Text * Congressional Opposition
Final Vote * WHAT NOW?
Senate Bill Number 104

Revises the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, renaming it the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997

(Sec. 1) Instructs the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) to: (1) developand operate a repository for the permanent geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste; (2) accept spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by no later than January 31, 2002; (3) provide for the transportation of such wastes; and (4) pursue expeditiously the development of each component of the integrated management system.

Requires intermodal transfer (rail-to-heavy-haul-truck) of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste pending direct rail access to the interim storage facility site. Requires the Secretary use rail transportation to meet the requirements of this Act if direct rail access becomes available to the interim storage facility site. Sets a deadline for the Secretary to develop the capability to commence rail to truck intermodal transfer at Caliente, Nevada.

Provides for heavy-haul transportation route and truck transportation.

Requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Caliente and Lincoln County, Nevada, to provide advice to the Commission regarding intermodal transfer and to facilitate on-site representation. Provides that reasonable expenses of such representation shall be paid by the Secretary.

Prescribes requirements in the following areas in order to ensure that the Secretary is able to accept spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by January 31, 2002: (1) transportation planning and readiness; (2) package certification; (3) technical assistance and funds to jurisdictional entities for training public safety officials, and to nonprofit employee organizations and joint labor-management organizations experienced in worker health and safety training; (4) employee protection and training standards applicable to workers directly involved in the removal and transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste; and (5) interim storage facility, permanent disposal, land withdrawal, and private storage facilities.

Instructs the Secretary to: (1) offer Nye County, Nevada an opportunity to designate an on-site oversight representative; and (2) offer to enter into separate benefits agreements with Lincoln and Nye Counties concerning the integrated management system.

Requires the Secretary to make certain initial land conveyances to Nye County.

Authorizes the Secretary to grant payments in lieu of taxes to any affected Indian or local jurisdiction until the termination of the integrated management system activities.

Authorizes the Secretary to contract with any person holding title to or generating or holding title to spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste of domestic origin for the acceptance of title, and possession, transportation, interim storage, and disposal. Requires the Secretary to determine the level of an annual fee for electricity generated and sold by each civilian nuclear power reactor.

Permits the Secretary to make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund in the event of a shortfall.

Requires the NRC to suspend the license of any licensee who fails or refuses to pay the currently required one-time fee on spent nuclear fuel, or high-level radioactive waste derived from it, and used to generate electricity in a civilian nuclear power reactor before April 7, 1983. Provides that payment of the one-time fee relieves the responsible party from further financial obligation to the Federal Government for its long-term storage or permanent disposal.

Authorizes the NRC to require prior agreement with the Secretary for spent fuel and waste disposal as a precondition to the issuance or renewal of a license.

Continues the Nuclear Waste Fund and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Directs the Secretary to: (1) issue a final rule establishing the appropriate portion of the costs of managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste allocable to the interim storage or permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste from atomic energy defense activities, and spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors; and (2) advise the Congress annually of the amount of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from atomic energy defense activities requiring management in the integrated spent nuclear fuel management system.

Grants the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and this Act preeminence in the event of a conflict or duplication of laws.

Precludes this Act from being construed as: (1) constituting either an express or implied Federal reservation of water rights for any purpose arising under it; (2) authorizing the Federal use of eminent domain to acquire water rights; or (3) limiting the exercise of water rights as provided under Nevada State laws.

Grants the U.S. courts of appeals original and exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions under this Act. Prescribes guidelines for NRC licensing hearings.

Prohibits the Secretary from conducting site-specific activities for a second repository unless the Congress has specifically authorized and appropriated funds for them.

Requires the NRC to promulgate regulatory guidelines for: (1) financial assurances for low-level radioactive waste site closures; and (2) training and qualification of civilian nuclear powerplant personnel.

Delineates an acceptance schedule for contract holders' spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Prohibits: (1) subseabed or ocean water disposal of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste; and (2) any obligation of funds for any such related activity.

Continues the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the Secretary to take necessary action to improve the management of the civilian radioactive waste management program to ensure that it is operated to the maximum extent like a private business.

Directs the Secretary to employ, on an on-going basis, integrated performance modeling regarding site

The following informative statements opposing HR-1270 were made in the Congressional Record by several Representatives:



OF 1997 (House of Representatives - October 22, 1997)

[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.




October 22, 1997)

[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.




SITE (House of Representatives - May 16, 1997)

[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.




(House of Representatives - May 22, 1997)

[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.




Representatives - June 18, 1997)

[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.




