[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7839-S7844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1996--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the bill (S. 1936) to amend the 
     Nuclear Policy Act of 1982.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 1 
hour equally divided prior to the cloture vote on the motion to 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I am going to make a short 
statement and then reserve the remainder of my time to accommodate 
Senator Craig and other Senators.
  First of all, the bill we have before us, S. 1936, is really an 
important bill that does two significant things. First, it keeps a 
promise, a promise that was made to the taxpayers of this country who 
have contributed about $12 billion currently to the nuclear waste fund, 
but, unfortunately, we have nothing to show for it at this time. It 
also takes important steps to a safer future.
  Today, high-level nuclear waste and high-radioactivity-used-type 
nuclear fuel is accumulating in this country at over 40 sites in 41 
States, including waste stored at the Department of Energy weapons 
facilities, stored, Mr. President, in populated areas, near our 
neighborhoods, near our schools, on the shores of our lakes and rivers, 
and in the backyards of constituents, young and old, all across this 
land.
  Later on, I am going to have some charts that I want to show my 
colleagues so that we can specifically address where this nuclear fuel 
is stored on both the east and the west coasts, where most Americans 
live. It may be Yorktown, near your neighborhood and near mine. 
Unfortunately, spent fuel is being stored in pools that were not 
designed for long-term storage.

  Some of this fuel is already 30 years old. That is not to say it is 
not safe. It simply was not designed for long-term or semipermanent 
storage. Each year that goes by, our ability to continue storage of 
this used fuel in each of these sites in a safe and responsible

[[Page S7840]]

