Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3053) to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and for other purposes.

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. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 879 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 879, providing for consideration of an important piece of legislation, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. The rule provides for consideration of this measure under a structured rule, making three amendments offered by the minority in order. This legislation passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis by a vote of 49-4, and has been a comprehensive effort spearheaded by my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) over several Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, in 39 States and in 121 communities across this country, including in the Tri-Cities community in my home district, in the great State of Washington, the Federal Government continues to fail to meet its obligation to collect and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high- level radioactive waste. This spent fuel and waste is generated as a result of commercial nuclear power production, and as a byproduct of our Nation's nuclear defense activities, including used fuel from nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers and from the legacy waste created from uranium and plutonium development as nuclear weapons deterrents.

No one knows the magnitude of impact stemming from the development of these nuclear deterrents more than the Tri-Cities community, where the Hanford Site played a major role within the Manhattan Project during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. It was because of the extraordinary work of the more than 50,000 workers at Hanford that we were able to end World War II, and later the Cold War.

However, this work came with great repercussions. The Hanford Site contains 56 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste, and is one of the world's largest nuclear cleanup efforts. Fifty-six million gallons, Mr. Speaker, enough to fill this room that we are standing in today more than 20 times.

This amount of radioactive waste has been a legacy issue in my district since the 1940s. My constituents fully understand the impacts holding this waste has on the region. The Federal Government must keep its commitment to collect and dispose of it to a permanent repository.

Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, would make great strides in addressing this very problem. H.R. 3053 would, rightfully, move forward with the licensing of the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada as the first permanent geological repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

First designated by Congress in 1987 as the location for these materials to be disposed of, the site has undergone extensive scientific and technical evaluations. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that Yucca Mountain met all of the requirements to serve as a permanent repository. In

2008, DOE applied to construct the repository, but the Obama administration illegally terminated the effort for what appeared to be political, rather than scientific, reasons. Fortunately, for our Nation, and for the communities like the Tri-Cities, this administration has stated its firm commitment to getting this project back on track and moving forward.

Not only does central Washington continue to store the legacy waste from Hanford, but it is also home to the only nuclear power plant in the Pacific Northwest, the Columbia Generating Station. While H.R. 3053 provides for a path forward for a long-term solution for waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, it also authorizes DOE to contract with a private company to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel for the very first time.

Communities that host nuclear power production sites across the country have, for far too long, been held responsible for the management of spent fuel, even though, under law, it is the legal obligation of the Federal Government to collect and dispose of it. This legislation directs DOE to initiate a program to consolidate and temporarily store commercial spent nuclear fuel during the development, construction, and initial operation of a repository.

H.R. 3053 provides for other innovative and necessary management tools for waste, including encouraging DOE to take ownership of spent nuclear fuels from facilities that have ceased commercial operation, and allowing the Department to enter into contract with private storage facilities.

The legislation also protects taxpayers by reducing legal liabilities. Consumers of nuclear energy across the country have paid over $42 billion into the nuclear waste fund, with nearly $40 billion still waiting to be spent to dispose of nuclear waste. This includes more than $200 million from Washington State ratepayers.

What have they received from the Federal Government for paying of these fees, Mr. Speaker?

Absolutely nothing. Not one ounce of waste has been collected, which is the very purpose of the fund.

This legislation will reform the fund to protect ratepayers by assuring there is a definite answer on the Yucca Mountain repository prior to restarting the fee collection.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of visiting the Yucca Mountain facility. While it may seem to some like just a dusty 5-mile tunnel bored 1,000 feet deep in a remote Nevada desert, I found it to be an impressive site and full of potential. The Federal Government has spent decades, and billions of American taxpayer dollars, studying the best place for a repository. The conclusion was that Yucca Mountain is now the legal repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under the law.

I cannot express more ardently the importance of moving this effort forward, both for my district and districts around the Nation. This legislation takes a great leap forward for a long-term solution, while also tackling serious impacts and disparities of the current situation facing these communities.

Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward rule, allowing for considering of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule, as well as the underlying legislation, to address this vital issue for our entire Nation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for joining me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to my State of Washington and the legacy of the Federal Government's work at Hanford, like I said, they left behind 56 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste that is currently being stored in 177 underground tanks in temporary storage.

I had the fortune of being able to join a bipartisan congressional tour of Yucca, of the Yucca Mountain site, to see firsthand what we were talking about. Under the law, Yucca is the Nation's permanent nuclear repository.

What I saw deep beneath the mountain in a remote desert that is between, I think, 90 and 100 miles north of Las Vegas--it has been referred to as the most studied site on Earth. But imagine this: being inside a 5-mile-long tunnel with 1,000 feet of rock above your head and 1,000 feet of rock below your feet. That is what we are talking about.

