Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my colleagues what this bill does is it gets it out of these temporary storage places that are along the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay and rivers and streams and into one safe place. We have had a perfect record of transporting this stuff. It was not mined in the dunes of Lake Michigan. It had to get there somehow. It got there in a perfect way, without a single incident of exposure or release of radioactive material. We think that that can continue as we get it out of the dunes and off of the shores of these environmentally sensitive areas to one safe place. I just want to close on this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. The result of this amendment is pointless delay. I want to give one example. The amendment would require the Department of Energy to perform a risk assessment before it provided funds to emergency response teams for public safety training. It is redundant. We do not need a risk assessment for items like that, and this amendment, if it was adopted, would require that every action would require a risk assessment. It is too much. We do not need it. The bill is designed to be safe in the transportation of this material. It will be so.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my colleagues that this is a duplicative amendment. Under the existing law and this bill, H.R. 1270, DOE provides funding from the income under this program to provide emergency response training for State and local entities in the unlikely event of an accident with radioactive materials. Under the funding, the DOE already provides assistance for training of State and local officials and tribal emergency rescue workers. The commercial nuclear safe record during 2,900 shipments speak to the effectiveness of the training. I remind my colleagues that this radioactive material did not just show up at these 80 different facilities around the country. It had to get there. And some 1,300 tons of the radioactive rods were shipped without accident, without spillage, without a single release of nuclear material, all under the safe guidance of the Department of Energy. Mr. Chairman, to change that record and give it to somebody else and let them start all over and do their regulations is just further delay. I would urge my colleagues: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The system works now under the guidance of the Department of Energy, and I have a feeling of confidence that it will continue without this amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would note that this Gibbons amendment would bar the Department of Energy from planning for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high level radioactive waste through any State unless the Governor of the State certified that an adequate emergency response team existed in the State. This, in a sense, would give every Governor a veto over nuclear waste transportation through their State. All that the Governor would have to do is to refuse to certify that their State has adequate emergency response teams, and that is it. That is it. A killer amendment. The temptation would be irresistible to perhaps the Governor of Nevada, because no matter how adequately trained their emergency response team might be, the Governor would just say, no. I would ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I would note that in the deliberations in the markup before our full committee, the gentlewoman from Missouri, Karen McCarthy, a respected Member, wanted to offer an amendment. We worked with her, it was included, in fact, in the manager's amendment, and it directed that the Secretary of Transportation would, in fact, establish procedures for the selection of preferred railroad routes for transportation of nuclear waste to an interim storage facility and repository, and DOT would be directed to consult with State emergency response officials in the development of these preferred routes. That means that there is local input. The Governors and the States are going to be involved. Thanks to the input of the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy], that amendment has been adopted as part of this bill, and, therefore, there is no need for the Gibbons amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] for a simple, quick answer. How did the gentleman vote on that provision of the Contract With America? I was looking for a ``yes'' or ``no,'' not a card game.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, 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. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would say I do not think I have opposed one of the gentleman's buy America amendments in the years we have been together on the floor, and I look forward to voting for it tomorrow.