way simply diminishes. So it is irresponsible to let this situation 
continue longer. It is unsafe to let this dangerous radioactive 
material continue to accumulate at more than 80 sites all across the 
country. It is unwise to block the safe storage of this used fuel in a 
remote area away from high-population centers.
  Furthermore, this is a national problem that requires a coordinated 
national solution, and this bill, S. 1936, solves this problem. It 
solves it by safely moving the used fuel to a safe, monitored facility 
in the remote Nevada desert, a facility designed to safely store the 
fuel, the very best that nuclear experts can build, certified safe by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  So, S. 1936 will end the practice of storing used fuel on a long-term 
basis in pools in Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, California, New York, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and other States all across the country.
  This will solve an environmental problem, Mr. President, but the 
approach to S. 1936 is simply to get the job done, to do what is right 
for the country and to do it now.
  For those who are not familiar with this program, let me describe the 
status quo. We have struggled with this nuclear waste issue for almost 
15 years. We have expended over a billion dollars in the process. We 
have collected nearly $12 billion from the ratepayers, but the 
Washington establishment has not been able to deliver on the promise to 
take and safely dispose of our Nation's nuclear waste by 1998.
  Hard-working Americans have paid for this as part of their monthly 
electric bill. They certainly have not gotten the results, Mr. 
President. The program is broken and has no future unless it is fixed. 
We can end the stalemate; we can make the decision.
  I think we have reached a crossroads. The job of fixing this program 
is ours, the responsibility is ours. The time for fixing the program is 
now.
  We are, of course, seeing the Senators from Nevada oppose the bill, 
as I would expect, with all the arguments and vigor they can muster, 
and that is certainly understandable. Nobody wants nuclear waste in 
their State, but it has to go somewhere, and Nevada is the best place 
we have.
  Both Senators from Nevada, of course, are friends of mine. We have 
talked about this issue at length, and they are doing what they feel 
they must do to best represent their State. But as U.S. Senators, we 
must sometimes take a national perspective. We must do what is best for 
the country as a whole.
  To keep this waste out of Nevada, the Senators from Nevada have used 
some terms, very catchy terms, like ``mobile Chernobyl,'' to frighten 
Americans about the safety of moving this used fuel to the Nevada 
desert where it really belongs.
  They will not tell you that we have already moved a large amount of 
commercial and naval nuclear fuel throughout many, many years. The 
commercial industry alone has shipped 2,500 shipments of used nuclear 
fuel over the last 30 years. We have seen it shipped into Hanford, 
Savannah, a site in Idaho.
  I want to tell you, an even larger amount of spent fuel is 
transported worldwide. We have seen it in Japan. We have seen it in 
England. We have seen it in France. We have seen it in Scandinavia. 
Since 1968, the French alone have safely moved about the same amount of 
spent fuels as we have accumulated at our nuclear powerplants today.
  They will not tell you that our Nation's best scientists and 
engineers have designed special casks that are safety certified by the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to transport the used fuel. They will not 
tell you about the rigger testing that has taken place by the Sandia 
National Laboratory and others to ensure the casks will safely contain 
used fuel in the most severe accidents that might be imagined. They 
will survive.
  There is proof that the safety measures work. There have been seven 
traffic accidents in the United States involving U.S. spent nuclear 
fuels. When the accidents have happened, these casks have never 
failed--never failed--to safely contain the used fuel. There has never 
been an injury or a fatality caused by casked radioactive cargo. There 
has never been damage to the environment. Can the same be said of 
gasoline trucks, other hazardous movement on our highways? Of course 
not. Still, we can expect our friends from Nevada are going to try to 
convince the people that the transportation will not be safe.
  The evidence of the industry in the United States and in Europe 
proves otherwise. The safety record of nuclear fuel transport, both 
here and in Europe, as I have said, speaks for itself. The issue 
provides a clear and simple choice. We could choose to have one remote, 
safe, and secure nuclear waste storage facility or, through inaction 
and delay, we can permeate the status quo and have 80 such sites spread 
across the Nation.
  Mr. President, the chart to my right shows the locations of spent 
nuclear fuel and radioactive waste sites that are designed for the 
geologic disposal. You can see the reactors. The commercial reactors 
are in brown situated primarily in States in the Midwest and on the 
east coast, Illinois, and others. The green are the shutdown reactors 
with spent fuel on-site. The black are commercial spent-fuel storage 
facilities that are located in various areas throughout the country. 
The green are the non-Department of Energy-related reactors. The gold 
is the nuclear reactors fuel in the Navy holdings. The red is the 
Department of Energy-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste. There is the chart, Mr. President. That shows where 
the sites are around the country.
  The next chart which I will put up is the proposed solution to this 
dilemma. It proposes, obviously, one site, the Nevada test site. The 
theory behind this is we in the last 50 years tested numerous nuclear 
devices in this area and found it to be safe. The reality of the 
situation, Mr. President, is--and I grant to my friends from Nevada, 
nobody wants the waste. Somebody has to take the waste. Where do you 
put the waste? This has been determined to be the most plausible site 
as a consequence of the efforts to develop a permanent repository at 
Yucca Mountain. What we are proposing by this legislation is to allow a 
temporary repository to initiate a process of becoming a reality.
  I have another chart here which shows in each State the number of 
volumes associated with the storage in the inventory currently in the 
estimated inventories through the year 2010. We will have another chart 
relative to each Member being able to see his or her own State and what 
it represents.
  What we have here, Mr. President, is a situation where it is not 
morally right to perpetuate the status quo on this matter. I think to 
do so shirks our responsibility to protect the environment and the 
future of our children and grandchildren. This Nation needs to confront 
its nuclear waste problem now. The time is now. Nevada is the place. I 
urge my colleagues to support the passage of S. 1936 and to support 
cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill.
  One final thing, Mr. President, as we reflect on some of the material 
that we have seen relative to the question of why move now? Mr. 
President, as I have indicated, we spent $1 billion. We have spent over 
15 years trying to develop and respond to a promise made to the 
American taxpayer, as the Federal Government has collected from the 
ratepayers some $11-plus billion--over $12 billion.
  So I concede, Mr. President, that no one wants it. On the other hand, 
if you oppose what has been suggested by this bill, then I think you 
have an obligation to come up with a solution, a reasonable solution 
and responsible solution, a long-term solution. The Federal Government 
promised the ratepayers, promised the industry to take this waste by 
1998. The Government cannot deliver on that promise.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, this is a major environmental issue. We 
must accept the responsibility of addressing the accumulation of this 
waste. We cannot duck it anymore. S. 1936 does that. What we have here, 
Mr. President, is an effort by the Nevada Senators to gridlock the 
Senate, to filibuster the Senate.
  I have no particular interest in this, but as chairman of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, I have a responsibility, Mr. 
President. My State, fortunately, is not one of the States listed. But 
by the same token,

