Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from Rockwall, Texas (Mr. Hall), our great friend. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my objection.

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. 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.

Mr. TAUZIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman under my reservation to explain her unanimous consent request.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I respect my friends, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), and I appreciate the fight they are making on the floor today. I understand their concerns for their home State and for this decision. Outside of that, the opposition to this resolution basically comes from those who oppose nuclear energy. When we ask those Members what other energy would they support, we get some strange answers. If we suggest coal, they say, oh, coal can be pretty dirty, you know. You have to scrub it. Even if you scrub it, it produces CO2 and that may contribute to global warming, and golly, we had better not burn coal in America, even though 40 percent of our electricity comes from coal. Or we might say, would you support oil and gas development? And they say, no, wait a minute, the land is too pristine, and certainly not off my coast. Go do it in Louisiana, maybe, but do not do it anywhere else, please. Certainly do not do it in my State, off my coast or in my national wildlife preserve, even though you are willing to do it in your national wildlife preserves in Louisiana with no consequences, and, in fact, with good consequences. They do not like that. They do not like oil and gas. We ask, what about refineries for gasoline, for electric generation facilities? The answer is, not in my backyard. If you are ready to do it in somebody else's backyard, hopefully out of this country somewhere else and ship it in over here, but for heaven's sake do not build a plant in America, not where I live. We would rather run out. We would rather go through a California crisis than authorize another refinery or another electric generation plant in our backyard. So we ask them about nuclear. We say, well, nuclear is pretty clean. Nuclear plants produce 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, a critical component of the Nation's energy supplies. It is pretty clean, you know. It does not produce all the emissions we are concerned about with global warming, or the emissions we have to regulate with coal- fired plants, or gas, or even oil-fired plants. What about nuclear? They say, oh, but wait, you do not have a plan to deal with the waste, so do not build any more nuclear plants until you settle that waste issue. That is the tail wagging the dog. Unless you settle that waste issue, do not dare license another nuclear plant, and certainly not in my backyard, by the way. So we wonder what kind of energy supplies do these Members support. I think the answer is pretty clear. They would like us to get it all from the sun, I suppose, or they would like us to get it from winds, provided we do not hurt any birds in the context of getting wind power going. And they certainly would like us to get it from somebody else, because that is what is happening in America. Sixty percent, 60 percent now of every gallon of gasoline we burn in this country comes from some other country. And check the countries, check where it is coming from. Forty percent of the reformulated gas comes from Venezuela right now, where there is a pretty bad problem going on; Venezuela, which rescued us from the last oil embargo, where there are some pretty bad problems going on. Check where else it is coming from, countries like Iran, Iraq, countries which are teaching their children to hate us and to come to this country and take our planes and crash them into our buildings in suicide attempts. Those are reliable friends. Those are reliable sources for energy in America. Boy, that is real national security. So after 20 years, after 20 years of an effort that started in 1982, after billions of dollars of expenditure, after scientific research that even tested the effects of a glaciated age in Nevada to make sure that this was the proper site to bring those nuclear wastes to permanent storage, we come to this point where we are about near the end. If we can push this process one more step, if the scientists can answer the last questions that remain, we can settle the waste issue. Guess what, all these folks say, for heaven's sakes, do not settle the waste issue. Mr. Speaker, today is a chance to move it one inch closer to the final line where we settle the waste issue and we help secure America. It is time to vote yes for this country for a change.

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.

Mr. TAUZIN. Yes, Madam Speaker, I am.

