[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 39 (Monday, April 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2781-S2786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT AMENDMENTS--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the motion to proceed.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, when it comes to establishing national 
priorities--and I know what our President is doing in the area that I 
am about to discuss now--it is a great frustration to many States 
across our Nation because this President refuses--I repeat, refuses--to 
take a firm position and establish as a national priority in this 
country the appropriate handling of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
nuclear waste in a way that is acceptable to the American people and 
commensurate with the public law.

  So what I am about to speak to is a piece of Senate legislation that 
I and the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
introduced on this floor last year, and that we passed last year in the 
U.S. Senate with 63 votes--63 bipartisan voices that said that this 
administration was wrong with their policy, and wrong with their 
priorities when it came to honoring public law and the 42 States that 
felt it necessary that this President honor public law. I am talking 
about the expeditious and timely management of high-level nuclear waste 
and spent nuclear fuel.
  For all the right reasons, our Nation has spent a long time 
generating radioactive materials--nearly five decades. Most of this 
material is the byproduct of two principal activities: National defense 
operations, and commercial nuclear power plants. While it was our 
national policy for well over five decades that the Federal Government 
have oversight and primacy in the area of management and control of 
nuclear materials, it is no longer, tragically enough, a high-level 
policy of this country that is discernible by administrative position 
and by the clearness of administrative leadership. That is why we are 
here today on the floor of the U.S. Senate debating a timely action 
that this country must take to be responsible for the five decades of 
activity in the generation of high-level radioactive waste.
  What I am talking about clearly is a national concern. To ignore this 
responsibility would be unwise, irresponsible, and in some instances, 
with regard to taking timely action, unsafe.
  I am pleased now to rise in support of Senate bill 104, the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act of 1997. As I mentioned, last year I and the Senator 
from Alaska were here on the floor with the Senators from Nevada 
debating a similar bill, although this year we have changed the bill 
some by actions in the committee itself and by possible amendments that 
will be made here on the floor during the course of the debate and the 
final vote on this legislation.
  What we are talking about is the timely storage and disposal of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste from our Nation's defense 
program and from, of course, the commercial nuclear power plants. 
Senate bill 104 creates an integrated system that will ensure 
construction of an interim storage facility and permanent repository to 
manage spent fuel and high-level waste that is currently stored in over 
80 sites in 41 States across this country.
  I have in the backdrop a map of our country that demonstrates the 
locations of reactors and storage sites, 80 sites in 41 States. Yet our 
administration basically has had no policy for nearly two decades on 
this issue.
  We spoke as a Congress and we spoke as a people in 1982: That there 
needed to be a national policy and a national program. The legislation 
that we have before us, in my opinion, demonstrates that kind of 
critical need, and the need also to operate and respond in a timely 
fashion.
  Transferring nuclear waste from the many defense and commercial 
nuclear sites to a single Federal facility beginning in 1998 was the 
intent of the Congress and the President of the United States when the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed in 1982.
  It became law. It was signed by the President. It was a national 
commitment. It was this Nation speaking to the need to handle the kind 
of waste that I am talking about and to do so in a safe and responsible 
fashion.
  Unbelievably, we are less than one year away--just 9 months--from the 
date when the Department of Energy is obligated by the law that was 
passed in 1982 and is obligated under contract, in response to the law 
signed and honored by our Government, to accept the waste. Now we have 
to come to the floor in the 11th hour and plead with this 
administration to come with us in the shaping of national policy to 
deal with this issue. Just last year the U.S. Court of Appeals 
reaffirmed the Federal obligation.