[[Page S7841]]

the obligation to address this is a responsibility of every U.S. 
Senator. We cannot delay it any longer. We can store it now in the one 
safe site where we have been exploding nuclear weapons for some 50 
years. We owe it to the U.S. citizens to move this material and do it 
now.
  I note the Washington Post editorial this morning, Mr. President, 
suggested that somehow this action would not meet all the standards of 
a permanent facility. This is not intended to meet the standards of a 
permanent facility. This is an interim facility. But by the same token, 
we all know that the construction continues on the permanent facility 
at Yucca Mountain with all the safeguards necessary.
  I might add, in this legislation none of the safeguards are waived. 
All of the Federal acts must be adhered to. ``The interim bill is the 
wrong way,'' the Washington Post says, ``to solve what is not fully yet 
an urgent problem.'' I differ with the Washington Post. It is an urgent 
problem, Mr. President.
  In many of these States the licensing of the nuclear waste on hand is 
almost at its maximum limit. As a consequence, Mr. President, we can no 
longer shirk the responsibility. There have been numerous hearings. 
There have been numerous debates. The best plausible alternative is a 
temporary repository associated with Yucca Mountain. That is what the 
legislation is all about.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time and allow the other 
side to be heard from. Then I think Senator Craig is going to have some 
remarks.
  Mr. REID. Could the Chair indicate how much time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's side has 29 minutes and the 
other side has 14 minutes.
  Mr. REID. We have a tremendous amount of work to do in this body, 
including 12 appropriations bills to pass, welfare reform, taking a 
look at Medicare, Medicaid. We have this problem that faces every city 
in America, the decaying infrastructure. We have not spent any time 
talking about that.
  Mr. President, the junior Senator from Alaska mentioned a number of 
things, and I think it is important to respond. He is talking about 
keeping a promise--I do not know to whom, maybe to the powerful 
utilities of this country. Certainly it is no promise to the people of 
this country to take nuclear waste and spread it across this country 
without proper controls.
  The Senator talked about the special casks. Let us talk about the 
special casks. The special casks were developed in an effort to more 
safely transport nuclear waste. The problem is, the cask developed, you 
still cannot safely transport nuclear waste. It is great for storing on 
site. But taking these casks across the country could present a few 
problems. Why? Because they are only safe if an accident occurs and you 
are going less than 30 miles an hour. We have all driven the highways 
and seen the trucks come barreling down the roads on the freeways, the 
express-ways, the roadways, and byways. Very, very few of them have I 
ever seen going 30 miles an hour. The only time they do that is when 
they are building up their speed from a stop sign. If any vehicle 
accident occurs with the dry cask storage container in it and it is 
going more than 30 miles an hour, the cask will be violated. The cask 
will break.
  In addition to that, Mr. President, we have been told that these 
casks are safe with fire. Well, they are, if the fire is not too hot 
and does not last too long. If the fire is 1,480 degrees and does not 
last more than a half hour, you are in great shape. But, of course, we 
know that last year a train burned for four days. We know that 
vehicular accidents involving trucks or trains involve diesel fuel. 
Diesel fuel burns as high as 3,200 degrees Fahrenheit. The average 
temperature is 1,800 degrees--400 degrees hotter than what the casks 
were developed to protect.
  So, that is why we believe, Mr. President, that this legislation is 
ill-founded, unwise, and unnecessary. This is not just the Senators 
from Nevada talking, Mr. President. The fact of the matter is that the 
President, who we have said all along is going to veto this bill, has 
sent the minority leader a letter. The letter states a number of 
things. It is dated July 15. Among the things that are stated in this 
letter is, ``The administration cannot support this bill.'' We have 
been saying that all along. Some people question that. It should be 
very clear now that the President has said this. He has written this. 
Here is a proposed veto message.
  The letter also says:

       The administration believes it is important to continue 
     work on a permanent geological repository.

