Philanthropic Enterprise Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3053.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I am going to have a lot of people wanting to come to the floor, so I will abbreviate my opening remarks and just address a few questions that are going to be raised.

First, I just want to highlight the fact that you are going to hear a lot about local, consensus-based decisionmaking, and then you are also going to hear about closeness of proximity. This chart kind of highlights what we are talking about.

The red is Federal Government land. The Federal Government land is larger than 31 countries on the Earth. You have three different sections. You have the national test and training range. You have the national security site. You have also some Fish and Wildlife/Interior land, bigger than many of our States in our Union. So, to my colleagues, I want to make sure they have in perspective the size of the area that we are talking about: bigger than the State of Connecticut and areas that people are going to talk about.

That is one question that will be addressed. Another question will be the fear of tourism, because Las Vegas gets 42 million tourists a year, and they seem to be concerned that this might affect that industry. And then it dawned on me that the city of Chicago gets 55 million tourists a year--55 million--and they have over 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in Chicagoland.

So I want to make sure that my friends in Nevada understand that that should not be a terrible concern when Chicago seems to be doing well with tourism on that issue.

Also, there will be a debate about transportation. I just want to call attention, Mr. Chairman, through you to my colleagues that we operate a nuclear Navy. That nuclear Navy has to have the power systems refueled. That means new nuclear fuel goes there. That means spent nuclear fuel goes off the nuclear Navy ships. That is on the ocean. That is either on the Atlantic Ocean or on the Pacific Ocean. This spent fuel goes to Idaho, which means that we transport, safely, spent nuclear fuel, and we have done it for decades.

Those are the three main contentions you will hear with this bill. I am going to allow my colleagues to talk about all the great benefits of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, October 6, 2017.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bishop: On June 28, 2017, the Committee on

Energy and Commerce ordered favorably reported H.R. 3053, the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017. This bill was

additionally referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.

I ask that the Committee on Natural Resources not insist on

its referral of the bill so that H.R. 3053 may be scheduled

for consideration by the Majority Leader. This concession in

no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of

the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future

referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be

necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee

on Natural Resources represented on the conference committee.

Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and your

response in the bill report and in the Congressional Record.

Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the

extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over

matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further

opportunities to work with you this Congress.

Sincerely,

Greg Walden,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), who is on the committee, and has been doing great work to deal with his constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a subcommittee chair of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters), who has been very helpful in this project.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not closing yet. We are waiting for the majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a couple of issues, of course, that have been raised. In my brief opening statement I reminded the folks-- and I see my colleague from Chicagoland on the floor--Chicago gets 55 million visitors a year. In Chicagoland there are 10,000 metric tons. That is in the community, that is where there are condos, and it is right there.

This proposed long-term repository is 90 miles away from Las Vegas. It is a mountain in a desert. If it gets approved, final adjudication.

And what has held up the final adjudication? Politics on the appropriation matter, which I think this bill is going to help solve, because once we get a good vote--my colleagues, I don't think we voted on an authorization bill, on this issue on an authorization bill, since 2002.

That is when the State of Nevada objected, per the law. They were allowed to do that. We had a chance, then, to override that veto. Because, as Mark Sanford said, this is a national problem that demands a national solution.

So the law laid out an opportunity to hear the complaints from the State of Nevada and say ``yes'' or ``no.'' They said ``no.''

The law laid out the opportunity for the national legislative body and the President of the United States to decide to accept or reject that.

I think this Chamber vote was about 350 to reject the State of Nevada's opposition. The Senate rejected it on a voice vote.

So we have been through this numerous times. We know where the majority of Representatives are, and we know where the majority of Senators will be. We have just got to move. We have got to address this national problem with a national solution.

Another issue that was just touched on by Chairman Walden, he spent a lot of time on it, is spent nuclear fuel. This is ratepayers also helping pay for our defense waste obligations. The nuclear weapons and winning the Cold War created stockpiles of nuclear waste, toxic sludge, in areas in four States primarily. Primarily, Washington State, also South Carolina. Ratepayers are going to help safely dispose of that.

So when you take the national defense problem and the spent nuclear fuel problem, we are moving forward in that direction.

Nevadans are not uniformly opposed to the repository. In fact, nine of the surrounding counties have passed resolutions to move forward, at least with the adjudication.

