Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 42 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 42 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2951-S2963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT AMENDMENTS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 104, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 104) to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Pending:
Murkowski amendment No. 26, in the nature of a substitute.
Thurmond-Hollings amendment No. 27 (to amendment No. 26) to
provide that the Savannah River site and Barnwell County, SC
shall not be available for construction for an interim
storage facility.

Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Wellstone, I ask
unanimous consent that Brian Symms, a congressional fellow on his
staff, be permitted the privilege of the floor during consideration of
S. 104.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S2952]]

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator
Thurmond has an amendment that is pending at this time, and that he
would like to dispose of that amendment?
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 28 to Amendment No. 27

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. This
amendment is being offered on behalf of Senators Reid and Bryan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr.
Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 28 to amendment No. 27.
At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this bill,
transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste under the provisions of this bill to a
centralized interim storage site or to a permanent repository
shall not cross any state line without the express written
consent of the governor of the state of entry.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the last several years, in fact,
during the entire time I have been in Congress, there has been an
explosion of comment about returning matters to the States. This has
been evidenced in a number of pieces of legislation we passed,
including those in the last Congress dealing with immigration reform
and especially that dealing with welfare reform.
Matters have been returned to the States. Why? Because there have
been feelings of many that there was an accumulation of power here in
Washington that had taken away from the basic foundation of our
constitutional form of Government. Too much power was being developed
and too much power actually existed in Washington, DC, in the Federal
level of Government.
Mr. President, as a result of that, we, most everybody in Congress,
have felt that we needed to return things to the States and have the
chief executive of that State have the say of what goes on within the
confines of that State.
That is what this amendment deals with. If you are going to ship the
most poisonous substance known to man across State lines, then, of
course, you should get permission of the Governor.
Many also in the majority have proclaimed that the 105th Congress,
above all other Congresses, be a States rights Congress, the mantra of
those avowed supporters of States rights, grounded in the notion that
Congress has no right to impose costly and burdensome laws, rules and
regulations on the States. In fact, I joined with the assistant leader
of the majority, Don Nickles, in sponsoring an amendment to the
regulation reform bill that came from the House last Congress, the
Nickles-Reid amendment. That passed. In effect, what that amendment
said is that Federal agencies are promulgating too many regulations
without Congress having any authority or say as to what regulations
they have promulgated.
What the Nickles-Reid amendment said is that if there is a regulation
promulgated that has a certain financial impact, then it does not go
into effect for 60 days. If it has less than a $100 million economic
impact, it goes into effect immediately, but we have 60 days to review
it. That was only one example of how we felt that Congress should have
more say in returning power to the people.
Mr. President, the mantra of the States rights Congress is grounded
in the notion that Congress has no right to impose these costly rules,
laws and regulations on States. I respect this point of view, and that
is the reason I joined with my friend, the senior Senator from
Oklahoma, in sponsoring this legislation that passed without a single
dissenting vote. It did not have a dissenting vote when we offered the
amendment here; there was not a single dissenting vote when it came
back from the House in conference.
That said, it is ironic that some who consider themselves stalwart
supporters of States rights are going to support this underlying
legislation. If there is ever a bill that abrogated abuse of States
rights in a more terrible manner than the underlying legislation, I do
not know what that would be. It seems that when it comes to issues
involving the most basic of States rights, the right to be free of
living with deadly nuclear waste, this Congress does not care. We, Mr.
President, are directing this amendment not to the States that have to
live with nuclear waste, we are directing it to the States that are
concerned about their highways and railways transporting this poison.
It seems that we should care. How can anyone who considers themselves
to be a supporter of States rights vote against this amendment? It is
clear that States rights then, if, in fact, they do not vote for this
amendment, is as hollow as the arguments that they could make on any
specious legislation. The next time we hear moving oratory about the
sanctity of the tenth amendment and the need to protect States rights,
I will simply refer to this second-degree amendment and ask where those
strong voices were on this issue involving the most fundamental of
States rights.
This amendment offered by this Senator and my colleague from the
State of Nevada is something that every Senate office should listen to
and listen to very closely. Remember what we are saying is that if you
are going to transport nuclear waste through a State, the Governor
should give the signoff. Why do I say that? What we are doing is saving
this country a lot of problems by saying, ``Let the Governors sign
off.'' Nuclear waste will not be transported in the United States. It
does not matter how many bills we pass, it will not happen.
I was in the House of Representatives this morning talking to one of
the Presiding Officer's and this Senator's former colleague when we
served in the other body, and he said to me, ``You know, I voted with
Congress on Vucanovich,'' who supported this Senator's position on
nuclear waste. He said, ``I did it for a simple reason. If everyone
says that nuclear waste can be transported safely, then, obviously, it
is going to be safe where it is to begin with. Why not leave it where
it is?''
The reason I say we are doing this country a favor with this
amendment is that nuclear waste is not going to be transported. Look at
the experiences they had in Germany recently with the transfer of
almost 500 canisters of high-level nuclear waste. They wanted to haul
this 300 miles to a remote place in Germany. We are talking about
hauling it more than 3,000 miles.
What did it take in Germany to haul this nuclear waste 300 miles? It
took 30,000 police and military personnel. The average speed was 2
miles an hour. It cost the German Government over $150 million. The
German Parliament has said, ``We're not going to do this anymore. We
are going to review what we are doing.''
As we speak, Germany's Parliament is reevaluating the entire program.
They shipped 8 of 420 casks of high-level nuclear waste, and they have
given up; 30,000 military and police personnel, 107 injuries,
demonstrations everyplace, people dug holes in the road and put
barriers over them so the trucks would fall in them when they came
back. It was absolute civil disobedience at its worst. Why? Because the
people of Germany are human beings, and they do not want this stuff
hauled unnecessarily. That is what this amendment is all about.
The two people representing the very fine State of South Carolina
were Governors of that State. Two of the most--I am trying to find the
word. When the history books are written about the U.S. Senate, the two
Senators from South Carolina will be talked about, the senior Senator
and the junior Senator. They have made history in this institution. But
they also, before they came here, were Governors. They know what the
power of the Governor should be.
Shouldn't the Governor of a State, a sovereign State under our
Federal system of Government, have the right and the opportunity to
say, ``We will let this stuff travel through, but I'm going to have to
sign off on it first''? If the Governor of the State does not have that
right to make sure that his citizens are safe and free of harm and that
they can have enough personnel--in the instance of Germany, it took
30,000--shouldn't they have that right? That is what this amendment is
all about.

I do believe, without any question, we are doing a service with this
amendment. We are doing a service because if

[[Page S2953]]

you are going to believe in this form of Government that we have, we
have a central whole divided amongst self-governing parts--that is the
definition of our Government under the Constitution, a central whole
divided amongst self-governing parts--those self-governing parts are
States, and shouldn't they have the right to determine whether or not
we are going to haul this stuff willy-nilly through the States? That is
what this amendment is about. It is simple and direct. It says, if you
are going to haul nuclear waste, let the Governor of the State through
which you are going to haul it sign off on it.
Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me add, if I may,
the significance I find in this piece of legislation that we are
offering today. This has for too long a time been characterized
strictly as a Nevada issue, and many of my colleagues have, obviously,
focused less time on this than my senior colleague and I, because
Nevada is targeted as the interim storage facility in this piece of
legislation. But the point that we have sought to make is that there is
a national impact in the transportation of 85,000 metric tons--that is
the emphasis, 85,000 metric tons--of nuclear waste in an order of
magnitude never before seen. There have been over the years 2,500
shipments, but we are talking about 17,000, and as the Presiding
Officer may recall from our debate earlier on this, those earlier 2,500
shipments involved a relatively short distance of about 900 miles or
less.
By reason of the proximity of the Nevada test site, as contrasted
from the origin of the nuclear waste itself at the reactors, we are
talking about thousands of miles. I think my colleagues will recall
that we are talking about rail and highway corridors that go through 43
States. Forty-three States are involved. So it is not just Nevada.
Forty-three States.
To give you some idea of the size of each cask, although they have
not yet been designed, what is contemplated is that a rail cask would
weigh 125 tons and a truck cask would weigh 25 tons. You will recall
that, in terms of the level of potential radioactivity, that is the
equivalent of 200 bombs the size of Hiroshima. So many may wonder why
we are suggesting that we do this with respect to high-level nuclear
waste shipments. It is because the order of risk is so much greater and
the consequences of failing to provide for it is much, much greater.
The Presiding Officer represents the great State of Oklahoma. You
will note that in Oklahoma, we have at least three different corridors
that would be used. These are all rail corridors that would come
through the State of the distinguished Presiding Officer. What we are
simply saying is, ``Look, can a Governor have a greater responsibility
and obligation to the citizens of the State that he or she represents
than to make sure that adequate measures are taken to protect the
health and safety of the citizens of that State?''