  Where? In Nevada at Yucca Mountain. The nuclear industry wants to 
short-circuit and shortcut the process that has been ongoing.
  The letter further states:

       The Department of Energy has been making significant 
     progress in recent years and is on schedule to determine the 
     viability of the site.
       Designating the Nevada Test Site as the interim waste site, 
     as S. 1936 effectively does, will undermine the ongoing Yucca 
     Mountain evaluation work by siphoning away resources. Perhaps 
     more importantly, enactment of this bill will destroy the 
     credibility of the Nation's nuclear waste disposal program.

  Those words come from the White House.

       Some have alleged that we need to move spent commercial 
     fuel rods to a central site now.

  That is what we have been saying all along, and that is also 
indicated this letter from the White House.

       According to a recent report from the Nuclear Waste 
     Technical Review Board, an independent board established by 
     Congress, there is no technical or safety reason to move 
     spent fuel to an interim central storage facility for the 
     next several years.
       Also, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board assures us 
     that adequate, at-reactor storage space is, and will remain, 
     available for many years.

  The President, among other things, says, ``The bill weakens existing 
environmental standards by preempting all Federal, State, and local 
laws.
  It ends by saying, ``It is an unfair, unneeded, and unworkable 
bill,'' as we have been saying all along. This is signed by the Chief 
of Staff of the President.
  There are editorials we can show you from the western part of the 
United States to say this is a bad bill. Today in the Washington Post, 
the editorial said, among other things, in its headlined article: 
``Waste Makes Haste.'' The Washington Post, an independent newspaper, 
says:

       Anxious to rid itself of the accumulating waste and the 
     liability that it represents, and fearful that the Federal 
     studies could bog down, the nuclear lobby is pushing a bill 
     to designate an ``interim'' storage site in Nevada that would 
     not have to meet all the standards of a permanent facility.

  It says:

       The interim bill is the wrong way to solve what is not yet 
     a fully urgent problem.
       But this is too important a decision to be jammed through 
     the latter part of a Congress on the strength of the 
     industry's fabricated claim that it faces an emergency. On 
     this one, Members should imagine the worst--that bunching and 
     storing the waste will produce the eventual environmental 
     disaster that some of the critics predict. Then they ask 
     themselves, which among them want to sign their names to 
     that?

  Mr. President, this bill is a fabrication, as indicated in this 
article. The bill is a fabrication. It is being pushed by the nuclear 
lobby, and that is the main reason it is being pushed. This bill should 
not see the light of day.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes remain, and 20 minutes remain 
on the other side.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield myself 5 minutes. Will the Chair notify me when 
that time is up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. In the debate that has gone on and will continue to go on, 
on this critical issue, the management of the high level nuclear waste, 
there are myths and there are realities.
  I ask unanimous consent that four letters, dated April 7, 1995, 
August 7, 1995, January 10, 1996, April 26, 1996, all letters to the 
White House, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   U.S Senate, Committee on Energy


                                        and Natural Resources,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 1995.
     President Bill Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As the new chairman of the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources, one of my top priorities is to 
     help

[[Page S7842]]

     meet the challenge this nation faces in developing a safe and 
     scientifically sound means of managing spent nuclear fuel. 
     Given the Department of Energy's announcement it will not be 
     able to meet its obligation to begin accepting nuclear waste 
     in 1998, we must address this issue in an aggressive and 
     forthright manner.
       Judging from the attention paid this matter by Secretary of 
     Energy Hazel O'Leary, I had assumed it was a top priority for 
     you, as well. But recent letters you sent to Senator Richard 
     Bryan and Nevada Governor Robert Miller seem to suggest 
     otherwise.
       While you acknowledge there are ``national security 
     interests involved,'' your letter says you cannot support any 
     current legislation to fix the problem ``at this time.'' If 
     you cannot support current legislative proposals at this 
     time, members of my committee would like to know how and when 
     you plan to offer an alternative proposal.
       You are no doubt aware of the environmental and security 
     implications of failing to reach a solution in the not too 
     distant future.
       With all due respect. Mr. President. I and many members of 
     my committee believe it is time for you to become an active 
     participant in efforts to resolve this pressing challenge. We 
     urge you to either support the concepts in several current 
     legislative proposals or offer a plan of your own. We have 
     already held hearings on the spent nuclear fuel program and 
     continue to work toward a solution. Your advice and 
     involvement would be greatly appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                               Frank H. Murkowski,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                                 Energy and Natural Resources,