And as my colleagues from Nevada know, I have been to that State quite a few times, and we talked to many, many people on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to also thank the staff on both sides for their work. This is the way legislation is supposed to move. You have hearings. In Energy and Commerce, we really have four: a subcommittee hearing markup, subcommittee markup, full committee markup, then we go through the process. So our staff has done a tremendous job.

I also want to thank Ranking Member Pallone and Ranking Member Tonko for their friendship and their actually good negotiating skills. As they have told me many times, they have changed this bill through their diligence, and that has got us here to a better product.

I will end up on three quick points. We have raised them before.

We can transport this safely. We have done it for decades.

Every day, taxpayers are paying from all 50 States into the Judgment Fund because of our failure to meet our legal obligations. I think it is almost $800 million a year that we pay because we are breaking the law.

Independent scientific analysis of the Yucca Mountain repository found the site can safely dispose of nuclear waste for 1 million years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time opposition, but I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating). I think this is a very needed amendment.

I would say one of the most frustrating things about this process, and my colleagues on the other side know, is that we passed this bill in June of last year. And then we had the funding, and the money, and the debate, and the trust fund, and appropriators and budgeters.

Anything we can do to clear out and get some clear guidance on the money, we may have to then move to another piece of legislation to really clarify. Our bill does that for new revenue coming in, so I think it is a great addition, and I appreciate him coming down.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to end by saying I know there are some rumblings out there about what is this litigation fund being paid for and who is paying for it?

The United States Government is being sued. We have to make these payments because we are not abiding by the law. It is not the private industry.

There are rumblings out there about: Oh, we are relieving the nuclear industry of reliability. That is absolutely false. We are going to protect U.S. taxpayers from the liability that we are paying because the Federal Government is not complying with the law.

And I want to make that straight. That is accountability, that is transparency. That is what my colleague Mr. Keating is doing.

And with that, I support his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois-- one of the Chicagolanders that I talk about--for bringing this amendment. I use his district--and I have used it for years--to talk about the challenges that we face if we do nothing.

This authorization bill is designed to start doing something, and, actually, it is designed to help us comply with the law that is already written.

Zion is the perfect example of the need to move spent nuclear fuel to an interim site and then a final geological repository, thus, freeing up, obviously, great lakefront opportunities on the Great Lakes for redevelopment that would help this community that suffered because of the closure.

I am glad the gentleman is here. I appreciate the amendment. I am going back to what Mark Sanford said: This is a national problem. We need a national solution. That is what we are trying to do now in a bipartisan manner. Good job. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I again thank my colleague. I don't know if he was in the Chamber when I mentioned that Chicagoland has 55 million visitors and 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. We would like to solve that problem. The gentleman's amendment helps the communities as we transition. It is additive to the overall bill. I am happy to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, the State of Nevada has benefited from the nuclear age. It helped us win World War II. Also, Nevada pays for our inability to comply with the law because, nationally, we pay out of the Judgment Fund. So the taxpayers of the State of Nevada are paying, through Federal tax liabilities, for us not complying with the law. So I just want to make that straight.

There are two main problems with my colleague's amendment. One is-- and it is just the language--it is a striking bill, which says that, all of this debate of interim storage that we are having, her amendment strikes that. All of the discussion about how we are trying to protect the ratepayers--especially in the future--her amendment strikes that.

Her amendment strikes the final regulatory review of the Yucca Mountain site. The NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in their safety evaluation report that Yucca Mountain would be safe for 1 million years.

Current law allows the State of Nevada to challenge that, but my colleague's amendment strikes that. And what we have done in this legislation is we have said: We understand the concerns of the State of Nevada. Current law says: Because you vetoed it, you get no benefits.

In this bill, we said: That is not fair. We are going to allow the State of Nevada to receive the benefits that they request in moving forward. Your amendment strikes that, so your amendment strikes the opportunity for the State of Nevada to get any benefits once we move forward.

The other part of the problem with this amendment is the terminology is very vague as to local government entities. And we think that is probably intentional. It is intentional so that you can never get a number of local entities to ever decide. We kind of looked at, based upon the way the language is written, who would be considered. Well, a local entity, a community in the State of Utah, Minersville, population 887, 300 miles from the site, could be able to veto this national solution to a national problem.

