Floor Statements

Well, I too would like to thank my friend from the southwest, Congresswoman Sinema, for hosting this special hour to draw attention to Suicide Prevention Month, which we recognize here in September.

Suicide within any population is a traumatic thing to deal with. But we are learning that it is increasingly important and increasingly a problem among our military and our veterans. It's critical that we work to address, to recognize, to prevent, and to eliminate military suicides. And I hope that today's Special Order will help to shine a bright light on this very important topic.

Suicide within the military is a national problem. You have heard my colleagues speak about it in their districts and their State and across the country. But it is especially acute in my home State of Nevada. A recent study done by the State of Nevada found that veterans in the Silver State commit suicide at a rate of more than 2\1/2\ times higher than nonveterans and quadruple the national rate. The study further reported that Nevada's female veterans, those often hidden veterans, commit suicide at more than triple the overall rate for females statewide and nearly six times--six times--the national rate for females. The study also found that in 2010, suicide accounted for more than a quarter of the deaths among young veterans--those between 24 years and younger--throughout the State of Nevada. This is a trend we just cannot allow to continue.

As other speakers have noted, every day, 22 veterans take their own lives. Almost every hour, one of our Nation's heroes takes his or her life. Nearly one in five suicides nationally is a veteran, even though veterans make up only about 10 percent of the U.S. population.

As ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance, I'm working every day with my colleagues to ensure that veterans receive all the benefits that they've earned and the care that they need. So if you are a veteran who is struggling with thoughts of suicide or you are the friend or family member of a veteran who needs help, please contact us. Reach out to us because we need to know what the VA can do to better support and serve you.

I would also encourage my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 2527, which is the National Guard Military Sexual Trauma Parity Act. This would ensure that members of the Guard receive all the care they need if they're a victim of military sexual trauma while on training missions. We know that if you are a victim and you suffer such trauma, that can often lead to suicide.

On our committee, we're constantly working to ensure that the VA is providing care for our veterans struggling with the thought of suicide. But it's also important that we reach out and assure veterans that they know that receiving help is not a sign of weakness. Instead, it's a sign of strength.

When Army Staff Sergeant Ty Carter received a Medal of Honor, he encouraged his fellow soldiers to reach out and for the civilian community to support them. He said to the public, ``Know that they are not damaged. They are simply burdened with living with what others do not. We are resilient and will emerge even stronger over time.'' Sergeant Carter, we know that because of leaders like you and the support of a grateful Nation, we can win the battle against military suicide.

So, again, let us hear from you. And let me remind veterans and those who love them that the VA operates a confidential support center that's open 365 days a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. And please call if you need support. Their phone number is 1-800-273-8255, and then just press number 1. You can also send a text message to 838255.

So don't hesitate to reach out. Someone will be there to hear you. Just as you never leave a fellow soldier on the battlefield, we can't leave anyone behind when they come home. When they come home with wounds that are both visible and hidden, we should be there.

So thank you to my colleagues and to the Congresswoman from Arizona for giving us an opportunity to send this message loud and clear.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the misguided priorities that are driving the GOP's obstruct, repeal, and repeat agenda, and

to call instead for a new policy that addresses the serious challenges our Nation faces.

When we adjourn tomorrow, Republican leadership will leave behind a staggering record of unfinished business and partisan messaging bills that put politics ahead of the American people's priorities. Since January, Republicans have not even allowed a vote on a real jobs bill. They haven't finished a budget, passed comprehensive immigration reform, restored funding on nutrition programs, or fixed the sequester.

Their aversion to meaningful action is undermining the important economic progress we've made. It's keeping 11 million undocumented immigrants in the shadows, and it's disproportionately harming low- income women and families. Hopefully they will see the light during the August recess and put aside the obstruct, repeal, and repeat agenda and set a new one that answers the public's outcry for action.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bills. I am especially disappointed that my amendment to H.R. 367, the REINS Act, wasn't made in order.

My amendment would have protected women and children from the delay and obstructionism in this bill by exempting the Family Medical Leave Act, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act from the bill's intrusive provisions.