                                   Washington, DC, August 7, 1995.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I last wrote to you on the subject of 
     managing the nation's spent civilian nuclear fuel on April 7, 
     1995.
       In my prior letter, I made reference to the fact that you, 
     in a letter to Senator Bryan, stated that you could not 
     support any spent fuel management legislation currently 
     before Congress at this time. Your position raised a number 
     of questions:
       If you cannot support any pending legislation, what can you 
     support?
       If you will not support legislation now, when might you 
     support it?
       If all the comprehensive spent fuel management legislation 
     before Congress is unacceptable, will you provide us with 
     draft legislation that is acceptable?
       In my April 7 letter, I challenged the administration to 
     become an active participant by either supporting the 
     concepts in pending legislation or by offering a 
     comprehensive plan of its own. Unfortunately, this has not 
     yet occurred. In fact, neither you nor your office has even 
     responded to my letter. Are we to conclude that you will 
     simply continue to remain critical of all the pending 
     proposals without offering constructive, comprehensive 
     alternatives?
       Recently, a House Subcommittee marked up its legislation to 
     address the spent fuel management problem. Floor action may 
     yet occur in the House this year. Meanwhile, our Committee 
     continues its deliberations with industry, consumer groups, 
     regulatory authorities and others with a view toward 
     achieving a broad consensus. Even the Appropriations 
     Committees, anxious to see some progress, are inserting 
     provisions in their bills to promote action. Everyone seems 
     to be working on this issue, Mr. President--except your 
     administration.
       I believe the spent fuel management problem is one that can 
     best be solved by working in a bipartisan, collaborative 
     manner. Unfortunately, the opportunity for the administration 
     to provide meaningful guidance at this important stage in our 
     deliberations is quickly being lost.
       I again urge you to submit comprehensive legislation to 
     address this important problem, or voice your support for 
     concepts embodied in legislation currently before us. The 
     courtesy of a reply would also be appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                               Frank H. Murkowski,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                 Washington, DC, January 10, 1996.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Over the past nine months, I have 
     written two letters to you requesting that the Administration 
     offer a comprehensive plan that would allow the federal 
     government to meet its commitment to manage the nation's 
     spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.
       What we have now is a program that has spent twelve years 
     and $4.2 billion of taxpayer dollars looking for a site for a 
     permanent high-level nuclear waste repository. By 1998, the 
     deadline for acceptance of waste by the Department of Energy 
     (DOE) and when DOE plans to make a decision about whether or 
     not the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for a permanent 
     repository, twenty-three commercial power reactors will have 
     run out of room in their spent fuel storage pools. By 2010, 
     DOE's rather optimistic target date for opening a permanent 
     repository, an additional 55 reactors will be out of space. 
     It is estimated that continued-onsite storage through 2010 
     would cost our nation's taxpayers $5 billion dollars more 
     than centralized interim storage. At the same time, spent 
     nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste from defense 
     activities is being stored, at great expense, at DOE sites 
     across the country.
       On April 7, 1995, and August 7, 1995, when I wrote my 
     previous letters, you had indicated that you could not 
     support legislation then pending before Congress at that 
     time. In light of this position, my letters urged you to 
     offer a comprehensive plan of your own that would resolve 
     this important national security issue. One August 18, 1995, 
     I received a letter from Office of Management and Budget 
     Director Rivlin acknowledging receipt of my letters and 
     indicating that an Administration policy recommendation would 
     be provided before the end of the Labor Day recess.
