[Pages S3015-S3019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT CONSENT ACT

Mr. DOMENICI. This is with reference to H.R. 629. I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of Calendar No.
197, H.R. 629.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R.629) to grant the consent of Congress to the
Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Amendment No. 2276

(Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Snowe has a substitute amendment
at the desk. I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Ms. Snowe,
proposes an amendment numbered 2276.

(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of HR 629,
the Texas Compact Consent Act of 1997, which addresses the disposal of
low-level radioactive nuclear waste for Maine, Vermont and Texas--and
to thank the cosponsors of this bill: Senators Collins, Leahy, and
Jeffords, as well as Senators Hutchison and Gramm of Texas for their
invaluable assistance and support.
In 1980, Congress told the states to form compacts to solve their
low-level waste disposal problems. Subsequently, Congress authorized a
means of establishing these compacts without violating the Interstate
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
As you can see from the chart behind me, 41 states have now joined
together to form nine different compacts across the country. Forty-one
states. The compact before us today will simply add three more states
to the nation's compact network, and carry out what these 41 other
states have already been allowed to do.
As the law requires, Texas, Vermont and Maine have negotiated an
agreement that was approved by each state: in the Texas Senate by a
vote of 28 to zero, and voice voted in the House; in Vermont, the bill
was also voice voted by large margins in both bodies.
In Maine, the Senate voted 26 to 3 to pass the compact; in the House,
131 to 6. In addition, 73 percent of the people in a state-wide
referendum approved the Compact. All three Governors signed the bill.
And, last October 7th, the House passed the Texas Compact by an
overwhelming vote of 309 to 107. Decisive victories on all counts, and
by any measure.
So, we have before us a Compact that has been carefully crafted and
thoroughly examined by the state governments and people of all three
states involved. Now all that is required is the approval of Congress,
so that the State of Texas and the other Texas Compact members will be
able to exercise appropriate control over the waste that will come into
the Texas facility.
Let me be clear: the law never intended for Congress to determine who
pays what, how the storage is allocated, and where the site is located.
To the contrary: the intent of the law is for states to develop and
approve these details, and for Congress to ratify the plan. A quick
review of history bears this out--for the nine compacts that have been
consented to by the United States Congress, not one of them was
amended. Not one of them.
It is very important for my colleagues to know that the language
ratified by each state for this Compact is exactly the same language,
and if any change is made by Congress, the Compact would have to be
once again returned to each state for reratification.
And let me take this opportunity to clear up some other
misconceptions about this compact, which are being used by our
opponents to cast discredit on this legislation.
The Compact before us does not discuss any particular site for the
disposal facility. Let me repeat that--this bill has nothing to do with
the location of a facility in Texas, as some would have us believe. It
only says that Texas must develop a facility in a timely manner,
consistent with all applicable state and federal environmental, health,
and public safety laws.
This is being done. The Texas Office State Office of Administrative
Hearings is presently conducting several evidentiary hearings at
various locations all around the state of Texas to evaluate a proposed
site. All voices are being heard, and the state of Texas will decide,
as it should.
Opponents of the Texas Compact would have you believe that should we
ratify this Compact it will open the doors for other states to dump
nuclear waste at a site, in the desert, located five miles from the
town of Sierra Blanca, exposing a predominantly low-income, minority
community to health and environmental threats.
The truth is that Texas has been planning to build a facility for its
own waste since 1981, long before Maine first proposed a Compact with
Texas. That is because whether or not this Compact passes, Texas still
must somehow take care of the waste it produces.
Further, absent the protection of this Compact, Texas must, I repeat
must, open their borders to any other state for waste disposal or they
will be in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. The Compact gives Texas the protection that oversight
commissioners, mostly appointed by the elected Governor of

[[Page S3016]]

Texas but also with a say from Maine and Vermont, will decide what is
best for Texas.
Local support for the Compact was evidenced just last month in state
elections held in Texas. The Hudspeth County judge, who is the top
elected official who runs county business where the site has been
proposed, and who has strongly declared his support for the Compact,
won his race for reelection. Two candidates for county commissioner who
also support the Compact won their races over two opponents of the
Compact.
The opponents of the Compact would have you believe this issue is
about politics. It is not about politics, it is about science: sound
science. It is very dry in the Southwest Texas area, where the small
amount rainfall it receives mostly evaporates before it hits the
ground. The aquifer that supplies water to the area and to nearby
Mexico is over 600 feet below the desert floor and is encased in rock.
The proposed site has been designed to withstand any earthquake
equaling the most severe that has ever occurred in Texas history.
Strong seismic activity in the area is non-existent. All these factors
mean that the siting of this facility is on strong scientific grounds.
Our opponents say we will be bad neighbors if we pass this Compact
because the proposed site is near the Mexican border. In fact, the U.S.
and Mexico have an agreement, the Las Paz Agreement, to cooperate in
the environmental protection of the border region. The Las Paz
Agreement simply encourages cooperative efforts to protect the
environment of the region.
Any proposed facility will be protective of the environment because
it will be constructed in accordance with the strictest U.S.
environmental safeguards. In addition, both the Mexican National Water
Commission and the National Nuclear Security and Safeguards Commission
have stated that the proposed site meets the Mexican government's
requirements.
Without question, the far bigger threat to the border environment is
the untreated sewage dumped into the Rio Grande River by poor border
communities on both sides of the river, and large factories, or
maquiladoras on the Mexican side of the river that do not adhere to
these stringent U.S. environmental standards.
Mr. President, when this Compact is adopted--and it is clear that it
should be adopted without amendments--the States of Texas, Maine and
Vermont will become the forty second, forty third and forty fourth
states to be given Congressional approval for forming a compact. And
they will meet their responsibilities under federal law for the
disposal of their low-level waste from universities, hospitals, medical
centers, and power plants and shipyards.
I, along with my colleagues from the Texas Compact states, urge the
Senate to give us this reasoned opportunity, which has widespread
public support in Texas, Maine and Vermont. I urge the Senate to adopt
S. 270.
I ask unanimous consent that several letters relating to this subject
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

State of Texas,

Office of the Governor,

Austin, TX, July 15, 1997.
Dear Senator:
As the Governors of the member states, we strongly urge
passage by the U.S. Senate of S. 270, the Texas Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act.
The 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its
1985 amendments make each state ``responsible for providing,
either by itself or in cooperation with other states,'' for
disposal of its own commercial low-level radioactive waste.
In compliance with this federal legislation, the states of
Texas, Maine and Vermont have arranged to manage their waste
through the terms of the Texas Compact. This compact passed
the legislatures of the states involved and is supported by
all three Governors. Texas, Maine and Vermont have complied
with all federal and state laws and regulations in forming
this compact. For the Congress to deny ratification of the
Texas Compact would be a serious breach of states' rights and
a rejection of Congress' previous mandate to the states.
It is important to remember that S. 270 is site neutral--a
vote on S. 270 is neither a vote to endorse nor oppose the
proposed site in Texas. Federal legislation leaves the siting
of a facility to state governments and should be resolved
during formal licensing proceedings. Currently, the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission is conducting the
appropriate hearings.
Please vote to supply the member states of the Texas
Compact with the same protections that you have already given
42 states in the nine previously approved compacts. Thank you
for your time and attention on this very important matter. We
appreciate all efforts made on behalf of states' rights.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush.
Howard Dean, M.D.
Angus S. King, Jr.
____

Maine Yankee,

Augusta, ME, March 12, 1998.
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Snowe: Thank you for contacting me to let us
know that debate on the Texas Compact legislation is
scheduled to begin this Friday. I appreciate the leadership
role you have taken on this difficult issue. I am also
grateful to the other members of Maine's congressional
delegation for being sensitive to the unique issues presented
by Maine.
Since the House vote in December, Texas has issued a fee
schedule that appears to make the Texas facility comparable
in cost to Barnwell, South Carolina, so long as there are no
delays in the scheduled opening of the facility. In addition,
we are pleased to see the public hearing process in Texas
going forward on schedule, which gives us greater confidence
that the site may begin accepting waste in 1999 as projected.
Given the foregoing, Maine Yankee can support ratification of
the Texas Compact, on the following basis: Maine Yankee has
the flexibility to ship waste to South Carolina prior to the
operation of the Texas facility; Maine Yankee has the ability
to use the Envirocare facility in Utah throughout our
decommissioning; and the Compact passes with no amendments.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding our
position on the Texas Compact legislation. Once again, thank
you for taking the lead on this issue which is so important
to electric ratepayers.
Yours truly,
David T. Flanagan,
Chairman.

Hudspeth County Courthouse,

Sierra Blanca, TX, March 12, 1998.
Hon. Paul Wellstone,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: It is an honor for me to write to
U.S. Senators, whose title and energy is devoted to important
national and international issues. There are several facts I
want you to consider as the U.S. Senate takes up floor action
on SB 270, a low-level waste Compact between Texas, Maine and
Vermont.
First, I am the County Judge for Hudspeth County, Texas,
the site of the proposed low-level radioactive waste
facility. Second, I am a strong and vocal supporter of the
proposed site and compact. Third, the voters of Hudspeth
County overwhelmingly reelected me on March 10th. I won with
54% of the vote in a three person race.
The people of Hudspeth County know my position on these
issues and spoke clearly and forcefully the best way can--
through the electoral process. I won. My opponents are
against the proposed facility. They lost.
In the County Commissioner races, both losing candidates
publicly opposed the proposed facility.
Finally, the only candidate on the ballot for Chairman of
the Hudspeth County Democratic Party was defeated by a write-
in candidate. Billy Addington, a long time an outspoken
opponent of the proposed facility, could not win. The
democratic process has clearly shown that the citizens of
Hudspeth County continue to accept the string of the
facility, despite the loud but false claims by the
opposition.
I urge you to listen to what the voters of Hudspeth County
are saying, as well as the past actions of the legislatures
in Maine, Texas and Vermont. This facility has wide support.
Please ratify the Compact to enable these states to safety
and permanently manage their low-level waste and to help
stimulate economic development in Hudspeth County. At least
that's what the grass-roots level wants.
Sincerely,
James A. Pease,
Hudspeth County Judge.
____

National Governors Association,

March 2, 1998.
Dear Member of Congress:
On behalf of the National Governors' Association, we urge
you to adopt S. 270 without amendment. This bill provides
congressional consent to the Texas-Maine-Vermont Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Compact. The National Governors'
Association (NGA) policy in support of this compact is
attached. We are convinced that this voluntary compact
provides for the safe and responsible disposal of low-level
waste produced in the three member states.
As you know, under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
Act (LLRWPA) of 1980. Congress mandated that states assume
responsibility for disposal of low level radioactive waste,
and created a compact system that provides states with the
legal authority to restrict, dispose of, and manage waste.
Since 1995, forty-one states have entered into nine
congressional approved compacts without amendments or
objections. The Texas-

[[Page S3017]]

Maine-Vermont Compact deserves to be the tenth.
Your support for this bipartisan measure, which has the
full support and cooperation of the Governors and
legislatures of the three participant states, will be
crucial.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
don't hesitate to contact Tom Curtis of the NGA staff at
(202) 624-5389.
Sincerely,
Governor George V. Voinovich,
Chairman.
Governor Tom Carper,
Vice Chairman.
National Conference of

State Legislatures,

Washington, DC, March 11, 1998.
Re S. 270, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Compact Consent Act NCSL urges you to support this bill
without amendment.

Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: The National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) urges you to support S. 270, the Texas
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act,
which will allow the states of Maine, Texas, and Vermont to
continue to work together to develop a facility in Hudspeth
County, Texas for the disposal of the low-level radioactive
waste produced in those three states. NCSL has consistently
reiterated its firm belief that states must be allowed to
exercise their authority over the storage and disposal oflow-
level radioactive waste, authority that was granted to them
by Congress in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of
1980 and the Low-Level Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1985.
NCSL is concerned about H.R. 629, the version of the Texas
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act
which passed through the House of Representatives last
October. H.R. 629 was amended with language that was not in
the compact as approved by the Maine, Texas and Vermont state
legislatures. No low-level radioactive waste compact between
states has ever been amended by Congress. We believe that the
amendments to H.R. 629 would establish an unfortunate
precedent for Congressional tinkering with agreements that
have already been passed by their relevant state
legislatures.
The states of Maine, Texas, and Vermont have already
expended significant time and resources in order to negotiate
an agreement on the Hudspeth County facility. It would be
inappropriate for Congress to attempt to alter a valid effort
by the Compact states to meet their responsibilities under
the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. We urge you to
support S. 270 without amendment.
Sincerely,
Craig Peterson,
Utah State Senate,
Chair, NCSL Environment Committee.
Carol S. Petzold,
Maryland House of Delegates,
Chair, NCSL Energy & Transportation Committee.
____

U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC, March 20, 1998.
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Snowe: In response to the request from your
staff, here are the views of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) on two proposed amendments to S. 270, a bill
to provide the consent of Congress to the Texas Low-Level
Radioactive Waste (LLW) Disposal Compact. The proposed
amendments would add two new conditions to the conditions of
consent to the compact: (1) that no LLW may be brought into
Texas for disposal at a compact facility from any State other
than Maine or Vermont (referred to below as the ``exclusion''
amendment); and (2) that ``the compact not be implemented . .
. in any way that discriminates against any community
(through disparate treatment or disparate impact) by reason
of the composition of the community in terms of race, color,
national origin, or income level'' (referred to below as the
``discrimination clause''). These amendments raise some
significant questions of concern to the NRC.
First, no other Congressional compact ratification
legislation has included such conditions to Congress'
consent. Making the Congressional consent for this compact
different from that for other compacts would create an
asymmetrical system and could lead to conflicts among
regions. In the past, Congress has set a high priority on
establishing a consistent set of rules under which the
interstate compact system for LLW disposal would operate.
With respect to the exclusion condition, while the Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 authorize
compact States to exclude LLW from outside their compact
region, the terms of doing so are left to the States. This is
consistent with the intent of these statutes to make LLW
disposal the responsibility of the States and to leave the
implementation of that responsibility largely to the States'
discretion. Thus, the addition of the exclusion condition to
the compact would deprive the party States of the ability to
make their own choices as to how to handle this important
area. In addition, restriction on importation of LLW into
Texas to waste coming from Maine or Vermont could prevent
other compacts (or non-compact States) from contracting with
the Texas compact for disposal of their waste (such as has
occurred between the Rocky Mountain and Northwest compacts).
This type of arrangement with existing LLW disposal
facilities may well become a preferred economical method of
LLW disposal. It is also important to note that the exclusion
condition may hamper NRC emergency access to the Texas
facility pursuant to section 6 of the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
With respect to the discrimination clause, the Commission
supports the general objectives of efforts to address
discrimination involving ``race, color, national origin, or
income level.'' However, it is unclear how a condition
containing broad language of the type contained in the
proposed amendment would be applied in a specific case
involving a compact. This lack of clarity is likely to create
confusion and uncertainty for all parties involved, and could
lead to costly, time-consuming litigation. Including such a
provision in binding legislation may have broad significance
for the affected States and other parties would appear to
warrant extensive Congressional review of its implications.
In light of the above, the NRC opposes the approval of
amendments to S. 270 that would incorporate the exclusion
condition or an undefined discrimination clause into the
Texas compact bill.
Sincerely,
Shirley Ann Jackson,
Chairman.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from the State
of Maine, Senator Snowe, in urging my colleagues to enact H.R. 629,
legislation that would ratify the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Compact, also known as the Texas Compact.
In entering into an agreement for the disposal of low-level
radioactive waste, the States of Maine, Texas, and Vermont followed the
direction established by the Congress in the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments. That legislation contemplated
that states would form agreements of this nature for the disposal of
low-level waste, and thus, by ratifying the compact, Congress will be
completing a process that it set in motion.
Mr. President, since 1985 Congress has ratified nine compacts
involving 41 states. Put differently, 82 of the 100 members of this
body live in states with compacts that have been ratified by the
Senate, and with the approval of the Texas Compact, that number will
rise to 88. In short, what Maine, Texas, and Vermont are seeking today
has already been routinely granted to the vast majority of the states.
While the disposal of radioactive waste is bound to generate
controversy, this agreement has been overwhelmingly approved by the
Legislatures of the three compacting states, signed by their governors,
and in the case of Maine, endorsed by the voters in a referendum. This
is consistent with the congressional determination that the states bear
responsibility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and
that in the interest of limiting the number of disposal sites, they
work together to carry out this responsibility. Indeed, ratification by
Congress is necessitated only because state-imposed limitations on the
importation of waste would otherwise violate the Commerce Clause.
Mr. President, a member of this body has criticized the proposed
disposal site to be established pursuant to this compact. Apart from
the fact that the location of the site is a matter for the states to
determine, that criticism is unsupported by the facts.
In the selection of the proposed site in Hudspeth County, Texas,
there was extensive public involvement, as well as thorough
environmental and technical reviews. Hudspeth County was found to have
the two critical characteristics for a disposal site, namely, very
little rainfall and very low population density. Indeed, the county is
the size of the State of Connecticut and has a population of only 2800
people.
While some may wish to use this legislation to pursue a larger
ideological agenda, it does not square with the facts. The choice of
Hudspeth County had nothing to do with who lives there; it had
everything to do with the fact that very few people live there.
Mr. President, this body has been presented with nine low-level
radioactive waste compacts. It has ratified each one without change. In
keeping with congressionally established policy

[[Page S3018]]

for the disposal of low-level waste, Maine, Texas, and Vermont are
seeking the same treatment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the predicament
Vermont, Maine and Texas find themselves in, simply because they are
following Congress' directions. In 1985, we amended the Low-Level
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to encourage states to enter into interstate
compacts to develop disposal facilities for low-level waste by
December, 1995, or to assume responsibility for safe waste disposal in
their own states. Following our direction, Vermont began looking for an
in-state depository location. The sites examined in Vermont were not
suitable because of both their geology and their proximity to large
populations. At about the same time, Texas offered to enter into a
compact with Vermont and Maine and to use a site they were already
developing for Texas waste.
The state legislatures of Vermont, Maine and Texas agreed to enter
into this compact in the early 1990s. The Compact is a contractual
agreement among the three states, but it requires Congressional
approval in order to allow the member states to exclude waste from
outside their compact. According to our Constitution, these compacts
must be approved by Congress. Article 1 clearly states that ``No state
shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . Enter into any Agreement
or Compact with another state, . . . .''
Since 1985, nine interstate low-level waste compacts have been
approved by Congress, encompassing forty-one states. They were ratified
without change and without a single recorded negative vote. I am
pleased to see that the Vermont, Maine and Texas Compact will follow in
that tradition.
I first introduced legislation to approve our Compact in the 103rd
Congress. Passage of H.R. 629 finally ratifies the clear will of the
Vermont Legislature when it entered in the Compact. At that time, I
believe we all recognized that there was no perfect solution for
dealing with low-level nuclear waste, but as long as we are generating
power from nuclear facilities and as long as our research universities,
hospitals and laboratories use nuclear materials, we are going to have
to dispose of the waste. We cannot continue to ignore the need to
safely store nuclear waste. To pretend otherwise would be to ignore the
growing environmental problem of storing this waste at inadequate,
temporary sites in Vermont, Maine and Texas.
Instead, we need to make a commitment to developing and building the
safest facility for long-term storage of waste. That is what our States
have done, and Congress should not stand in their way. I have talked
with our Vermont state geologist. We have looked at maps of Vermont and
we have looked at our geology, hydrology and meteorology in Vermont.
There is only one conclusion from all of these discussions: there is
not an acceptable site for nuclear waste storage in our state.
The Compact also makes economic sense. The residents of Vermont have
already committed themselves to this Compact, and the twenty-five
million dollar price tag that goes along with it. Since Vermont
generates such a small amount of waste, it would be economically
unfeasible to build a facility that would meet all the environmental
requirements and only store waste generated in Vermont. Building such a
facility would put Vermont in a position of looking to other states to
help support the facility.
It is also important to remember that under the Compact, Texas has
agreed to host the waste facility, but it does not name a specific
site. That is an issue to be decided by the people of Texas, as it
should be. This Compact also allows the states of Vermont, Maine and
Texas to refuse waste from other states. Specifically, Texas will be
able to limit the amount of low-level waste coming into its facility
from out-of-state sources. Maine and Vermont together produce a
fraction of what is generated in Texas, but by entering into this
Compact, our states will share the cost of building the facility.
Finally, building the facility does not end Vermont's obligation to
the safety of this site. We have a long-term commitment to the site,
from ensuring that the facility meets all of the federal construction
and operating regulations, to making sure the waste is transported
properly to the site, and to ensuring that the surrounding area is
rigorously monitored. Vermont will not send its waste to Texas and then
close it eyes to the rest of the process.

Amendments No. 2277 and 2278, En Bloc, To Amendment No. 2276

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Wellstone has two amendments at
the desk. I ask unanimous consent the Senate consider those amendments
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr.
Wellstone, proposes amendments numbered 2277 and 2278, en
bloc, to amendment No. 2276.

The text of the amendments follow.

AMENDMENT NO. 2277

(Purpose: To add certain conditions to the grant of consent to the
compact)

On page 2, strike lines 5 through 15 and insert the
following:

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS ON CONSENT TO COMPACT.

(a) In General.--The consent of Congress to the compact set
forth in section 5--
(1) shall become effective on the date of enactment of this
Act;
(2) is granted subject to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.); and
(3) is granted on the conditions that--
(A) the Commission (as defined in the compact) comply with
all of the provisions of that Act; and
(B) the compact not be implemented (including execution by
any party state (as defined in the compact) of any right,
responsibility, or obligation of the party state under
Article IV of the compact) in any way that discriminates
against any community (through disparate treatment or
disparate impact) by reason of the composition of the
community in terms of race, color, national origin, or income
level.
(b) Consent to Suit.--By proceeding to implement the
compact after the date of enactment of this Act, the party
states and Commission shall be considered to have consented
to suit in a civil action under subsection (d).
(c) Continuing Effectiveness of Condition.--If the consent
of Congress is declared to be of no further effect in a civil
action under subsection (d), the condition stated in
subsection (a)(3)(B) shall continue to apply to any
subsequent operation of the compact facility.
(d) Enforcement.--
(1) By the attorney general.--If the Attorney General
obtains evidence that a condition stated in subsection (a)(3)
has not been complied with at any time, the Attorney General
shall bring a civil action in United States district court
for a judgment against the party states (as defined in the
compact) and Commission--
(A) declaring that the consent of Congress to the compact
is of no further effect by reason of the failure to meet the
condition; and
(B) enjoining any further failure of compliance.
(2) By a member of an affected community.--If person that
resides or has a principal place of business a community that
is adversely affected by a failure to comply with the
condition stated in subsection (a)(3)(B) obtains evidence of
the failure of compliance, the person may bring a civil
action in United States district court for a judgment against
the party states and Commission--
(A) declaring that the consent of Congress to the compact
is of no further effect by reason of the failure to meet the
condition; and
(B) enjoining any further failure of compliance.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2278

(Purpose: To add certain conditions to the grant of consent to the
compact)

On page 2, strike lines 5 through 15 and insert the
following:

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS ON CONSENT TO COMPACT.

[[Page S3019]]

been complied with at any time, the Attorney General shall
bring a civil action in United States district court for a
judgment against the party states (as defined in the compact)
and Commission--
(A) declaring that the consent of Congress to the compact
is of no further effect by reason of the failure to meet the
condition;
(B) enjoining any further failure of compliance; and
(C) in any second or subsequent civil action under this
subsection in which the court finds that a second or
subsequent failure to comply with the condition stated in
subsection (a)(3)(B) has occurred, ordering that the compact
facility be closed.
(2) By a member of the community in which a compact
facility is located.--If any person that resides or has a
principal place of business in the community in which a
compact facility is located obtains evidence that the
condition stated in subsection (a)(3)(B) has not been
complied with at any time, the person may bring a civil
action in United States district court for a judgment against
the party states and Commission--
(A) declaring that the consent of Congress to the compact
is of no further effect by reason of the failure to meet the
condition;
(B) enjoining any further failure of compliance; and
(C) in any second or subsequent civil action under this
subsection in which the court finds that a second or
subsequent failure to comply with the condition stated in
subsection (a)(3)(B) has occurred, ordering that the compact
facility be closed.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed
to, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be
considered read a third time and passed as amended, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement relating to
the bill appear at this point in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 629), as amended, was considered read the third time,
and passed.

____________________