These four laws safeguard the economic, social, and physical well- being of women and children in Nevada and across the country. They give mothers the chance to care for a new child, ensure that our students have access to nutritious food, protect the rights of students with disabilities, and help women fight for equal pay for equal work.

My amendment would have offered the Republicans a chance to be reasonable and to dial back their war on the most vulnerable in our country.

H.R. 367, like the other bills being considered under this rule, would hinder our government's ability to serve the people, and it is simply a waste of valuable time. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time.

I would first respectfully correct the record because the GAO conference was not in Las Vegas; it was in Henderson, Nevada, which is in District 3.

Like my colleagues, I believe that government agencies should spend every cent in the most careful and responsible way possible, and it is our job as Members of Congress to ensure that all government spending is effective and efficient.

While there are still improvements that can be made, and I agree with many of the comments that have been issued on the floor already, Congress and the administration have already taken many steps to eliminate excessive travel, require transparency, and improve oversight.

I rise today, however, because I believe that H.R. 313 sends the wrong message about business travel. I am proud to represent Las Vegas, one of the premier business destinations in the United States. Last year, we hosted some 21,000 meetings and conventions attended by almost 5 million business travelers. These business meetings supported 60,000 jobs with an economic impact of $6.7 billion.

Business travel is an important aspect of the economy, with over $250 billion in direct spending by business travelers, which supports 2.2 million jobs nationwide. Even in this age of technology, where lots of business is conducted via the Internet, small businesses across Nevada tell me all the time that the opportunity to meet face-to-face to discuss new programs, cultivate business at a trade show, or learn about new products and designs is just irreplaceable.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to cultivate this important aspect of our economy while also ensuring that our tax dollars are well spent.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I was shocked to hear the new standard for productivity, leadership, and good governance set here in the House of Representatives. Rather than looking at the success of the American people, the Speaker of the House said we should be judged by the number of laws we repeal.

This isn't a standard; this is an excuse for failure. Good governance is not measured by the 38 times that we voted to repeal health care. It is measured by the ability to compromise and create substantial solutions to the issues facing this country.

While House Republicans continue to obstruct, repeal, and repeat, 11 million undocumented immigrants remain in the shadows; 7 million students bear the burden of high student loan rates; 16.7 million children risk going to bed hungry; and every single woman in this country makes 77 cents to the dollar made by a man.

I say it is time that we need a new agenda and certainly a new standard for success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness today to mark the 39th anniversary of the illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus. On July 20, 1974, Turkish troops invaded and began an unjust occupation of areas in northern Cyprus.

Thousands of Cypriots were forced to leave homes where their families had lived for hundreds of years; and within just a few weeks, the Turks had uprooted centuries of culture, religion, and community. Over the years since then, the Turkish forces have committed unspeakable atrocities and destroyed priceless relics, acts which have been condemned by the European Commission for Human Rights.

So I'm proud to stand today with my fellow Hellenic Caucus members as we join together almost four decades after the illegal and immoral occupation of Cyprus to call, once again, on Turkey to act now and end the occupation.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Delaney amendment.

As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I understand the important role that Fisher Houses play in supporting members of our armed services, our Nation's veterans, and their families.

In southern Nevada, a brand new VA hospital opened recently to serve the 154,000 veterans who live in our area. Just north of the hospital, there is land that has already been dedicated to a brand new Fisher House. I support this amendment because it will allow Fisher House Foundation to build an extra four houses this year, including the one in Las Vegas, helping an extra 2,000 families.

The Fisher House Foundation received an A-plus rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy, so we know that our money is being used efficiently and effectively to make a meaningful difference in the lives of our heroes and their families.

I look forward to a day when members of the armed services and our veterans will all have their families close to them as they receive medical care at these facilities, including the new hospital in Las Vegas.

I thank my friend from California for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 697, the Three Kids Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

This bipartisan legislation, which has the support of the entire Nevada delegation, including Senators Reid and Heller, is critical to the cleanup and revitalization of long-dormant land near Henderson, Nevada.