       We have still not received a response from your office. On 
     December 14, 1995, Secretary Hazel O'Leary testified before 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that the 
     Administration would oppose any legislation that would 
     authorize the construction of a interim storage facility at 
     the Nevada Test Site in time for the government to meet its 
     obligations to begin storing spent nuclear fuel in 1998. 
     Secretary O'Leary indicated that the Administration wishes to 
     simply continue the existing program.
       However, the status quo is not an option. As indicated by 
     Senator Domenici at the December 14 hearing, the 
     Appropriations Committee will not continue to provide funding 
     for the program unless legislative changes are made that 
     allow the construction of interim storage on a timely basis. 
     I continue to believe that this problem can best be resolved 
     in a bipartisan manner. However, this is an issue that 
     requires legislative action. If you continue to reject 
     Congressional proposals, I would ask that you offer an 
     alternative plan that would allow the government to fulfill 
     its commitment to the electricity ratepayers of this country. 
     I look forward to your reply.
           Sincerely,
                                               Frank H. Murkowski,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 1996.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Over a year ago, I wrote the first of 
     three letters to you regarding an issue that is one of my top 
     priorities, and which I had assumed was a top priority of 
     yours--protecting the environment and the safety of Americans 
     from the threat posed by high-level nuclear waste. Only after 
     the third letter, sent on January 10, 1996, did I receive a 
     response from your Office of Management and Budget Director, 
     which indicated you support the status quo.
       Although I would have genuinely appreciated constructive 
     input from your Administration, at that time, it became clear 
     none was forthcoming. Thus, on March 13, 1996, the Energy and 
     Natural Resources committee reported S. 1271, a bill to 
     provide for the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and 
     nuclear waste at a central interim storage facility.
       I was dismayed to receive the Statement of Administration 
     Policy issued on April 23, 1996, which threatened to veto S. 
     1271 ``because it designates an interim storage facility at a 
     specific site.'' Although that statement claims ``[t]he 
     Administration is committed to resolving the complex and 
     important issue of nuclear waste storage in a timely and 
     sensible manner,'' such words ring hollow in the context of a 
     threat to veto any legislation that does anything other than 
     perpetuate the status quo.
       Currently, high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel 
     is accumulating at over 80 sites in 41 states, including 
     waste stored at DOE weapons facilities. It is stored in 
     populated areas, near our neighborhoods and schools, on the 
     shores of our lakes and rivers, in the backyard of 
     constituents young and old all across this land.
       The question is not whether or not we like nuclear power; 
     it is whether this nation will responsibly deal with the 
     spent nuclear fuel that already exists. Even if the use of 
     nuclear power were to end today, the problem of what to do 
     with related materials remains. Each year that goes by, the 
     ability to continue storage of nuclear waste at each of these 
     sites in a safe and responsible way decreases.
       It is inappropriate to let this situation continue 
     unresolved. As a grandparent and concerned American, I hope 
     to convince you to help us do something about it.
       Rather than letting this dangerous radioactive material 
     continue to accumulate at more than 80 sites all across the 
     country, doesn't it make sense to store it at one, safe and 
     monitored facility at a site so remote that the Government 
     used it to explode nuclear weapons for fifty years? The 
     responsible answer is ``yes.''
       We've struggled with the nuclear waste issue for more than 
     a decade. We've collected over $11 billion from electricity 
     ratepayers to run the existing program. That program (the 
     status quo) has hit a brick wall. Congressional and public 
     confidence in the program is in decline--and the 
     Appropriations Committee has responded by cutting its funds. 
     Ratepayers, state public utility commissions and 
     Congressional appropriations

