Jim Gibbons

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, it seems that we have been called a lot of things this evening, especially obstructionists. Well, I think those people who are opposing these amendments are the obstructionists. What we are talking about here is response team funding, paying money out to save people's lives, human lives. The health of humanity, the environment is at risk here. The safety of the citizens is a responsibility of the Governors in these 43 States through which this material is going to be transported. They need the resources to make sure that we are doing this safely in the event of that actuality of an accident that is bound to happen. By the way, let me also take a little time here to talk a little bit about ``Indiana Michigan Power versus DOE.'' I want to dispel these myths about the law as it now stands. It does not require the Federal Government to take into possession this nuclear material. It says that in the event of an unavoidable delay, in the event of an unavoidable delay, the parties are to readjust schedules as appropriate to accommodate the delay. It does not mandate that the Federal Government take possession of this in 1998. It does nothing that all of this hyperbole that we hear from the opponents of this amendment say. This case literally does not require the Federal Government to take possession of that.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Members for allowing me to present my argument on this matter. Mr. Chairman, I notice my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, talks about the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause regulates commerce among the several States, but it is the 10th Amendment which reserves those powers not expressly delegated to the Federal Government to the States themselves and to the people. It is the health and safety of the people of those States through which this transport of hazardous nuclear waste material is going to take place. Those Governors have the right, notwithstanding any other arguments that I have heard here before, to regulate and ask that the safety of their constituents be protected. Let me also say something my mother said to me, that ``If you fail to prepare, you are preparing to fail.'' Governors across this Nation should prepare their response teams for the inevitable accident of nuclear waste. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this, support this in the name of safety, support this in the name of States' rights.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to this. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me State we are not just simply picking this stuff up and placing it down here without any transportation occurring throughout the course of 43 different States. It is not irresponsible for Governors to want to work and present and protect the safety of their citizens. I think it is irresponsible of a Governor who does not do that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First, I find it odd that people would object to a cost-benefit analysis. It is a tool that is commonly used in private businesses throughout America. It is widely accepted in academia as a tool by which we make sound judgment for sound policy about what we are doing in this Nation. If Members want to talk about risk, let us look at the environmental hazards that are posed by transportation of nuclear waste around America. Let us look at the idea that this bill tells us that we can ignore all those environmental laws that we have talked about earlier. Let us look at the fact that we have got a train wreck right here. This is a risk, Mr. Chairman. This is a risk for America. We need to look at these risks, and we need to analyze what is going to be the benefit or what is going to be the cost. Once again, take a look at where all of these risks are going to take place. That is 43 States in this country. Forty-three States ought to have an opportunity to evaluate the risks of this bill and to analyze the costs that are going to be involved to these States with the transportation of this material through those States, through those communities, next to those schools with kids playing out there if an accident occurs. This is a critically important amendment for this bill. It is an amendment which is going to allow States or require the Secretary of Energy to perform those analyses, to evaluate those risks, and to take appropriate actions with that information.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate having the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] being a straight man for this whole event today. Let me say that with regard to those people who believe that the ratepayers have paid into the fund enough money, let me say that this stuff is going to be around for thousands and thousands of years. I hope they are ready to keep paying, and paying, and paying, because they are going to have to pick up the responsibility if the taxpayers do not for the continued storage of this material at Yucca Mountain. Let me talk about the suitability of Yucca Mountain, if I may, real briefly. First of all, I am a geologist and I truly understand some of the problems we have got with suitability. If we keep lowering the standards, sure, we can make it suitable for storage. The problem is that we are taking away the safety standards of this site. Earthquakes, 33 known earthquake faults lie directly through this site in the Yucca Mountain area, and over the last several years, there have been over 600 earthquakes in the surrounding 5\1/2\ miles