The Federal Government has spent $15 billion over decades preparing the site as the Nation's sole permanent nuclear repository. Yucca has been deemed safe by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC. A recent safety evaluation found that the site could safely isolate spent nuclear fuel for 1 million years.

Mr. Speaker, the prospect is that Yucca could stand in two different ways: it could be a monument to billions of dollars in government waste instead of being a monument to a solution that we promised every American in this country.

I hope it is the latter, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me quote the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,

the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who said that:

Overall, this legislation is a balanced step in the right

direction that will benefit ratepayers, taxpayers, and those

living near nuclear facilities housing nuclear waste.

So I am happy to have his support for this legislation as well.

And just a couple of points from the gentlewoman from Nevada, whom I deeply respect and take her perspective on this with a great deal of gravity.

The transportation issue has been brought up several times. Nuclear waste is transported in this country already, and I have just got to tell you, the vessels, the containers that I have witnessed that this waste is being temporarily stored in and used for transportation, literally, is missile-proof. I mean, it is in containers that are very solidly contained and in such a way that the safety factor is many times over to ensure that, in case of any incident, that there would be no contamination.

As far as the language, it is true that the bill would allow the potential increase of storage capacity at Yucca Mountain. However, there is a strict process of approval that would have to be gone through in order to increase the amount of nuclear waste stored at Yucca Mountain, so it is not a given, passing this legislation. It would be something that would go through a very long, strict process.

I just have to say that we would gladly have entertained any amendments to clarify or perfect language along those lines as far as the storage amounts in Yucca Mountain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who has been carrying the banner for the Yucca Mountain project for many Congresses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say, it is a pleasure to manage a rule with my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and my hands are wide open, not tipped whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have spent over $15 billion in research and development of the Yucca Mountain project. It would be utterly foolish, in my estimation, to literally flush this time, energy, and capital down the drain, particularly as the Department of Energy has deemed that the site has met all the requirements to move forward with the licensing process.

The rule we have debated here today provides for consideration of very, very important legislation, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, which would jump-start this vital effort to move the Yucca Mountain plan forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak in favor of this rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 879 and the underlying legislation to provide relief and a long-term plan for communities like those in my district and those in Mr. Hastings' State of Florida, and the rest of our districts around the Nation.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 879 Offered by Mr. Hastings

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in

order as though printed as the last amendment in the report

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if

offered by Representative

Rosen of Nevada or a designee. That amendment shall be

debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by

the proponent and an opponent.

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as

follows:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of this measure, H.R. 3053.

As my good friend alluded to, this legislation has bipartisan support and takes an important step towards permanently securing nuclear waste in our country.

Thirty-six years ago, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In doing so, this institution created a formal process for constructing a permanent geological repository for the growing amount of nuclear waste across our country.

This particular provision established a scientifically based, multistage process for selecting an eventual site of permanent storage for highly radioactive nuclear waste, delineated the Federal Government's responsibilities for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel, and created a dedicated funding source for disposing of nuclear material.

Five years after passing the NWPA and following significant congressional review of the Department of Energy studies, it was determined that the facility be built at Yucca Mountain. However, after many subsequent years of planning, licensing, and construction, the project has stalled--at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.

The question of how to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. Even with the statutory requirements put in place by the NWPA nearly four decades ago, no permanent solution is currently available for safely storing high-level radioactive waste in a consolidated, secure location. Rather, spent nuclear fuel is stored at nuclear reactors across the country. Many of these facilities have been shut down, or soon will be, without any solution to the long-term problem.

For obvious reasons, the issue of nuclear waste storage at plants across the country is of great concern to the surrounding communities, especially as some nuclear plants are shuttered early. The longer we wait, the greater the problem will become.

H.R. 3053, the underlying legislation, directs the Secretary of the Department of Energy to create a program to consolidate and temporarily store commercial spent nuclear fuel during the development, construction, and initial operation of a national repository. The legislation provides the Energy Department with consolidated storage options to help fulfill the Federal Government's obligations to take possession of spent nuclear fuel in other States that are waiting for a permanent repository.

This bill, although I have some concerns, is a good step forward. This is a complicated issue, and I believe this institution has come together to present at least a viable option for addressing a very serious need.

Mr. Speaker, in taking up this legislation, the Rules Committee has acted for the second time in just a few weeks to bring bipartisan legislation to the House floor. While the bill we are debating today is certainly not perfect, it is, nonetheless, an example of what can be accomplished through compromise and bipartisan cooperation. This type of process should not be the exception to the rule. It should be the standard operating procedure for the House of Representatives.