  The Nevada test site was selected in the early 1970's as one of the 
sites under consideration for a geologic repository. This site has been 
under study for now over two decades by scientists and engineers. Here 
is a photograph of the Nevada test site where the interim storage 
facility would be located. Scientists and engineers at Yucca Mountain 
near this site where a permanent geologic repository for these high-
level wastes would be placed have conducted the most thorough and 
comprehensive geological survey ever undertaken on any piece of 
property on the face of the Earth.
  Let me repeat that claim because I believe it to be valid. The site 
that we are looking at, the Yucca Mountain deep geologic repository, 
has been studied more thoroughly, more comprehensively, both from a 
geologic point of view, from a seismic point of view, and from the 
overall need to meet the certification process for it to be a 
permanent, safe, high-level waste repository--that site has been more 
comprehensively studied than any piece of real estate on the face of 
the Earth. During all of this time and all of the studies, nothing has 
been discovered which would indicate that this site is unsuitable for 
use as a repository.
  Because of the endless bureaucratic delays that have plagued the 
program, the Federal Government now says it will not have a repository 
operating until the year 2010 at the earliest. Remember, this was a 
Federal Government that in 1982 signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
committing by contract to take the waste by 1998, 9 months from now. 
Yet this administration and their representatives at the Department of 
Energy shrugged their shoulders and said, ``Well, gee, the year 2010 
will have to do because we just can't get there.'' Yet the courts last 
year said ``Wrong. Foul ball. Go back to home plate. You have to abide 
by the law.'' And the Department of Energy said, ``Yes. You are right. 
We do have to do that. We recognized that.''
  This is 12 years after the Federal Government is contractually 
obligated to take title to and remove spent fuel from civilian power 
plants. Electric consumers and taxpayers have committed approximately 
$12 billion solely to study, test and build a radioactive waste 
management system. So when the Federal Government made its obligation 
in 1982 to the taxpayer, but most importantly the ratepayer of the 
utilities that were generating electricity through nuclear power, and 
the Government owed this commitment by paying out money to build the 
facility, to do the siting, to do the studies, to do all of the test 
work and to have a facility ready to operate and receive by 1998. That 
was a $12 billion commitment and $4.5 billion of that money has already 
been spent. This chart will give you an idea of where the moneys come 
from.
  So, in other words, these were the folks that made the commitments.

[[Page S2782]]

 These were the folks that signed the contracts. These were the folks 
that believed that the Federal Government was an honorable agent that 
would honor those contracts. And the courts just this past year said, 
``You are right. The Federal Government has to do it.'' And the 
administration says, ``Well, we can't do it. In fact, we probably won't 
be able to do it until 2010, or sometime beyond.''
  We enjoy the benefits of having the world's most reliable and 
powerful electricity supplies to drive our economy. In supplying more 
than 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, nuclear energy is part of 
the foundation of our Nation's high standard of living and economic 
growth. Twenty percent of the lights in our country, of the industry in 
our country, of the economy of our country, is fueled by nuclear power 
plants.
  Mr. President, here is the thing that frustrates me most. I am going 
to quote from the President of the United States, this President. This 
is the President who doesn't have any idea how he will honor the 
commitment that the courts said just this last year he has to honor. 
This is the President who, in my opinion, has established the most 
antinuclear policy and attitude of any President since Harry Truman. 
Yet, this President this year in his fiscal 1998 budget request for the 
Department of Energy includes the following statement.
  He says, or the Department of Energy says, this President's 
Department of Energy:

       [Nuclear power] plants represent a $200 billion investment 
     by electric ratepayers and provide reliable baseload power 
     without emitting harmful pollutants such as those associated 
     with global climate change.