Mr. President, as you know, I was honored by the citizens of my own
State to have been elected Governor twice. I have some idea of the
responsibilities that a Governor undertakes, and there can be no
greater responsibility than a Governor advocating on behalf of the
people he represents to make sure that any actions that are within his
or her power are done for the purpose of protecting the health and
safety of the citizens.
So that is what we are doing. Not only is the Presiding Officer's
State involved, we have Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Utah,
California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa,
Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West
Virginia--we can go on and on and on--Pennsylvania, New York,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, to go on and on. My point is that each of
these Governors should have the ability to make sure adequate
safeguards are taken.
Let me just say, because this is an issue that has occurred out in
the West and may not be widely publicized and it came to a boiling
point during the recess, there is a series of shipments which are being
received on the west coast from overseas nuclear reactors. They would
come in through the Port of Oakland in California, ultimately to be
located at the facility in Idaho. California's Governor complained
vociferously that there had not been adequate notice, not adequate
safeguards taken, and so he has filed, on behalf of the people of
California, a lawsuit, or has directed the attorney general to do so,
to challenge the adequacy of some of those provisions. My senior
colleague, Senator Reid, pointed out the problems that have occurred in
Europe. So these are not theoretical or hypothetical, these are real-
life circumstances, and Governors ought to have the ability to do that.
All we are saying is, look, each Governor must be satisfied that
before a shipment goes through his or her State that safeguards are
needed to protect the citizens of that State in literally hundreds of
thousands of cities that this nuclear waste would go through. That
strikes me as not being unreasonable.
We talk a lot in this Congress of returning power to the States, not
assuming all wisdom resides on the banks of the Potomac. Indeed, those
who work in the Federal bureaucracy are vested with no greater wisdom
than those who toil on behalf of a State government at the State level.
I hear that time after time in many different contexts as we debate
legislation on the floor.
There is no greater opportunity that a Member can have than to say,
in effect, ``I am implementing a policy that provides to each of the
States that which I have philosophically espoused, namely, giving the
Governor, as the chief executive officer of that State, the ability to
undertake the necessary protections.'' I think that is a reasonable
approach. I think it is something that every Governor would want. It is
not partisan. Democratic Governors and Republican Governors alike would
certainly want to be protected in terms of the 17,000 shipments that
would pass through their States, through thousands of cities in
America, small communities, and that is not unreasonable. And because
these routes are identified here, as we are pointing them out--there is
no great mystery--so that the State Governors could be contacted long
in advance of any proposed shipment to work out the necessary health
and safety precautions.

I say to my colleagues that, however they come down on S. 104, this
certainly is a measure that everybody ought to embrace because this is
health and safety and it provides the ultimate protection for a
Governor to take care of those persons in his or her State to the best
of that Governor's ability.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we need to make it very clear that this
amendment, this second-degree amendment, is not directed toward Nevada.
It is directed toward this sovereign Nation made up of 50 separate
States.
For example, Governor Beasley of South Carolina, before nuclear waste
moves through that State, would have to sign off saying, yes, it should
travel through the State of South Carolina. Governor Hunt of North
Carolina would have to sign off saying, yes, it can travel through the
State. Governor O'Bannon of Indiana, Governor Romer of Colorado,
Governor Voinovich of Ohio--and we would go through the list--allowing
nuclear waste to travel.
I would say to people who espouse some degree of returning matters to
the States, there is no better and more direct example than this. What
we are saying is that the Governor of the State, the Governor of a
sovereign State, one of the 50 sovereign States in this Nation, should
have the right to determine if they want this stuff carried through
their State. It is as simple as that.
If it is in the best public interest of that State, the Governor will
allow it.

[[Page S2954]]

It would be better, I think, that Governor Beasley, Governor Hunt,
Governor Romer, Governor O'Bannon, Governor Voinovich, Governor Wilson,
Governor Miller would sign off rather than some nameless, faceless
bureaucrat making the decision.
So I think Members of this U.S. Senate are going to be put to a test
today, a very simple test. Do they really believe in States rights or
do they not?
There will, of course, be one of the very clever things that has
developed, with precedent, over here--a motion to table. The managers
of this bill will move to table our second-degree amendment. And they
will say to their friends, ``Well, you're not really voting against
States rights. This is a procedural matter. You'll never be bothered at
home.'' Well, there is no doubt in my mind that this will be something
that constitutional bodies--those who believe in the constitutional
form of Government, I should say, will target this as a very important
States rights vote. This is it. You cannot run and hide from this. The
motion to table will not do it.
So I hope that everyone will understand that this is a basic States
rights issue. If you want to carry, transport or haul nuclear waste
through a State, all you have to do is go to the Governor and say,
``Governor, it's in the public interest to do this. It's very important
that you allow nuclear waste to travel through your State. And you can
weigh the good and the bad.'' Let the Governor decide, not somebody who
works in the bowels of the Department of Energy down here on
Independence Avenue.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 28, As Modified

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a
substitute allowed for the second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the second-
degree amendment?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 28), as modified, is as follows:

At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no
transportation of high level waste or spent nuclear fuel to a
facility authorized under Section 205 of this Act shall take
place through a State without the prior written consent of
that State's Governor.''

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if the clerk would read the
amendment, the substitution, to clarify where we are here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 28, as modified

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Let me refer to a reality, and that reality is behind me in the
chart, because all of us should recognize what is happening in the
United States now.
This is where nuclear fuel is moving. It is moving through all of the
48 States with the exception of Florida and South Dakota. Now, that is
just a harsh reality. In this timeframe from 1979 to 1995, there have
been 2,400 movements of nuclear material. They moved safely; they moved
over the transportation system of our highways, as well as our
railroads, as indicated in the red.
This is a very dangerous amendment that would basically ensure that
potentially no nuclear waste anywhere would move to any storage or
disposal.
Let me highlight what it does in the next chart, because in the next
chart we have the locations of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste
in the United States. And in it is, Mr. President, 81 sites in 40
States. Is it safer to leave that waste in 80 sites in 40 States or
move it?
This is what this amendment is all about. This is a desperate tactic
on the part of my good friends from Nevada who simply do not want the
waste put in their State. That is the bottom line, make no mistake
about it.
But we have an obligation here. We have a problem here. We are either
going to solve it by defeating the second-degree or we are going to be
left with this situation that has been created over the last couple of
decades.
That is the harsh reality of where we are. This amendment grants to
the Governor of a State the power to preclude any specific shipments of
spent fuel or nuclear waste through that State to the temporary
proposed shipment site in Nevada out in the desert.
Let me show you where we propose to put this. We propose to put the
temporary repository out in Nevada where we have had a series of tests
for some two decades. I have the chart coming in. It is important that
we grasp the significance of just what this amendment would do if they
are successful in passing it. On the face of it, it may have some
appeal, particularly to Senators like myself who have always been
staunch supporters of States' authority to determine matters which are
within their State borders.
Now here, Mr. President, is where we propose to put the temporary
repository. This is an area in Nevada used previously for more than 800
nuclear weapon tests over an extended period of time. The other option,
Mr. President, again, if you look at the other chart, is leave it where
it is. If we take action today to support the second degree amendment,
we are killing any effort to address a problem that we have put off far
too long. When I say ``far too long,'' Mr. President, we have
contracted to move this waste next year from the reactors where it has
been stored as it is exhausted from the nuclear powerplants, and the
liability associated with this is going to be substantial. It is
estimated to be somewhere between $40 and $80 billion.
The appeal, as I said, that is perhaps of some significance,
regulation of transportation of any type of hazardous materials across
State lines, has long been one of the primary examples of appropriate
exercise of Federal jurisdiction. I question the constitutionality of
prohibiting the movement on highways, but that is neither here nor
there. The principles of federalism on which this country was founded
recognize that the States' authority to govern matters within their
borders, must give way to Federal authority when an issue is one of
national scope reaching beyond any particular State borders. Interstate
shipments of hazardous waste such as spent fuel and other forms of
nuclear waste clearly require a uniform framework of requirements that
ensure safety but also insure that the shipments can reach their
destination.
Transportation of these materials is currently regulated under the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, known as HAZ-MAT. That law is
an intricate system for controlling hazardous materials and shipments
across the United States. The HAZ-MAT system was adopted to uniformly
regulate all materials regardless of type, and in each case regulation
of these materials allows the States limited authority to conduct
certain inspections and other activities related to the shipment.
Never do the HAZ-MAT regulations, however, allow a Governor to veto
the shipments altogether. That is what this second-degree amendment
would propose to do. If each State were allowed to impose its own set
of safety requirements, it would very likely prove impossible to move
any hazardous material from one place to another. So the alternative is
to leave it where it is.
This amendment is even more restrictive than that. It would allow
virtually a veto over any Federal shipments of nuclear spent fuel or
other