Now, that means--and I can't wait to visit Minersville someday--that they are going to have more power than the Federal Government and this Chamber. They are going to have the veto authority over the State of New Jersey or the State of Illinois or the State of--I don't know how many States came here to debate on this bill. Quite a few.

So a couple problems: the first problem is, it is a strike amendment, which means everything that you have done, all those adjustments that I have worked in a bipartisan manner, throw them out; and that you cannot get to understand the universe of local communities that would have a veto over this national solution to a national problem.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad my friend from Oregon mentioned the blue ribbon commission. The blue ribbon commission was told: Do not consider Yucca Mountain. So come on. Really? Pull out the blue ribbon commission and say ``this is the truth'' when they were told: Consider everything else, but you can't consider the law of the land. Preposterous.

To my colleague, Chairman Walden--actually in Oregon--this is Hanford. These are the tanks next to the Columbia River, which goes next to Oregon. And you are saying it has no defense-related provisions for this bill? Come on now. Let's move forward.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, today we must decide if you are going to double down on policies that have been an abject failure for the last three decades or if you will chart a new course that doesn't repeat the same mistakes of previous Congresses.

The first ``Screw Nevada'' bill was passed in 1982, and since that time, Nevada's residents, elected officials, business leaders, and health and environmental groups have steadfastly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from over 100 groups in opposition.

City of Las Vegas,

Las Vegas, NV, May 7, 2018.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

House Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steve Scalise,

House Majority Whip,

Washington, DC.

Dear Sirs: In 1987 Congress voted for the Department of

Energy (DOE) to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca

Mountain without the support of Nevada. Now, the House of

Representatives is planning to consider H.R. 3053, The

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. I am writing to express

my vehement opposition to this legislation.

Yucca Mountain would cost U. S. taxpayers billions of

dollars and require the dangerous transportation of nuclear

waste across every state in the country before it arrives in

Nevada, which, by the way, produces no nuclear waste These

transports journey through communities in the nation whose

infrastructures are well-known to be rated at the dangerously

low, D+ level by highly renowned associations of engineers

and scientific professionals. Bridges and tunnels have not

been reinforced in decades, railroad tracks are faulty (as we

well know!), and roads are beyond needing repair and

replacement. No matter the transport vehicle used, the cargo

travels on challenged routes which are unknown to the public

and at times undeclared!

In my tenure as Mayor, every year I have warned my fellow

Mayors of the dangers of this transportation, and every year

the Mayors across the nation have passed a resolution at

their annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting requiring that

the U.S. Department of Energy instead focus on deactivating

and/or repurposing radioactive waste on site. High-priority

research is needed to identify methods for the safe treatment

and storage of radioactive waste at origination locations in

order to mitigate the health and environmental risks of

transporting low, high and mixed level waste to offsite

treatment facilities. Even Mayors with nuclear waste on their

doorsteps understand the dangers of transporting this waste

As Mayor of Las Vegas, I am fortunate to preside over a

beautiful city that is home to over 600,000 residents in one

of the fastest-growing areas in the nation boasting over 2.4

million residents. Additionally, 42 million visitors choose

the Las Vegas valley as a destination annually. Yucca

Mountain is less than 100 miles away from this gem in the

desert. I believe that DOE's Nuclear Regulatory Commission

should be required to have support from state, local and

tribal governments before constructing a nuclear waste

repository anywhere in the country Therefore, I urge you and

your colleagues to vote down H.R. 3053, which rejects science

and ignores our steadfast opposition

Sincerely,

Carolyn Goodman,

Mayor.

Mr. Chair, you have heard that the legislation before you now, ``Screw Nevada 2.0,'' is a work of compromise, a bipartisan effort, not perfect, but a step forward. Well, that, frankly, is an opinion. It is not the facts. Here are the facts:

The legislation overrides environmental laws, allowing the EPA to move the goalposts in terms of radiation limits to ensure that nothing will ever interfere with the agenda of the nuclear industry.

It sets up a consent-based process for the establishment of an interim storage facility but imposes a permanent facility at Yucca Mountain.

It increases the amount of nuclear waste to be dumped in Nevada by 37 percent, 110 metric tons more that were not considered in any of the environmental or safety studies being used to justify the project.

It also removes the prohibition currently in law that prohibits Nevada from being the de facto interim storage facility until a permanent one can be licensed.

It was also changed after passing out of committee to address the high scoring costs, making it less likely that we get host benefits.