  In other words, it is this President who recognizes that nuclear 
power or electrical power generated by nuclear energy is the safest, 
the cleanest, and provides a huge investment of $200 billion. Yet, this 
is the President who shrugs his shoulders and says, ``But we don't know 
what to do with the waste. We do not have a policy. We cannot react.''
  I agree with the statement that I just quoted from the Department of 
Energy's fiscal year 1998 budget. Nuclear power is a major generator. 
Nuclear power is safe. Nuclear power is clean. Responsible management 
and disposal of spent fuel from these plants is a vital component of 
the energy security of this country and is, in my opinion, the No. 1 
environmental issue that we face. Managing the waste stream safely and 
soundly is the No. 1 environmental issue in 41 States at 81 sites 
across this country.
  S. 104 authorizes construction of an interim storage facility on the 
Nevada test site near Yucca Mountain. This facility will be constructed 
in full compliance with the regulations of, and will be licensed by, 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is an interesting drawing we have 
up here on this chart that shows how simple the technology to store 
this fuel is, but what is important to understand is that you do it by 
the rules and you do it by the science, the technology, and the 
engineering of the day.
  The interim storage capacity provided for in the legislation would 
stem the Government's looming financial liability in its current 
lawsuit with utilities. In other words, I have just entered into a new 
dimension in this battle that we now have going over--how to be 
responsible and where to be responsible and when to be responsible as 
it relates to the appropriate management of spent fuel and high-level 
nuclear waste.
  On January 31 of this year, 46 State agencies and 36 utility 
companies filed suit against the Department of Energy in Federal court. 
The lawsuit asks the court to order immediate action by the Department 
of Energy to comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 by 
beginning to remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites by January 
31, 1998, as specified under the act. The Department of Energy not only 
has failed to take any steps to fulfill this obligation, as I have 
spoken to earlier, but, rather, it has acknowledged it will not begin 
waste acceptance in 1998 and has solicited suggestions on what it might 
do in light of this failure.
  Let me repeat. Here is the Department of Energy that has basically 
said: We cannot do it, so tell us how to do it. Give us some ideas of 
how we, as Government, can honor the commitment that we have made under 
the law.
  Let me suggest to our Secretary of Energy and to the President that 
the way you honor the commitment is S. 104. Don't fight the Congress. 
Don't fight a majority bipartisan effort here. Come with us, work with 
us in solving this problem as S. 104 provides. Not only does it 
recognize the commitment by law, but it recognizes the need to respond 
in a timely fashion.
  Just last week our new Secretary of Energy, Federico Pena, met with 
nuclear energy executives. Despite the potential for billions of 
dollars of liability judgments against his Department, Secretary Pena 
and the administration again failed to offer any concrete solution to 
this issue. Why did they fail to offer it? Because they do not want to 
recognize the need for S. 104. They do not want to recognize the 
commitment they have made, or at least are responsible for under the 
law.
  In the course of this debate, you will hear and you have already 
heard the two Senators from the State of Nevada talk about the issue of 
transportation. Our opponents will raise the specter of a mobile 
Chernobyl. This fear-mongering is simply not supported by facts.
  Let me digress here to talk about the safety of transportation for a 
moment. In doing so, let me make this statement. I have had the 
privilege over the course of my time in service in the U.S. Congress 
from the State of Idaho to deal with a lot of issues, all of them or 
most all of them were political, but 99 percent of them are not just 
political. Some of them deal with economics. Some of them had differing 
opinions as to the engineering or the science or the technology 
involved in a given issue. But never have I dealt with an issue that, 
in my opinion, is exclusively political--not scientific, not 
engineering, not mechanical in any way. Because when it comes to the 
management of nuclear waste, none of those charges have any base to 
them. The only dynamics in this debate is politics. Where do you want 
to put the waste? Because, once that decision is made, our science, our 
engineering, and our technology knows without question that it can be 
effectively and responsibly stored and safely stored in an 
environmentally sound way.
  Those decisions were made--that it be a deep geologic repository. So, 
when it comes to the movement of that waste to that repository, the 
same argument holds true. The fact is, there have been over 2,500 
commercial shipments of spent fuel in the United States in the 
timeframe that I have talked about; the same timeframe we have dealt 
with the management and the handling of nuclear waste. There has not 
been a single death or injury from the radioactive nature of the cargo.
  Let me repeat. There has never been a single death or injury from the 
radioactive nature of the cargo.
  What am I saying when I say that? I am saying that the integrity of 
the shipment vessel in which high-level nuclear waste or nuclear fuel 
was transported was never breached, even though there were some 
accidents. There is no other product or waste material transportation 
in our country today that can make that claim--none, except nuclear 
waste. It has been transported more safely with no escape of 
radioactivity, and therefore no human injury resulting from it, and 
transported more safely than any other waste, toxic substance, or 
human-harming substance in the United States. That is a unique claim.
  The reason that claim can be made was the understanding at the front 
end of the need to transport this waste in a safe manner and the 
importance of the vessel in which it was transported in accomplishing 
this.
  Let me add to these national statistics by describing the experience 
of my State, because my State receives high-level nuclear waste 
shipments. There have been over 600 shipments of Navy fuel and over 
4,000 other shipments of radioactive material to my State. I will say 
that while some Idahoans resist and speak out about these shipments, 
none of them have been harmed. There has never been a spill. There has 
never been an accident that resulted in the radioactivity of the cargo 
being released. There have never been--let me repeat once more, for the 
record--injuries related to the radioactive nature of shipments.

