Procedural move to delay bill on nuclear storage

Paul Kane

Thursday, Feb. 19, 1998 | 10:10 a.m.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With Congress working on such a short schedule to debate and vote on issues this year, a procedural move has cast doubt on the House and Senate's ability to pass a bill for short-term storage of high-level nuclear waste in Southern Nevada.

Rep. John Ensign, R-Nev., said Wednesday he had received assurances from House leadership that the nuclear storage bill would be considered a tax-and-revenue measure, which gives the House authority over the bill and throws a year's worth of work up in the air.

"What we have done is put delay back in the process," Ensign said. "It puts in doubt whether the bill will come up this year."

The move, supported by House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, R-Tex., is based on the constitutional rules of taxing and spending: all revenue measures must begin in the House.

Opponents of the nuclear storage proposal feared that House and Senate negotiators would agree to settle on the Senate version of the bill, which was approved with 65 votes last spring. If the negotiators had agreed on the Senate bill, it could have been sent straight to the House, which has fewer delaying tactics than the Senate.

By declaring this a House bill, Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan will be able to use a range of procedures, including threats of filibuster or a hold. But both Nevada Democrats noted that 65 Senate votes in favor of storing the waste near Yucca Mountain -- currently the proposed permanent storage site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas -- was more than enough to break a filibuster.

"It's a little early to call it dead," Reid said. "It's way early, believe me."

And the nuclear industry said any reports that the bill was dead were "greatly exaggerated."

"A lot of senators want action on this bill," Steve Unglesbee, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said. "We're in play and on the way."

But, Reid added, there are still 35 Senate votes against storing the waste in Nevada, enough to sustain President Clinton's veto if Senate leaders hurried it through this year.

Ensign, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said he and Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., convinced Archer that the Senate version of the bill eliminates a nuclear waste fund fee and instead imposes a user fee at the site -- a tax-and-spend measure that should be the province of Archer's committee.

That slight tinkering with the bill could force the Senate to start its process all over again, including new committee hearings and votes, which would be particularly harmful to the bill's chances of passing before Congress adjourns in October.

"My sense is that this is a major setback for the nuclear industry," Bryan said. "This is all helpful in terms of the overall strategy of delay."

The stalling game has been made easier by a very light preliminary schedule for Congress. When House Majority Whip Tom Delay, R-Tex., unveiled the planned schedule for 1998, there were less than 90 days allotted for any debate or vote on the House floor.

That's shorter than any time in recent memory, even election years, according to congressional historian Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. Ornstein said GOP leaders believe "they do better with the public" when Congress is out of session and not wrapped up in partisan bickering, so they set up a light schedule this year -- which will allow for plenty of campaigning and fund raising.

But Ornstein said other issues, such as NATO expansion and campaign finance reform, will fill up the congressional calendar and "suggests they're going to be around more than they planned."

That's just fine with Bryan, who said he doesn't want the schedule to be so light that there is time to push the nuclear storage bill through Congress and force a veto override vote. "The schedule is beginning to look a little crowded," he said.