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank a number of people here tonight. I thank the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer]. Without their leadership, we would not see this bill to the floor this evening. I also want to thank, on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], who have been terrific. I, too, share in thanking the two gentlemen from Nevada, who have been very good debaters, they have been very persistent, they have made us do our homework for sure, and they have been very tough. I appreciate that, as well. I also thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], my coauthor, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], and the 165 Members of the House that have cosponsored the bill. We have heard tonight that it passed our committee 43 to 3. We passed it by about the same margin in the last Congress, as well. Nuclear power, the decision for nuclear power, was made many decades ago. Part of that strategy was always that the Federal Government would be responsible for the permanent storage of the high-level nuclear waste. That was part of the equation. That is what this bill does. It in essence moves it to one safe place. Today we have about 100 different nuclear reactor sites around the country. Every single one of them is in a sensitive environmental area, whether it be on the Great Lakes, whether it be on the Chesapeake Bay. Whether it be rivers, streams, or oceans, they are all very sensitive. Our ratepayers have put in some $12 billion into the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund, of which about $6 billion has been spent in Yucca Mountain. Yes, we have detractors, certainly our two colleagues from Nevada, and the opponents of nuclear power as well. But that nuclear decision was made before I was in high school. About 20 percent of our power today comes from nuclear energy, and if we turned off that power tonight, we would still have to deal with the issue of what to do with the high-level nuclear waste. That is what this bill does. Today in this country we have 10 sites that have run out of room. They have reracked their rods, they have built these lead-lined cement cannisters that are literally stacked in the dunes of Lake Michigan and other places around the country, because they have run out of room. They did not have anyplace to put it. Next year we are going to have 27 more reactors run out of room. It is time for this Congress to act, to send it to one safe place. Yucca Mountain, Mr. Chairman, I have been there. It is adjacent to where we have conducted underground, uncontained nuclear testing for almost 50 years. When this bill gets enacted, and it will, nuclear waste will be in a contained spot. It will be monitored. It is going to be in a place that will be deemed safe by the scientists. The record shows we have had some 2,400 shipments across the country to the existing nuclear facilities today, and 1,300 tons of nuclear material in fact was shipped without a single release, not a single release of nuclear material in all of those shipments. They did not mine that nuclear stuff in the dunes of Lake Michigan, they had to ship it there. When they shipped it there, the record was perfect. This is a bipartisan bill. It has been that from the beginning. I thank the Republicans and Democrats, and ask them to vote in favor of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. I introduced H.R. 1270 earlier this year with Representatives Towns, Hastert, Crapo and 55 other original cosponsors. It is designed to address our national problem with high-level nuclear waste by providing workable solutions for managing spent nuclear fuel. The total number of cosponsors has already reached 165 Members of the House. Similar legislation passed the Senate in April by a vote of 65- 34. As a by-product of nuclear power, high-level nuclear waste currently rests in spent fuel pools and canisters at locations across the country. They are not, however, at a secure, central location like our Government agreed to build. Behind chainlink fences along the Chesapeake, on cement pads a stone's throw from the Great Lakes, near our neighborhoods and our schools, nuclear waste is now a problem forced upon States, counties, and townships due to the Federal Government's blatant shirking of their responsibility--a failure that has cost taxpayers over $12 billion. In my district in southwest Michigan, nuclear waste currently sits in a dry cask on a cement pad 100 yards from Lake Michigan. The site is less than 5 miles from an elementary school with 800 students. Now, I will say right away that the site is safe and secure--But it was not meant for long-term storage. I would rather have nuclear waste permanently stored at an isolated and remote location than at over 80 sites around the country. I have a message to those Members who are concerned about the transportation of spent nuclear fuel; it's been transported for 30 years and according the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The safety record for spent nuclear fuel shipments in the U.S. and in other industrialized nations is enviable. Of the thousands of shipments completed over the last 30 years, none has resulted in an identifiable injury through release of radioactive materials. NRC statistics show that over 1,300 tons of spent fuel was shipped in the United States from 1979 through 1995. This was accomplished through a mix of shipments on highways and rail. For a little background, in 1982 Congress passed and the President signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It was later amended in 1987 but its goal remained simple and steamlined--the Federal Government agreed to accept responsibility for the proper management and disposal of defense and civilian nuclear waste. From funds collected through a tax on our electricity bills, the Government was going to build a high level repository and begin accepting waste from utility companies by January 31, 1998. A lot has happened since the 1980's. But by the same token a lot hasn't happened--namely progress toward completing this project. The Department of Energy has spent time in court, time at the research lab, and time boring a massive hole in the side of Yucca Mountain in Nevada--the site selected to potentially house a permanent repository. Our