[[Page S2955]]

nuclear waste through any State whose Governor chooses to exercise the
authority, even if all safety requirements are met. Again, Mr.
President, I implore those that have questions about this to recognize
that these Governors want to get this waste out of their State. That is
what Senate bill 104 is all about, providing a place to put the waste.
Now, my friends from Nevada, if they were able to prevail, we simply
could not move the waste. Is that what the States want? Is that what
the Governors of these States want? No, they do not want it left in
their State. They want it to be moved to a safe place that has been
proposed, which is, obviously, the desert out in Nevada.
Now, this amendment would allow any single State to thwart a solution
to a national problem, the very situation that was intended to be
precluded by the Framers of the Constitution. Even though the original
Senate bill 104 included adequate measures to guarantee safe
transportation of nuclear spent fuel, we have accepted additional
provisions in the substitution regarding safety and training, to assure
safe shipments.
It seems obvious that safety is not the real issue here. The real
interest here and the real issue here is simply Nevadans, the Nevada
Senators, do not want it in their State. I am sympathetic to that. But
it has to go somewhere. This is the best place, out here in the desert,
where, again, we have had more than 800 nuclear weapon tests over the
last 50 years. That is the best place we have found in the United
States. If we want to move it outside the United States, that is
another matter. But who will take it? We do not have a place in the
Atlantic to put it. People in the Pacific certainly do not want it.
Scientists have said you can put it in the sea bed, perhaps, but that
is not going to be a possibility. This is the possibility. This is all
we are talking about. This is the crux of it. We either put it there or
we leave it where it is.
That is something in this debate that my friends from Nevada have
really not addressed. We have a permanent repository out here under
construction. That repository is not going to be ready until the year
2015. Our pools are filling up. We face a crisis relative to the
ability of our nuclear industry to continue to generate the 21 to 22
percent of power that is generated by nuclear energy in this country,
when their pools are filling up with the high level of waste that the
Government committed 15 years ago to take and has to start taking next
year. The reality is that some of those reactors probably will have to
shut down because they are out of space. Somebody says, ``Well, make
more space.'' The States have control of the licensing, and rightly so.
Those pools where the high-level waste is stored were not designed for
permanent storage. They were designed for temporary storage, until such
time as the Federal Government would take the waste.

You might say, why is the Federal Government so generous in just
taking the waste? I remind the President that $13 billion has been paid
to the Federal Government by the ratepayer, collected by the nuclear
power companies, paid to the Federal Government by the ratepayers, and
now the Federal Government is in breach of its contract. Some people
around here say, ``Well, that is no big deal. If you are going to
contract with the Government, that is just an incidental.'' I think
that is a terrible precedent to take.
The Government is in breach of the contract beginning next year.
There are going to be damages. The taxpayer will pick it up. How big? I
do not know. Mr. President, $59 billion was the last estimate for
damages. We have to get on with this. The national interest of
providing safe central storage of disposal of nuclear spent fuel could
never, ever, be achieved if this amendment is adopted. I submit that
this is the only purpose for which its proponents have offered it.
Again, I refer to the chart. If you look where it is, it is all over.
There are 80 sites in 41 States. If you don't want to leave it there,
you have to move it. This second-degree amendment would prohibit you
from moving it. It would keep it where it is.
So, I implore all Senators representing the States that are affected
here to recognize what this amendment would mean. This amendment really
does not pass the straight-face test, if we are serious about resolving
the nuclear waste issue. As a consequence, I think it speaks for
itself.
I am going to read for the Record an editorial that appeared April 8
in the Chicago Tribune. The headline is, ``Honoring a Pledge on Nuclear
Waste.''

From the start of commercial nuclear power, Washington
decided to make the storage of high-level radioactive waste a
Federal responsibility.

They are right. We did. We made it a Federal responsibility. We voted
on it. We passed it.

Fourteen years ago, Congress ordered the Federal Government
to begin taking control of nuclear waste in 1998 and storing
it at a permanent storage site in Nevada.

Where? In Nevada, right there, out in the desert.

Despite spending billions and extending deadlines,
Washington won't be ready to accept any waste for another 10
years or so.

As a matter of fact, it is the year 2015, according to the previous
Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary.

Meantime, the stuff keeps piling up at nuclear power plants
in Illinois and around the Nation.
The Senate this week can begin to correct
this unconscionable malfeasance. It will consider a bill
to build a temporary waste storage facility in the Nevada
desert, about 100 miles from Las Vegas. It passed similar
legislation last year, but not by enough votes to override
a threatened veto by President Clinton, who agreed to
oppose it if Nevada's Democratic Governor and two Senators
supported his reelection.

This is a quote from the Chicago Tribune, Mr. President.
Well, it further states:

The election is over, but Clinton again is promising a
veto. Nuclear waste, he argues, shouldn't be shipped to a
temporary facility until it's known for certain whether a
permanent site can be built at nearby Yucca Mountain.
Temporary storage, he contends, will drain funds from Yucca
and make it likely the underground facility will never be
completed.
The Senate should end this political gamesmanship by
passing the bill by a veto-proof margin. For national
security and environmental safety, it makes more sense to
have the waste stored in a well-protected central location
than at scattered sites near major cities or bodies of water
like Lake Michigan, which are filling up rapidly. It will
also keep electricity users from shelling out twice for the
waste storage.
If Washington continues to slough off its obligation, it
will be forced to build additional above-ground storage
facilities at their nuclear plants and try to pass the cost
on to the consumers. For more than a decade, ratepayers have
chipped in billions to a private fund created by Congress to
help pay for permanent storage facility, some of which has
already been spent on research and study at Yucca.

``A Federal appeals court''--this is important, Mr. President,
because it is right on--``A Federal appeals court has ruled the Energy
Department is contractually obligated to begin accepting the spent fuel
next year. That deadline is unrealistic, but a temporary storage site
should be designated so that the Government can begin receiving waste
expeditiously. Someone in Washington must honor past promises and quit
putting different decisions off on future generations, and the Senate
can begin this week.''
I think that is right on target.
Now, I understand that there are those who have concerns about
transportation of spent fuel to a central facility. That is why this
bill has 12 pages of language providing transportation, training, and
notification provisions.
Let me read from selected portions of the bill, section (2):

. . . not later than 24 months after the Secretary submits
a licensed application under section 205 for an interim
storage facility shall, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation and affected States and tribes, and after an
opportunity for public comment, develop and implement a
comprehensive management plan that ensures safe
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste from the sites designated by the contract
holders to the interim storage facility site.

Further, requirements:

A shipping campaign transportation plan shall--
(A) be fully integrated with State and tribal government
notification, inspection, and emergency response plans along
the preferred shipping route or State-designated alternative
route identified under subsection (d) . . .
Further, under ``Transportation requirements.''

(b) State Notification.--The Secretary shall abide by
regulations of the Commission regarding advance notification
of State and

[[Page S2956]]

tribal governments prior to transportation of spent nuclear
fuel or high-level radioactive waste under this Act.
(2) No shipments if no training.--(A) There will be no
shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste through the jurisdiction of any State or the
reservation lands of any Indian Tribe eligible for grants
under paragraph (3)(B) unless technical assistance and funds
to implement procedures for the safe routine transportation
and for dealing with emergency response situations under
paragraph (1)(A) have been available to a State or Indian
Tribe for at least 3 years prior to any shipment.

In conclusion, Mr. President, this is a dangerous amendment. This is
an amendment that freezes nuclear waste where it currently is, in those
41 States, 80 sites. Some of them are near neighborhoods, some are near
schools. Just reflect on the significance if this second-degree
passes--this stuff won't move. Of course, as I said before, my friends
from Nevada simply don't want it to move to their State. That is really
what this debate is all about. Nobody wants the stuff. You have to put
it somewhere. Every State should accept the responsibility. In
Connecticut, we build nuclear submarines, and that, I am sure, from the
standpoint of the delegation from Connecticut, is very attractive from
the economics associated with shipbuilding. But do they have a
responsibility as a State? They generate the prosperity, but they don't
have to put up with the actual disposal of the submarines when they are
cut up and the reactors that are sent to Hanford in the State of
Washington and go up the Columbia River.
I think every State has an interest in this. Colorado has waste out
in their State. Do they want to keep that military waste there, or do
they want to move it out? This second-degree amendment will ensure that
it will stay in Colorado. I don't think the Governor or the Colorado
delegation want that to happen. They want to move it out. The reality
is, Mr. President, that nobody wants it. I don't know whether the
Nevada delegation would consider some kind of a creation of this area
out there in Nevada, dispense it from the State and put it under some
kind of an original Federal enclave that is no longer part of the
State. For all practical purposes, its structure is it's Federal land
out in a State. But, clearly, the Federal Government does not have the
disposition because it is still in a State. But the reality is, rather
than go down that rabbit trail too long, no one of the 50 States wants
to be named as either a permanent or temporary repository for the
waste.
In conclusion, Mr. President, at an appropriate time, I will move to
table this amendment. It is my understanding that there are other
Members who intend to speak in opposition of the amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan].
Mr. BRYAN. Let me respond to a couple of things that the chairman of
the Energy Committee has said that I think bears correction. First of
all, the amendment, as cast--
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will my friend yield for a unanimous-consent request
from the leadership?
Mr. BRYAN. Yes.