H.R. 697 sets up a public-private partnership to address the remediation of the more than 1,200 acres of former manganese mining and industrial lands for redevelopment. These activities, as you have heard, date back nearly a century and were critical to our national defense during World War II. But over the last 50 years, the already nasty, polluted site has become increasingly dangerous. Accordingly, the cleanup of this land is a top priority for the Nevada State Department of Environmental Protection, the city of Henderson, and for the thousands of southern Nevada residents who live nearby.

I support this legislation to clean up the Three Kids Mine for both safety and environmental reasons and to create opportunities for redevelopment of the site for beneficial use and economic potential. So I would urge my colleagues to join me and the Nevada delegation in support of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5.

My colleague from Nevada must be talking to different teachers and parents than I am. This bill would hurt students and teachers and undermine the longstanding Federal mandate to guarantee educational opportunity for all students.

I am particularly concerned about the impact this bill would have on English language learners, especially at a time when Nevada schools have seen a significant increase in ELL students. These students enrich our

schools with new cultural perspectives, but they need resources and quality instruction to help them succeed academically. H.R. 5 would reduce such resources just when schools and students need them most.

This bill would also be devastating for students in special ed. Most students with learning disabilities can meet high standards if they are given the appropriate tools. H.R. 5, however, denies them the chance to learn and thrive.

Education is the best investment we can make for the future of our Nation, yet H.R. 5 starves our schools, reduces standards, and diminishes our national commitment to equal access to learning.

Let's call it what it is, the Letting Our Students Down Act, and let's vote it down.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time, and I also thank him for organizing this Special Order.

We've heard a lot on this floor and in the press and from our constituents about the moral, the social, the political reasons for us to enact comprehensive immigration reform, but we haven't done enough talking about the economic aspects, so this is a good opportunity do that.

I'm very pleased to say that, in the Senate version of the comprehensive immigration reform bill, there is a provision that has to do with increasing H-1B visas. Those visas will bring with them increased jobs, which, of course, support the economy.

A second part of that provision is also something that I've been urging my colleagues on the House side who are working on the comprehensive immigration reform bill to include, and that provision would use the revenue from these high-skilled H-1B visas to promote STEM education at minority-serving colleges and universities. You can just look at this chart and see how many new jobs will be created both in 2013 and 2014 by the increase in the number of these visas that would be allowed.

If we increase the number of visas, we're also going to increase the amount of funds that come from companies that are willing to pay to bring people from outside the country here for these STEM jobs. I say let's use those funds both to create scholarships for low-income minority students who are pursuing STEM degrees and also to provide funding for American colleges and universities that serve those minority students. We want our new citizens to also be well-prepared citizens.

There are colleges and universities all across the country, including several in the First District of Nevada, that are working hard to attract students to the STEM fields. Earlier this year, the College of Southern Nevada hosted approximately 3,000 K through 12 Nevada students at their annual science and technology expo to get local students from all backgrounds, including our minority communities, excited about careers in STEM fields before they enter college. Then in January, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas hosted a STEM summit to feature STEM research and to get students involved in presenting that research and their work in the STEM fields.

These are significant and important efforts to promote STEM, but our colleges and universities need our help to expand and improve their STEM outreach and training. By increasing access to STEM education, we can help American and immigrant students gain the knowledge and skills they need in the sciences, technology, math, and engineering so they can compete for the jobs of tomorrow.

This is particularly critical for minority students, who are significantly underrepresented in these fields. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in the 2009 American Community Survey, only 12 percent of STEM workers in this country are African American or Hispanic. We can and should be doing better, because a strong STEM workforce is important to American innovation and competitiveness.

So science and technology companies that are paying our government through the H-1B visa program to bring foreign workers to the United States to fill these STEM jobs should be making a contribution. Why not use these funds that they're paying to train Americans to have the skills to fill these jobs in the future? Providing scholarships to STEM students and granting funding to colleges and universities that serve minority communities to improve STEM programs would strengthen our educational system. It would help our economy and also our position as a global leader in science and technology.

So I would urge the Republican leadership to immediately take up the mantle of reform, make it law, and include these provisions for these high-tech visas, using the funding for the visas then to train our own students, many in minority communities, including the children of those immigrants that we are working to help, for the jobs of the future.

