[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7844-S7848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask 
unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur at 10:10 a.m. this 
morning and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes; the other side has 8\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to address the broad policy 
implications of S. 1936. I want to emphasis that my comments apply 
directly to the bill before us, not 1271. There has been some 
suggestion that 1936 represents improvement over 1271, its predecessor. 
It is my view that there are some changes but the changes make no 
policy difference at all.
  First, I want to make the point again with respect to the necessity 
for interim storage. My colleague has pointed it out. I want my 
colleagues who are watching the debate in the office to look at this 
report entitled ``Disposal and Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Finding 
the Right Balance, a Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy.'' 
This is March of this year, 1996. ``The Board sees no compelling 
technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to a centralized storage 
facility for the next few years.''
  Mr. President, what is occurring is a familiar pattern. This 
technical review board was created by Congress in 1987 after the 
original 1982 act. So, if you do not like what you asked for in a 
report in the nuclear utility industry--and its advocates obviously do 
not--then you reject the report. But this represents the consensus of 
scientific opinion as chosen by individuals who have no personal 
interest in terms of any parochial concerns. Their conclusion 
emphatically is that there is no need.
  That is the issue which the letter of the President's Chief of Staff 
addresses in part, and that is why the Washington Post editorial of 
this morning makes the contention that this is too important of an 
agenda to be jammed through the latter part of Congress on the strength 
of the industry's fabricated claim that it faces an emergency.
  So no Member of this body ought to be misled that there is some 
crisis. The only crisis is in the mind of the nuclear power industry 
which for the last 16 years has tried to engender such a crisis to get 
interim storage.
  Second, the reason this is such an abomination in my view is that it 
effectively emasculates a body of environmental laws which have been 
enacted over the past quarter of a century.
  To name but a few: the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, 
RCRA, Superfund, FLPMA, the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
Endangered Species Act. I make that contention and invite my 
colleagues' attention to page 73 of the legislation.
  It is very clever, I concede that. But this is the language that 
effectively guts the environmental law of America as it applies to this 
process:

       If the requirements of any law [any law] are inconsistent 
     with or duplicative of the requirements of the Atomic Energy 
     Act and this Act, the Secretary shall comply only [only] with 
     the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and this Act in 
     implementing the integrated management system.

  So, we clearly, in effect, supersede any provisions in any of the 
environmental laws that would be in conflict with this current act. The 
effect of that is to bypass them. It has been asserted in some 
correspondence that has been circulated that, indeed, there is a 
requirement for the National Environmental Policy Environmental Impact 
Statement Review. Let me just, again, specifically invite my 
colleagues' attention to the language on page 36 of the legislation. 
Yes, it talks about an environmental impact statement, but then, in a 
series of restrictions, it emasculates such language by saying:

       Such Environmental Impact Statement shall not consider the 
     need for the interim storage facility, including . . . the 
     time of the initial availability of the interim storage 
     facility, any alternatives to the storage of spent fuel . . . 
     and any alternatives to the site of the facility. . . . 

  That is the essence of what an environmental impact statement is, to 
consider other alternatives that might be available. So the effect that 
would have is to completely emasculate it.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry, I did not hear the President on the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 10\1/2\ minutes on 
this side, 3 minutes on the Senator's side.
  Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself 7 additional minutes and ask the Chair to 
alert me when there are 3 minutes remaining on our time.
  Mr. President, another public policy disaster is the statutory 
provision in this S. 1936 we are debating this morning that provides 
for a 100-millirem standard for us in Nevada. There is an international 
consensus that somewhere between 10 and 30 is a reasonable basis. 
Indeed, the safe drinking water