Unanimous-Consent Request

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
occur on or in relation to the pending Reid-Bryan second-degree
amendment, No. 28, at 11 o'clock today.
Mr. BRYAN. This is the first I have heard of this.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thought it had been cleared.
Mr. BRYAN. It has not been. I want to assure the chairman that it is
not our intent to be dilatory, but this is the first I have been made
aware of that proposal.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I certainly apologize, because I checked and asked,
and they said it was. I withdraw the unanimous-consent request at this
time and yield back to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate that. The Senator has been very fair, in
terms of affording us the opportunity to do what is permitted under the
rules. Perhaps what may have occurred is that we were asked by our
staff to be given adequate time before a vote was taken, and someone
said 11 o'clock would be that adequate time. That may have been
misconstrued, I say to my friend. As to an agreement for a time certain
for the vote, that was not my intention, and I accept what the chairman
said.
Let me make a couple of points, if I may. One is that this amendment
applies only to the shipment of waste to the interim facility. So we
are not talking about the ultimate shipment that may go to a permanent
repository if indeed that repository would be found acceptable. I know
the distinguished occupant of the chair, in his own legal background,
would appreciate that what we are trying to say to his State and to
every other State--Alabama has a great many routes that are going to be
major corridors for the transshipment of nuclear waste. Most of those
appear on this map to be hideaway corridors. I confess not knowing the
State as he does, but there are at least four different corridors that
would be involved, as I see it, by rail. That is the blue line. Much of
that would come from Florida and Georgia, it would appear. Some would
come from Tennessee, perhaps, I don't know. Then there is a major
highway that appears to come across the top of his State. So what it
would simply say is that the Governor of Alabama, before shipments
would cross his State, would say, ``Look, I want to have the
opportunity to review and look and see if indeed all of the safety
precautions are there.'' Then if the Alabama Governor said he was
satisfied, no problem, that's fine. We are trying to provide States
with the opportunity to defend and protect themselves.

The basic premise, Mr. President, is that we ought not to be moving
this stuff all over the country, back and forth. Somehow there has been
this fallacious assumption that there has been a determination that the
Nevada test site is preeminently qualified to serve as an interim
storage facility. That simply is not true. There has never been a study
that reaches such a conclusion. There are probably a thousand places in
the country that would be acceptable for interim storage. The only
reason the Nevada test site has been chosen is the premise that the
permanent repository at Yucca Mountain will meet the test. That is what
this debate is about. We will talk much more about that in a different
context.
I want to, also, if I may, set the record straight. The Chicago
editorial that the distinguished chairman read is absolutely replete
with misinformation and errors. As the chairman read the article and
indicated that 14 years ago it was determined that Nevada was the site,
Mr. President, that is simply not true. Fourteen years ago, I believe
the Congress attempted to pass a reasonable and balanced piece of
legislation--the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982--which was signed
into law by then President Reagan in the early part of 1983. What it
said was that we will look across the country and try to find the best
sites. We will look at formations that consist of granite; we will look
at the salt domes; we will look at welded tuft, which is what we have
in Nevada. No region in the country will have to bear it all. There
will be a balance. And, indeed, three sites would ultimately be
submitted to the President of the United States after the study--three
sites--and the President would select among those three sites.
Now, that made some sense, in terms of the scientific approach and,
indeed, I think that most people in my own State, as well as across the
country, to the extent that they followed this, said that was balanced.
Here is what happened. No sooner was the ink dry than the
Presidential campaign of 1984 began to heat up and the President was
telling people in the Southeast, ``Don't worry, it is not going to be
salt domes.'' Then the Department of Energy said, ``Well, my gosh,
locating something in the East is going to create a lot of political
pressure for us, so we will abandon that site.'' Then, in 1987 came the
ultimate rejection and repudiation of anything that purported to have
any kind of scientific basis at all; it is a bill that is known in
infamy in Nevada as the ``screw Nevada'' bill. It said, without so much
as a scintilla of science, that we will only look at Nevada. That
wasn't what the law said in 1984. It said we would look at three, we
would look all over the country. Maybe Nevada would be the short straw.
We would not like that. I am sure the occupant of the chair would not
like it if it were Alabama. I understand that.

[[Page S2957]]

Now, somehow the editorial suggested that the President entered into
a crass political quid pro quo with my distinguished colleague, the
senior Senator from Nevada, with me and the Governor, and said, ``Look,
if you support my reelection that had absolutely nothing to do with
it.'' We made our argument based on merit--that is, that there should
not be a shipment of interim waste to an interim storage facility until
such determination of a permanent facility could actually be
characterized. That was the whole scientific predicate. The President
of the United States, in reaching his conclusion, followed the
recommendations and conclusion of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board, a body constituted by this Congress, which said there is
absolutely no need to have an interim storage facility at this point.
Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. BRYAN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Would the Senator agree that President Clinton would be
better off politically if he had gone along with the majority?
Mr. BRYAN. Absolutely. If you are looking at this in terms of the
political consequences, there are four electoral votes in Nevada. Many
States have many more. So if it was a political calculus made, the
President's math was poor indeed. He supported the position argued by
not only those of us in Nevada, but those who were following the
premise of the act, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the
point made by the Senator from Arkansas the other day that we ought not
to be transporting this across the country until we have the permanent
site. Does it make any sense at all? I believe that was the basis.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. BRYAN. Yes.
Mr. REID. As to the present state of the law, I ask the Senator, what
does it say about whether or not you can locate a permanent repository
and a temporary repository in the same State?
Mr. BRYAN. The present state of the law, enacted by the Congress,
prohibits a State that is being considered for a permanent facility to
be the site of an interim or temporary facility. Moreover, at the
request, as I recall it, of the Tennessee delegation some years ago, it
prohibits the location of an interim facility until an application for
licensure is made for the permanent facility. Now, that was sound
policy. No. 1, no State, frankly, should have to bear the burden of
both. That was the philosophy and the remnant of what was a fair act in
the beginning--to look all over the country. The interim ought not to
be located before the permanent, because we know that kind of tends to
be de facto permanent. That was good policy, I say in answer to my
friend.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator allow me to ask another question?
Mr. BRYAN. I will.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding, belief, and knowledge that you,
like the two Senators from South Carolina, have been the chief
executive of the State of Nevada, the Governor.
Mr. BRYAN. Yes, we share that history together. I was elected twice
as Governor of my State.
Mr. REID. Is it true that one of the philosophies that you had while
you were Governor was to protect the rights of the State of Nevada?
Mr. BRYAN. It was indeed. Every Governor takes an oath of office in
which he or she indicates they will indeed uphold those rights and
responsibilities, and I did so, as each and every Governor has done not
only in Nevada but throughout the country, I am sure.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator further respond? It is my understanding
that the Senator has a law degree from the University of California
Hastings College of Law, was Nevada's first public defender, and was a
prosecutor and in the district attorney's office. He was also in
private practice. How many times was the Senator elected attorney
general of the State?
Mr. BRYAN. I was elected attorney general once.
Mr. REID. During that period of time, the Senator was the chief
political officer of the State of Nevada. Is that true?
Mr. BRYAN. That is true.
Mr. REID. And the chief function was to handle the legal questions
that came to the State of Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. That is, to advise all of the State agencies that were
constituted by the State legislature or established in our
Constitution, and to represent, protect, and defend the people of the
State. That was my obligation.
Mr. REID. Based upon the Senator's experience as Governor of the
State of Nevada and as its chief legal officer, the Attorney General of
the State of Nevada, and based upon other legal experiences, does the
Senator from Nevada think it is an appropriate function of this
Congress to adopt this amendment protecting the States rights in all 50
States?
Mr. BRYAN. It is indeed. This I would say to my friend from Nevada is
a litmus test of whether we just talk the talk or walk the walk. This
is all about States rights. I cannot conceive of any attorney general
or any Governor in America who would not want the ability to provide
for the protection of his or her State by simply saying, ``Look, before
we ship this 25-ton cask that someday will be provided by rail''--the
25-ton casks that are going to be mounted on some type of highway
transport with the equivalency of 200 Hiroshimas in terms of its
radioactive potential--I would think that any Governor, or any attorney
general who has taken the same kind of oath of office that I and others
have taken, would say, ``Look. I would like the ability to provide that
protection. I would like to see what it is that is coming.''
I say in response to my friend's question about the protections that
are purportedly built into this S. 104 that deals with transportation
issues that it seems to me this is a logical extension of that.
Mr. REID. I say in further questioning of my friend, if in fact this
substitute, this bill that we are working under now, has all of the
protections that we have heard about here for the last several days--
that they are going to train people and have all of these protections--
based upon the Senator's experience as attorney general and Governor of
the State, and as a U.S. Senator, doesn't it seem to make sense that if
all of those protections are built in you could go to a Governor and
reasonably explain that this is such a great piece of legislation, and
say ``You are protected, sign on, Governor''? Could the Senator see
that happen?
Mr. BRYAN. Absolutely. Indeed, I would go further. It seems to me
that it would be incumbent upon the department that wants to shift
this, talking about 835,000 metric tons--we are talking about 17,000
shipments over a period of a number of decades--it would seem to me
that the department would have the burden of going to Governors who
have concerns, talk with them, and to say, ``Look. This is what we are
doing. This is how we propose to protect the shipment route to go
through your State.'' That seems to me to be a reasonable basis.
I know that there are others who want to take the floor and will have
a chance to discuss this some more. But I would like to conclude by
saying that this is something that gives every Governor an opportunity
to protect his or her citizens. And I say with some measure of envy
that the Senator from Alaska can speak with a far greater degree I
suppose of comfort level because whatever occurs or does not occur in
this body, his State is thousands of miles from the field of action. I
wish I were so fortunate. But it becomes my responsibility representing
the people of Nevada who I represent, and who are my primary
responsibility, to make sure that we provide all of the protections
that can possibly be secured for their health and safety. And I will
continue to do so.
This is an offer by my colleague from Nevada and I to try to provide
a safe piece of legislation, if indeed this is to be enacted into law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand on the floor today to speak against
the Reid-Bryan amendment as it relates to Governors' authority on
transportation of materials through their States.
My colleague from Nevada, who is not only a U.S. Senator but a former
Governor of that State, just said something that I found fascinating in
the