most recent estimates, however, show this facility won't be ready to receive waste until well into the next century. Today and tomorrow, Congress will debate a bill that provides a short term solution to this long term problem. The legislation directs the Department of Energy to continue working on the permanent site while also temporarily stacking the waste outside what is expected to be the final resting place. Our Government should pursue a policy that puts nuclear waste behind one fence, in one location, where we can concentrate all of our resources on making sure it is safe. Nuclear waste transcends political ideologies. As a nation, we must work together to develop a single national strategy. As a Congress, we must work together to get this solution in place. With each passing year and each passing month, the price of nuclear waste continues to mount. Ratepayers keep paying taxes on their electricity bills to support the bottomless Nuclear Waste Fund. Without a solution in place, the burden of disposal falls back on the local utility companies, and, in turn, back squarely on the shoulders of the American consumer as they are double taxed. Earlier this year, the Department of Energy was again assailed in the courts. 46 State agencies and 33 power companies from 36 States filed suit to force the administration to stick to the original deadline which is less than 3 months away. Obviously, we won't meet the deadline but H.R. 1270 offers some solutions because rightly so, everyone is growing tired of these costly delays. In light of these developments, I would urge the Department and the administration to work with us as this legislation moves through the congressional process, rather than throw up roadblocks. Critics claim that Yucca Mountain is not an appropriate location for nuclear waste. Yucca is located within the Nevada Test Site, an area the size of Connecticut that since the Truman administration has been home to atmospheric nuclear test blasts and countless active and abandoned nuclear labs. Its remote, arid location is, in fact, ideally suited to store nuclear waste. The real danger exists only in allowing our Government to break its word and expect us to look the other way. But it is difficult to look the other way on this issue when at seemingly every other turn, another community is being forced to deal with nuclear waste close to home. My colleagues and I were sent to Congress to fix the Nation's problems. Through lessons we've learned from events like the savings and loan debacle, we know that inaction only makes the situation worse. Simply put, nuclear waste is one of the single greatest environmental issues that exist today. In turn, one would assume that it should be the single greatest concern of an administration which has campaigned on its support and defense of the environment. We can deal effectively with this by placing nuclear waste in a suitable location in the interim. That threat can be greatly reduced still by putting in place a permanent facility. The Department of Energy must be held accountable to the U.S. Congress, and more importantly, to the U.S. taxpayers. Key groups have come out in support of H.R. 1270 such as the National Association of Counties, Citizens Against Government Waste. Many Governors have written as well to express the need for action on this issue. I would hope that in the same spirit and bipartisanship that we showed in reaching a balanced budget agreement, we can also move forward in passing nuclear waste legislation this year.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, when I returned home last night and told my wife the sad story about Walter Capps leaving this place, the first thing she asked was about Lois. A lot of us, in the 10 months that we were here, did not know Walter Capps all that well. I got to know him a little bit at Hershey, he and his wife both. He was an honest, decent guy that worked so hard for his constituents back in California. He was well-respected on both sides of the aisle. We are going to miss him. Like a lot of Members in this House, he was not flashy. His name was not a household name. But I think it was his courage and wisdom and thoughtfulness that, in fact, made a difference for not only his constituents, but for this House as well. We are going to miss him. We wish Lois and his family the very best in our prayers.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just note in terms of the cost, the cost of this amendment is very small. For the most part these foghorns, many were installed in the early 1970s, have required virtually no maintenance at all. As far as I know, all of these ports, the lighthouses themselves are not manned, they are automatically timed as they should be, require very little maintenance, but in some cases, as is the case with the port at St. Joseph, a storm literally knocked the foghorn from the lighthouse itself. It went into the lake and efforts up to this point have not occurred where they would replace it. Whether it be in St. Joe or other ports that we list along Lake Michigan, I think this is a good exercise, a safe one that the Coast Guard is entrusted to do and at least in the near term, until the GPS technology is really readily on all boats, and maybe even required by various States and we have more boaters in Michigan than any other State in the Union, that this seems to be a prudent way of spending a few Federal dollars to make sure that safety is there for not only the boaters but their families, too. Mr. Chairman, I urge that the House adopt my amendment.