[[Page S7845]]

standard is 4 millirems. Our friends from New Mexico, who have been on 
the floor to discuss WIPP, the transuranic facility in their own State, 
have a 15-millirem standard, but we would have a 100-millirem standard 
established by statute. There is no justification for that. I am aware 
of no considered body of scientific opinion that suggests that, from a 
sole source, an additional 100 millirems be added. I must say, this is 
part of an ongoing effort to constantly reduce the levels of health and 
safety in placing nuclear waste in the State of Nevada.
  Finally, let me briefly talk about a public policy issue that ought 
to concern every Member of this Senate. Everybody has talked about 
balancing the budget, unfunded mandates and unfunded liability. This 
piece of legislation represents one of the largest unfunded liabilities 
that would ever be passed by a Congress, because what this legislation 
effectively does is to shift the financial burden from the nuclear 
utilities to the American taxpayer. It does so in a very clever and 
ingenious way. It puts a limitation on the amount of mill tax that can 
be assessed to the utilities based upon the kilowatt hours produced at 
1 mill.
  In the report to Congress by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 
Board, they make it clear that if interim storage is to be pursued in 
addition to the permanent repository, that it will require an 
additional mill levy, in addition to the 1 mill, and currently 
indicates that, with the permanent repository program alone, there is 
an unfunded liability of between $3 and $5 billion.
  So the effect of this legislation is to shift the burden and make a 
major policy departure from what historically was acknowledged from the 
time that the 1982 act was passed to the changes in 1987 and all of the 
iterations in between that. In effect, it is the utilities which ought 
to bear the financial burden.
  One can understand why they clearly would like to avoid that burden, 
but much like our Social Security system today, it is taking in more 
money than is being paid out, and in the outyears, sometime in the next 
century, that will reverse. Precisely the same scenario is mandated in 
S. 1936, because although currently the amount of revenue coming in may 
be adequate to deal with the permanent repository program alone, as 
these reactors close--and they are licensed for periods of 40 years--
less money will be coming into the fund at a time when the burdens and 
responsibility of handling the storage will continue on through an 
indefinite period of time. So this represents a financial disaster for 
the country as well.
  I will just summarize by saying the legislation is not necessary, and 
those are not the assertions or conclusions of the Senators from 
Nevada. That is Congress' own Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the 
board that was created by an act of Congress in 1987.
  Second, it effectively guts the environmental laws. A policy of 
dubious merit, in my judgment, mandates a health and safety standard 
that no other nation in the world has established.
  Finally, it would shift the cost from the utilities to the taxpayers, 
and that is bad news for the American taxpayers.
  I yield to the distinguished Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada. I will not be long. I commend him for his comments this 
morning. I think, as we come to a close in this debate, both Senators 
from Nevada have served not only their State well, but this body well 
as they have contributed to this debate in a very positive way.
  Mr. President, a couple of things have occurred over the weekend that 
I feel deserve the attention of the Senate with regard to the issue of 
nuclear waste. I would like to address both of them, if I could, 
briefly.
  This morning, in the Washington Post, the main editorial made quite a 
point of saying that the bill we are considering today is wasteful 
because, in a sense, we are rushing to a decision that the Post argues 
ought to be considered with greater care.
  The editorial makes a couple of very important points. I will quote 
one in particular:

       . . . 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.

  Mr. President, that is an issue that I think does not get the 
attention it deserves from our colleagues as they are considering this 
matter. Clearly, if we are considering a site of any magnitude, for any 
length of time, that site ought to be required to meet the same high 
standards of public health protection as the permanent site.
  The editorial is right on point. Under this bill, the interim site 
would not have all the standards required of it that a permanent site 
would. That is one of many issues that we ought to be considering very 
carefully.
  Finally, the editorial ends by saying it 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 ask 
themselves, which among them want to sign their names to that?

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the entire editorial be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 16, 1996]