Mr. Chair, also, contrary to the sponsor's comments, the area around Yucca Mountain is not some desolate area. It has iconic wildlife, endangered species, and Native American artifacts.

Also, the proposed facility sits above the water table and on an active fault and can only be reached by roads that travel through 329 of your congressional districts.

Finally, like New Mexico, the people in Nevada have suffered from tests of atomic weapons that the government told us: Don't worry; it will be safe.

In short, this bill does nothing to really address the root of the problem, and I urge Members to vote against it.

It has cost us 36 years and $15 billion, and all we have to show for it is a hole in the ground. We should be doing consent-based decisionmaking that will move us forward and not continue this failed policy that is bad politics and bad policy.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is also supported by my Nevada colleague (Mr. Kihuen) is very simple and straightforward. It sets up consent-based site decisionmaking as an alternative to ``Screwing Nevada 2.0,'' which just continues the process that has lasted 36 years, has cost $15 billion, is going nowhere in the Senate, and has nothing to show for it but a big hole in the ground.

Consent-based siting, on the other hand, is fair. Nevada doesn't want your nuclear waste. We didn't get any benefits from it, and we didn't generate it. But Texas and New Mexico do want it, so why not let them have it?

It is also a sound policy. It was the number one recommendation of the esteemed Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Now, you can argue the politics, you can distort the science, you can assert it is the law--as though a 1982 policy is the Ten Commandments--but you can't have the truth.

Now, my colleagues don't want this dangerous waste in their backyards any more than Nevadans do. I get that. That is pretty easy to understand. But it is funny, they didn't mind the jobs; they didn't mind the tax revenue, the cheap power, and the political support they got from the nuclear power industry over the years that it has existed. Now, they just want somebody else to clean up their mess.

Well, I say, instead of screwing Nevada one more time, why don't we really work together so we can finally and effectively solve the problem? We could do this with consent-based siting for both interim and permanent storage facilities. This would be a real solution that could take us into the future. So I would urge my colleagues to support the Titus amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I would just respond to two things. I thank the gentleman for recognizing what Nevada did to help win the Cold War. We were the site of atomic testing for years. We still bear those scars. But this is not about military waste; this is about commercial waste.

Second, while I appreciate the chairman's concern about Nevada and giving us benefits, the health and safety of Nevadans is not for sale to the nuclear power industry.

Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague and the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Chairman, that is in Washington. It is not in Oregon. If you don't even know where Hanford is, I am not sure you really understand what took place there.

I would just say: The law of the land, that is a great argument. You forgot about that argument when you tried to repeal ObamaCare 60 times and have done everything you can to roll back Dodd-Frank. So law of the land is a pretty weak, specious argument.

This is not just about the safety of Nevada. This is about doing what is right, finding a policy that will work, that is based on consent, that the experts say is the way to go, that has a chance to get out of the Senate and really move us forward so we do quit wasting time, so we do quit wasting money, and we find a real solution to

an issue that does affect the entire Nation.

That is why it should be consent based. That is why I think we should support this amendment and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would say again, please keep in mind that this has an opportunity to pass. It will really solve the problem. It will not turn the clock back to an old way that has failed, that is faulty science, bad politics, and even worse policy.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act.

First, let me recognize the hard work done by Mr. Shimkus on this bill. He has been tireless in this effort. And to his and his staff's credit, he has worked with us to make what I believe are a number of improvements to the given bill. Regardless of your position on nuclear energy, we have to acknowledge the reality that tens of thousands of tons of waste already exist. This is a problem for over 120 host communities across our country, and it will not be solved by continuing to ignore it.

But even if you do not represent one of those communities, all of our constituents are paying for this waste. Decades ago, the Federal Government entered into agreements to remove it from nuclear plants. Deadlines have been missed, and now all taxpayers have a legal liability of over $34 billion, which is being paid from the Treasury's Judgment Fund.

In my view, the most important thing this bill does is set up a path forward on interim storage, which will allow spent nuclear fuel to be stored in a consolidated location on a temporary basis while a permanent repository is pursued.

The bill includes language based upon a proposal developed by our colleague, Doris Matsui, to allow the Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement to establish an interim storage pilot program, which can move forward directly after enactment.

Consolidating waste at a small number of sites instead of 121 communities across our country will help ensure waste is managed more safely and securely while allowing those 121 sites to begin to be redeveloped for other purposes.