Fixing our broken immigration system is not just a moral imperative, but, as we are all discussing tonight, it's an economic necessity.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1848, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013. H.R. 1848 would require the Federal Aviation Administration to update its part 23 small airplane design regulations by December 31, 2015.

Last week, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ordered H.R. 1848 reported favorably to the House by a voice vote.

In June, an FAA-chartered Part 23 Aviation Rulemaking Committee, or ARC, submitted its comprehensive report with recommendations for rewriting and reorganizing part 23 to the agency. Representatives from the FAA, international regulatory agencies, aircraft manufacturers, general aviation pilot groups, and labor unions all participated in the ARC. Its work followed a 2009 FAA report on the Small Airplane Certification Process and fulfilled requirements in section 312 of the FAA reauthorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the Part 23 ARC, the agency's most recent comprehensive review of part 23 was almost 30 years ago, in 1984. Part 23 has not kept up with the times. These regulations are prescriptive in nature, often written to address out-of-date technologies. As a result, they are creating cost barriers for certifying new airplanes and retrofitting older aircraft with new safety-enhancing modifications. The need to improve the process for retrofitting older aircraft is particularly urgent, given the 40-year-old average age of the U.S. general aviation fleet. Small airplane manufacturers and part suppliers across the country are limited in their ability to innovate with new technology because of these outdated regulations. This bill will allow these manufacturers to innovate more quickly and bring more safety technology online.

H.R. 1848 will fast-track the Part 23 ARC's work by requiring the FAA to draft a new regulation that emphasizes performance-based safety objectives. These new regulations make the retrofit of new technology more straightforward and also remove barriers to bringing new, safer airplane designs to market. It will help small business, and I urge support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

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

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

On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. Section 24 of that act states that, effective January 3, 2013, the Secretary of Transportation may not issue ``guidance or a regulation that incorporates by reference any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public free of charge or on an Internet Web site.''

Then, in the last Congress, the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials held a number of hearings on pipeline safety, one of which highlighted a current regulation that required pipeline operators to develop and implement public education and awareness programs. The regulation did not explain what should be contained in the education programs, however. Instead, it pointed readers to an industry-developed standard. But in order to read the standard, you had to pay the drafters more than $1,000. If you're a small community, $1,000 is a lot of money for access to just one of many pipeline safety standards.

I and many of my colleagues have concerns about the Federal Government issuing a regulation that requires whoever wants to read it--particularly local communities, first responders, and private citizens--to have to purchase it from a private association. Fortunately, the 2011 act resolved this situation.

Following enactment of section 24, DOT held a public workshop and Webcast with more than 70 industry, safety, and government representatives present to discuss options for implementing the new law. Nearly 200 other entities participated in the Webcast. Additional comments were provided through the Federal Register notice, including by the Small Business Administration, which noted many concerns of small businesses with the continued use of incorporation by reference.

Since the workshop, several standards development organizations have agreed in writing to electronically post on the Internet all of the consensus standards that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration incorporates by reference into the Federal pipeline safety regulations. Those include ASTM International, the Manufacturers Standardization Society, the Gas Technology Institute, NACE International, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas Association. I will include their letters in the Congressional Record.

I also will insert letters from the Pipeline Safety Trust, Dakota Rural Action, and Columbia law professor Peter Strauss expressing the need for public availability of the standards in the Record.

Unfortunately, some organizations have expressed concerns about posting their standards on the Internet. This has in turn held up progress of several important safety rulemakings that were mandated in the 2011 pipeline law. So in the spirit of bipartisanship, and not wanting to hold up the rulemaking process, I believe the law should be modified to provide DOT with additional time to implement it and with additional flexibility to determine how best to make the standards widely available to the public. I believe that, even with these changes that are in the law, the law will continue to address the transparency and openness concerns of the safety community.

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

U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous

Materials Safety Administration,

Washington, DC, March 4, 2013.

Re incorporation by reference of voluntary consensus

standards for pipeline safety regulations.

Mr. James Thomas,

President, ASTM International,

West Conshocken, PA.