                           Waste Makes Haste

       Nuclear power has not turned out to be the blessing the 
     advance men said it would. Among much else, they presented it 
     as clean--no more burning of gritty coal--but in the matter 
     of cleanliness, it has a ghastly problem of its own. The 
     nuclear issue is waste disposal--what to do with the 
     enormously toxic spent fuel rods for which there currently is 
     no long-term home.
       The idea was that the utilities would store the spent fuel 
     in the short run, while the government created a permanent 
     storage facility. To put it charitably, the government has 
     been slow to fulfill its part of the bargain. Technology has 
     been one reason; it's hard to determine how best to deal, 
     over what will likely be many generations, with a product as 
     nasty as this. Politics also have been a problem; for obvious 
     reasons, no one wants the stuff.
       In the 1980s Congress fastened on Yucca Mountain in Nevada 
     as a likely permanent repository. Nevadans resisted the idea, 
     but Texas and Washington, the other candidates, were more 
     powerfully represented in the House and able to duck. The 
     necessary work to settle definitely on Yucca Mountain has 
     gone slowly, however. The judgments are hard, and the Energy 
     Department over the years has been less than a model of 
     efficiency. So now the industry is trying to force the issue.
       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. 
     Nevadans see the proposal as a stalking horse to create what 
     would amount to a permanent facility by another name. The 
     state's two senators have been holding up other legislation 
     to keep the storage measure from coming to a vote. A cloture 
     vote will be held today to cut off their filibuster; they 
     expect to lose. But the president also has threatened a veto, 
     and that the Nevadans think they could sustain.
       We hope they do, if necessary. The interim bill is the 
     wrong way to solve what is not yet a fully urgent problem. It 
     may well be that there is no alternative to permanent 
     storage--some people think a timely way may yet be found to 
     detoxify the waste instead. It also may be that Yucca 
     Mountain is the best available site. 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 ask themselves, which among them want 
     to sign their names to that?

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I simply ask, who among us would want to 
sign our names to that? Who among us feels the need to rush to 
judgment, to make a decision on an interim site based upon what I 
consider to be faulty logic, recognizing that we are not subjecting the 
interim site to the same standards as a permanent site?
  This issue is of such great concern to the President that he has sent 
a letter on it to all of us. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter 
from the administration be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 15, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I would like to express the 
     Administration's position on S.

[[Page S7846]]

     1936, a bill to create a centralized interim high-level 
     nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada. The Administration 
     cannot support this bill, and the President would veto it if 
     the bill were presented to him in its present form.
       The Administration believes it is important to continue 
     work on a permanent geologic repository. According to the 
     National Academy of Science, there is a world-wide scientific 
     consensus that permanent geologic disposal is the best option 
     for disposing of commercial and other high-level nuclear 
     waste. This is why the Administration has emphasized cutting 
     costs and improving the management and performance of the 
     permanent site characterization efforts underway at Yucca 
     Mountain, Nevada. The Department of Energy has been making 
     significant progress in recent years and is on schedule to 
     determine the viability of the site in 1998.
       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, 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. 
     Choosing a site for an interim storage facility should be 
     based upon objective science-based criteria and should not be 
     made before the viability of the Yucca site is determined in 
     the next two years. This viability assessment, undertaken by 
     the Department of Energy, will be completed by 1998.
       Some have alleged that we need to move spent commercial 
     fuel rods to a central interim site now. According to a 
     recent report from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 
     (NWTRB), 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. 
     The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has determined that 
     current technology and methods of storing spent fuel at 
     reactors are safe. If they were not safe, the NRC would not 
     license these storage facilities. Also, the NWTRB assures us 
     that adequate at-reactor storage space is, and will remain, 
     available for many years.
       In S. 1936, the Nevada Test Site is the default site, even 
     if it proves to be unsuitable for the permanent repository. 
     This is bad policy. This bill has many other problems, 
     including those that present serious environmental concerns. 
     The bill weakens existing environmental standards by 
     preempting all Federal, state and local laws and applying 
     only the environmental requirements of this bill and the 
     Atomic Energy Act. The results of this preemption include: 
     replacing the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to 
     set acceptable radiation release standards with a statutory 
     standard considerably in excess of the exposure permitted by 
     current regulations; creating loopholes in the National 
     Environmental Policy Act; and eliminating current licensing 
     requirements for a permanent repository.
       I hope that you will not support S. 1936. It is an unfair, 
     unneeded, and unworkable bill. We have the time to develop 
     legislation and plan for an interim storage facility in a 
     fairer and scientifically valid way while being sensitive to 
     the concerns of all affected parties. This includes those in 
     Nevada, those along the rail and roadways over which the 
     nuclear waste will travel, and those who depend on and live 
     near the current operating commercial nuclear power plants.
       Thanks you for your consideration of these views.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leon L. Panetta,
                                                   Chief of Staff.