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

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman is not going to hear it this evening but if he asks me tomorrow, I might whistle a note or two.

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not address how long these should be in effect. I would guess that if this amendment is accepted, as I think that it will be, it will be for the length of the bill, which--is this a 1-year authorization?

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just note as a boater myself that a foghorn one evening brought my little boat in when we could not see the beam of the lighthouse. This is an amendment that is needed. As I met with my boaters and some Coast Guard personnel even this last week in Michigan, I think that this is a very good effort to try and maintain safety along the shores of Lake Michigan. I again just want to thank my two friends for allowing this amendment to come in at such late notice. Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, I was out sailing on Lake Michigan with a group of friends. But as the sum went down, a full and beautiful day gave wave to a sailors worst nightmare. Fog rolled in, the visibility fell, and we were lost. After searching and searching, we finally gained our direction not because of the charts on board or the buoys in the water but thanks to the foghorn and its steady signal. It has come to my attention that the Coast Guard is considering whether to eliminate the use of foghorns at many locations on the Great Lakes. I oppose this idea and as one who has seen first hand, know that these foghorns play a crucial role in the safety of many boaters in my district and across the region. Many boaters have contacted my office to express concern that they will no longer be able to rely on the foghorn signal the next time they are caught on the lake in a dense cloud of fog. In order to allow people to enjoy and appreciate the water safely, we must ensure the continued operation of our navigation aids. Foghorns are a small, but integral part of the safety net that the Coast Guard administers. I sincerely feel that dismantling the foghorns will unnecessarily endanger the lives of my constituents who may find themselves in a similar predicament. While many boaters have advanced navigational devices such as GPS or LORAN, the foghorn signal is still an essential device used by many. If the foghorns are dismantled, I guarantee that it will only be a matter of time before an accident occurs and lives are threatened. Please support my amendment that will ensure that the foghorns in my district and across the Great Lakes are in working order.

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I very much appreciate the help of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement] in discussions for much of today. This amendment is about foghorns. As I was back in my district, as most of us were these last 10 days, my district is along the shore of Lake Michigan, the Coast Guard currently has a proposal to end the maintenance and in essence stop foghorns in a number of ports along Lake Michigan. What this amendment does is a very simple amendment, it just requires the Secretary of Transportation take action as necessary to ensure that the foghorns at 10 ports along Lake Michigan are in working order. We have been talking to the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle whose ports are impacted. They all, Republicans and Democrats alike, support this bill. I would urge its passage. I am not going to ask for a recorded vote. I want to thank the staff on the committee as well as again the two gentlemen that I mentioned before in supporting this amendment.