[[Page S2958]]

context of this legislation or this amendment. In a dialog with his
colleague, the other Senator from Nevada, he suggested that with all of
the safeguards and the protections put in, couldn't you go to a
Governor and logically argue with him and, therefore, convince him to
just sign off, Governor?
My guess is that as a former Governor of the State of Nevada or a
Governor today in Nevada, with all these safeguards, he wouldn't sign
off--not because of the science, not because of the engineering, but
because of the politics. Plain and simple politics is what is dictating
the argument on the floor today--not science, not engineering, not the
facts. So, sign off, Governor. Just sign off, and everything will be
fine. And the Governor looks over his back shoulder, he looks at the
polls, and he sees that the citizens of his State do not want nuclear
waste stored in their State no matter how good the science, no matter
how good the engineering, no matter how good the record, no matter how
good the history of that record. What does he do? Is he the statesman
that he should be? Not at all. He is the politician that he is. He
says, ``My reelection is in trouble if I do thus and so.''
Why do I speak in this manner? Because Idaho went through that very
experience. Idaho has a large amount of interim storage of high-level
nuclear material. And a former Governor of our State got a Federal
court order to stop the shipment of that waste coming into the State.
But could he get the Federal court to ultimately say no waste movement
to Idaho? No; what he could get, what any Governor can get, what our S.
104 provides, and what current law provides is that he could assure
that the condition in which that waste would be stored both long-term
or short-term would be safe, would be environmentally sound, and would
not put at risk or put in danger the citizens of that State.
Why could the Governor not absolutely say, ``It cannot cross my
borders''? Because we are no longer a confederation of States. We
almost fell apart as a nation when we were a confederation. We are now
a union bound together by a Constitution that speaks very specifically
to interstate commerce, and the ability of a Governor or a State to
block the movement of materials or commerce across its border. But what
we do say--and what we defend and what S. 104 clearly spells out--is
that the Governor of the State and the State itself can condition the
movement of materials across its border.
That is exactly what the State of Idaho did. My Governor over the
last several years has signed agreements with the Department of Energy
under a Federal court order that conditions the waste that still comes
to Idaho across many borders up the rails from Norfolk, VA, to Idaho--
2,500-plus miles, 600 shipments over 30 years, and never an accident--
with never a human put at risk by the spill of radioactive activity.
I am not suggesting nor am I attempting to impugn the integrity of
the Senators from Nevada. They will do what they must do because they
have the right to do it. But let me suggest they do not have the
science, and they do not have the engineering. They only have the
politics.
When you look at the amendment that they proposed and at the
legislation that the Senator from Alaska, I, and the committee crafted,
when you talk about the intricacies of laws, when you look at the
legislation that is now law, the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act, known as HAZMAT which involves the States, which assures that
States and Federal transportation of hazardous materials is in concert,
that humans are safe and humans are protected, but the reality is that
to provide greater protection for the broader good and for the national
interests sometimes State borders must be crossed. The HAZMAT system
has adopted a uniform, regulated approach toward handling materials
regardless of their type. Regulations of these materials allow States
authority to conduct certain inspections, and we have even extended
that. We have created greater authority in this legislation because
several of our Senators--and rightfully so--are concerned about the
movement of radioactive materials across their States. And I am
concerned when States are not generators of it. My State is a partial
generator but a much larger store in a temporary way of waste.
This second-degree amendment is not just some conditioning amendment.
This kills S. 104. This changes the whole character and the context of
what the bill itself would do. The Senator from Alaska, the chairman of
the committee, has so clearly said that this gives every Governor in
every State absolute authority to cancel, stop, or otherwise terminate
movement across State borders. We have really never given States that
authority. And we should not here. But we have continually done it. And
I have argued for it on many occasions under many different examples
and legislation that is now law. States have very clear rights. They
have 10th amendment rights. And those rights are very strong as it
relates to the ability of States to govern themselves and control
themselves, and not have the Federal Government impugn that authority,
or dictate that authority, or change the character of that authority.
But one thing that a State cannot do is lock and block its borders.
That is, of course, the reason that 208 years ago many of what we now
call our Founding Fathers joined in Philadelphia to try to figure out
how to get our States back together because we were falling apart
largely because States had that kind of absolute authority. The States
of Maryland and Virginia were shooting at each other across the Potomac
River, or at least some of their interests were. And the Confederation
was falling apart. That was one of the early parts of a Constitution,
to make sure that commerce could flow.

I think all of the Senators on the floor would argue that this isn't
the best form of commerce, and this isn't like what we would like to
think of as commerce. But we clearly recognize that in the national
interest, when it comes to the rights of States, that the principles of
federalism on which our country was founded recognize States' authority
to govern matters within their borders but must give way to Federal
authority when an issue is one of national scope reaching beyond the
particular boundaries of a given State. This is an interesting
combination.
This is not only an issue of national scope. This is a Federal
material going to a Federal property--not a private property, not a
State-owned property, but Federal land in the State of Nevada. The
Senators from Nevada and I are oftentimes very perplexed because we are
representatives of States that have very large Federal domains.
Sometimes we wish a great amount of that land could either be public-
State land, and in some instances private land, but that is not the way
it is, and that is not the way our States came into the Union. As a
result, we are talking about building an interim storage facility,
after viability determination, facilitating a deep geologic repository,
long term. And it is not true that this is just going to happen and the
Nevada test site was just chosen. Certainly this argument deserves
merit. I know it can have the emotion, and I certainly know it has its
politics because I live with nuclear radioactive politics in my State
every day because we are a repository temporarily of large volumes of
high-level waste from our nuclear Navy. I also know that it has been
handled safely for decades, and it is a sound place to store it on a
temporary basis until such time as a permanent repository is developed.
As I have mentioned, over 600 shipments have moved across numerous
State borders from as far away as from Norfolk, VA, to the deserts of
Idaho. And it has been done safely, soundly, and responsibly because of
our country's recognition of the risk and the liability to human
safety. And we have never compromised a human, and we never will.
We cannot kill S. 104. I hope that when the Senator from Alaska
places the tabling motion that our colleagues will join with us to
table the second-degree amendment because there is no question about
its intent. I believe it is not a constitutional amendment. But then
again we don't judge the Constitution here on the floor. We only try to
live with it and live under it. That is not ours to make that judgment.
But I do not believe the courts of our country would allow the Governor
of the

[[Page S2959]]

State of Nevada or Idaho the privilege of absolute cancellation, or
absolute border blockage. And that is, of course, in my opinion, what
this amendment ultimately does. So I would ask my colleagues to join
with us, those who support S. 104, in the need to recognize the
importance of the building of a national deep geological repository for
high-level materials and high-level nuclear spent fuel and that they
would vote down the second-degree amendment and vote for the tabling
motion.