  Mr. DASCHLE. The letter says, ``The Administration cannot support 
this bill, and the President would veto it if the bill were presented 
to him in its present form.''
  He goes on to say, ``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.''
  The President also notes, ``The bill weakens existing environmental 
standards by preempting all the Federal, state, and local laws and 
applying only the environmental requirements of this bill and the 
Atomic Energy Act.''
  He summarizes the letter by saying, ``I hope you will not support S. 
1936. It is an unfair, unneeded and unworkable bill.''
  I do not know how you can say it any better than that. I think we can 
do better than this. We ought not be rushing to judgment. We ought to 
be applying the same standards. We ought to realize there are very 
serious consequences associated with the decisions some would have us 
make.
  So I hope that cooler heads will prevail, that we recognize the 
importance of this decision and that we let the process work its will. 
That is not too much to ask to make the right decision. The President 
believes that, the Washington Post believes that, and I hope that most 
of the Senate believes it too.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Idaho wants 
to make a statement for the Record.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as we reach the final days of the 104th 
Congress, an urgent environmental problem remains unresolved. However, 
unlike many issues, fortunately the question of how to deal with this 
Nation's high-level nuclear waste has an answer that is responsible, 
fair, environmentally friendly, and supported by Members of both 
parties.
  Today, high-level nuclear waste and highly radioactive used nuclear 
fuel is accumulating at more than 80 sites in 41 States. Each year, as 
that increases, our ability to continue storage of this used fuel at 
each of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. The only 
responsible choice is to support legislation that solves this problem 
by safely moving this used fuel to a safe, monitored facility in the 
remote Nevada desert. This answer will lead us to a safer future for 
all Americans.
  To facilitate our consideration of such legislation, Senator 
Murkowski and I, introduced S. 1936, a bill to amend the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1982. Bill, S. 1936, retains the fundamental goals and 
structure of the substitute for S. 1271 that was reported out of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee in March.
  However, S. 1936 contains many important clarifications and changes 
that deal with concerns raised regarding the details of that 
legislation by Members of this body. In addition, we took into account 
the provisions of H.R. 1020, which was reported out of the House 
Commerce Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan vote last year. We 
adopted much of the language found in H.R. 1020 in order to make the 
bill as similar to the bill under consideration in the House as 
possible.
  I would like to describe some of the most significant of these 
changes. S. 1936 eliminates certain provisions contained in S. 1271 
that would have limited the application of the National Environmental 
Policy Act to the intermodal transfer facility and imposed a general 
limitation on NEPA's application to the Secretary's actions to only 
those NEPA requirements specified in the bill. This was to allay the 
concern that sufficient environmental analysis would not be done under 
S. 1271.
  S. 1936 clarifies that transportation of spent fuel shall be governed 
by all requirements of Federal, State, and local governments and Indian 
tribes to the same extent that any person engaging in transportation in 
interstate commerce must comply with those requirements. S. 1936 also 
allows that the Secretary provide technical assistance and funds for 
training to Unions with experience in safety training for 
transportation workers. In addition, S. 1936 clarifies that existing 
employee protections in title 40 of the United States Code only 
addresses the refusal to work in hazardous conditions apply to 
transportation under this act. It also provides that certain inspection 
activities will be carried out by carmen and operating crews only if 
they are adequately trained. Finally, S. 1936 provides authority for 
the Secretary of Transportation to establish training standards, as 
necessary, for workers engaged in the transportation, storage, and 
disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste.
  In order to ensure the size and scope of the interim storage facility 
is manageable in the context of the overall nuclear waste program, and 
yet adequate to address the Nation's immediate spent fuel storage 
needs, S. 1936 would limit the size of phase I of the interim storage 
facility to 15,000 metric tons of spent fuel, and the size of phase II 
of the facility to 40,000 metric tons. Phase II of the facility would 
be expandable to 60,000 metric tons if the Secretary fails to meet her 
projected goals with regard to site characterization and licensing of 
the permanent repository site. In contrast, S. 1271 provided for 
storage of 20,000 metric tons of spent fuel in phase I and 100,000 
metric tons in phase II. I would like to clarify that the new volumes 
are sufficient to allow storage of current spent naval fuels.
  Unlike S. 1271, which provided for unlimited use of existing 
facilities at the

[[Page S7847]]