[[Page S2783]]

  Why? Why the great record? Well, largely because of what I just said, 
because there was rigorous attention paid in the very early days, 
recognizing the need for safe transportation of these materials. In 
fact, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``The safety 
record for spent fuel shipments in the United States and in other 
industrialized nations is enviable. Of the thousands of shipments 
completed over the last 30 years, none have resulted in an identifiable 
injury through a release of radioactive material.''
  An example of this care and handling is the testing sequence to which 
spent fuel packages must be subjected. Once again, we have talked about 
the routes. You have seen the picture. Here are some examples of the 
kind of testing that has gone on to create the integrity of the 
shipping vessel that allows me to make the claims on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate that I have just made. For a spent fuel package design to 
receive a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it must be 
demonstrated that the cask can survive the following tests, in 
sequence: A 30-foot drop onto an unyielding surface. In other words, I 
am talking about a concrete slab; then, a shorter drop onto a vertical 
steel punch bar. In other words, dropping a vessel onto a steel spike, 
if you will, of the size that could fully penetrate the vessel; that it 
be engulfed in fire for 30 minutes; finally, submerged in 3 feet of 
water; and separately, that the cask must not leak for 1 hour under 200 
meters of water. That is the rigorousness of the testing and that is 
why, of course, I can make the claims I made, that no spills have 
resulted.

  To further ensure that this care and caution be continued, we have 
supported an amendment offered in the committee by our colleague from 
Oregon, Senator Wyden. All shipments pursuant to S. 104 will be 
conducted in full compliance with all relevant Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and Department of Transportation regulations, in addition to 
complying with the Department of Energy's requirements for advance 
notification and emergency response.
  My colleagues from Nevada have been very vocal on this issue of 
transportation. I would like to quote from a letter dated March 11, 
1997, sent by the Western Governors' Association, of which Nevada is a 
member. This letter went to Senator Wyden, giving the Western 
Governors' Association response to Senator Wyden's transportation 
amendment that our committee accepted, that is now within S. 104. The 
letter reads:

       [Y]our transportation amendments to S. 104, dated March 11, 
     are generally consistent with the WGA's adopted policies for 
     the safe and uneventful transport of radioactive waste 
     through western States.

  We feel that the committee action has strengthened the already 
substantial transportation safeguards of S. 104, as introduced.
  The point of this whole comment was that not only had we made 
significant strides to ensure questions about transportation, because 
the vessel itself is not of issue, in my opinion, nor are there 
scientists or engineers that would argue it.
  The other question happens to deal with the general nature of 
exposure, and what is 100 millirems. We are going to talk about this in 
the debate. Already the Senators from Nevada have had this issue on the 
charts before us. I think it is important that we set radiation 
exposure levels in context, so that we can compare them to exposures 
that we assume routinely in our day-to-day living.
  Mr. President, it is something that not all of us recognize or 
understand, but the fact is that we receive radiation by just being 
alive under natural environments, whether it is your relationship in 
altitude and exposure to the Sun or whether it is the fact that you are 
encased in granite or marble. For example, we receive 80 millirems 
dosage on an annual basis by merely serving in the U.S. Senate. Why? 
Because of the general radioactive nature of granite and marble. That 
is the way our world is made up.
  In your State of Colorado, and in your city of Denver, residents 
receive approximately a 53-millirem annual dose because you live in a 
mile-high city where the air is thinner and your exposure to solar 
radiation is simply higher. It is the character of the environment we 
live in.