that have impacted this. Earthquakes that raise the water table, that would surround and, in fact, could flood the repository, putting the canisters in harm of polluting the water table. This groundwater contamination has been proven already. We have already got a study by the National Science Foundation that shows that plutonium has migrated almost 1 mile, 1 mile, into the ground through the rocks and is now approaching the water table, dangerously close to the supply of water for Southern California, Southern Nevada, et cetera. There is volcanic activity simply 20 kilometers away from the site. There are dormant volcanoes that could erupt at any time. From a geologic standpoint, they are active, not dormant. They are merely sitting there waiting for their opportunity to explode and damage the Yucca Mountain site. Let me say also, there is concern there by scientists about the spontaneous atomic explosion that might occur. Some scientists have expressed that. Let me say that this bill is the wrong approach and Yucca Mountain is the wrong site.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I do want to address some of the myths that I have heard expressed here today about H.R. 1270. First of all, I want to address the issue of the ostrich policy, of sticking your head in the sand and hoping that nobody else sees the problem. When I was a child, this reminds me of what my mother told me about 3 monkeys. Hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. It is odd that those people who are in support of this bill are exactly those ones who have nuclear waste in their backyard that want to get it out. They are the ones that have benefited from this issue. Now they want to get rid of it and they want to get rid of it by the most expedient method possible, getting it wherever it is into the State of Nevada. Let me address the issue about the interim storage site versus the permanent storage site. They are not one and the same. They are miles apart. The interim storage site is a nuclear test site. Yes, indeed we did detonate some nuclear weapons there years ago. We regret we did that. We regret that the State of Nevada almost paid the whole price for the nuclear industry. But the permanent site is miles away. It is not even co-located. We are making two sites in Nevada, not one. Second, we are not talking about some magic cosmic mode of transportation. We are not just picking this stuff up and then setting it down, as I heard someone say earlier. What we are doing is shipping this through communities, 43 States, hundreds of communities, numerous schools with children at play. Let me say when we look at this map here, this is where we are sending it through this country. These are the rail and highway systems through which we are bringing most of it from east of the Mississippi River, west to Nevada, right there. Transportation is probably the biggest issue we have got here today. The likelihood of an accident is more than just a remote possibility. It is a reality. When we look at this accident, this is a train accident, a recent train accident. I hope people vote against this. Let me talk about some of the standards that I have heard here today. We have dropped one of these casks from a standard height of 30 feet. Mr. Chairman, it is 450 feet off Hoover Dam to the bottom. That is a little more than 30 feet. This cask would not stand up to the drop of 450 feet into the bottom of the Colorado River at the base of this dam. I guarantee my colleagues that this cask would be in that water more than 8 hours. Fires with metal containing titanium or other metals burn at a temperature of in excess of 3,000 degrees. That is a little more than the fire that they have exposed these casks to. This is a kind of accident that could occur, that will occur if we allow this stuff, this nuclear waste, the most dangerous stuff known to man, to be transported across our community, through our States, next to schools. It is a danger to every American. We ought to oppose this bill. We ought to reject it outright, and we ought to change the policy from burial.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today this body will consider a bill that will mandate transportation of the world's deadliest material through nearly every community in this Nation. How can this bill that will send nuclear waste through our national parks, over our rivers, near schools meet the environmental standards of this country? The answer is simple. It cannot, it will not, it never will. H.R. 1270 ignores these requirements. This bill is in direct violation of the National Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, to name a few. Knowing of this bill's blatant disregard for the environmental safety, I offered an amendment before the Rules Committee that simply stated H.R. 1270 must comply with current environmental laws. It was rejected. It was rejected because if it was debated on this floor, it would pass. It was rejected because the nuclear power lobby spent $13 million making sure the Members of this body who oppose this bill will never have a voice in opposition heard. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I did want to respond, of course, to some of the assertions made by my colleague from Minnesota that the Federal court has obligated us to accept the nuclear energy industry's waste. That is just not so. H.R. 1270 will state that the Federal court is legally bound to begin accepting waste by January 31, 1998. That is not what the court said. The court ruled, in Indiana Michigan Power versus DOE, that the Department of Energy needs to determine whether or not the delay in beginning the disposal of spent fuel is unavoidable within the meaning of Article IX of their contract. Article IX provides, in brief, that ``neither the Government nor the contractor or contract holder shall be liable for damages caused by failure to perform its obligations if such failure arises out of causes beyond and without the fault or negligence of the party failing to perform. In the event of an unavoidable delay, the parties are to readjust schedules as appropriate to accommodate the delay.'' Let me read that again: ``In the event of an unavoidable delay, the parties are to readjust schedules as appropriate to accommodate the delay.'' The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management contends that the delay was unavoidable and the Department of Energy would not be liable and not be required to accept this nuclear waste. My colleagues, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule because the House fails to understand that the law does not require the Federal Government to begin accepting nuclear waste. That is what the court said in Indiana Michigan Power versus DOE.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, few problems, if any, have been more challenging in recent years than the disposal of nuclear waste. I believe that sound science and reason and the protection of this Nation's citizens should be drawn upon when we address nuclear waste storage. H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, will mandate upon the State of Nevada and this Nation, the transportation of high level waste, while failing, yes, failing, to address the issues of environmental protection, safety, and the general well-being of all Americans. The disposal of nuclear waste is a problem that will exist for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Let us not be hasty when making policy decisions that may have serious repercussions well into the future. The policy of this Congress should not be a quick-fix approach to this serious problem. Members should not just wash their hands by protecting a subsidized industry, by transporting the most deadly material man has ever known, only to hide it in the ground. Members should understand and not sweep under the rug the dangers of this substance. We should address the problem itself, reprocessing, recycling, or changing the dangerous chemical properties of the waste. That is the direction that this body and the policy of this Nation should be headed. Many Members do not know what will be loaded onto the trains and trucks. Casks, filled with enough high level nuclear waste to contaminate entire communities, massive land resources, and entire water supplies. Each cask of nuclear waste holds 24 fuel assemblies. In terms of radioactivity, each fuel assembly contains 10 times the long-lived radioactivity released by the Hiroshima bomb. My constituents and colleagues, are your constituents aware of the danger of hauling over 70,000 tons of nuclear waste across this country? You should be, because the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 requires Federal agencies to consider alternatives, seek public comment and consider any and all environmental ramifications before proceeding with a major Federal action. However, NEPA and all other Federal and State laws are waived in this bill. A poll taken in December 1995 concluded that 70 percent of the American citizens are against transporting nuclear waste. Since that time, more studies have confirmed the opposition of a majority of Americans to transfer of this dangerous cargo across our Nation and through our communities. Thus far, over 400 private property, State's rights, environmental and fiscal watchdog groups have expressed their strong opposition to this bill. Likewise, American cities such as Los Angeles, Denver, St. Louis, and Philadelphia have spoken out against this act. To my colleagues who stand in favor of this drastic measure, if my voice were worth the $13 million the nuclear energy lobbyists have spent distorting the idea of temporary nuclear storage, we would be debating a bill to fund the implementation of recycling and reprocessing. And why not? It is happening right now in England and France. While families in these countries are safe from radioactivity and radioactive waste on their roads and railroads, we are debating a bill that will do just the opposite. Every day we come before this House on behalf of the American people to pass legislation that will protect them from things such as drugs, repeat criminal offenders on our streets, and potentially threatening foreign nations. Yet many of my colleagues now want to flood our roads and flood our railroads with deadly nuclear waste. H.R. 120 proposes that high level nuclear waste be stored at an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. Proponents contend this is the most suitable area for storage, as well as the safest. Well, just how safe does this sound to you? A study by the Geological Survey discovered 33 earthquake faults directly through the site. The area is seismically active. Since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of a magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain. For you in the new math, that is over 300 earthquakes a year. Another serious danger from this region's seismic activity involves the water table. Former senior DOE geologist, Jerry Szymanski, has found an earthquake could dramatically elevate the water table, flooding the repository with water and releasing radio nucleoids into our water supply. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the rule and final passage of H.R. 1270. I don't want to come back to this House and say I told you so.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, a letter circulated around Capitol Hill yesterday boasts that passing H.R. 1270 will save money. Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the severity of this issue, this letter would be laughable. This is yet another example of the nuclear industry distorting the truth. The truth is that H.R. 1270 will cost the American taxpayers $1.5 billion, that is with a ``B,'' over the next 5 years. Contrast this with the cost of onsite storage and the taxpayers will save, even then, close to $1 billion over the next 5 years. Rather than have high level nuclear waste transported through communities across this country, we could use this money to decrease the deficit, provide more tax relief for the American taxpayers, improve our roads, hire more teachers, or put more police officers on the street. I urge my colleagues to get the facts. Do not be fooled by the nuclear industry. This is a bad bill. It is a bad bill for all Americans. Oppose H.R. 1270.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. 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.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Chair's approval of the Journal.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, but wish to express my limited concerns. Mr. Speaker, this conference report reduces the Army National Guard end-strength by 5,000 soldiers. This reduction is made to reflect end- strength reductions determined by the Quadrennial Defense Review and agreed upon at an Army offsite meeting on force structure. But in this same agreement the Army was also supposed to take a cut of 5,000 soldiers in fiscal year 1998. However, I am disappointed that this bill only reduces the National Guard end-strength and does not reduce the end-strength of any other component. Mr. Speaker, this type of policy hurts future efforts to modernize our military, penalizing all our forces at the direct expense of the Army National Guard. With those concerns, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. GIBBONS

Mr. GIBBONS. If the gentleman will yield for point of correction, I think he said that that was a truck that was at an intersection that was loaded with explosives, or previously loaded with explosives, just hours before.

Mr. GIBBONS. One thousand five hundred, that is correct.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time again, that is exactly what the problem is here that we are facing today. It is a poor policy developed in the 1980's in order to provide an industry with an escape mechanism for something which we should have changed when we allowed them to build these nuclear reactors. Notwithstanding the issue of the nuclear reactor, what we are talking about is what should the policy of this country be with regard to the storage of nuclear waste? Current technology today indicates that these dry cask storage mechanisms that are on site at the nuclear powerplants are indeed safe for the next 25 to 75 years, if not a longer period of time for the storage of nuclear waste. During that time we have talked to a number of physicists from MIT to Brigham Young University regarding how we could better handle the nuclear waste; rather than just burying it in the ground to an uncertain fate or transporting it across this country with an exposure of danger to all the American people in its path, and that is twofold. One is recycling and reprocessing the material to be used by the reactors that are still in existence or, No. 2, developing the research and the technology that will allow us to change the radioactive hazard of the material. One physicist that I talked to, a professor from a university in Utah, indicated that he has just recently developed technology that will allow this material, the radioactive waste, to be converted through his process into titanium and copper, to relatively inert but precious metals that we can use in the industries around this country. But it is a far better policy to convert the nonuseful, very dangerous, very deadly toxic substance of nuclear waste into a rather inert valuable metal of titanium and copper. That is the policy that this country ought to be developing rather than the dangerous transportation and uncertain burial.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I would like to point out something specifically. The gentleman raised absolutely an important question that fails to be asked and answered publicly, and I am glad he brought the subject up. Yes, indeed, what we see today, for example let us take the State of Connecticut. It has four nuclear reactors and for the problem of safety they have shut those nuclear reactors down. They are not generating nuclear waste anymore, but they have it sitting in this dry cask storage or on site. They want to get it out of their backyard because the nuclear power company sees a serious problem and it is called a ``stranded capital'' problem. It will ultimately have to be responsible for the nuclear waste that that industry, that powerplants generated, unless it transfers that to the gullible taxpayer to take care of it. And that is what is driving this. If we look here, this chart provides a very insightful window on what is taking place in the nuclear industry. As the gentleman said, every powerplant that is in America today, due to its shelf life or operating life, is scheduled to shut down within the next 20 years or so. This nuclear