Dear Mr. Thomas: As you know, the practice of incorporating

voluntary consensus standards allows pipeline operators to

use the most current industry technologies, materials, and

management practices available on today's market. New or

updated standards often further innovation and increase the

use of new technologies that improve the safety and

operations of pipelines and pipeline facilities.

On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed into law the

Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act

of 2011 (P.L. 112-90) (the Act). Section 24 of the Act states

that, effective January 3, 2013, PHMSA may not issue

``guidance or a regulation that incorporates by reference any

documents or portions thereof unless the documents or

portions thereof are made available to the public, free of

charge, on an Internet Web site.''

In support of Section 24 of the Act, we thank ASTM

International (ASTM) for agreeing to electronically post on

the Internet all ASTM consensus standards that PHMSA

incorporates by reference into the

federal pipeline safety regulations after January 3, 2013. It

has also agreed to post on the Internet any updated, revised,

or new ASTM consensus standards that PHMSA proposes during

rulemaking to incorporate by reference. While ASTM has

discretion in how they accomplish this objective, it has

agreed that, at a minimum, these voluntary consensus

standards will be: Electronically posted on an Internet Web

site; Available to the public; and Free of charge.

ASTM has agreed to notify PHMSA immediately if it is no

longer able or capable of meeting the above minimum posting

requirements. We request that you also notify us if any

standards are removed from your electronic archives, if you

have such an archives. The voluntary consensus standards

developed by ASTM play a critical role in safeguarding

pipeline safety, and PHMSA is tremendously appreciative of

the constructive role ASTM is playing in ensuring their

continued use in the federal pipeline safety regulations.

After you review the terms of this agreement, please sign

below and return a copy to PHMSA. If you have questions,

please contact Mike Israni at 202-366-4571.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey D. Wiese,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America and Nevada's poor families.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is another example of House Republicans' misplaced priorities. Instead of addressing food insecurity in our country, this bill completely omits nutrition assistance funding and instead provides millions of dollars in subsidies to the nation's largest corporate farms. SNAP is a life line for millions of families who suffer from chronic hunger. With one in four children in the United States at risk of going hungry, including 170,000 school children in Southern Nevada, it is not only irresponsible, it is morally unacceptable to exclude SNAP funding from the Farm Bill. That is why I voted against this legislation, and why I have introduced the Weekends Without Hunger Act. My bill fills a critical need in our community by providing a nutritious meal to students who would not otherwise have access to food on weekends and during school breaks. I will continue to advocate on behalf of our communities to ensure they have the resources they need to root out the causes of hunger and build strategies to eliminate food insecurity.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to speak on a serious issue that affects my constituents. I've been investigating it since it was brought to my attention several months ago through our local media.

The Department of Energy is in the process of moving dangerous radioactive waste thousands of miles across the country from east Tennessee to southern Nevada. This waste is destined for the Nevada Nuclear Security Site, formally known as the Nevada Test Site. This is a totally separate issue now from the proposed Yucca Mountain storage site debate that we have heard earlier today.

If you're unaware that this radioactive waste is traveling through your backyard, I'm not surprised. The DOE has failed to properly inform Congress about this activity.

The project involves the transport of hundreds of canisters containing high-concentration fissile materials from the Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to be dumped in my State of Nevada. The materials are so radioactive that they have a half life of more than 160,000 years.

I want to be clear that this is not the kind of low-level waste that the Nevada Test Site has been accepting for years. In fact, just weeks ago, I learned that the Department of Energy had reworked the waste acceptance criteria for the security site to allow storage of materials that have radioactive concentrations more than 40 times higher than anything that has ever been brought to the site for disposal before.

That revision to the WAC, or waste acceptance criteria, was signed off on by the DOE the very same day that agency officials met with my staff and State and local officials, yet DOE didn't think it was necessary or important to inform any of us about this change. As a matter of fact, it took an Internet search days later to discover that DOE had actually reworked the playbook for the site without any public input.

Mr. Chairman, there are far too many questions about what DOE is doing and plans to do at the Nevada Test Site, questions that so far have gone unanswered.