  When I hear suggestions that we set exposure levels at 4 millirems 
for groundwater or setting a level of 15 millirems, I am reminded of 
the quote I heard when this debate occurred earlier. It talked about 
the differences of exposure in, again, Denver--and I do not know why 
they like to use Denver, CO, as an example--the difference between 4 
millirems exposure for groundwater and setting it at 15 millirems is a 
difference of standing up or sitting down in Denver, CO, as it relates 
to your relative exposure to radiation and the Sun. I doubt that 
anybody in the State of Colorado, or in the city of Denver, thinks that 
they are more exposed standing or less exposed seated, to the natural 
environmental radiation that occurs there and has always occurred there 
because of the altitude and the atmosphere.
  What I am trying to make here is a point that if you want to stand on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate and debate millirems in the 15 or the 4 
context, you do not have a point. It cannot be made. It does not make 
sense, because you receive them in the natural environment of Denver or 
you receive them in the natural environment by being encased in a 
building of sandstone and marble and granite right here in the U.S. 
Senate. That is the reality of what we have. That is the situation that 
we face.
  Support of S. 104 is coming from all quarters, including State and 
local government officials, public utility commissioners, newspapers, 
editorial boards, labor unions, chambers of commerce, national trade 
associations, the electric utilities, just to name a few. A similar 
measure, as I have mentioned, S. 1936, passed this body last year with 
strong bipartisan support.
  I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of 
spent nuclear fuel disposal. For this Congress not to address this 
problem, in my opinion, would just be irresponsible. We cannot let the 
source of 20 percent of our country's electricity drown in waste, nor 
can we allow our Government to default on contractual obligations that 
it has made. This Government's default would leave the taxpayers of 
this country vulnerable to a financial liability as high as $80 
billion.
  As I close, let me use these examples. The minority leader and I were 
just discussing budgets and who is on first and who is on second and 
who proposed and who has not proposed. The bottom line is we are all 
concerned about the budget and, most importantly, we are all concerned 
about getting it to balance in a responsible fashion and not doing so 
with major tax increases.
  Yet, if this Government walks away from its commitment under the law, 
it may well be placing itself in a liability environment that could 
equal upwards of $80 billion. How does that translate? That translates 
to an additional $1,300 per family in the United States. On the dollar 
and cents costs, let me relate them to you as I understand them.
  If we do not assume the responsibility and deal in a timely fashion, 
the cost of storage of spent fuel, because the courts have said to the 
Federal Government, ``You will take charge of it. It will become your 
obligation,'' it will start costing the taxpayers money. That cost 
could go as high as $19.6 billion. Return of nuclear waste fees could 
be $8.5 billion. Interest on nuclear waste fees, $15 to $27.8 billion, 
depending on the interest rates used, and consequential damage for 
shutdown of potential nuclear powerplants that would lose their storage 
capability and would not be allowed to license new storage capability 
could be upwards of $24 billion.
  When the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate met with the 
President and the Vice President some weeks ago, our leader, Trent 
Lott, said to the President, ``It is our priority to deal with the 
nuclear waste issue.'' The President deferred to Al Gore and said, ``It 
is not ours,'' and the Vice President largely said, ``Leave it where it 
is until the year 2010.''
  Eighty billion dollars and 2010? Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, 
wake up. Not only will the taxpayers not allow that, but the politics 
of this country will not tolerate that. We must deal with this issue, 
and S. 104 is clearly a way of dealing with it.

  The United States has benefited from the many uses of nuclear 
materials which have deterred a global conflict.

[[Page S2784]]

