et in dc
-------------------
(1)
<center>ANNOUNCEMENT ON RULE FOR H.R. 1270, THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
ACT
OF 1997 (House of Representatives - October 22, 1997)
</center> [Page: H8934]
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is expected to meet on
Friday, October 24, this Friday, to grant a rule which may restrict
amendments for consideration of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1997. Any Member contemplating an amendment to H.R. 1270 should submit
55 copies of the amendment and a brief explanation of the amendment to
the Committee on Rules no later than 5 p.m. on this Thursday, tomorrow,
October 23. The Committee on Rules office, for those who are not aware of
it, is upstairs in H-312.
Members should draft their amendments to the Committee on Commerce
reported version of the bill, which the Committee on Rules intends to
make in order as the base text for the purpose of amendment. Members
should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their
amendments are properly drafted and should check with the distinguished
Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules
of the House.
---------------------
(2)
<center>DANGERS OF TRANSPORTING NUCLEAR WASTE (House of Representatives
-
October 22, 1997)
</center>
[Page: H8932]
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, in the upcoming debate over H.R. 1270 , many of
my colleagues will make the unfortunate statement that the shipment of
the world's most deadly material, nuclear waste, is safe. That is wrong.
It is absolutely and totally wrong.
The Sandia National Laboratories found that terrorists using a small
amount of military explosives could blow just a 6-inch hole in a
container, releasing 2,000 to 10,000 curies, a deadly amount of
radiation.
Furthermore, a 1985 Department of Energy contractor report stated that
the release of only 1,380 curies could be sufficient to contaminate, get
this, 42 square miles, an area that could take up to 460 days to clean up
at a price tag for the taxpayers of more than $620 million.
Mr. Speaker, another DOE contractor estimated that that could cost up to
$19.4 billion, that is with a B, billion, to clean up.
Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the real threat of terrorism and accidents
in this country. I say to my colleagues, if it could happen in their
district, there is no reason to transport nuclear waste.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote `no' on H.R. 1270.
----------------
(3)
<center>URGING MEMBERS TO VOTE `NO' ON INTERIM STORAGE NUCLEAR WASTE
SITE (House of Representatives - May 16, 1997)
</center>
[Page: H2796]
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, the environment and safety of America is in
danger. Two bills have been introduced to Congress, S. 104 and H.R. 1270
, that would establish an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV.
Several problems become very evident when the legislation is examined.
First, moving 80,000 tons of waste from 109 reactor sites will traverse
43 States.
Second, in the last 20 years there have been more than 621 earthquakes
within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain.
--------------------
(4)
<center>TOP 10 REASONS NOT TO SUPPORT H.R. 1270, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
ACT
(House of Representatives - May 22, 1997)
</center>
[Page: H3172]
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, top 10 reasons not to vote for H.R. 1270 , the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997:
Number 10, nuclear waste will be transported next to your constituents,
their homes and their schools; No. 9, transportation of radioactive waste
past private property results in its devaluation; No. 8, shipping
containers are designed to withstand a cash of only 30 miles per hour;
No. 7, the President will veto this bill; No. 6, the Senate will sustain
the bill; No. 5, local officials are neither trained or equipped to cope
with a nuclear disaster; No. 4, 33 faults and 30 earthquakes, Yucca
mountain is not safe period; No. 3, H.R. 1270 would result in the
transfer of liability for radioactive waste to the U.S. taxpayer; No. 2,
it will cost the American taxpayers an additional $2.3 billion to
transport this waste rather than keeping it onsite; and finally, Mr.
Speaker, No. 1, a single radioactive accident in this country would cost
the American taxpayers nearly $20 billion and take over 450 days to clean
it up.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that my colleagues learn the facts
surrounding H.R. 1270 and then vote against it.
----------------
(5)
<center>URGING MEMBERS NOT TO WASTE THEIR VOTE ON H.R. 1270 (House of
Representatives - June 18, 1997)
</center>
[Page: H3869]
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this well many times to discuss
the facts surrounding the nuclear waste debate. I have largely
concentrated on the issues of transporting nuclear waste across this
Nation's highways and rail system. Over and over I have stressed that
there are very real safety issues that must be addressed and resolved
before we as legislators mandate a life-threatening policy on the
American people who live in our districts.
To further illustrate my point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a
recent mishap. On May 22 of this year an unexpected pressure buildup
forced the top off a large metal shipping container at the U.S. DOE's
Fernauld site near Cincinnati, OH. The container held five 55-gallon
drums of radioactive waste. This happened to a container that was a
stationary container, not in the transport arena. If these caps are this
unsafe, how can we pass a bill that would endanger the lives of every
citizen in this country? I urge Members not to waste their vote on H.R.
1270.
----------------
(6)
<center>H.R. 1270 WILL DESTROY ENVIRONMENT
(House of Representatives - June 26, 1997)
</center>
[Page: H4650]
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Wake up America. The headline
news from a June 20th New York Times article reads: `Doubt Cast on Prime
Site as Nuclear Waste Dump.' The article states that `researchers have
found that rain water, which could dissolve nuclear waste, has seeped
from the top of the mountain to 800 feet into its innards, where
high-level waste would be stored, in just 40 years, much faster than
scientists had predicted.'
The scientists had originally believed that it would take hundreds of
thousands of years to travel the same distance. The article goes on to
say that the find `raises the possibility that radiation would be spread
into the environment much sooner then they anticipated.'
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1270 will destroy the environment and endanger lives.
Do not waste your votes. I urge my colleagues to oppose this very bad
bill.
----------------
(7)
<center>AMERICAN TAXPAYERS FORCED TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTING NUCLEAR
WASTE ACROSS THE COUNTRY (House of Representatives - July 10, 1997)
</center>
[Page: H5027]
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, a new scheme is emerging. Under H.R. 1270 , the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, American taxpayers will be forced to pay for
the transportation of nuclear waste across this country. At a time when
we are trying to reduce the burden on taxpayers, now they will be forced
to pay huge sums for the construction of an expensive interim storage
facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. And, Mr. Speaker, taxpayers will also be
liable for the cost of cleanup of any accident that occurs during
transportation, not the nuclear power industry.
A DOE contractor report concluded that if an accident were to occur in a
rural area during transportation cleanup, costs to the taxpayers could
range between $176 million to $19.4 billion. A cleanup in an urban area
would cost considerably more, perhaps $9.5 billion just to raise and
rebuild the most contaminated square mile.
This is a pivotal time in Congress when we are trying to balance the
budget and give tax breaks to hardworking Americans. Why then would we
want than to shoulder the burdens of H.R. 1270?
----------------
(8)
<center>VOTE AGAINST NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1997
(House of Representatives - September 09, 1997)
</center>
[Page: H7021]
(Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to H.R.
1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which the Committee on
Commerce is expected to address soon.
This legislation will have devastating impacts not only on the State of
Nevada but on 43 other States in the Union. H.R. 1270 proposes sending
thousands of high-level nuclear waste shipments from 109 locations across
43 States to a single repository in Nevada.
More than likely, these shipments will cross Members' districts, by their
schools, their churches, hospitals and playgrounds in the process. Here
is a very small sampling of the possibilities of that nuclear waste, as
it travels across the country, if there is an accident.
Before we vote in support of H.R. 1270 , we should ask ourselves: What if
this was my district? The possible consequences are chilling. We must all
be responsible stewards of our constituents' best interests and vote
against H.R. 1270.
---------------
(9)
<center>AGAINST H.R. 1270, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT
(House of Representatives - September 25, 1997)
</center>
[Page: H7838]
(Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1997. Rarely in America do environmental groups, do
private property rights groups and the people who truly believe in States
rights ever join together to oppose something or to support something.
But in this case, Madam Speaker, they all join together to oppose the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. The reason is because from an
environmental standpoint, there are safety reasons.
During the transport of nuclear waste across 43 States, there are
transportation safety reasons that environmental groups oppose this for.
Private property rights oppose it because it devalues private property
values as nuclear waste is transported past those private profits. And
States rights people are against it because this is one State having
nuclear waste shoved down its throat against its will. This is against
the U.S. Constitution.
---------------
(10)
<center>VOTE `NO' ON H.R. 1270 (House of Representatives - September 23,
1997)
</center> [Page: H7607]
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this Chamber as well as
all America on an issue that is extremely important to all of us, and
that is the issue of nuclear waste.
In a recent advertisement, in fact, an advertisement paid for by the
nuclear energy lobbyists, it appeared in the Congressional Daily, dated
September 22, 1997, and I quote, `Thanks to nuclear energy, the air in
Maine and New Hampshire is cleaner.' The ad goes on to say, `Since
nuclear powerplants don't burn anything to generate electricity, they do
not pollute the air.'
Well, Mr. Speaker, if nuclear energy is as environmentally safe an energy
source as they claim it to be, then why do they not store the wastes
associated with those nuclear energy plants in their own States?
Why not keep that nuclear waste safely stored at nuclear powerplants
throughout the country, as this claim advertises, and let me say,
generating electricity with nuclear energy produces a small amount of
used nuclear fuel. Today this used fuel is safely stored at 109 nuclear
powerplants throughout the country.
The headline, Mr. Speaker, should read, `Thanks to nuclear energy,
innocent people all across this country will be put at risk as 80,000
tons or more of nuclear waste is transported through their communities.'
Mr. Speaker, the American people should say thanks, but no thanks. I urge
my colleagues to understand the facts, that as nuclear waste is
transported through their communities, Americans are put at risk, and I
urge them to get the facts on nuclear waste. I urge them to vote `no' on
H.R. 1270.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the ad from National Journal's
CongressDaily.
<paraindent><param>left</param>"Thanks to Nuclear Energy, the Air in
Maine and New Hampshire Is Cleaner
"Nuclear energy provides electricity to millions of people in Maine, New
Hampshire and throughout America, and because nuclear plants don't burn
anything to generate electricity, they don't pollute the air.
"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WASTE?
"Generating electricity with nuclear energy produces a small amount of
used nuclear fuel. Today, this used fuel is safely stored at 109 nuclear
power plants throughout the country. However, the government has the
legal responsibility to dispose of this waste beginning January 31, 1998.
"H.R. 1270 would move used nuclear fuel to a single, engineered storage
facility at a remote desert location. It's a common-sense strategy that
will ensure nuclear energy continues to provide electricity to Maine and
New Hampshire and nationwide for years to come."
</paraindent>H.R. 1270 : Act Now On Nuclear Waste Disposal.
----------------
(11)
<center>NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS (House of Representatives - October 21, 1997)
</center> [Page: H8844]
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and torevise and extend his remarks.)
Madam Speaker, a recent editorial in the Las Vegas Sun stated: `Nuclear
industry stacks the deck.' The article further states, `Dollars here. Get
your campaign money here.'
How true. Like hucksters at a carnival, the nuclear industry is dangling
dollars in front of Senators and Congressmen, then stuffing their
campaign coffers with nearly $13 million. The prize, of course, is a
nuclear waste dump in Nevada.
According to the study aptly titled, `The Nuclear Industry: A Cash Cow
for Congress,' pointed out that nearly $10 million was given to House
Members and $3 million to Senators. Nevadans wonder what effect this
money has had on the scientific study of Yucca Mountain's suitability as
a nuclear waste repository. Does this money amount to hush money or is it
just political contributions to pay off opposition? Should the industry's
$13 million not be better spent recycling this waste?
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote `no' on H.R. 1270. Government
should make its decisions on sound science; not bank accounts.
--------------
Sent by:
Ellen Thomas
<center>Proposition One Committee
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
PO Box 27217, Washington DC 20038 USA
202-462-0757 -- prop1@prop1.org -- http://prop1.org
(Check http://prop1.org -- Current Events!)
</center>