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).'' 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. 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. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished cardinal from the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, who, unfortunately for all of us, has announced his retirement from Congress this year and whom we will all sorely miss. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, with the consent of my colleagues, I would like to do what I think is the fair thing to do at this point, and that is to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), our friend, for an opportunity to close his arguments on behalf of the State that he loves so dearly and represents here in the Congress.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 87, just passed.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, section 7504 of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act amends the Plant Protection Act with respect to certain treatments or applications of methyl bromide. This section requires the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake specified activities upon the request of State, local or tribal authorities and to publish a registry. The section also requires a program to identify methyl bromide alternatives. I was pleased to work with the conferees on this section to ensure that the section does not modify or alter the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency or provide any authority to the Secretary of Agriculture under the Clean Air Act or regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act. In this regard, I believe the final legislative language is consistent with an exchange of correspondence between the Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Agriculture Committee concerning the original House provision which served as the basis for the final language contained in section 7504. I am inserting this exchange of correspondence below to further explain the intent and effect of section 7504. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, September 28, 2001. Hon. Larry Combest, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Combest: As reported from the Committee on Agriculture, H.R. 2646 contains legislative language regarding methyl bromide. As you know, methyl bromide has been specifically regulated as an ozone depleting substance (ODS) under the Montreal Protocol, ratified by the United States in 1987, and under Title VI of the Clean Air Act (CAA), established by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (1990 CAAA). Under current provisions of both the Montreal Protocol and the CAA, methyl bromide is scheduled for complete phaseout in the United States by 2005. Title VI of the CAA, which serves as a supplement to the terms and conditions of the Montreal Protocol, has been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce since its enactment and signature into law on November 15, 1990. Both the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act currently provide for specific exemptions from the 2005 phaseout date for methyl bromide. Within the Montreal Protocol, quarantine and preshipment exemptions for methyl bromide are defined within the terms of the treaty as well as subsequent Decisions of the Parties which, among other requirements, limit preshipment applications of methyl bromide to 21 days and provide that Parties utilize alternatives to methyl bromide whenever possible. The Montreal Protocol also provides for a ``critical use'' and ``emergency use'' exemptions for methyl bromide, although formal procedures and process to implement this exemption have not yet been established. Within the Clean Air Act, sections 604(d)(5) and 604(d)(6) provide that, to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol's quarantine and preshipment provisions, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall exempt certain uses of methyl bromide for purposes of complying with federal, state and local sanitation requirements and critical uses. Section 604(d)(5) has been implemented, in part, through interim final regulations promulgated by EPA on July 19, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 37,752). Section 762 of H.R. 2646 requires that the Secretary of Agriculture, upon request of a State, local or tribal authority, determine whether treatments or application of methyl bromide shall constitute an ``official control'' or ``official requirement'' under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et. seq.). I am concerned that although section 762 does not amend the CAA nor affect any provision of the Montreal Protocol, the use of the terms ``official controls'' or ``official requirements'' may cause some confusion because these terms are the same terms used in Decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol respecting quarantine and preshipment applications provided for in Article 2H of the treaty. This letter is therefore intended to clarify the understanding of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Agriculture that section 762 does not affect any current provision of the Clean Air Act or the Montreal Protocol and therefore has no substantive legal effect upon the operation of sections 604(d)(5), 604(d)(6) and 604(h) and related provisions within the CAA affecting the phaseout of methyl bromide and the determination of what uses may qualify or not qualify for exemptions or exceptions to the current phaseout schedule for this substance. It is my understanding that section 762 does not in any way transfer authority between the EPA and the Department of Agriculture regarding which governmental body has authority to make determinations regarding exemptions that are available under section 604(d)(5) for sanitation and food inspection and under section 604(d)(6) for critical uses. Further, it is my understanding that should section 762 or any other provision affecting the status, phaseout or exemptions available for the use of methyl bromide arise during any House and Senate conference on H.R. 2646 or the related Senate legislation, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will be assured of representation at the conference and effective control in the House of Representatives over any and all legislative provisions affecting methyl bromide that fall within its jurisdiction. Thank you for your assistance and agreement in this matter. Sincerely, W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Auction Reform Act of 2002. This bill will eliminate the statutory deadlines that have prompted the FCC to schedule auctions in June for spectrum in the 700 MHz band currently occupied by television broadcasters. I believe that this legislation should not be necessary to preclude the Commission from conducting the auctions in June. The FCC currently has the authority to delay these auctions, and should do so. But, in addition, to asking the FCC to use its own authority to delay the auctions, I, along with John Dingell and 50 of our colleagues from the Energy and Commerce Committee, am introducing this bill to strip the deadlines from the books. It is true that the auction of the upper portion of the 700 MHz band has been delayed five times. But, Mr. Speaker, conducting the auctions for both the upper and lower parts of the 700 MHz band in June would be wrong. These auctions are simply not ready for prime time. Let me address some of the reasons why these auctions should not take place: No comprehensive plan exists for allocating additional spectrum for third generation wireless and other advanced mobile communications services. The 700 MHz band may prove to be the commercial mobile wireless industry's only viable short-term option for obtaining additional spectrum for advanced mobile communications services if spectrum from other bands below 3 GHz is not allocated for such purposes. The study being conducted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Pentagon to determine whether the Pentagon can share or relinquish additional spectrum for third-generation wireless and other advanced mobile communications services will not be completed until after the June 19th auction date for the upper 700 MHz band, and long after the applications must be filed to participate in the auction. It is difficult for wireless carriers to make a sound business decision concerning what options are available for spectrum for third- generation and other advanced mobile communications services until the NTIA/Pentagon report has been released and evaluated. The Commission is also in the process of determining how to resolve the interference problems that exist in the 800 MHz band, especially for public safety. One option being considered for the 800 MHz band would involve the 700 MHz band. The Commission should not hold the 700 MHz auction before the 800 MHz interference issues are resolved or a tenable plan has been approved. The 700 MHz band is still occupied by television broadcasters, and will be so until the digital transition is complete. This situation creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty concerning when the spectrum will be available and reduces the value placed on the spectrum by potential bidders. The encumbrance of the 700 MHz band reduces both the amount of money that the auction would be likely to produce and the probability that the spectrum would be purchased by the entities that valued the spectrum the most and would put the spectrum to its most- productive use. The Commission's rules governing voluntary mechanisms for the vacation of the 700 MHz band by the broadcasters produced no certainty that the band would be available for advanced mobile communications services, public safety operations, and other purposes any earlier than the existing statutory framework provides. Mr. Speaker, the FCC and the Administration clearly have a lot of work to do with respect to allocating and assigning additional spectrum for advanced mobile communications services and with respect to speeding the transition to digital television. Until more progress is made in these areas, the 700 MHz band auctions should not occur. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that 52 Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee are original co-sponsors of this legislation. It demonstrates that an overwhelmingly majority of members of our committee know that holding the auctions in June is the wrong policy decision for the FCC to make. The FCC should use its own authority to delay these auctions. And we are making clear that holding the auctions within the FCC's designated timeframe is contrary to both sound regulatory policy and contrary to the Communications Act.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The Security Litigation Reform Act, passed in 1995, was indeed passed by a great overwhelming majority of the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans. It was the first class action reform, and it stopped the strike suits that were filed against American corporations not to win judgments for fraud but just to shake them down. Ninety-five percent of those cases were being settled at 10 cents on the dollar. They were shake-down lawsuits designed to defraud the companies. These class action lawsuits before the 1995 act were not real efforts to find fraud, and those reforms have indeed protected constituents across America. The class action suit brought against Enron now is the best example. Where there is real evidence of fraud, those suits go forward. The strike suits, on the other hand, have ended; and they should have ended a long time ago. That is good reform, just like this bill before us. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.