 Our nuclear fuels now generate electricity in a clean, non-air-
polluting way. Our generation now must take the responsibility that it 
has to properly manage spent nuclear fuels for the defense program of 
our country and for the 110 commercial powerplants that it obligated 
itself to do so in 1982.
  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, the legislation that we are now 
asking for the right to proceed with on the floor and deal with in a 
timely fashion, S. 104, is the proper way to move. It allows our 
citizens the comfort of knowing that our Government has acted 
responsibly to assure environmentally safe long-term storage and 
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive material. I 
hope that tomorrow evening, when we vote cloture that would give the 
Senate the right to proceed to debate on the legislation, that we can 
have the kind of overwhelming, bipartisan support of the type that we 
have received in the past.
  Mr. President, I believe we will get that support. I believe it 
because it is now time to deal with this issue. I hope that during the 
course of the debate on the floor of the Senate and action that will 
follow in the House, that somehow and in some way we can catch the 
attention of this administration, to do what they are legally and 
contractually obligated to do, so that we can stand bipartisan, 
shoulder to shoulder, in a national policy that deals with this issue 
in a way that we can all be proud of. Then we can say to our fellow 
citizens, ``Yes, when the Government makes a commitment, when the 
Government signs a contract, when the Government obligates resources 
and taxes it citizenry for a dedicated cause, that cause can be 
responded to in a timely fashion.'' S. 104 allows us to do so, and I 
hope that by tomorrow evening we will have the support to vote cloture. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can ask the Chair, after we finish 
debate on this matter today, it is my understanding that, again, this 
matter will be taken up at 2:30 tomorrow afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. And there will be a vote at 5:30 or 5:15?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe it is scheduled for 5:15.
  Mr. REID. And the debate between 2:30 and 5:15 is equally divided 
between the----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is equally divided between 2:15 and 5:15.
  Mr. REID. I recognize that my friend from Minnesota has been on the 
floor, and I will just take a few minutes because there are many things 
we can talk about during the time tomorrow. I will just say, so I do 
not have to answer today everything that my friend from Idaho 
propounded, that the $80 billion figure that my friend has brought up 
is, I suggest, maybe not modern math. It simply does not make sense. If 
in fact we are talking about saving money, the thing to do would be to 
leave it where it is. We would save not only the cost of the site of 
construction at Yucca Mountain and the proposed interim storage site of 
billions of dollars, maybe as much as $10 billion, but we would also 
not have the American public frightened and concerned about the 
transportation of nuclear waste. We will talk about that more tomorrow.
  I will also say, tomorrow we will discuss in some detail the argument 
that because there has been nuclear testing there, we should also have 
nuclear waste; we will establish that is a clearly erroneous and 
fallacious reason.
  Also, we will spend time tomorrow indicating how this legislation 
would wipe out environmental laws in this country, and that is the 
reason all environmental organizations in this country vehemently 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. President, there is a lot that we need to talk about with this 
legislation. As indicated, however, my friend from Minnesota has been 
waiting all afternoon. My friend from Idaho, my friend from Alaska and 
the two Senators from Nevada will discuss this in more detail tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not under controlled time.
  Mr. GRAMS. Before I begin, I yield a few moments to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kristine 
Svinicki, a legislative fellow who works with my office, be granted the 
privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 104.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 104, 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This much-needed legislation, as 
has been outlined today, will help resolve our Nation's nuclear waste 
storage crisis, help restore the commitments to our Nation's 
ratepayers, and ultimately to save taxpayer dollars from the Department 
of Energy's failed policies of the past.
  Again, I applaud the majority leader and Energy and Natural Resources 
Chairman Murkowski and Senator Craig of Idaho, for their leadership in 
moving this bill.
  Again, bottom line, our Nation cannot afford further delay, and the 
time to act on this commonsense legislation is now. But for the Senate 
to fully appreciate the gravity of the situation, I believe a brief 
summary of its history is in order. Since 1982, utility ratepayers have 
been required to pay the Federal Government nearly $13 billion of their 
hard-earned money in exchange for the promise that the Department of 
Energy would transport and store commercially generated nuclear waste 
in a centralized facility by January 31, 1998. However, with this 
deadline less than a year away and with over $6 billion already spent 
by the Department of Energy, there has been little progress toward 
keeping this 15-year-old promise of establishing a centralized Federal 
storage facility. In fact, though there has been measurable progress at 
the Yucca Mountain, NV, facility, a permanent repository will not be 
completed until well into the next century. As of today, nuclear waste 
is piling up at more than 80 sites due to the DOE's failure to live up 
to is commitment.
  Clearly, if the DOE is to meet the January 31, 1998 deadline, it must 
begin accepting nuclear waste at an interim storage facility--that, 
however, has not yet happened. In fact, the DOE recently notified 
States and utilities that it would not accept their commercial nuclear 
waste despite the law and the Federal court's effort to enforce it. 
Meanwhile, utility ratepayers are still being required to pay for a 
mismanaged program. In fact, over $630 million from the ratepayers go 
into the nuclear waste fund each year--without any tangible benefits or 
results to show for them.
  Our Nation's utility consumers and their pocketbooks aren't just hit 
once, either. Because of the DOE's failure to act, ratepayers are 
currently being forced to pay their hard-earned dollars to store waste 
on-site at commercial utility plants--a burden that would not be 
necessary had the Energy Department lived up to its legal obligation. 
Take, for example, the situation facing ratepayers in my home State of 
Minnesota. Since 1982, Minnesota's nuclear energy consumers have paid 
over $250 million into the nuclear waste fund believing that the 
Federal Government would fulfill its obligation to transport nuclear 
waste out of Minnesota. But as time went on and the DOE continued to 
ignore their responsibilities, utilities in Minnesota and around the 
country were forced to temporarily store their waste within the 
confines of their own facilities. When it became clear to many 
utilities that storage space was running out and the Department of 
Energy would not accept waste by the established deadline, utilities 
then had to go to their States to ask for additional on-site storage or 
else be forced to shutdown their operations.

  For example, ratepayers in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
Wisconsin were forced to pay for on-site storage in cooling pools at 
Prairie Island in southeastern Minnesota. In 1994, with storage space 
running out, the Minnesota Legislature--after a bruising battle--voted 
to allow for limited on-site dry-cask storage until the year 2004.
  Mr. President, the cost associated with this on-site storage is 
staggering.

[[Page S2785]]

Ratepayers in the Midwestern service area alone have paid over $25 
million in storage costs and will pay an estimated $100 million more by 
the year 2015, and that is in addition to the required payments to the 
Federal Government.
  To make matters even worse, storage space will run out at Prairie 
Island just after the turn of the century, forcing the plant to close 
unless the State legislature once again makes up for the DOE's 
inaction. This will threaten over 30 percent of Minnesota's overall 
energy resources and will likely lead to even higher costs for 
Minnesota's ratepayers.
  In fact, the Minnesota Department of Public Service estimates that 
the increase in costs could reach as high as 17 percent, forcing 
ratepayers to eventually pay three times: once to the nuclear waste 
fund, again for onsite storage, and yet again for increased energy 
costs.
  And Minnesota is not alone in facing this unacceptable situation. 
Thirty-six other States across the Nation are facing similar 
circumstances of either shutting down and losing their energy-
generating capacity or continuing to bail out the Federal Government 
for its failure to act.
  Ratepayers are not the only ones who face serious consequences 
because of inaction by the DOE. The taxpayers are threatened too. Last 
year, the Federal courts ruled that the DOE will be liable for damages 
if it does not accept commercial nuclear waste by January 31, 1998.
  Under current law, no one at the DOE will be held personally liable 
for any assessed damages; the bill will go to the American taxpayers at 
an estimated cost between $40 to $80 billion. Such a tremendous 
liability burden on taxpayers would make the public bailout of the 
savings and loan collapse seem small in comparison.
  What is worse is that while our States, our utility ratepayers, and 
the taxpayers are being unfairly punished by the Department of Energy's 
inaction, the Federal Government has been active in meeting the interim 
nuclear waste storage needs of foreign countries.
  Under the Atoms for Peace Program, the DOE has resumed collecting 
spent nuclear fuel from a total of 41 countries. Last year, the DOE 
completed urgent relief shipments of 252 spent nuclear fuel assemblies 
from European nations to the agency's facility at Savannah River. It 
has also accepted nuclear spent fuel from Latin American countries.
  Ultimately, as I learned during a recent trip to the Savannah River 
site, which is down in South Carolina, up to 890 foreign research 
reactor cores will be accepted by the DOE over a 13-year period. Again, 
up to 890 foreign research reactor cores will be accepted by the DOE 
over a 13-year period.