[[Page S7843]]

     committees have lost patience and are making it clear they 
     refuse to continue pouring billions of dollars into a program 
     that fails to solve this problem, and will not, for the 
     foreseeable future.
       The choice is ours. We can choose to have one, remote, safe 
     and secure nuclear waste storage facility. Or, through 
     inaction and delay, we can perpetuate the status quo and have 
     80 such sites spread across the nation. The job of fixing 
     this program is also ours.
       It is not morally right to perpetuate the status quo on 
     this matter. To do so would be to shirk our responsibility to 
     protect the environment and the future for our children and 
     grandchildren. This nation needs to confront its nuclear 
     waste problem now. That means Congress must pass and you 
     should sign S. 1271 into law. I can only hope you will 
     reconsider your position and make a decision to help us solve 
     this very real environmental problem.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Frank H. Murkowski.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, when the chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee of the Senate submitted these letters to the White 
House urging them to become involved in this critical national issue, 
the response was limited to nothing. We even suggested in legislation 
that I first introduced, S. 1271, that the committee worked very hard 
on, that if they could not support the pending legislation, they should 
offer an alternative. Their answer was no answer.
  As a result of all of that, the White House never became a player in 
this most critical issue. The Department of Energy, under the direction 
of Hazel O'Leary, could not become a player because the White House had 
chosen a long time ago not to deal with this critical national policy, 
but to play politics on something that the public cries out for a 
solution.
  As a result of that, when the Chief of Staff of the White House, Leon 
Panetta, on July 15, submitted a letter, a veto threat, on S. 1936, 
many of us looked at that in an effort to analyze it to see whether the 
White House had in fact began to engage in this most critical policy 
issue. I must tell you, Mr. President, that the answer to that is no. 
The letter that comes from the White House is not a policy statement; 
it is in every regard a political statement. It is tragic at a time 
when many, many States of this Nation demand that this be a solution to 
a critical problem that the White House would only play politics. That 
is very frustrating to me, and I am sure it is frustrating in a 
bipartisan way to a good many of my colleagues here in the Senate.
  The legislation now before us, S. 1936, is not something cooked up by 
the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee or this 
Senator from Idaho. We sat down with the ranking member of that 
committee, Bennett Johnston, and our staffs. We brought consultants in 
from all over the world to see how we bring about the beginning of the 
movement of a solution to the problem of the handling of high-level 
nuclear waste.
  In all fairness to the administration, but more important to Hazel 
O'Leary, she began to aggressively move the issue by speeding up the 
activities on the exploration development and certification process 
that must go on at Yucca Mountain. But even as that timetable speeds 
up, it does not solve the problem. It does not answer the problem that 
this country must address.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Abraham, 
Jeffords, Smith of New Hampshire, Warner, Kempthorne, Robb of Virginia, 
Kyl of Arizona all become sponsors of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Through the course of the debate, Mr. President, a lot of 
the issues that have been propounded by our colleagues from Nevada will 
be clarified. For the Record, because of an allegation that I believe 
is patently false and that results from the exploration and the 
understanding of how these materials get transported across our 
country, I ask that the International Association of Fire Chiefs letter 
in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         International Association


                                               of Fire Chiefs,

                                       Fairfax, VA, June 21, 1996.
     Hon. Larry E. Craig,
     Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: S1271, the Nuclear Waste Act of 1995, 
     has been reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources and is awaiting consideration on the 
     Senator floor. The International Association of Fire Chiefs 
     (IAFC) fully supports this legislation and urges prompt 
     passage.
       Enclosed for your information is a resolution adopted by 
     the IAFC which states our concerns about the storage of 
     nuclear fuel and the compelling reasons to enact this 
     legislation now.
       We appreciate your consideration of this very important 
     issue.
       Thank you.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    Alan Caldwell,
                                   Director, Government Relations.
       Enclosure.

 Resolution by the International Association of Fire Chiefs Hazardous 
 Materials Committee To Support Senate Bill #1271, ``Nuclear Waste Act 
                               of 1995''