waste takes 10,000 years to at least get through a half-life of most of it. They have been charging their customers a mill rate on the electricity generated to store this. And it has generated a trust fund. This indicates the balance by the mill rate paid by the end user of the electricity for that storage of about $600 million. But if we take the time from 1995 and spread it out, as those powerplants shut down the mill rate drops off. In other words, the fund balance goes to zero because expenses are still taking place. Well, it is that timeframe out there when the power plants are no longer producing electricity and those powerplants are no longer bringing in that revenue that that fund balance is zero. Well, guess who gets to pick up that fund difference for the storage, the monitoring, and the handling of that nuclear waste? The taxpayer. If I may say so, the cost of storage on site today has been told to us by the nuclear contractors who are capable in this field and have the knowledge of this field, but the cost of securing that material on site, where it is at even for the next 100, 75 to 100 years is about $300 million. And giving them the benefit of the doubt, add another $100 million in it, $400 million, even if they were wrong, the cost of shipping it, just shipping it across this country from the east coast to Yucca Mountain, is not $300 million, but $2.3 billion. Well, there is no way $2.3 billion is going to come out of this waste fund. So who picks that tab up? The taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, this is an unfunded mandate by a nuclear power industry that wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman from Nevada for reminding me of that fateful day when we proposed those amendments, and certainly were told that we could not offer those amendments; an amendment which would, in essence, protect children from transportation and the exposure to the transportation of nuclear waste by their schools. I am aware of that. Mr. Speaker, we would like to point out to everyone just exactly where the proposed railway and highway routes are going to be. Imagine, if you will, that 75 percent of all the nuclear waste in America is generated east of the Mississippi, and it is all coming right here to southern Nevada. Seventy-five percent of those 109 reactors are going to have to funnel their waste through what could be regular hub and spoke communities. For example, if we took St. Louis, MO, where I-70 passes through St. Louis, MO, crosses over the Mississippi River, an accident in St. Louis, MO, could have catastrophic results. As we recall, earlier, I would remind the gentleman today that we heard earlier about a train accident in West Virginia, a terrible catastrophe. In fact, there were two train accidents in the last several days in West Virginia: a head-on, two trains colliding head on, and a train intersecting or a train intersection where it impacted a truck.

Mr. GIBBONS. I am happy to yield to my colleague from district 1.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. It is absolutely mind boggling and the answer to his question is yes. Under the current law, and the laws that they want to pass with regard to this, we are indemnifying the transportation companies. They are going to haul this stuff clear across America and what do they have for responsibility or accountability? Zero, zip, nada, nothing. There is nothing that says they cannot go out and hire somebody who has never driven a truck before to haul this stuff around. If they crash off one of these bridges or leave the truck in the middle of a railway and they create a nuclear accident, that company that hired them, who should have known better, who had responsibility to do that, who had accountability for any other accident at any other department or any other material in America for any damage or environmental problem would be liable for that.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was H.G. Wells who was once quoted as saying, ``Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.'' Right now, Mr. Speaker, this Congress is in a race and we must not let catastrophe win. In examining both the education and catastrophe spectrum here, I would first like to do my part in educating the ladies and gentlemen of America, Mr. Speaker, on the facts concerning H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This legislation will mandate transportation of high-level radioactive nuclear waste by way of our national highways and railways. This deadly waste will traverse 43 States to a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, NV, that is right, through 43 States out of 50, traveling right alongside of you during your commute to work or on your weekend outing, or with your family over bridges that traverse your community's source of water, near schools where your sons and daughters are attending their education. On these routes will be nuclear, radioactive waste from 109 of our country's nuclear reactors. American citizens from Los Angeles to New York, from Atlanta to Denver, from Pittsburgh to Dallas, St. Louis to Tucson, Kansas City to Baton Rouge, Jacksonville to Chicago, and from here in Washington, DC, to Cleveland, are all in harm's way. That is exactly why it is important for us to educate Members on H.R. 1270.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, this is a Freeland, MI, picture of a train accident. Just say this accident occurred somewhere near one of those communities. Say it was Denver, CO; Kansas City; St. Louis, just name the place the stuff is going to go.