Nevada test site for handling spent fuel at the interim facility, S. 
1936 allows only the use of those facilities for emergency situations 
during phase I of the interim facility. These facilities should not be 
needed during phase I and construction of new facilities will be 
overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for any fuel handling 
during phase II of the interim facility.
  S. 1271 would have set the standard for releases of radioactivity 
from the repository at a maximum annual dose to an average member of 
the general population in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain at 100 
millirem. The 100 millirem standard is fully consistent with current 
national and international risk standards designed to protect public 
health and safety and the environment. While maintaining an initial 100 
millirem standard, S. 1936 would allow the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to apply another standard, if it finds that the standard in 
the legislation would pose an unreasonable risk to the health and 
safety of the public.

  S. 1936 contains provisions not found in S. 1271 that would grant 
financial and technical assistance for oversight activities and 
payments in lieu of taxes to affected units of local government and 
Indian tribes within the State of Nevada. S. 1936 also contains new 
provisions transferring certain Bureau of Land Management parcels to 
Nye County, NV.
  In order to ensure that monies collected for the nuclear waste fund 
are utilized for purposes of the Nuclear Waste Program, beginning in 
fiscal year 2003, S. 1936 would convert the current Nuclear Waste Fee, 
that is paid by electricity consumers, into a user fee that is assessed 
based upon the level of appropriations for the year in which the fee is 
collected.
  Section 408 of S. 1271 provided authority for the Secretary to 
execute emergency relief contracts with certain eligible utilities that 
would provide for qualified entities to ship, store, and condition 
spent nuclear fuel. This provision concerned some Members who feared it 
could be interpreted to provide new authority for reprocessing in this 
country or abroad. This provision is not contained in S. 1936.
  S. 1271 contained a provision that stated the actions authorized by 
the bill would be governed only by the requirements of the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act. S. 1936 eliminates this provision and instead 
provides that, if any law is inconsistent with the provisions of the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, those acts will 
govern. S. 1936 further provides that any requirement of a State or 
local government is preempted only if complying with the State or local 
requirement and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is impossible, or if the 
requirement is an obstacle to carrying out the act. This language is 
consistent with the preemption authority found in the existing 
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.

  S. 1936 authorizes the Secretary to take title to the spent fuel at 
the Dairyland Power Cooperative's La Crosse reactor, and authorizes the 
Secretary to pay for the onsite storage of the fuel until DOE removes 
the fuel from the site under terms of the act. This is a provision that 
I felt was necessary to equitably address concerns in Wisconsin and 
Iowa.
  S. 1936 contains language making a number of changes designed to 
improve the management of the Nuclear Waste Program to ensure the 
program is operated, to the maximum extent possible, in like manner to 
a private business. I feel this will improve the overall management of 
the spent fuel program.
  Finally the bill contains language that addresses Senator Johnston's 
concerns. The language in S. 1936 provides that construction shall not 
begin on an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain before December 
31, 1998. I am most pleased to now have Senator Johnston's support of 
this legislation.
  The bill provides for the delivery of an assessment of the viability 
of the Yucca Mountain site to the President and Congress by the 
Secretary of Energy 6 months before the construction can begin on the 
interim facility. If, based upon the information before him, the 
President determines, in his discretion, that Yucca Mountain is not 
suitable for development as a repository, then the Secretary shall 
cease work on both the interim and permanent repository programs at the 
Yucca Mountain site. The bill further provides that, if the President 
makes such a determination, he shall have 18 months to designate an 
interim storage facility site. If the President fails to designate a 
site, or if a site he has designated has not been approved by Congress 
within 2 years of his determination, the Secretary is instructed to 
construct an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site.
  This provision ensures that the construction of an interim storage 
facility at the Yucca Mountain site will not occur before the President 
and Congress have had an ample opportunity to review the technical 
assessment of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a 
permanent repository and to designate an alternative site for interim 
storage based upon that technical information. However, this provision 
also ensures that, ultimately, an interim storage facility site will be 
chosen. Without this assurance, we leave open the possibility we would 
find in 1998 we have no interim storage, no permanent repository 
program, and--after more than 15 years and $6 billion spent--we are 
back to where we started in 1982 when we passed the first version of 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That is within the 50 States in the Union 
we must locate a site to dispose of spent nuclear fuel.
  This issue provides a clear and simple choice. 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. It is irresponsible 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. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and support 
the passage of S. 1936.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, much has been made here of the so-
called nuclear lobby relative to this bill and the status of the issue 
we have before us.
  Let's not be misled. We have letters from 22 States to the President 
and Members of Congress; 11 from Governors and 12 from attorneys 
general urging action on the nuclear waste legislation, and that action 
is now. Governors of Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina, 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont have all written to the 
President; attorneys general from Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio. Others who have written to 
Congress include Arizona, Massachusetts, Virginia, Wisconsin, Rhode 
Island, Arkansas, Delaware, Maryland, and Oregon.
  So this is not the nuclear lobby we are talking about. We are talking 
about Governors, attorneys general in 41 States who are concerned about 
a problem that Congress has ignored. They have collected from the 
ratepayers $12 billion. We have expended over $1 billion on this 
process.
  The Washington Post tells us it is not an urgent problem. Well, the 
Washington Post does not have any nuclear waste next to them. They do 
not have any in Washington, DC. But it is a problem in Illinois. It is 
a problem in California. It is a problem throughout the United States.
  We have heard the statement from the Washington Post, and the 
minority leader suggested that we heed the Washington Post editorial 
relative to the issue that environmental laws are not being adhered to. 
All State and local transportation safety laws apply to the Department 
of Energy exactly as they apply to private carriers of hazardous 
materials. Other environmental laws are only preempted to the extent 
they conflict with this act.
  This act sets forth very stringent environmental standards that apply 
only to this very unique facility. There are no environmental laws that 
apply specifically to this facility because there is no other facility 
like this. This provision simply ensures that we do not have 
conflicting laws governing this facility. We have the laws, though, Mr. 
President. A provision regarding NEPA simply states that the 
environmental impact statement that will be prepared will not have to 
address alternatives that Congress has eliminated from consideration. 
This is really only a clarification that the EIS need not reconsider 
issues that we are deciding here