I mention this because we all know this is, by and large, not the case. Instead of working together, we have witnessed dozens of controversial and partisan bills pushed through the House through a closed process designed to silence the minority and even voices within the Republican majority. That is wrong, and for the sake of this institution, it cannot continue.

Using the closed process, my Republican friends recently pushed through one of the largest tax giveaways in American history. They did so at the expense of middle class families across the country, passing the bill without so much as a single hearing or bipartisan conversation.

According to the latest survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the massive tax cuts have not made any difference in businesses' hiring plans. Rather, almost every week, we hear of corporations using their millions of dollars in handouts to buy back stock and pad the pockets of their investors. It is no wonder most Americans haven't seen their paychecks go up.

In a few years, when the tax breaks expire--that is right, they are only temporary--the few families across the country who benefit will recognize the tax scam for what it really is: an empty bag of goods that added nearly $2.5 trillion to the national debt.

My friends on the other side are even contemplating paying for part of their tax plan by retroactively eliminating funding for a number of programs, and the children's healthcare program is one of them.

Let me say that again. In order to pay for the tax cuts for millionaires and large corporations, my Republican colleagues are suggesting cutting billions of dollars from healthcare programs for vulnerable children.

How dare they.

The closed process isn't just about what is being rammed through the House; it is about what is being blocked altogether.

Americans across our Nation continue to be victims of gun violence, yet Congress has failed to pass even basic commonsense reforms like banning bump stocks or fixing our background check system.

More than 26,000 children and teens have been killed in gun violence since 1999. This year alone, 500 teens and over 100 children have been killed or injured by guns. People are killed every single day, and this body has done nothing but prevent sensible reforms from even being considered.

Another example is DACA. Eighty-three percent of Americans say they favor continuing the DACA program, as do a majority of the Members of this House, and that includes Republicans and Democrats; yet the majority refuses to bring up the Dream Act for a vote.

Just put it down here for a vote; that is all. The 26 measures for guns that are reasonable, put it down here for a vote. If it doesn't pass, then at least we can say to the American people that we tried to do something about gun violence and we tried to do something about the Dream Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to the American people to consider legislation in a transparent and serious manner, and the legislation that we are considering today is exactly that kind of situation, something that doesn't happen nearly enough. I commend my colleagues for their bipartisan work on H.R. 3053, but it is absurd that bipartisan work is such a rarity, and that is worthy of comment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, few people in this body understand the dynamics of Yucca Mountain as do the Members from the State of Nevada. One of my good friends is on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I have had the pleasure of being on the Rules Committee and hearing her make presentations with reference to this matter. She speaks very clearly.

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

I yield the gentlewoman from Nevada an additional 1 minute.

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

When debating a bill as significant as this one, it is imperative that the people's House allow as much debate and as open a process as possible. Sadly, the Rules Committee did not even allow all Members from Nevada, whose State this bill will impact the most, to offer their amendments on the House floor.

Once again, this majority picked winners and losers and limited debate to just a select few amendments. This is unfortunate but all too common an event during the 115th Congress.

To block a Member from offering an amendment to a bill that would impact their district, in particular, is to block a Member from representing their constituents. I might add, there were five Members, Democratic and Republican, from the Nevada delegation who were present at the Rules Committee last night.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to allow the people's House to debate and vote on Representative Rosen of Nevada's amendment, which was blocked by the Rules Committee.

Her amendment, which is a thoughtful proposal, would delay licensing, planning, or construction of the nuclear repository at the Yucca Mountain site until the Director of OMB studies the economic viability and job-creating benefits of alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site.

It is bothersome to me that we have had most of the discussion here already without talking about reprocessing; and I asked last night how much research is being done, of the distinguished chairman of the committee, who, I believe, has done an incredibly good job in offering up bipartisanship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

As I said previously, the members of the Nevada delegation know more about this issue than all the rest of us combined. So to discuss our proposal, yet another clear voice that came to the Rules Committee last night and her amendment was not made in order.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), a member of the Armed Services Committee, and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend, who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and is a former member of the Rules Committee, so she understands our process extremely well and has done extraordinary work on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by again commending the committees involved in presenting this legislation, and for doing so in a bipartisan manner.

While the underlying bill we are debating today is not perfect, it is, nonetheless, an example of what can be accomplished through bipartisan work.

In bringing up this bill, the Republican leadership has, perhaps, tipped its hand. It has demonstrated that it is capable of working with the minority and allowing for mature debate and compromise worthy of this institution. I hope this trend continues. I suspect that it will not.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.