(House of Representatives - June 26, 1997)

[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.




WASTE ACROSS THE COUNTRY (House of Representatives - July 10, 1997)

[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?




(House of Representatives - September 09, 1997)

[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.




(House of Representatives - September 25, 1997)

[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.



VOTE `NO' ON H.R. 1270 (House of Representatives - September 23, 1997)

[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.

"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.


"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."

H.R. 1270 : Act Now On Nuclear Waste Disposal.




CONTRIBUTIONS (House of Representatives - October 21, 1997)

[Page: H8844]

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise 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.


Some of the ayes to HR-1270 were surprising. What was the appeal? Don't they know there was a 4.0-richter earthquake near Yucca Mountain in September 1997? No Mobile Chernobyl!

Here's the list of votes in the House of Representatives:

Roll No. 557, October 30, 1997, HR-1270


* Aderholt
* Allen
* Archer
* Armey
* Bachus
* Baker
* Baldacci
* Ballenger
* Barcia
* Barr
* Barrett (NE)
* Bartlett
* Barton
* Bass
* Bateman
* Bentsen
* Bereuter
* Berry
* Bilbray
* Bilirakis
* Bishop
* Bliley
* Blunt
* Boehlert
* Boehner
* Bonior
* Bono
* Borski
* Boucher
* Boyd
* Brady
* Brown (FL)
* Brown (OH)
* Bryant
* Bunning
* Burr
* Burton
* Buyer
* Callahan
* Calvert
* Camp
* Campbell
* Canady
* Cannon
* Cardin
* Castle
* Chabot
* Chambliss
* Chenoweth
* Christensen
* Clayton
* Clement
* Clyburn
* Coble
* Collins
* Combest
* Cook
* Cooksey
* Costello
* Cox
* Cramer
* Crane
* Crapo
* Cunningham
* Danner
* Davis (FL)
* Davis (VA)
* Deal
* DeLay
* Deutsch
* Diaz-Balart
* Dickey
* Dicks
* Dingell
* Dooley
* Doolittle
* Doyle
* Dreier
* Duncan
* Dunn
* Edwards
* Ehlers
* Ehrlich
* Emerson
* Engel
* Etheridge
* Everett
* Ewing
* Fattah
* Fawell
* Fazio
* Flake
* Foley
* Forbes
* Ford
* Fowler
* Fox
* Frank (MA)
* Franks (NJ)
* Frelinghuysen
* Frost
* Gallegly
* Ganske
* Gejdenson
* Gekas
* Gilchrest
* Gillmor
* Gilman
* Gingrich
* Goode
* Goodlatte
* Goodling
* Gordon
* Goss
* Graham
* Granger
* Green
* Greenwood
* Gutknecht
* Hall (TX)
* Hastert
* Hastings (WA)
* Hayworth
* Hefley
* Hefner
* Hill
* Hilleary
* Hilliard
* Hinojosa
* Hobson
* Hoekstra
* Holden
* Horn
* Hostettler
* Houghton
* Hoyer
* Hulshof
* Hunter
* Hutchinson
* Hyde
* Inglis
* Istook
* Jackson-Lee (TX)
* Jefferson
* Jenkins
* John
* Johnson (CT)
* Johnson (WI)
* Johnson, E. B.
* Johnson, Sam
* Jones
* Kanjorski
* Kennelly
* Kildee
* Kilpatrick
* Kim
* Kind (WI)
* King (NY)
* Kingston
* Klink
* Klug
* Knollenberg
* Kolbe
* LaHood
* Largent
* Latham
* LaTourette
* Lazio
* Leach
* Levin
* Lewis (KY)
* Linder
* Lipinski
* Livingston
* LoBiondo
* Luther
* Maloney (CT)
* Maloney (NY)
* Manton
* Manzullo
* Mascara
* Matsui
* McCarthy (MO)
* McCarthy (NY)
* McCollum
* McCrery
* McDade
* McHugh
* McInnis
* McIntyre
* Meek
* Menendez
* Metcalf
* Mica
* Miller (FL)
* Minge
* Mollohan
* Moran (KS)
* Morella
* Murtha
* Myrick
* Neal
* Nethercutt
* Neumann
* Northup
* Norwood
* Nussle
* Oberstar
* Obey
* Olver
* Ortiz
* Oxley
* Packard
* Pappas
* Parker
* Pastor
* Paxon
* Peterson (MN)
* Peterson (PA)
* Petri
* Pickering
* Pickett
* Pitts
* Pomeroy
* Porter
* Portman
* Poshard
* Price (NC)
* Pryce (OH)
* Quinn
* Ramstad
* Redmond
* Regula
* Riggs
* Riley
* Rodriguez
* Rogan
* Rogers
* Rohrabacher
* Ros-Lehtinen
* Roukema
* Royce
* Rush
* Ryun
* Salmon
* Sandlin
* Sanford
* Sawyer
* Saxton
* Scarborough
* Schaefer, Dan
* Schaffer, Bob
* Scott
* Sensenbrenner
* Sessions
* Shadegg
* Shaw
* Shimkus
* Shuster
* Sisisky
* Skeen
* Skelton
* Smith (MI)
* Smith (OR)
* Smith (TX)
* Smith, Linda
* Snowbarger
* Snyder
* Solomon
* Spence
* Spratt
* Stabenow
* Stearns
* Stenholm
* Strickland
* Stump
* Stupak
* Sununu
* Tanner
* Tauzin
* Taylor (MS)
* Taylor (NC)
* Thomas
* Thompson
* Thornberry
* Thune
* Thurman
* Tiahrt
* Towns
* Traficant
* Turner
* Upton
* Vento
* Visclosky
* Walsh
* Wamp
* Watt (NC)
* Watts (OK)
* Weller
* Wexler
* White
* Whitfield
* Wicker
* Wolf
* Wynn
* Young (AK)
* Young (FL)