I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the senior Senator from Idaho articulated
the position that we have felt for several years. He did it clearly and
concisely and directly when he said nuclear waste is safe. If that is
the case, leave it where it is. That is what we say. If it is so safe,
leave it where it is. There is no reason to change the law, to go
around, to short-circuit, to sidestep the present law. Last year, $200-
plus million were spent characterizing the site at Yucca Mountain. What
this underlying bill does is just throw all that money away and goes
and pours a cement pad on top of the ground and dumps all the spent
fuel rods on the cement pad.
The amendment that is now before this body says that if you are going
to transport nuclear waste through a State, the Governor must allow
that to happen. We certainly, under this Constitution, this
Constitution that we all live by and talk about, have the obligation,
we have the right to set standards as to how the flow of commerce will
take place.
The senior Senator from Idaho said that you are moving Federal
property. Certainly, doesn't the Federal Government, the Congress of
the United States have the ability and the right to determine how
Federal property is going to be moved? That is an inherent right we
have, to determine the flow of commerce over our sovereign borders.
Continually, there have been efforts to say this is only a Nevada
problem, this is just a couple of Senators from Nevada carping about a
provincial interest; nobody else in the world cares about this other
than the Senators from Nevada.
Madam President, every environmental organization in America opposes
this legislation, and I say every. I also say that we only need look
around. The United Transportation Union, you would think that this
union would be really enthused about hauling large cargo. No, they are
not real enthused. In fact, in a letter of April 8 of this year, the
national director of this union, with a copy of a letter to the
international president, C.L. Little, states:

In its present form, S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1997, advocates a reckless and unsafe shipping campaign of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Madam President, the United Transportation Union, to my knowledge,
does not have a local. It does not have a local union in Nevada. If it
does, I do not know about it. There may be one up in the northern part
of the State where the railroad goes through, but I really doubt it.
This letter is not driven by Nevada interests. It is driven by the
United Transportation Union that cares about its members and wants safe
transportation of products. The letter goes on to say:

The Chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
has testified to serious deficiencies in the transportation
planning and preparation that are so necessary to execute
this campaign safely . . .
Serious questions remain regarding containment integrity of
the transportation canisters that would have to be designed,
tested, evaluated, certified and procured. Presently the
country has only a few shipping containers that were
developed and tested a number of years ago.

I was going to say a long time ago, which is, in fact, the case.

These have apparently proven durable under some accident
environments.

And we talked about that. If the accident occurs and you are not
going more than 30 miles an hour, you are in pretty good shape. If the
fire isn't burning more than 1,400 degrees, you are OK. Of course,
diesel burns at 1,800 degrees. They go on to say:

The NRC certification requirements for newly manufactured
containers have raised serious concerns regarding their
integrity.

That is the ones that are now in existence.

A program of design and full-scale testing is desperately
needed to generate confidence that the transportation
campaign could be done safely.

This is the not driven by Nevada interests. This is driven by
interests of a national union that is concerned about what is shipped
across the railways of this country.
Now, I know there are Baptist churches in Nevada, but I have to tell
you, I do not have enough power over the Baptist churches in Nevada to
have them prepare a letter from the entire Baptist ministry of this
country opposing this legislation. I wish I had that ability, but I do
not.
In spite of that, Madam President, just a few days ago they wrote a
letter to every Senator in this body saying, among other things:

S. 104 would require the premature transportation of
nuclear waste, placing communities in some 43 States at risk.
Current cask regulations fail to consider the full range of
plausible accident conditions and do not require compliance
testing of full-cask models.

I did not make this up. I did not write this letter. This is written
from the National Ministries of the American Baptist Churches USA.

The American Baptist Churches USA, a denomination of over
one million members in all 50 States, regards the right to a
secure and healthy environment, clean air, pure water and an
Earth that can nurture and support present and future
generations as a human right. This right is rooted in the
Biblical revelation that God cares for the good of all, has
delivered us from sin and intends that we express love toward
our neighbors. Our concern for persons and the earth we share
compels us to support efforts to transport and dispose of
hazardous and radioactive waste in a safe and secure manner.
S. 104 fails to meet this criteria for safety and security.
For these reasons, I urge you to oppose S. 104.

The director, Curtis W. Ramsey-Lucas, National Ministries of American
Baptist Churches USA.
Madam President, this is not a Nevada letter. There are Baptist
churches in Nevada. I am very thankful for that. Here is a group of
millions of people who are interested in this issue but only as it
protects people, and this legislation does not protect people.
We have from the State of Missouri two members from the other party.
They do not represent this side of the aisle, but yet the Missouri
Coalition for the Environment writes a letter saying:

Missouri would surely be one of the primary States that
would suffer a high percentage of the train and truck
shipments because of its central location and the relatively
well-maintained conditions of its rail tracks and roads.
Political leaders may seek to comfort their urban
constituents by promising that these shipments would avoid
highly populated areas. However, such areas are precisely
where the best transit routes cover. Because industrial job
centers receive the greatest number of train and truck
shipments, the roads, rails and bridges are maintained better
than more isolated routes.
Although no one knows exactly which routes the railroad and
trucking companies would choose, current computer analyses
predict that all but seven States would be affected by this
massive--

Listen to this word--

fruitbasket upset.
Because all irradiated nuclear power plant fuel contains
plutonium--a primary component of nuclear bombs--the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission requires that when shipments transit
cities of over 100,000 either by rail or highway, two armed
escorts--

Now, this does not say armed guards, two armed escorts--

must accompany every shipment of the irradiated fuel in an
effort to protect against terrorists.
Until a permanent repository is built and in operation, we
believe the wisest, safest move would be to prevent any move
of America's high-level radioactive waste through our cities
and towns.

Madam President, the point I am making is this is not a Nevada issue
only. This is an issue that is here because it is being driven by big
money. Utilities making, as we indicated, over 17 percent profits, they
want to shun the responsibility that they have created with nuclear
garbage and get it out of their hands.
All the talk about having to do it by next year is poppycock. The
court case was very clear. If the responsibility is that of the Federal
Government, and they are the reason that the repository is not ready
and it is their fault, then they will have to pay the damages. What are
the damages? It is the cost of

[[Page S2960]]

