On the recordOctober 30, 1997
once again, the entire story has not been told. The fact is that this amendment would amend the Price-Anderson Act, a statute that was carefully crafted over two entire Congresses with great deliberation. There has been no hearing on this amendment, and it makes a dramatic change in an area of law that has always been very controversial. This is not a simple matter. Contractor liability was hotly contested when the Price-Anderson Act was debated in the 100th and 101st Congresses. Congress did not bar indemnification of contractors from damages resulting from negligence out of recognition that such a course would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Price-Anderson Act. Why? The fact is that although the impression was made in the debate in favor of this motion that there would be no compensation for those who might be injured by accidents involving nuclear transmission of fuel, the Price-Anderson Act does provide for compensation. It simply provides that it is done through a process that will provide immediate compensation to victims, rather than forcing them into expensive and protracted litigation. Again, this is an issue that has been debated hotly over two Congresses. It will be visited again in the reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act before transportation begins, and the impression that was tried to be made by those who debated in favor of this motion that there is no compensation for victims of such accidents is simply false.
Source
govinfo.gov