       Wherefore: Nuclear fuel has been accumulating and 
     temporarily stockpiled since 1982 at numerous staging 
     locations throughout the United States; and
       Whereas: Many of these locations are provided a security 
     system which is less than desirable; and
       Whereas: The stockpiling of nuclear waste in so many 
     removed locales renders them most vulnerable to potential 
     sabotage and terrorist attacks; and
       Whereas: Prolonged exposure to the elements of time and 
     weather will perpetuate deterioration and invite infrequent 
     inspections; and
       Whereas: A plan to remove this nuclear fuel and coordinate 
     its transport to a single secure designated interim storage 
     facility at Yucca Flat, NV, in accordance with prudent 
     planning, training, and preparation can be a safe, logical 
     and acceptable alternative: Therefore, let it be
       Resolved that the International Association of Fire Chiefs:
       1. Urge members of the U.S. Senate to support Senate Bill 
     1271.
       2. Urge members of the U.S. Senate to ensure that:
       a. Only specified rail and highway transportation routes 
     are designated for transport;
       b. Only specified days and hours of day are designated for 
     transport to assure local authority readiness and 
     preparedness; and
       c. All appropriate local emergency services (fire, law) are 
     notified in writing of such designated movement through their 
     jurisdiction not less than 30 days before such involvement, 
     and said notification shall include the specified route, 
     quantity, number and type of transportation vehicles/
     containers, date, time of day, point of project contact, and 
     24-hour emergency contact.
       3. Urge members of the U.S. Senate to ensure that:
       a. Prior to any movement, prudent and detailed plans for 
     route design, route designations, and inspection of all 
     routes for safety, acceptability, and ease of access by 
     emergency response agencies be completed with solicited 
     participation from the emergency response agencies.
       b. Prior to any movement, consideration--including 
     support--be provided to train the local emergency response 
     agencies in suggested procedures to be followed in case of an 
     emergency, to include proper protocols, notification, scene 
     security, agency responsibilities and authorities; and
       c. Prior to any movement, a detailed analysis is completed 
     to analyze and list all probable types of accidents that may 
     be likely, and document a suggested intervention protocol 
     that the local emergency response agencies can review, study, 
     and employ.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is important for all of us to 
understand--and I think for our colleagues to appreciate as we debate 
over the next good number of days S. 1936--is that we have employed all 
of the science of the known Western World to assure that the management 
and the handling of nuclear waste be done in a safe and effective way. 
And the legislation that is now before us simply begins to expedite all 
of that.
  Mr. President, I see my time is up. I would like to yield 5 minutes 
to the Senator from Louisiana, the senior Senator, Bennett Johnston.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if one would pick this issue based on 
personalities I would never have been involved in the nuclear waste 
debate because my two colleagues from the State of Nevada are two of 
the most popular Senators, two of my best friends, and two of the most 
capable Senators in this body. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. 
President, I began working on nuclear waste in 1979 when I introduced 
the first bill. I believe that was before my two colleagues even came 
to the Senate. And I did so because, Mr. President, it is a problem 
that the Nation must solve. And it fell my lot as a member of the 
Energy Committee, and as chairman of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee, to deal with this very troublesome issue.

[[Page S7844]]

  Today we find ourselves, Mr. President, with about 40,000 metric tons 
of nuclear waste spread around 34 States in this country, and it cries 
out for solution. And every year, Mr. President, we hear, ``Don't do it 
this year. This is an election year.'' You hear this privately. ``It is 
an election year. One of my colleagues is up.'' It is always an 
election year. Either one of my two colleagues from Nevada or the 
President is up for election. And there is always some reason to put it 
off.
  But, Mr. President, we have spent $5 billion on this issue of nuclear 
waste. And we are nowhere near getting it solved. That is not just 
because of mishandling by the Department of Energy. The responsibility, 
Mr. President, lies to a large extent right here in the Congress 
because we have been, at least up until this time, unwilling to act 
decisively and to do what we know must be done.
  I have a letter here from the White House, Leon Panetta, for whom I 
have not only great affection but great respect. But I must tell you, 
Mr. President, Mr. Panetta's letter in opposing this bill is written 
about the last bill--not this bill. One thing he points out, and 
perhaps most importantly, he says, ``The enactment of this bill will 
destroy the credibility of the Nation's nuclear waste disposal program 
by prejudicing the Yucca Mountain permanent repository decision.''
  Mr. President, when this bill was in the committee I proposed an 
amendment which said that you may not begin construction on the 
temporary or interim facility until a decision is made as to the 
suitability of the permanent repository. That amendment was not agreed 
to. I think that is an appropriate amendment. I do not believe you 
ought to begin construction on the interim facility until you make a 
decision with respect to the permanent repository. But, Mr. President, 
that was rejected in committee. But since then we have negotiated the 
matter out with the chairman, Senator Murkowski, and my friend Senator 
Craig. And now the provision is written into this bill now being 
considered that you may not in fact begin construction until you make a 
decision as to the permanent repository.
  So the principal complaint in Leon Panetta's letter is no longer 
valid. And I hope and I trust that, when and if this bill passes, the 
President and Mr. Panetta will relook at this matter in light of those 
changed circumstances.
  Mr. President, the reason we need interim storage now--at least the 
reason we need to pass this bill now--is because that reactor sites 
around the country are running out of room in what they call swimming 
pools. The nuclear waste rods are taken out of the reactor and put in 
literally swimming pools of water, and those have been reracked over 
the years; that is, made more dense. And one by one utilities are 
running out of space. Northern States Utilities up in the State of 
Minnesota has already run out of space and has had to purchase what 
they call dry cask storage at very expensive cost.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________