storage. We have already established that the cost of storage is almost
meaningless. On-site storage costs almost nothing, and it is safe, as
indicated by the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, by the
National Ministries of the Baptist Church.
Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. And by the United Transportation Union. I would be happy to
yield.
Mr. BRYAN. We have heard considerable debate in the Chamber here
about the horrendous liability that may exist out there because
everyone concedes that the Department would not be able to physically
accept possession of the waste in 1998. I thought I understood the
Senator to indicate that there is at least some measure of damages
provided. We have heard all kinds of billions and billions of dollars.
I wasn't sure that I heard the Senator's comments.
Mr. REID. I would answer my friend's question. We have made, since
this bill came up, we have made $21 billion for the country. The figure
was originally $80 billion. You heard the remarks of the proponents of
this legislation. They said it is down to $59 billion. The truth is it
should be down in the low millions, because to store this substance
onsite costs almost nothing. The average cost per site is $5 million.
Let us say we have 100 sites. We have 109 sites. We are talking about
$50 million or whatever it is. Significantly less than $59 billion.
Mr. BRYAN. Am I correctly informed that each of the utilities has
entered into a contract with the Department of Energy dating back to
the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act? Is that the Senator's
understanding?
Mr. REID. Absolutely true. It is by contract.
Mr. BRYAN. By contract. And there are provisions, if I understand it,
that specifically relate to the scenario that is going to occur,
namely, that nuclear waste, its physical possession cannot be accepted
in 1998, and there are specific provisions in that contract, if I
understand correctly.
Mr. REID. Absolutely. And the court, in making its decision, like
many courts do, said let us send this back and take a look at what the
contractual provisions are. And the contractual provisions are very
direct and concise. This is not going to generate a lot of lawsuits.
Mr. BRYAN. And the measure of damages, as I recall, that is in that
contract, it is additional cost that the utilities will incur, and that
additional cost would be the provision of additional storage during
that period of time, if I am correctly informed.
Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right. If they decided to leave
it in the cooling ponds, whatever the cost of that would be during that
interim period of time for the storage ponds. If they decide to do the
right thing, which is probably dry cask storage containment, then it
would be an average of $5 million per site.
Mr. BRYAN. And they could use that as an offset in terms of what they
are paying into the Nuclear Waste trust fund right now.
Mr. REID. Absolutely right. In preparation for a permanent
repository. And that is why I say to my friend from Nevada and everyone
else, this is not a Nevada-only issue. We are here espousing what we
feel is appropriate to protect the State of Nevada. But that is only
secondary to the issues that affect this whole country and that is why
the Baptist Ministries, the United Transportation Union and the people
from Missouri--and I only picked a few of the letters. As you know,
there are several hundred organizations that we know of--oppose this
legislation, which is so unsafe for the environment and so unnecessary,
and only being driven by the gluttonous utilities of this country.
Mr. BRYAN. So the argument that we have heard in the Chamber that
ratepayers will pay twice is specious, because to the extent that after
1998 nuclear waste would not be taken physically from a site, it cannot
be under any scenario, the ratepayers would then be protected because
any additional costs that the utilities would incur would be deducted
from the payments that the utilities would have to make into the
nuclear waste trust fund, so there would be no double payment.
Mr. REID. I would respond to my friend, that is absolutely correct. A
first-year law student not even having taken a course in contracts
would read that and understand that it is one of the most simple
contracts ever written, and that is why the court did not spend a lot
of time on that issue.
Mr. BRYAN. It strikes me as curious, if I am hearing the Senator
respond, that, indeed, the senior Senator and I have introduced for a
number of years legislation that would accomplish the same provision
that exists in the contract; namely, to the extent that there is not
the ability to physically take possession, the utility would be
entitled to a reimbursement in the form of the reduction in the
payments made to the nuclear waste trust fund.
Mr. REID. I would respond to my friend, we did that prior to the
court rendering its decision. Probably now the legislation is
unnecessary, but we could certainly do that. And I think it would make
things a little clearer. But it is really unnecessary now because the
court, in effect, has ruled that way.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. So, Madam President, what we are saying is that this
amendment simply establishes what should be the law of this land. That
is, if you are going to haul, as indicated in the chart behind the
manager of the bill and the chart behind my colleague from the State of
Nevada, showing all these routes all over the country, what we are
saying is this product, if it is going to be transported through a
State, the Governor should give the OK.
We have been told here for several days now that transporting this
product is going to be just as safe as carrying a quart of milk from
the store to your home. If that is the case, the Governors that I have
mentioned, Beasley, Hunt, Romer, O'Bannon, Voinovich, Wilson from
California, Miller from Nevada--and all the other fine Governors, chief
executives of the States, they should be able to sit down with their
staffs, it should be explained to them how safe this is, they would
sign on the dotted line, and their constituents would feel happy that
the government was protecting their interests.
If we do not do this we are going to wind up with a situation that
has already occurred in recent days in Europe where, to move this
product in the country of Germany, 300 miles, you had to call up 30,000
police and armed guards to transport at the rate of 2 miles an hour.
They had to go 2 miles an hour because people had dug huge holes under
the roadways and put in, in effect, disguised covers so these vehicles
would fall into them--2 miles an hour. There were 170 people injured,
hundreds of people arrested. And Germany's parliament said we are not
going to do this anymore. We are going to reassess our situation.
That is what we should be doing here, but we cannot reassess the
situation because the utilities, with all of their money, are dictating
what is going on here on the Senate floor. That is what this amendment
is all about.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I think it is appropriate that we
move on to vote as soon as possible. But I would like to make a couple
of points that I think are pertinent to the debate that is at hand.
First of all, I think we have to recognize the premise that nobody
wants to take the waste. On the other hand, I think we also have to
recognize the reality of those who have the waste. Currently, we have
in the State of Washington, at Hanford, a significant abundance of
spent fuel, about 2,133 metric tons over here at Hanford. I have been
out there. It is right on the edge of the Columbia River. These were
the first graphite reactors; and the first generation of nuclear bombs
that were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were created there.
The State of Washington has also, at that Hanford facility, 61
million gallons of liquid, high-level waste in 177 tanks. That is just
the harsh reality. Savannah River, in South Carolina, 206 metric tons
of high-level spent fuel, 33 million gallons of liquid waste. There is
more that comes in every day. It comes from overseas and from our
research reactors. How does it come? It comes through a transportation
network, 2,400 shipments from 1979 to 1995.

[[Page S2961]]

Every State has had shipments with the exception of Florida and South
Dakota.
So, when we talk about transportation, we have a transportation
system. Why is it not news? Because nothing is happening. It is safe.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield on the issue of transportation?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Nevada said you and I portrayed the
transportation as safe as transporting a quart of milk home from the
store. I think the record ought to be corrected. The transportation
system for nuclear waste is safer than transporting a quart of milk
home.
Have you ever dropped a quart of milk on the floor of the supermarket
or on the floor of the kitchen? I have, and I have burst the container.
You can drop these containers 50 feet onto a piece of concrete and they
do not burst. That is the characteristics of the container.
I think, when we also get in our car at the supermarket and drive
home, we do not have a police escort in front of us and behind us,
making sure that the road is perfectly clear so someone does not
sideswipe us at the intersection or hit us as we are leaving.
I know what the Senator from Nevada was trying to do. But the reality
is, the transportation of high-level radioactive materials in this
country is, by far, much safer than transporting a quart of milk home
from the supermarket. There is a lot of milk spilled between the
supermarket and the kitchen of the average residence in our country.
But to our knowledge not one curie of radioactivity has ever been
spilled going from a reactor to a storage site, once it was
containerized and in its mode of transportation.
I thank my colleague for yielding. That is an important correction.
We ought not make light of our arguments here because the facts are
very clear when it comes to transporting this critical material.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me point out to the Senator from Idaho, this is a
typical cask that has been used since 1964 for shipping by truck
transport. These are designed according to a very, very technical and
highly engineered requirement that would associate itself with whatever
the exposure is of a wreck, dropping from a high level. They have
tested these. They have tested them with a railroad car at 60 to 70
miles an hour, dropping them from various levels. So the technology is
here.
These are the facts, as we look at this chart of where the waste is
currently, and the position our friends from Nevada have taken, which
is ``Do not put it in Nevada, leave it where it is.'' To highlight,
again, the transportation chart, the one that shows the network, you
just cannot reflect reality, and that is reality, 2,400 shipments. It
has been safe. We have never had an accident that resulted in any
exposure of any kind. We had a couple of minor trucking accidents, but
clearly the cask withstood whatever the exposure was.
Let me add one more consideration relative to where the significant
areas of waste are. In addition to Savannah River and Hanford, at Oak
Ridge, TN, we have 1 metric ton of spent fuel in storage and what we
have there are some tailings and low-level waste as well.
The Senator said it was not my State of Alaska that was affected, and
that is true. But I would like the Record to note that we, in Alaska,
at Amchitka, had the two largest underground nuclear explosions ever
initiated and we are still monitoring those areas, relative to any
waste that might be depleting into the landmass.
So, the point I want to make here is that everybody shares in the
concern of what we do with our nuclear waste. That is what this
legislation is all about, what we do with the waste.
There has been some discussion about what the damages, relative to
the inability of the Government to perform on its contract to take the
waste in coming years, what that might be. The lawyers are going to
make that determination. But let us be realistic and recognize what the
court said. The court ruled the Department of Energy had an obligation
to take the spent fuel in 1998. And they promptly rejected the DOE's
attempt to file a motion to dismiss. As a consequence, the Federal
Government is clearly liable.
How much are the damages likely to be? Again, that is like giving the
lawyers a license to go after damages or full employment. The cost of
the storage of spent fuel is estimated to be about $20 billion. That is
the cost. That is the cost to the Government, when the Government fails
to perform on its contractual obligation starting next year. The return
of nuclear waste fees--they have to return what they collected from the
ratepayers, about $8.5 billion. The interest on that for the last
several years, as a consequence to it building up to $13 billion, is
going to be somewhere in the area of $15 billion to $27 billion and the
consequential damages associated could amount to an estimated shutdown
of 25 percent of the nuclear plants due to insufficient storage--
another $20 or $24 billion.
I do not think there is any point, necessarily, to try to sharpen up
the figures on what the damages are. Clearly there are going to be
damages as a consequence of the Government's inability to respond to
its contractual agreement.
What I wanted to say, relative to the point of Nevada being the best
place for this, showing the Nevada chart again, is we have had 800
nuclear weapons tests in this area for approximately 50 years. And the
proposed location for the interim repository is here as well as,
hopefully, the permanent repository that we spent approximately $6
billion on. We will probably spend as much as $30 billion to finally
get it licensed.
I have a couple of other comments relative to points that have been
made, that I think need to be cleared up. I read a copy of the
editorial in the Chicago Tribune of April 8. There was a reference to a
possible association with regard to support for President Clinton, who
agreed to oppose the legislation if Nevada's Democratic Governor and
two Senators supported his reelection. That is obviously literary
jargon, but, by the same token, I noted in the debate, time and time
again, a reference that none of the environmental groups support this
bill. Of course, I think it is fair to say the President received
almost unanimous support from America's environmental groups relative
to their particular policies.
What we have here from the standpoint of the environmental groups is,
many of them, their objective is to simply shut down the nuclear
industry as we know it today. They do not accept the responsibility for
picking up on where we would generate the offset of energy as a
consequence of shutting down the nuclear industry. They do not give any
credence to reducing greenhouse gases as a consequence of the
contribution that nuclear energy can bring to lessening or eliminating
emissions.
No consideration is given to the reality that many of the nations
that we compete with internationally are going to achieve their
reductions of particulates and emissions as a consequence of moving
toward nuclear power. France is already 98 percent nuclear power. Japan
is actively moving into the area and they are beginning to reprocess.
So I think it is fair to say as we stand still and debate on and on,
endless discussions about the issue of what we are going to do with our
waste, other countries are moving into advanced technology and
reprocessing the waste.
This particular second-degree amendment talks about States rights,
and we are all sensitive to that aspect.
However, the reality of States and the interest of States has to be
addressed in the consideration of the major chart which shows where the
waste is and the reality that we want to move this waste to one site.
As a consequence of that, I think it is fair to note we have some
inconsistencies relative to the statements that have been made by my
good friends on the other side.
There has been a reference that we all have to do a certain amount of
sacrifice relative to States storing nuclear waste and nuclear waste
fuel, and that certainly has been done by the State of Nevada. They
were chosen for reasons unknown to me, but nevertheless chosen as the
ideal site for nuclear explosions over those some 50 years. But there
was a reference made that suggested that the transportation of nuclear
fuel was an eminent right of a State to make a determination that it
was or was not in the best interest of

