are that I will not. If we look at all the scientific evidence that has been prepared on Yucca Mountain, it shows that to the degree that men and women can provide certainty, we are certain that for the next 10,000 years the repository at Yucca Mountain will be safe. So I would ask when it comes time to have this vote that we vote to send this resolution to the other body and we say that we believe that we need to make a decision to have a repository, and that repository should be at Yucca Mountain. Then we will work together in a bipartisan fashion to guarantee the transportation issues, to guarantee the safety and scientific issues so that the repository can be built and maintained in a safe and effective fashion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, the first time I heard about the concept of placing this waste at Yucca Mountain a few years ago, I thought it was a very good idea. I thought so for one reason: Nevada is not Texas. I think that is the main reason why so many people approve of the Yucca Mountain site today, because Nevada is not South Carolina, it is not Maine, and it is not California. But as one of my neighbors, Molly Ivins, pointed out recently in a column, ''putting the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain is Nevada's problem. Getting it there is ours.'' These transportation routes will affect not just Nevada, but families in most every State in the country. Indeed, one of the routes the Energy Department had on its list until recently, consistent with some of the comments that we do not need to worry about transportation, was within sight of the United States Capitol. They were proposing to run this nuclear waste through Washington. To the gentleman who came and said that we have never had a problem hauling nuclear waste, I submit that his statement is about as persuasive as someone who stood on this floor last year and said an airplane has never been used as a bomb. Things are different after September 11, and are we increasing the risk to the American people, increasing the exposure, by having these ''mobile Chernobyls'' crossing the country back and forth, affecting millions and millions of United States citizens. Or would we be better off looking for alternatives to nuclear power and looking for long-term alternatives to Yucca Mountain? The truth of the matter is that if we really recognize how long this waste is going to be dangerous, the NIMBY approach, not in my backyard, one needs to recognize that Nevada is in the backyard of everyone in this country. It cannot be isolated from everyone else. The other big issue is not just the length of the time, the question is whether we want to have an incentive for more and more of this waste to be generated. They say, ''If you build it [Page: H2188] Finally, I have to say that I particularly want to applaud the leadership of the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). She has been unceasing in bringing to our attention all of the implications of this very serious mistake that has been proposed. I know there is some bipartisan support for it, but it is troubling that a Republican President and a House Republican leadership would so aggressively promote this unfortunate resolution, and that we would be told by Republican leaders during debate that this is ''Nevada's legacy.'' It is a legacy we will all be stuck with if this measure is approved. Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, few issues could be more important to the future security of the United States than passage of House Joint Resolution 87. For over two decades, scientists have subjected the suitability of Yucca Mountain to intense scrutiny, at a cost of more than $7 billion. It has been concluded that radioactive material can be safely stored deep underground in this area. Today, this material is located at 131 different sites around the country in temporary above-ground storage. As a result, almost 162 million people live within 75 miles of one of these temporary storage facilities. Consolidating this material in one safe, secure underground location is the rational answer to the waste disposal question. Furthermore, by moving excess waste from commercial and decommissioned plants, we will remove 131 targets from a potential terrorist attack. Some would make an issue of transportation. The Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has ensured that many precautions are taken when transporting nuclear materials relating to routing, security, tracking of progress via satellite on a 24-hour basis, and coordination with State officials. To date, we have transported more than 2,700 shipments of spent nuclear fuel over the last 30 years, traveling over 1.6 million miles without any harmful release of radiation. Preliminary route selection and detailed planning will begin at least 5 years before the first shipment takes place. Nothing is perfect, but I would say, as a rural electric cooperative manager, I worked to promote alternative energy sources 9 years before coming to Congress. Our membership thought it important to invest in alternative energy sources such as nuclear as a means to balance our energy budget. This was in 1970. The 103 operating nuclear power plants in the United States are providing 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. In fact, nuclear power supplies 10 percent of the electricity generated in Texas, including that produced by TXU's Comanche Peak plant in my district. Please join me in supporting the Federal Government's commitment to safely store nuclear fuel by voting for House Joint Resolution 87. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I, too, would like to compliment my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). They have been good adversaries on this issue from the start. Let me read the President's signing statement when he signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act: ''The Nuclear Waste Policy Act which I am signing today provides the long overdue assurance that we now have a safe and effective solution to the nuclear waste problem. It allows the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibilities concerning nuclear waste in a timely and responsible manner.'' The President was Ronald Reagan. The date was January 7, 1983, nearly 20 years ago. The other side, the opponents of this legislation, say that we have not had enough study. We have not spent enough money. Well, we have spent nearly $15 billion getting this site ready, decades in time. Where is this site, Yucca Mountain? Well, it is on Federal land. It is close, if not contiguous, to where we have done nuclear testing for decades. It will never be a vacation spot. Many of the detractors that have spoken today and will speak have always been against nuclear power, which, by the way, provides nearly 20 percent of our Nation's power. Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the gentleman was when the nuclear power decision was made. I do know where I was, elementary school, a long, long time ago. When the decision was made, the Federal Government said it would take care of the long-term safety and storage of high-level nuclear waste. This was confirmed by the courts. For my district we have two nuclear plants, both on the shores of Lake Michigan. These two are among 103 throughout the country. Every single one of these facilities is an environmentally sensitive area. Many have run out of room for the storage of high-level nuclear waste. I have seen the lead-lined cement silos in the dunes of Lake Michigan. Yes, they are safe for now, but I do not know that they are safe for 1,000 years, let alone 10,000 years, as will be certified in Nevada before it will accept nuclear waste, still more than a decade away. The process for safe storage started nearly 40 years ago. We need to finish the job today. Safe storage and safe transportation of high-level nuclear waste in one safe place is essential, particularly with the events of 9/11. We have shipped more than 1,700 shipments of high-level nuclear waste more than 1 million miles across this country without a single release of radioactivity. I know that that track record can continue. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the other body. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time remains controlled by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin)? The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Twenty-four and one-half minutes. Mr. MARKEY. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for us to get a review of the time that each of us has at this point? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 42 1/2 minutes. Mr. MARKEY. And the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn)? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 9 1/2 minutes. Mr. MARKEY. I think it would be appropriate, if the gentleman would not mind, for me to recognize a few of our Members right now so that the time would come down. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Did the Speaker say that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) had 42 1/2 minutes? The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is what the Chair was advised. That is correct. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. When the total time was only 40 minutes, how does he get 42 1/2 minutes? The SPEAKER pro tempore. No, the time controlled originally was 1 hour on each side, 2 hours total between proponents and opponents. There is 24 1/2 minutes remaining for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), 42 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and 9 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). Mr. MARKEY. If I may at this point, there was an hour divided evenly between opponents and proponents, and generously, the majority has relinquished 20 of its 60 minutes to the minority that shares the same views in support of Yucca Mountain. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) object to the gentleman from Massachusetts' suggestion to have two or three speakers in sequence due to the imbalance? Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am sorry, I did not know that he had a pending request. What was the request? [Page: H2189] Mr. MARKEY. The request was that I be allowed to recognize---- Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would generously allow the gentleman from Massachusetts be allowed to recognize two or three of his speakers in sequence. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson). Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I am from the West. This is not the first time the West has been asked to shoulder the nuclear burden of our country. Dozens of atom bombs were detonated at the Nevada test site between 1951 and 1963. The West was chosen because as long as the winds were blowing east, the fallout avoided big cities and traveled over sparsely populated Nevada and Utah towns. I remember my father telling me how people in southern Utah would watch the sky light up, and how southern Utahans supported the program because they were strong patriots who believed in their country and they trusted their government. In the 1970s, my father, then the Governor of Utah, was puzzled over an alarming number of cancer deaths among our family and friends in southern Utah. Over and over he read ''cancer'' on death certificates of family members, more than 50 aunts, uncles, and cousins. The Federal Government told us we were safe, but the Federal Government knew we were at risk. On October 7, 1990, my father died at age 61 from a cancer called multiple myeloma. Thousands of citizens throughout the West continue to get sick and die from radiation exposure-caused illnesses. We saw a picture of a license plate talking about the nuclear legacy of Nevada. That is a legacy of which we should be ashamed. Why are we moving this waste at this time? We are not running out of storage space at existing sites, and in the coming years, technological advancements in reprocessing and recycling may very well take care of much of the waste. That brings us to the real fallacy of this entire exercise. If Members think a vote for Yucca Mountain gets rid of the waste in Members' backyards, they are wrong. As long as power plants are operating, new waste will need to stay put on-site for up to 10 years to cool down before it can be shipped. I can tell the Members as son of a downwinder and a Congressman who represents thousands of sick, dying, and widowed victims of our nuclear testing that the Federal record on this issue has been appalling. Our Nation is one of shared responsibility. By opposing the transcontinental shipment of nuclear waste, we take care of all those millions of people who live along the roads and tracks to Yucca Mountain. We protect their future from what is an unfortunate legacy of my own State. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kindness in yielding me time. I think the very passionate words of our good friend, the gentleman from Utah, should really speak to the concerns that we bring to the floor of the House today. Let me acknowledge the leadership of the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkeley) for the passion that she has given to this issue. But I really think that we are here today to begin a discussion on whether or not nuclear energy should be at the forefront of the policies of the United States of America, whether or not we need to begin looking at conservation and other issues, because let me tell the Members what is bad about this particular proposal: It is bad science. As a member of the Committee on Science, let me tell the Members that we are not complying with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed by this Congress 20 years ago. We are not adhering to good science. Just recently, the General Accounting Office found 293 defects in the research and advised the Bush administration to hold off on passing this resolution until 2006. If my math serves me right, I believe we are in 2002. This is the concern that those of us who live in communities who have nuclear waste and have nuclear power plants have. I would imagine those individuals are now looking at the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) on the floor of the House and asking, why are you speaking against your own neighborhood?
[Time: 13:45] I am speaking for America and what is going to happen to the thousands of neighborhoods and schools which this waste will be traveling by and endangering the lives of those who are seeking only to live in this country with a great quality of life. My friend from Utah (Mr. Matheson) said it all. People are dying of cancer. People are dying because they have been exposed to radiation with no good science. Let us not make the same mistakes. Let us implement a process of good science. Let us wait until 2006. Let us get rid of 293 defects. Let us not have the children of America looking outside their window, and rather than saying hello to the choo-choo train, they are looking at a deadly disaster that may happen in their neighborhoods. I do not mind standing up with the few and the brave, recognizing that someone has to speak out. We have to change our attitude, and I would say we have to reject $40 million in lobbying for the Yucca Mountain. I oppose H.J. Res. 87 and I ask my colleagues to do so. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.J. Res. 87. We need a coherent national strategy dealing with nuclear waste, but this decision is about local control. It is inappropriate for us to be micromanaging Nevada on something that is so important. We should allow the governor to do his job. He has decided that the Yucca Mountain proposal is too dangerous to pursue any further and we should not intervene in what is a State and local decision. I am also concerned about the issue, not just about the Members of Congress, but as neighbors of hundreds of thousands of people who could be harmed by the transportation of this through an accident that could occur. The Department of Energy may be way too tightlipped about the transportation routes that waste would travel across the country on its way to Yucca Mountain, but two things are certain. One, a very large percentage of the waste would travel through my district, the Inland Empire. Two, accidents will happen while transporting the spent nuclear fuel. If you look at the map, virtually all the rails and routes would be used through San Bernardino County, California, my home. Half of the country saw Spiderman this weekend. Well, we are in the center of a nuclear transportation web. The thought of it makes me angry. The thought of it scares me, and it should scare my colleagues on both sides of the aisle from the Inland Empire. I call on all the Members from Inland Empire and Southern California to come together and oppose Yucca Mountain. Why should our constituents be forced to face so much more of a risk of danger and other activities that may affect them? Even the most conservative Energy Department studies say that many accidents will occur and it is more likely it will occur in transportation hubs like my district where we had recently a derailment of a train that caused a lot of the homes in the areas to start burning in the immediate area. With this proposal, we will create thousands of moving targets for terrorists. We know what happened on September 11 with the airplanes crashing in the World Trade Center. Terrorists would not need a dirty bomb because we will have thousands of them crawling across the Nation just waiting for a fuse to ignite them, killing hundreds and thousands of people. People are already living in fear. We do not need to put additional people in fear. I ask all Members to oppose this resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize one additional speaker of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and then will go back to the rotation. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). [Page: H2190] (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I feel a little like Yogi Berra when he said, ''This is deja vu all over again.'' I was in the State of Washington in 1980 when we had exactly this, they were going to put all this in Hanford. We had a governor who said, bring it all in. Bring it all in. Dixie Lee Ray. And we got an initiative. We have collected the signatures and 75 percent of the people in the State voted no, we do not want to accept all the waste from the country. And she was defeated. I knocked her out in the primary of that election. Now, what you are looking at is this old business about NIMBY. It is not in my back yard. Throw it over the fence. Well, you cannot throw nuclear waste over the fence. And if you try, you will be putting it in trucks and railroads all over this country. And if you did not see what happened in Baltimore just a couple weeks ago where they had a train wreck in that tunnel and two Amtrak train wrecks in the last month, think about what happens in your neighborhoods if that happens. Now, all Members who are voting yes are thinking thank God it is not going to be in my neighborhood. But the fact is it is going to be in your neighborhood. It is going to be on the roads. It is going to be on the trains. It is going to be going past schools and hospitals. And when that issue comes to you, as it did in the State of Washington, suddenly all of the county sheriffs are saying, we do not know what we are going to do with all these trucks coming by and we do not know if there is a fire. We will need more money. You will wind up giving yourself one headache because this is being rushed through for one reason: The President has got the September 11 flag and he is waving it around and wrapping himself in it and saying, We got to have nuclear power, and if we do not get rid of the nuclear waste, we cannot have nuclear power. So he sees his chance. He wants to ram this through in spite of the fact that the GAO says there are 293 problems. How can you go home and defend to your people that you just ignored those problems? Vote no. Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of misunderstanding today. I have heard a lot of Members making some rather terrifying speeches. I have heard a lot of important statements, and some of them have been factual. I would ask that you listen to me because I want to tell you what is going on. First of all, this is not about putting nuclear waste anywhere. Second of all, it is not about moving nuclear waste anywhere or moving it down any particular road. It is just about a step in a process to move forward to decide ultimately where and how we are going to put all this nuclear waste. Are there problems with it at this stage? Of course. Somebody said 293. There may be that. There may be more. But we spent $7 billion to characterize Yucca Mountain as a site. Nothing is going to happen when we pass this bill except that about 2 years down the road the NRC is going to commence a licensing process to license a permanent storage repository to receive the nuclear waste. That will be an open process. Everybody will be permitted to have their say. Members of Congress here who are complaining, all of their constituents, any industry, you name it, can all have their say in that process. It is going to be a thoroughly open process. Now, there are going to be environmental problems whatever course we take. We can leave this nuclear waste where it is. It is in pools. It is in neighborhoods in your districts and mine. We can leave it there, and it is going to create a lot of nuclear problems. We can set up some other alternatives such as dry cask storage, and that is going to make nuclear problems, and they are going to remain in your neighborhoods and in my neighborhood. Now, I am not an advocate of putting this anywhere. I am not an advocate of putting it in Yucca Mountain or not putting it in Yucca Mountain. I am simply an advocate of this Congress functioning responsibly, to come to a decision on a major problem which we have, a major energy problem, a major environmental problem, a major land use problem, a major concern to the people of this country. We are producing nuclear waste at nuclear power plants and we are producing it in connection with our defense activities. That nuclear waste is going to go somewhere. Right now it is scattered around the country in all kinds of places, and it is a hazard to your constituents and mine. We have got to have some resolution to this problem of nuclear waste storage, and it has got to be reasonable, intelligent, and we have got to come to the best solution we can. I mentioned we have already spent $7 billion to characterize this site, and we will have to spend a lot more. I do not know what the licensing process is going to cost, but it is going to be plenty. As I mentioned, it is going to be open. Ultimately, we have to address the problem. Whatever we do is going to create environmental difficulties. It will be the responsibility of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and of this Congress and of NRC, of the executive department of government, of EPA and all of the other agencies, to see that the process is conducted in a way which is safe, which creates a minimum of hazard, to see that the transportation is done as safely as it can be done with as little risk as possible to the community and the people through which it passes. It will also be our responsibility to see to it that all of the questions which remain to be answered are answered. That will be a part of the licensing process, which is going to go on for something like 4 to 6 years after we conclude this. The probabilities are that the decision will not be made until some time around 2010 or perhaps even later. I think it makes good sense that this body should exercise ordinary responsibility. We have a duty to the people to resolve this question. We are setting about taking another step towards the conclusion of an open process to arrive at a decision, followed by the licensing process which will take place at NRC and, as I mentioned, that will be fully open. EPA will be participating in that. Every other citizen who has a concern will. My advice to this body is proceed. We are simply taking a step forward. Let us take that step forward and make the process work in an open fashion for the benefit of all us. Let us resolve the question today. Vote aye. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee, who is sartorially resplendent. Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of this, I rise in very, very strong support of this resolution. The selection of Yucca Mountain as a permanent nuclear waste repository is probably one of the most important questions that can face this Congress and for years to come. As we all know, and it has been said over and over again, over 45,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel are currently scattered across the country in some 70-plus sites across our Nation. Clearly, clearly, it is in the American public's best interest to construct one permanent, highly secured repository for this waste. And, hopefully, one day a lot less of the waste as we get our mixed oxide fuel plants built and we can reduce the volume of this waste, which is where I hope we are going. Twenty years ago the Nuclear Waste Policy Act set a policy in motion. Twenty years ago. The DOE has now spent over $6.7 billion on characterization and development activities at Yucca Mountain. Now, part of this debate really ought to be why in the world has it taken 20 years to solve this problem after spending $7 billion, not to speak of the millions of dollars that ratepayers have spent? Having been to Yucca Mountain, I believe the dollars spent have yielde |