Nevadans have had a lot of experience dealing with Federal officials throughout the days of atomic testing and during the Cold War. We're not going to just turn aside now and let the DOE run roughshod over our communities.

And I can tell you that I'm not alone in expressing my concerns about the DOE's activities. Our Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, has also publicly stated his opposition to the shipments of this radioactive waste. In a letter to the Energy Secretary, our Governor stated that classifying ``this material as low-level waste sets a dangerous precedent.'' I will be submitting the letter from Governor Sandoval for the Record.

Mr. Chairman, my district sits just 65 miles southeast of the Nevada Test Site. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is home to nearly 2 million residents and more than 40 million visitors annually. Any plan to transport waste through the heart of the Las Vegas Valley would be extremely risky and incredibly irresponsible. The stakes are just too high to gamble on District One's safety.

The DOE has refused to cooperate with repeated attempts to gather additional information so we can have appropriate oversight. It's unthinkable that DOE is moving forward with this program without properly briefing Members of Congress. If we are being kept in the dark, who is overseeing the DOE's plans? It's critical that DOE be forthright about how and why the WAC was changed, how the changes relate to the proposed shipment, and how these changes will affect the safety and security of southern Nevada and communities across the country in the path of this transportation.

I'd like to thank the chairman and especially the ranking member for allowing me to bring this to the attention of the House, and I would ask them to work with me to ensure that there's proper congressional oversight of DOE and that the people of Nevada and beyond get the answers that they deserve.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Office of the Governor,

Las Vegas, NV, June 20, 2013.

Re Planned Shipment of Wastes from Oak Ridge to Nevada

National Security Site

Hon. Dr. Ernest Moniz,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Moniz: I'm writing to inform you that after

long and serious consideration, I have decided to oppose the

Department of Energy's plan to ship the Consolidated Edison

Uranium Solidification Project (CEUSP) canisters containing

dangerous and long-lived radioactive waste for disposal at

Area 5 of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS).

I am aware that DOE believes that these canisters qualify

for disposal as low-level radioactive waste (LLW). My

advisors have independently evaluated all of the important

technical and regulatory issues. They have concluded that the

CEUSP canisters are not commonplace LLW; even if these

canisters meet a legalistic definition of LLW, they are not

suitable for shallow land burial at the NNSS. Nevada is also

not satisfied with the overall process that DOE has followed

in developing its disposal and transportation plans,

including failure to appropriately address the concerns of

affected local governments and Native American Tribes.

The CEUSP canisters can only be considered LLW because they

do not meet the legal definition of high-level radioactive

waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, or uranium mill

tailings. Using this logic, DOE is attempting to exploit a

gap in current regulations. This dangerous waste should be

managed in the same manner as remote-handled transuranic

waste, which DOE currently ships to the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant for permanent deep-geologic disposal. The canisters

contain a high concentration of fissile material (Uranium 235

and Uranium 233), uranium isotopes that are extremely long-

lived (half lives of more than 160,000 years), and have a

relatively high surface dose rate (300 rem per hour), which

makes them dangerous to workers and a potential source of

``dirty bomb'' material. Moreover, qualifying this material

as LLW sets a dangerous precedent for the classification of

potential future waste streams that exist across the nation.

Both Nevada and DOE have a mutual interest in the long-term

and safe management of NNSS. Over the past two decades, the

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has worked

successfully with DOE on a broad range of environmental

assessment and remediation activities at NNSS. I believe that

this provides a basis for shared planning for future uses of

DOE facilities at NNSS.

I request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience

to discuss in a cooperative manner Nevada's views on the

future of operations at the NNSS. Timely matters for

discussion include the recently completed Site-wide

Environmental Impact Statement and pending issuance of the

associated Record of Decision, troubling revisions to the

NNSS Waste Acceptance Criteria, and the unsatisfactory manner

in which DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration

have dealt with affected local governments and Native

American Tribes in Nevada.

The State of Nevada is committed to a long-term cooperative

relationship with your Department, based on mutual respect,

sound science, protection of the environment, and public

health and safety. I look forward to meeting with you at your

earliest convenience.

Sincere regards,

Brian Sandoval,

Governor.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner