Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will not have any speakers. I rise in support of the bill. I would like to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer. I thank the chairman for his leadership and for his hard work to ensure that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is reauthorized. EPCA provides the authority for the U.S. to cooperate with their international allies during world oil crises, to alleviate shortages in calm markets.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to propose to my good friend from Colorado also that while this simple extension of existing authority is a good thing, we need to take a closer look early next year at the need to update EPCA's antitrust provisions.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I rise today to call the attention of our colleagues to the remarkable life of an east Texas oil pioneer and philanthropist who was recently honored as one of 50 worldwide recipients of the State of Israel's 50th Anniversary Award.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the only change that I see in this is that it amends the Price-Anderson Act. That is an act that we very carefully crafted over two Congresses. There has been no hearing on this amendment. All in the world this is, by a very clever and articulate and a fine Member of Congress, it is a last gasp, the last grasp, the last opportunity to derail us finding a place for the nuclear waste. That is absolutely all it is. The purpose of the Price-Anderson Act is to provide a means of quickly compensating the victims of a nuclear accident. Let me say this: This amendment, this motion, is not timely, it is not necessary, and it is not debated. There has been absolutely no hearing on it. The Price-Anderson Act has to be reauthorized by the year 2002. Nuclear waste shipments will not begin until 2002, so there is no reason to act on this amendment today, since transportation will not begin until 5 long years from now. Why the urgency this afternoon? It is just to derail this amendment today. It is very clever, very well presented, but it just does not hold up. The situation could be different 5 years from now. At least the committee system would have 60 long months to work, to hear, to notify and have input from people more knowledgeable than any of us here. I think it is unnecessary, it is dangerous, it is untimely, and it is unneeded. I urge that we defeat it.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as cosponsor of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Act of 1997, a bipartisan bill that represents a lot of hard work on the part of members of the Committee on Commerce and the Subcommittee on Energy and Power to find what the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, has deemed ``a temporary solution to a critical and immediate problem,'' and that is the storage of our nation's spent nuclear fuel. Mr. Chairman, I think it is certainly necessary. For one reason it is outrageous that the Department of Energy has failed in its quest, failed in the direction that this Congress has given them. This legislation is necessary because of that failure to find a permanent repository by the year 1998. So far DOE has fallen behind on its responsibility in that it predicts a disposal facility will not be operational until the fiscal year 2010, which is absolutely unacceptable. That is at the earliest, they say. In the meantime, ratepayers have paid in billions of dollars to the Nuclear Waste Fund, with only about 15 cents on the dollar actually used for radioactive waste disposal programs. This is unacceptable and, frankly, it is unconscionable. If my colleagues would just be logical about it, for a lot of years nuclear power has been a source of electricity supply across our country and we have known for many years that we have to find a long-term solution to the storage of nuclear waste that is the by-product of that industry. If they are going to use it, it has got to be stored. That is as logical as it can be. DOE had a commitment to construct a permanent repository by 1998, but they have not lived up to that commitment, and that is why we are here today. The lack of a storage facility is placing very unrealistic demands on our Nation's nuclear power plants. Failure to act now could lead to the premature closing of some of our nuclear power plants and force additional costs upon them for on-site storage. It is talk about nuclear as in energy, and there are some here who are just opposed to nuclear energy, period. The gentleman from Ohio is honest about that, and that is part of his speech and time that he will be using. But we see people out by nuclear plants that have signs that say ``No Nukes.'' I go to schools and I say, ``Children, how many of you are for nuclear energy?'' And they all hold up their hands that they are opposed to it. But when they hear the hard cold facts that we sent Japan searching for energy, in World War II looking for energy, and that there is no question that President Bush sent 400,000 of our kids over to that desert looking for energy, and when we point out to schoolchildren that, yes, energy or lack of energy causes wars and explain that to them, then we tell them if we solve the energy problem, which this is a thrust in that direction, that those signs that they hold up saying ``No Nukes'' can say ``No Wars.'' Then when asked the question again, the hands do not go up because it is properly explained to them. I think during the year, DOE has made some progress on the excavation of the main tunnel at the Yucca Mountain facility, but we have got to encourage them to accelerate construction of the permanent facility. In the meantime we cannot afford to do nothing. We cannot afford to wait another 12 years. It is important that we act now. This Congress just voted a few moments ago overwhelmingly not to let any amendment sent up, frivolous or otherwise, or sincere amendment or whatever, block the progress of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, ranking member, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, all of the other members for their hard work, even some of those who were opposed to the bill who have sent up good suggestions, some of them that we have taken and all of them that we considered. But this thing started back in 1982. There was no Nuclear Policy Act. It said simply: ``Ratepayers, you give us the money and we will pick up your spent fuel.'' And we did that. They have given us $13 billion. We have only spent $6 billion. In 1987, Yucca Mountain was designated as the only place for the DOE to study for permanent repository and a vote in the House and Senate took place. I think in the appropriations bill in 1987, it may have been on December 21, 1987, the vote was for the fiscal 1998 budget reconciliation conference report, H.R. 3545. That vote then was 237 to 181. And it is unfortunate that no one wants this area. It is not politically selected by anyone. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign]. The gentleman is doing what he ought to do. The gentleman is representing his district, representing his State. But this was considered at one time to be in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Had it been selected, I would understand that we would have to have an act, but I would probably be in the same position that these two gentleman are in who represent the State of Nevada. But the hard cold fact is that the Nevada test site has been dedicated to nuclear uses for over 50 years. We have had 975 nuclear explosions there in the desert. They have studied Deaf Smith County; they turned that back. Since then, we have studied Yucca Mountain for $6 billion dollars worth and still the repository will not be ready until 2010 or 2015. I say start it in 1998. That is what this bill says. ``Light up or light out.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just address the matter of States rights a little bit, whether or not States rights have been violated. None of us want to violate States rights. We all claim to support States rights. Of course, some of us want to put national standards on them and other things to give them a little direction. But which States are denied or which rights are violated? I do not think any of them are because all States send a proportional group of selected Congressmen, each of them refigured and recalculated every 10 years when they do the census. This site was selected by that group of Congressmen 10 years ago. The 47 contiguous States, I think, that did not get selected have some rights, also. They have the right to expect safe transportation. The 47 contiguous States have the right to believe that zero transportation reports are true. The 47 contiguous States have the right, I think, to believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Transportation Department would require and regulate very strict nuclear fuel shipments and that the commercial nuclear industry has safely transported more than 10,000 used fuel assemblies and 2900 shipments. None have resulted in the release of radioactivity. All the States, all 50 of the States have the right to believe that the Department of Energy so far has conducted more than 170 public meetings about the transportation of used nuclear fuel across the country and all 50 States, contiguous States included, have the right to accept that H.R. 1270 would continue to permit States to choose alternate highway routes. No other hazardous material in the United States undergoes such rigorous transportation planning, even though only less than 1 percent of the 100 million packages of hazardous material shipped per year in the U.S. are used nuclear fuel. I object to this amendment. I urge that we defeat this amendment.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], former long-time chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and present ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree, and compliment the gentleman on his consistent support of buy America.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say, this amendment would delete the 1 mill cap and permit the Secretary of Energy to assess a fee on existing nuclear energy plants to reflect the amount of funding needed in a given year to cover the cost of operations. Basically, that is what it does, but let us really analyze it. First, they suggested to let the governor have veto power. That will flat kill it. Next, they are going to let FERC make some decisions that could cancel it. And now they are going to let the Secretary of Energy assess a fee, not only an illegal delegation of fees and of congressional authority. It is not only an illegal delegation of fees and the congressional authority, the facts are hard and clear that sufficient funding exists already under H.R. 1270. The annual contribution of nuclear generated electricity consumers to the Nuclear Waste Fund would be based on the annual amount spent by the government to build storage and disposal facilities for used nuclear fuel. This amendment, so far as I read it, says, ``We gotta collect more money because there isn't enough money to finish the program 30 years from now.'' The key argument against that is that we have collected over $13 billion since 1983. We have spent $6 billion, diverted it elsewhere. I think by 2010 the Nuclear Waste Fund balance is projected to be $20.9 billion. That is enough to support an interim storage facility and begin operating a permanent repository, according to the DOE program cost projections provided to Congress in July of this year. Also there is already a provision in the bill to expand the $1 million cap to $1.5 million to pay for construction of central storage facilities. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not needed. It is already provided for. We urge the defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].

Mr. HALL of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not know anything about statues, but I do not know anybody that runs roughshod over the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. He stands his ground pretty well. Sometimes I agree with him; usually I do not. But I always respect him and admire him. This amendment would strike H.R. 1270 provisions that limit the Environmental Protection Agency from setting radiation protection standards. Well, for them to set it, we charged EPA 15 years ago to develop a radiation standard for a Federal repository. They have yet to do so. I do not see any reason to ask them or to even seek their opinion, but it is asked. EPA is involved in the standard setting practice by advising the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And if the NRC believes a stricter standard is required to protect health and safety, the bill authorizes the commission to develop a stricter standard. So it gives more standards and more strictness to the bill. NRC has testified before the Committee on Commerce and let me talk about that. Did we run roughshod over them? Listen to the testimony of Shirley Ann Jackson, NRC Chairman, April 29, 1997 in testimony regarding H.R. 1270 before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. ``The Nuclear Regulatory Commission notes the standard in H.R. 1270 of an annual effective dose of 100 millirems to the average member of the general population in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and views that standard as consistent with the protection of the public health and safety.'' Not roughshod. What happened in the Committee on Commerce? We had this identical, I believe it was identical amendment in the Committee on Commerce about a month ago. It was voted down at least 2 to 1. This committee voted on this bill just recently, less than a month ago. They voted 43 to 3 for the standard that is in this bill. I think it is obvious that this is an amendment that should be defeated, and I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] took some of his time to answer the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], let me answer something the gentleman from Nevada said a little bit ago. Mr. Chairman, I do not consider them obstructionists, and we are trying not to be. The gentleman mentioned that they play the odds in Las Vegas. I have been to Las Vegas. The last time I was out there I saw a dejected fellow sitting over there. He lost all of his money and he could not borrow any more money and he could not cash any checks, but the management was kind out there and they offered him some food. And he said, ``No, I can't do that. My bus will be here in a few minutes.'' And they said, ``Oh, you have to catch the bus?'' And he said, ``No, I'm going to get in front of it.'' Mr. Chairman, that is what we would do if this amendment passed. Because whereas the other amendment said that any Governor could veto it, this sets out that a bureaucrat can veto it. They are going to let FERC veto it. That is of course outrageous. H.R. 1270 provides already for technical assistance and funding to the States, to the effected units of local governments, Indian tribes and nonprofit organizations for the training of local public safety officials. The amendment would give the Director of FEMA complete discretion over whether this act is implemented. I just do not think we want to do that. It would be an illegal delegation of power. It is not a good idea. We do not want to leave it up to the bureaucrats.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the Secretary from taking any, any, significant action to prepare for the transportation of this nuclear fuel through the State, if the Governor, any Governor of the State, refused to certify that ``an adequate emergency response team exists.'' In the first place, the amendment is not necessary for safe transportation, because the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, apply to all shipments of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste. That, and the consulting provisions of H.R. 1270, provide the Governor of each State with an opportunity to designate. A Governor can designate the alternate transportation routes, but they do not give the Governor the authority to prohibit the interstate transportation of materials through a State as this amendment would do. This amendment would kill that. Now, in reality, the amendment would bring the entire nuclear program to a halt by giving any Governor the right to veto transportation through their State. I think their Governor, I think it is Governor Miller, has indicated he would do almost anything to prevent this from happening. I do not blame him. I would take the same position he has taken. But this gives him the same position as any Governor. He is a Governor, and any Governor can do it. This gives them a veto. First, I would point out that nuclear energy has been around a long, long time. The first plant came on in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, back in 1961. From that day to this date shipping is obvious. You have to ship it. It has to go somewhere. It has to be transported. Then if that happens, we have to look and see what the safety record has been to date. During the last 30 years, commercial nuclear energy has built an impeccable safety record of more than 2,900 shipments of used fuel across the U.S. highways and railroads, and in that time, no injuries, no fatalities, no environmental damage has occurred, because of the radioactivity of the cargo. In fact, there has been no release of radioactivity during these shipments; 2,900 shipments, shipments of commercial used nuclear fuel and research reactor fuel, have traveled more than 1.6 million miles across the country's highways and rail lines since 1964, according to the data from the NRC, the State of Nevada, and from the industry. This is not needed, and I certainly urge that it be defeated.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I of course believe that tools are good if they are used properly and if they are not used for obstruction, and that is really what this amendment is. This amendment would just simply prohibit the Secretary from taking any action. I think it creates an absolute obligation for the Secretary to conduct the proposed analysis subject to anything that comes under H.R. 1270, any type action. It makes no allowance for the Secretary to conduct a risk assessment during other steps of the process. This proposal lacks even an adequate definition of risk assessment. It provides no direction as to the consequences of the assessment. We say that the EIS already requires this and it is going to be done, it will be done, it is directed that it be done. It throws up a number of procedural hurdles that really renders impossible the storage as this act calls for. It is a little like back in the 1960's, the States of New Mexico and Arizona when they were mining copper, when the enviros, well meaning though they were, set up a rule of law that you had to replace the terrain as it was in its natural state. Of course, no court upheld that, but it gave rise to an injunction that put off and put off and put off and prevented and that caused escalation of the price. This is a bad amendment. It is just meant to cripple. I urge that Members vote it down.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we certainly appreciate the modification and think it is a good amendment.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to congratulate and give accolades to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy], who has established a system of selecting preferred rail routes, and currently there is no system for that. I thank her and I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], and I thank those of the Nation's firefighters who have helped work this out.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentlemen from Nevada, Mr. Ensign and Mr. Gibbons. And of course there is not a better guy in the world than Harry Reid, who has worked hard on this; the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, only in his third year, and the other gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, in the first year. The die was cast long before they got here. They have done an heroic and admirable job with what they had. I respect them for that. The Committee on Commerce, the committee of jurisdiction, voted 43 to 3 to carry out the intent of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Berry].

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].