[[Page S7848]]

today, like the fact that an interim facility should be built or how 
the site for that facility will be chosen. In all other respects, NEPA 
will apply under its own terms.
  Mr. President, the President has not taken a position on this to 
rectify it. He simply has condemned every effort by Congress to address 
the situation. He and the administration have a responsibility to 
respond positively with a suggestion instead of negatively to 
everything that Congress proposes to address the problem.
  I urge my colleagues to vote cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I remind everyone in this Chamber of the 
charts Chairman Murkowski showed us earlier. They show nuclear waste 
stored in 80 sites across America. They show another chart with one 
site, the Nevada test site, and they claim that all the waste will be 
moved from these many sites to this one site. This simply is wrong, and 
it is misleading.
  Nuclear waste will remain at the nuclear reactors for as long as 
these nuclear reactors operate and long afterward. Nuclear waste will 
be stored in these cooling ponds at these reactors during their 
operation and after they shut down. Dry cask storage will be required 
at many of these reactors, whether or not S. 1936 passes.
  Those Senators who believe that S. 1936 will get nuclear waste out of 
their backyards are misinformed, and they are wrong. The first chart of 
the junior Senator from Alaska, the chart with waste stored across the 
Nation, represents our future under S. 1936, as well as our past. In 
addition to waste in the backyards that it is already in, it will be in 
the backyards of places all over this country along the transportation 
routes.
  Remember, Mr. President, we have already had seven nuclear waste 
accidents, 1 for every 300 trips. We are going to have thousands of 
trips; 12,000 shipments alone will go through the State of Illinois; 
thousands through Massachusetts; almost 12,000 through Nebraska and 
Wyoming.
  This legislation is wrongheaded. I repeat from the editorial this 
morning in the Washington Post:

       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 . . . .

  This is legislation that is unnecessary. It is based upon one 
fabrication after another. It should be soundly defeated. We ask the 
motion to invoke cloture not prevail.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask 
unanimous consent that William Murphie be granted the privilege of the 
floor during the consideration of this bill, S. 1936, a bill to amend 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe all time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators from Nevada still control a few 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. We yield back the time.

                          ____________________