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

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I might just say in response to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], that in these cases where we have seen abuses, I would be delighted, and I am a supporter of this amendment and will speak a little bit later, but I would be delighted to work with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] and others, particularly those on the Committee on the Judiciary, to work on, whether it be legislation or a directive to the Justice Department, to make sure that they stick to the law.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this issue is important not only because it is a matter of decency, common sense and compassion, but it is one that we need to pass this afternoon. Let me remind my colleagues again that this amendment keeps Legal Services at a funding level that is still $30 million less than in 1997, and in fact, it is about $150 million less than it was just a couple of years ago. Mr. Chairman, we are a country founded on the basic principle of liberty and equality before the law, but when people are unable to even access our legal system because they lack representation in the funds to secure a lawyer, we are asking a portion of our society to forgo a fundamental right. The Legal Services Corporation is an avenue for low income Americans to receive legal representation for civil matters. The lawyers who are part of Legal Services provide the guidance and the expertise needed to successfully navigate our complex and often intimidating judicial system. Very few of us could manage the intricacies of our legal system without counsel. Should we expect citizens who do not have the means to hire a lawyer to simply fare on their own? One person's legal problems are no less important than another's, and everyone deserves a fair chance regardless of their income level. What are the civil matters we are talking about? Well, about 70 percent of the national caseload falls into categories in which children are impacted. In Michigan we had more than 80,000 cases last year; 40 percent of those fell in the category of family civil cases. But that means cases involving divorce, spousal abuse, adoption, child support. Other civil matters include housing, income maintenance issues, and consumer finance issues. I think it is particularly interesting to note the role that Legal Services plays in helping single parents, who may or may not be also collecting welfare, secure child support payments; two-thirds of Legal Service clients are women, and many of those, of course, are single moms. I am aware, in fact, of a mom in my district who relocated to Michigan with four children after being granted a personal protection order from another State. However, the husband refused to pay child support and continued to threaten her. She had no place to turn other than the Legal Aid Bureau of southwestern Michigan, who helped her obtain a Michigan personal protection order, start divorce proceedings and obtain custody and support so that she and her children could stay together. Without assistance we can only guess what might have happened. This Congress needs to have a heart. We are not talking about the greedy; it is the needy. And I would agree that there were abuses in the past, and I will ask unanimous consent to file all of these restrictions that this body passed. And I would respond to the gentleman from Indiana who talked earlier, that, in fact, when abuses are there we can go after folks and debar them; and, in fact, I would urge the Committee on the Judiciary on which I do not serve that they ought to have some hearings and look into those, and if the cases can be made, they ought to take some action. That is what the Committee on the Judiciary is for. But in my mind it is unconscionable for us to restrict access to Legal Services for any Americans who need representation. Last year, we passed a welfare reform bill that enjoyed strong bipartisan support. One of the major provisions in this bill was to go after deadbeat dads, and moms, too. Mr. Chairman, in a good number of cases families that experience divorce are in fact represented by Legal Service attorneys who help in determining what their child support ought to be. Those are civil cases, not criminal ones. Support the Mollohan-Fox amendment, and stand for the principles and ideals that make our Nation great. Restrictions on LSC Grantees The restrictions on the use of funds by the LSC and its grantees as enacted by Congress in 1996 are as follows: 1. No advocating policies relating to redistricting; 2. No class action lawsuits; 3. No influencing action on any legislation, Constitutional Amendment, referendum or similar procedure of Congress, State or local legislative body; 4. No legal assistance to illegal aliens; 5. No supporting/conducting training programs relating to political activity; 6. No abortion litigation; 7. No prisoner litigation; 8. No welfare reform litigation, except to represent individuals on particular matter that does not involve changing existing law; 9. No representing individuals evicted from public housing due to the sale of drugs; 10. No accepting employment as a result of giving unsolicited advice to non-attorneys; and 11. All non-LSC funds used to provide legal services by grantees may not be used for the purposes prohibited by the Act. Furthermore, provisions included in the Fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill will allow the LSC to terminate contracts of grantees which fail to comply with these restrictions and debar grantees from receiving future financial assistance.

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

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I spent most of my August break back in my district listening to my constituents, and many were pleased, in fact, when the President used for the first time the line-item veto. In fact, many wished that the President had had the authority for the disaster relief bill that we passed earlier this year, and so many other bills in recent years where so many things are tucked away in some of those bills that no one hears about them until after they are enacted. I support budget reform, and in fact, as part of the Contract with America, we included the line-item veto, which passed this House by a very large margin, to allow the President to have the line-item veto, as well as the 43 other Governors across the country. Lo and behold, we have discovered a loophole that causes the line- item veto to go away. I am proud of the bipartisan legislation that we passed here in this House that puts us on a solid fiscal footing and, in fact, balances the budget by the year 2002. We even have a surplus. But, lo and behold, that loophole that we have discovered prevents us from using the line- item veto despite having a $5\1/2\ trillion national debt. We are introducing legislation to fix this, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.