I know a number of our colleagues have concerns with this bill, and I understand their position. And many Members that support this bill, including myself, have not passed judgment on the merits or final disposition of the Yucca Mountain project. That is why Members of the minority demanded a number of troubling Nevada-related provisions be removed from the bill during the committee process.

This bill will not rubber-stamp the Yucca permitting application. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will still need to adjudicate the many remaining issues with the application, and it will need appropriations in order to do so.

I know we will hear about the challenges of transporting spent fuel to a final repository, but the reality is nuclear material is already moved around our country today without incident due to strict safety requirements. The only alternative to not moving this waste is keeping it spread out in 121 locations for tens of thousands of years.

Overall, this bill is a step in the right direction toward beginning to address our Nation's very difficult nuclear waste issues, which is why it was reported out of committee by a vote of 49-4.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), our outstanding ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is very rare that we consider a perfect bill. This is not the bill Mr. Pallone or I would have written on our own, and I do not think it is a bill Mr. Shimkus would have wanted on his own either, but that is the nature of compromise.

I again want to thank Mr. Shimkus and his staff for their willingness to work with us to address a number of our concerns with the initial bill.

And I want to acknowledge the hard work done by Tuley Wright, Rick Kessler, and other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee minority staff, who worked so diligently on this legislation.

I truly understand the concerns raised by my colleagues in opposition, especially those from the Nevada delegation, and I sympathize with many of their arguments, but the reality is our Nation has a substantial amount of nuclear waste, and we as a Nation need a plan to address it.

We are dealing with the constraints of legislation passed some 30 years ago, and within those constraints, I believe this bill is a step in the right direction to address our Nation's nuclear waste issues.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I know that this takes the issue and the response of this bill and makes it even stronger. With that in mind, I thank my colleague and those with whom he worked on this amendment for their input, and for, again, an amendment that makes the response so much stronger.

With that, I plan to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I stand in support of the amendment.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from New York for their hard work on the amendment and for the sensitivity shown the people in host communities for our nuclear facilities across our country.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and encourage our colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the chairman on the Subcommittee on Environment, Mr. Shimkus, whose, I think, life's work is on the floor today in many respects. Nobody has been more tenacious in this effort to get permanent,

safe, and secure nuclear waste storage for America than John Shimkus, and so I thank Mr. Shimkus for his good work there.

The bill we are considering today reinforces the promise that the United States Congress, on behalf of the Federal Government, made to our constituents a generation ago. Today, we are keeping that promise. We will accept responsibility for and properly dispose of radioactive waste.

This is long overdue. Americans across the country, from Maine to southern California, from Florida to the Pacific Northwest, are watching today, and they are expecting us to act.

The Department of Energy's Hanford site is just up the mighty Columbia River from where I live and where I grew up. That area and those workers helped us win World War II, and the site's nuclear program was instrumental in projecting peace through strength throughout the Cold War.

While the community has been a constructive partner in support of our vital national security missions, it did not agree to serve as a perpetual storage site for the resulting nuclear waste. Fifty-six million gallons of toxic waste sitting in decades-old metal tanks at Hanford--these are those tanks that were being constructed to hold this waste. They are now buried in the ground. The only entry point is right here.

The amount of waste stored at Hanford would fill this entire House Chamber 20 times over. According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, the oldest of these tanks, some of which date back to the 1940s, have single-layer walls or shells. They were built to last 20 years. They will be almost 100 years old by the estimated end of their waste treatment.

The Department of Energy has reported that 67 of these tanks are assumed or known to have leaked waste into the soil. There is an understandable sense of urgency in the Northwest behind the cleanup efforts that are under way at Hanford.

H.R. 3053 will provide the pathway to clean up the contaminated Hanford site. You see, the waste from Hanford will end up in a secure permanent storage site that we believe will be Yucca Mountain. These tanks will be drained and cleaned out, the waste classified and put away.

This bill keeps our commitment to energy consumers, too, who are legally bound to pay for a nuclear waste management program. These consumers in 34 States, including Oregon, have paid the Federal Government in excess of $40 billion. Even after the last administration stalled the project, ratepayers continued to hand over nearly $800 million annually to develop the repository, until finally the courts stepped in and directed the fee collection be halted because no repository was being constructed. That money was paid to the U.S. Treasury for a specific purpose. We have a legal and moral obligation to advance the program for which ratepayers paid.

