[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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

       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 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.

                          ____________________