[[Page S2962]]

that State. But that concept defeats the logic of what we are
attempting to achieve here, and that is to get it out of the States, to
move it to one central repository.
As far as the history of at least some Members of the Nevada
delegation, let me again refer to action that was taken some time ago.
Again, I refer to this picture of the Nevada test site, where the last
underground explosion occurred in approximately 1991. Underground tests
are still being performed there with nuclear materials being exploded
with conventional explosives.
During this time, the Nevada delegation, we assume, has not rejected
that continued activity, but it is even more interesting to note that
one of the Senators during his association with public service from
Nevada supported storing nuclear waste at the test site. If you are
going to support it, Madam President, you are going to have to get it
there. So, if you support it, the realization of how you are going to
move it across this network of States gets to the very crux of where we
are in the second-degree amendment.
Let me read a relative portion of the Nevada Assembly Joint
Resolution No. 15, and this is a chart of the entire resolution dated
February 26, 1975, and the appropriate portion:

Whereas, the people of southern Nevada have confidence in
the safety record of the Nevada test site and in the ability
of the staff of the site to maintain safety in the handling
of nuclear materials;
Whereas, nuclear waste disposal can be carried out at the
Nevada test site with minimal capital investment relative to
other locations;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Assembly of the State
of Nevada jointly that the legislature of the State of Nevada
strongly urges the Energy Research and Development
Administration to choose Nevada test site for the disposal of
nuclear waste.

This resolution passed the Nevada Senate by a 12-to-6 vote, aided by
one of the Senators from Nevada, who is here today, and signed by the
Governor of Nevada, Mike O'Callaghan.
I do not know what has changed. The Nevada test site out there
certainly has not changed. It is the same as it was. It still has a
trained work force, and it still has an infrastructure for dealing with
nuclear materials. The geology of the site certainly has not changed,
and, obviously, some of the Senators thought it was the best place to
store nuclear waste in 1975 or they probably would not have voted for
it back then.
So that is the reality relative to this issue, that nobody wants it,
that it is stored in 80 sites in 41 States, and the answer is to move
it to one safe site. If you do not move it, it is going to sit where it
is, and that is not acceptable. As a consequence, we are at a time
where it is imperative that we recognize that adoption of the second-
degree amendment would simply kill the legislation, kill the bill and
leave the waste where it is, and I do not think that is in the interest
of the 50 States.
Madam President, I propose to move to table the Reid-Bryan amendment.
Mr. BRYAN. Will the chairman just allow a brief response?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Sure.
Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I appreciate that, and I will be brief. I
want to respond to the comments about the resolution adopted by the
Nevada Legislature in 1975. I think we have to put things in context.
In 1951, we were assured that the detonation of nuclear bombs in the
air 60 miles from Las Vegas was a very safe thing to do; you can rely
upon us; you can trust us; we will never do anything. The scientific
community embraced that, or at least we were told that at the time, and
Nevadans agreed to do that. No scientist in the world would suggest to
any community that to detonate a nuclear bomb within 60 miles of a
metropolitan area is absolutely safe, and, in point of fact, we entered
into an atmospheric nuclear test ban in 1963.
If Nevadans can be faulted, they can be faulted because they relied
upon representations of their Government which they believed to be
true. We were all in America less sophisticated about the risk inherent
in detonating bombs in the air.
So, too, it was in 1975. If Nevadans can be faulted, we were less
sophisticated. But I point out to the chairman and others that the
world is dramatically different today than it was in 1975, and we know
a lot more about the risks.
Prior to 1979, I am sure that it would have been asserted not a
chance in the world that any of the reactors in America would ever have
a problem; we have the most preeminent, highly qualified, most
sophisticated people in the world. Nobody today believes that to be
categorically true. Three Mile Island occurred, and our naivete about
the risks of nuclear power have been irreparably shattered, and nobody
accepts those representations today.
Before the worldwide devastating impact in Chernobyl, I am sure
everybody was assured there was no problem with any of these reactors,
there was no risk, no danger. My point is that we are all more
sophisticated today, and Nevadans fully understand the risks that are
involved with storage of nuclear waste, and they have rejected it both
by the State legislature since that period of time, and Democrats and
Republicans alike, in the most recent survey, in numbers in excess of
70 percent categorically reject that storage.
So I think it is somewhat unfair to suggest we be judged by an
earlier time, less sophisticated, more naive and perhaps, if we can be
faulted, more trusting.
Let me just say by way of conclusion, this is a highly technical
debate. Much of it is arcane, much of it is not easy to understand, and
for that reason, I am indebted to the senior Senator from Idaho,
because I think he has framed the issue that all of us can understand.
If you believe that the shipment of nuclear waste, 125-ton casks by
rail, 25-ton casks by truck, containing the equivalent radioactivity of
200 bombs the size dropped on Hiroshima, is as safe as the
transportation of milk from the market to your home or across the
country, let me just say you should vote against the Reid and Bryan
amendment. But if you believe, as I believe most Americans do, that
when you are shipping nuclear waste, 85,000 metric tons, 17,000
shipments, for decades to come over thousands and thousands of miles
through 43 States where 51 million Americans live within a mile, then I
think you might think that it is a little bit more risky than shipping
milk from point A to point B. I believe that the logic of the Reid-
Bryan amendment is inescapable, and I believe that you want to support
us and to protect the citizens of your State. I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to table the Reid-Bryan
second-degree amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 28, as modified. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad],
the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], and the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent, because of the severe
disaster conditions in their States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 24, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]

YEAS--72

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott

[[Page S2963]]

Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner

NAYS--24

Baucus
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Campbell
Cleland
Coats
Daschle
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Harkin
Inouye
Kerrey
Landrieu
Mikulski
Moynihan
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Conrad
Dorgan
Grams
Wellstone
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 28, as modified)
was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 27

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment 27, offered
by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond].
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to ask for passage of the
Thurmond-Hollings amendment to the pending Nuclear Waste Policy Act
bill. The pending bill includes a prohibition against storing
commercial spent nuclear fuel at the Hanford site in Washington State.
This amendment would include an exemption for the Savannah River site
and an adjoining site in Barnwell County, SC.
Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to level the playing
field among all states, should the Department of Energy have to select
an alternate interim storage site.
There are three sites under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Energy which currently have facilities that might be capable of
accepting spent nuclear fuel. They are the Hanford Nuclear Reservation
in Washington, the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
Laboratory in Idaho, and the Savannah River site in South Carolina. Let
me note that these facilities are near their capacity and would require
many significant upgrades to take on a commercial mission.
The pending bill explicitly exempts the Hanford site from being
selected for interim storage. The State of Idaho has a legally
enforceable court order prohibiting importation of new wastes into the
State. This leaves South Carolina as the only other State with
facilities capable of accepting spent nuclear fuel.
Passage of the amendment is not intended to impact the overall
success or failure of this legislation. It is only intended to ensure
that if the Department finds that the Yucca Mountain facility is not
suitable for spent fuel storage, that all States would then be placed
on an equal footing for the siting and construction of a new state-of-
the-art storage facility.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe both sides are ready to accept the amendment
by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 27) was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 26

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
Murkowski substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
Yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________