* Andrews
* Baesler
* Barrett (WI)
* Becerra
* Berman
* Blagojevich
* Blumenauer
* Bonilla
* Boswell
* Brown (CA)
* Carson
* Clay
* Condit
* Conyers
* Coyne
* Cummings
* Davis (IL)
* DeFazio
* DeGette
* Delahunt
* DeLauro
* Dellums
* Dixon
* Doggett
* English
* Ensign
* Eshoo
* Evans
* Farr
* Filner
* Foglietta
* Furse
* Gephardt
* Gibbons
* Gutierrez
* Hall (OH)
* Hamilton
* Hansen
* Harman
* Hastings (FL)
* Herger
* Hinchey
* Hooley
* Jackson (IL)
* Kaptur
* Kasich
* Kelly
* Kennedy (MA)
* Kennedy (RI)
* Kleczka
* Kucinich
* LaFalce
* Lampson
* Lantos
* Lewis (CA)
* Lewis (GA)
* Lofgren
* Lowey
* Lucas
* Markey
* Martinez
* McDermott
* McGovern
* McHale
* McIntosh
* McKeon
* McKinney
* McNulty
* Meehan
* Millender-McDonald
* Miller (CA)
* Mink
* Moakley
* Moran (VA)
* Nadler
* Ney
* Owens
* Pallone
* Pascrell
* Paul
* Payne
* Pease
* Pelosi
* Pombo
* Radanovich
* Rahall
* Rangel
* Reyes
* Rivers
* Roemer
* Rothman
* Roybal-Allard
* Sabo
* Sanchez
* Sanders
* Schumer
* Serrano
* Shays
* Sherman
* Skaggs
* Slaughter
* Smith (NJ)
* Smith, Adam
* Souder
* Stark
* Stokes
* Talent
* Tauscher
* Tierney
* Torres
* Velazquez
* Waters
* Watkins
* Waxman
* Weygand
* Wise
* Woolsey
* Yates


So, we wrote other abolitionists, "HR-1270 passed -- what now?" Michael Mariotte of NIRS (Nuclear Information & Resource Service), who is keeping abreast of this issue, responded:

The next step is a conference committee to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bills, since they are different--esp. on money matters.

The conference committee may be appointed before the Congressional recess, but it is highly unlikely that it actually will meet before the recess. Therefore, we expect the committee to meet in early 1998.

After the conference committee works out the differences, both the House and Senate must pass the amended bill. This is usually a pro forma vote, although--if deemed stragetically a good idea, the Nevada Senators can filibuster this vote. Then the bill will go to President Clinton, who has said time and time again that he will veto it. We have no reason to believe he will break this promise.

THEN is the key vote: both the House and Senate must override the veto for the bill to become law. We need only win in either one. So the emphasis now is to shore up our support with those who voted with us, and organize in about 30 congressional districts where House members SHOULD have voted with us, and should vote--esp in an election year--to support a presidential veto.

The battle is far from over, and as always, we need outreach, organizing, outreach....

Michael Mariotte
NIRS -- --


To which we replied, "Please keep us advised as to what's happening and what we can do to help. Do you have a petition or flier?"

Please help. Lobby!