Now, my friends in Nevada should have confidence the Yucca Mountain repository will protect public health and the environment. The completion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's impartial safety review will answer the many questions raised by the State of Nevada and provide an independent determination if the site meets the required 1- million-year environmental protection standard. That is right, 1 million years.

Consolidating the Nation's nuclear material for disposal is better for the environment than the status quo, where these materials sit around in 121 communities in 39 States, or tanks like this.

The legislation authorizes the Department of Energy to contract with private companies to store nuclear waste while DOE finishes the rigorous scientific analysis of the repository design and the associated Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process. An interim storage facility can bring added flexibility to DOE's disposal program and may provide a more expeditious near-term pathway to consolidate spent nuclear fuel.

The longer the government delays, the greater the potential consequences. The legal cost of inaction, a bill paid by every American taxpayer, is staggering. Today, taxpayers pay an average of $2 million every day--every day--in legal claims because we as a government have not done what was promised decades ago. We are doing that today with this legislation.

Cumulatively, we are on the hook for nearly $134 billion. That increases every day we delay action. Instead of contributing to an escalating national debt, this money could be better spent to support our men and women in uniform, deal with the opioid crisis, or a whole myriad of other things. By acting today, we will eventually turn off that penalty phase and start the productive phase.

At the end of the day, this bipartisan legislation is good for our communities around the country and their safety. It is good for consumers and fiscal sanity. It is good for the environment for secure storage. It is good for taxpayers, and it is good for national security as well.

So I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have put so much work into this--Mr. Tonko and certainly Mr. Shimkus. I urge all our colleagues to support H.R. 3053. Let's put an end to these tanks before they put an end to us.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressman Shimkus for his support of this amendment. I would also like to thank Congressman Tonko as well, and express my support for the underlying bill, which will, among many other things, prioritize decommissioned nuclear plants for removal of spent waste.

The hard work to come to this stage has been important, and we are finally moving forward.

In 2015, news broke that the nuclear plant in my district would be decommissioned in 2019. Unfortunately, this plant has also been in the news quite a bit because of significant safety concerns. So the communities back home are intimately aware of the safety and security risks to local neighborhoods and plant employees, and local officials and stakeholders have worked hard to hold plant operators accountable to prepare for all the risks presented, and to demand a plan for what happens after the plant is decommissioned so that the families and the businesses in my district are not left high and dry.

I offered a number of amendments to H.R. 3035, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. They included efforts to strengthen local stakeholder engagement, to support funding for communities where spent nuclear fuel is awaiting transfer, to ensure the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel at decommissioned or soon-to-be decommissioned plants. And I offered these amendments because of the safety of the communities that are affected by nuclear plants and the nuclear storage sites, the importance of that being recognized.

And while some of these ideas weren't included in the particular bill, the amendment I offer now is fundamental to making sure that they will be ultimately addressed.

Congress created the Nuclear Waste Fund to fund a solution to civilian nuclear waste that would provide for safe disposal in a permanent repository. These funds came from funds paid by ratepayers and generated by tens of billions of dollars, $31 billion as of 2014, to support a solution for dealing with nuclear waste in a safe and secure manner.

And in the issuance of what is happening with this fund, the administration ceased making an easy-to-read summary to be part of that. The American people deserve to know just how this fund is being managed, and that any expenditure is actually necessary or justified and publicly reported and easily digested by local officials and the public as a whole.

For this, transparency really is key. We should be making it as easy as possible for the public and the officials that oversee this fund, and my amendment does just that by requiring a clear, plain English summary to accompany annual reporting on the Nuclear Waste Fund's financial status.

The information about the fund should not be only accessible to those who can understand the technical information contained in the full report. When communities like mine are working as hard as they can possibly work under the circumstances to make sure that they keep families safe, we should be making every possible tool available to them to achieve this goal.

Transparency around the fund created by ratepayers and intended to support a permanent solution to the safety risks they face from nuclear waste is only one piece of that, but an important piece.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who has worked tirelessly on this issue as well and with a strong spirit of bipartisan cooperation on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to thank everyone who has worked so hard: Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Tonko, and all of the people who are finally moving this ahead. It is a very important issue in terms of our energy. It is very important in terms of safety of our communities. We have finally got the ball rolling, so again, I thank them for their hard work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.