  In addition, our Government is actively helping other countries 
reduce their nuclear waste stockpiles. With the Department of Defense 
spending up to $400 million on designing and constructing an interim 
nuclear waste storage facility in Russia to help dismantle the cold war 
threat, the world will certainly be a safer place, if that happens.
  But, again, our Defense Department is spending $400 million to help 
Russia design, construct, and facilitate an interim waste storage 
facility, but yet cannot do it in this country.
  Now, Mr. President, as a Senator who is concerned about our national 
security needs, I understand the rationale behind reducing our 
international nuclear dangers. But what I and many others cannot 
comprehend is how our Government has made it a priority to help foreign 
countries with their nuclear waste problems while simultaneously 
ignoring the concerns right here in our own country.
  It seems clear to me that while States, utilities, and ratepayers 
have kept their end of the bargain, the DOE has not done its part. That 
sends the wrong message to the American people about trusting the 
promises of the Federal Government. Maybe that is why the National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 48 State agencies and 
36 utilities have now all joined together in a lawsuit to stop 
ratepayers' payments into the nuclear waste fund and to escrow $600 
million that will soon go into that fund this year. Because too long, 
our States, utilities, and ratepayers have acted in good faith and 
relied upon the Federal Government to live up to its obligations. 
Evidently, they have had enough of the DOE's excuses for inaction and 
have proposed their own recourse.
  This issue has created strange bedfellows as well. In a recent 
interview, former DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary agreed that action on an 
interim site is needed as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that 
Secretary O'Leary waited until she was free from the administration to 
openly support interim storage, but I think her comments are important 
to remember as we attempt to protect our Nation's ratepayers and 
taxpayers.
  In addition, Mr. President, the former head of the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management under the Clinton administration, Daniel 
Dreyfus, also said that he believes the DOE must move to meet the 
January 31, 1998, deadline. Key labor unions have even joined the fight 
to restore the DOE's promises. J.J. Barry, president of the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, recently wrote me, and 
he said, ``I am calling on you and your colleagues to put partisan 
politics aside for the good of our Nation and America's workers and 
their families. We must address this problem now or else face serious 
economic and environmental consequences later.'' He went on to say, 
``Please support passage of S. 104.''
  Despite this widespread support, the DOE has failed to offer an 
alternative to our legislation.
  Although the Department's new Secretary now admits that a Federal 
solution is needed to resolve our interim storage problems, he recently 
indicted in a meeting with nuclear utility executives that the DOE is 
still unwilling to move commercial spent fuel. Instead, the DOE offered 
a proposal to compensate utilities for onsite storage.
  Unfortunately, this proposed compensation scheme does little but 
needlessly spend the taxpayers' money while continuing the failed 
status quo. It signals to the ratepayers that the Federal Government 
has no intention of moving commercial nuclear waste in the near future, 
despite a Federal court mandate that it does.
  So again, who will pay for this? It will not be the new Secretary, 
Mr. Pena. It will not be the Department of Energy or out of its budget. 
It will gladly pay the fines, but it will come out of the ratepayers' 
and the taxpayers' pockets in order to do this. So they are playing 
fast and loose with the taxpayers' money once again.
  Moreover, continuing the policy of noncentralized storage facilities 
may lead to the premature shutdown of one nuclear plant in Minnesota--
compromising 30 percent of the State's energy needs and increasing 
ratepayer costs.
  So again, clearly, leadership is needed to restore the promises made 
to the American people. If such leadership will not come from the 
Clinton-Gore administration, then it will have to come from Congress. 
Senate Energy and Natural Resoruces Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, 
Senator Larry Craig, and I crafted a bipartisan proposal, again, S. 
104, identical to legislation supported last year by 63 Senators.
  We have put this proposal forward as a good-faith effort to help 
resolve this situation for the sake of protecting the legitimate 
interests of our ratepayers and taxpayers, as well as protecting 
national security and protecting the environment. Last month, the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed this bipartisan 
legislation on a 15 to 5 vote.
  Mr. President, Congress has an obligation to protect the American 
public also from the estimated $40 to $80 billion that they face in 
liability expenses, because the DOE has refused to act.
  Our bill will reform our current civilian nuclear waste program to 
avoid the squandering of billions of dollars of ratepayers' and 
taxpayers' money. It will eliminate the current need for onsite storage 
at our Nation's nuclear plants and keep plants from shutting down 
prematurely due to the lack of storage space. And it will also help to 
maintain stable energy prices.
  Our legislation also assures that transportation of nuclear waste 
will continue to be conducted in a safe manner.
  For the interests of my colleagues, there have already been 2,400 
shipments of high-level nuclear waste in

[[Page S2786]]

our Nation, including numerous shipments of naval spent fuel and 
foreign research reactor fuel.
  In fact, in these pictures behind me it illustrates the means by 
which shipments of foreign-generated fuel are being transported to the 
Department of Energy's Savannah River facility. The safety record of 
these shipments speaks for itself.
  They come into the Port of Charleston, SC. They are loaded off the 
ships and on to rail cars, and then transported to Savannah River. That 
is 2,400 shipments. And they have all been completed safely. And I 
think, again, the safety record of these shipments speaks for itself.
  Again, this is spent fuel that is already being shipped across the 
United States, so it is no longer a question of technology but becomes 
one of politics.
  Even so, modifications have been made to this legislation to further 
ensure that all spent fuel will be transported safely.
  Mr. President, for too long our States, our ratepayers and taxpayers, 
have been threatened by a policy, again, one of inaction. As passed out 
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, this legislation sets up 
a reasonable deadline for the DOE to finally live up to its promises. 
We cannot, in good conscience, delay that deadline any further. It is 
unreasonable to ask the taxpayers to sacrifice any further for a 
department that has failed--a department that has failed--to do its 
job.
  So I am here today also to urge my colleagues to take a giant step 
forward in moving this legislation closer to Senate passage by voting 
for cloture and allowing the bill to be debated.
  Again, this is not a question of science. It is not a question of 
technology. And I do not believe it is a question of safety in 
transportation. But it has become a plain question of politics. Will 
the political decisions be made to allow this bill and the solving of 
this problem to go forward? I think this bill is the first step in that 
direction. As I said, I urge my colleagues to support this.
  I want to thank you, Mr. President, very much.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Privileges of the Floor

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent during the duration 
of the consideration of S. 104 that floor privileges be extended to two 
more members of my staff, Jean Neal and Andy Vermilye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________