[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 69 (Tuesday, June 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5551-S5564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1997--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 4 p.m.
having arrived, there will now be 2 hours of debate, equally divided
between the proponents and opponents of H.R. 1270.
[[Page S5552]]
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Nevada be allowed to control the time under the agreement with
Senator Bumpers, the senior Senator from Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, will be
considered as controlling time on his side.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor
privileges be extended to Bob Perret during the debate to follow
regarding H.R. 1270.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent that
Polly Synk be granted the privilege of the floor for the purposes of
the following debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, this Congress, especially the House of
Representatives, has been referred to as the ``do-nothing House,'' or
the ``do-nothing Congress.'' Today, this debate will only add to the
fact that it is a do-nothing Congress; it is a do-nothing House of
Representatives.
The House is rarely in session. They vote sparingly and very
pointedly. Campaign finance was only brought up following the
culmination of a campaign to have a discharge petition filed, which
forced action on that issue. This issue here today is part of the aura
of a do-nothing Congress. We have the fact that this legislation--
interim storage of nuclear waste--is an absolute waste of everyone's
time. The President has said on numerous occasions that he will veto
this legislation. We have had votes on this Senate floor that indicate,
without any reservation or hesitation, that we have sufficient votes to
make sure that the President's veto is sustained.
In addition, we have the incomprehensible development that the
Speaker of the House of Representatives has stated that nuclear waste
is dead in this Congress, that he won't touch nuclear waste. Well, I
say, what are we doing? The President has said that he will veto this
legislation. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has said that
he won't allow nuclear waste legislation to move in the House of
Representatives this year. It seems very difficult to me why we are
moving forward on this. I finally figured out a reason; I am told--
tobacco. Are we moving forward on this legislation so that there will
be nothing happening with the tobacco bill? I seem to have hit the nail
on the head.
The fact that this legislation stands absolutely no chance is because
the President said he will veto it and there are enough votes, as
proven on the Senator floor, that the veto will be sustained. Only
yesterday, the Speaker of the House of Representatives said that
nuclear waste is dead. Then there must be a reason. That reason is
there is a movement to stop tobacco legislation.
Mr. President, this is a rip-off, this is a payoff for the tobacco
industry. They simply want to continue having kids smoke. They know
that every day 3,000 kids are locked in and addicted to cigarettes--
3,000 every day. Every day we waste in this Congress on something other
than tobacco, we are addicting 3,000 children. Should we not be
investing in public health research and programs to help smokers quit
and protect tobacco farmers and their communities? Obviously, Mr.
President, that issue has taken second fiddle to the big stall. Kids
are most vulnerable to tobacco company tactics, and we all know that.
We know that tobacco companies have, for decades, targeted kids because
they are the most vulnerable to nicotine addiction and the most easily
affected by the slick advertising and promotional ploys. Joe Camel just
didn't show up in the middle of the night. This was done in the
boardrooms of the tobacco industry. ``What can we do to addict
children, kids? We will come up with something that will be as
noticeable and identifiable as Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse.'' And they
have done it. Joe Camel is more noticeable than those.
So the evidence is overwhelming that smoking is a pediatric disease;
it is a disease that affects kids. Almost 90 percent--that is a slight
exaggeration--89 percent of all people who try a cigarette try one by
age 18. Virtually nobody starts smoking during adulthood--no one. Of
the people who have ever smoked on a daily basis, 71 percent were
smoking by the age of 18. Now, if Joe Camel isn't enough
identification, realize that almost 37 percent of children in high
schools throughout America smoke cigarettes. Don't we have an
obligation to move forward on this legislation? The answer is yes. I
repeat, 3,000 kids start smoking every day. Is this a pediatric
disease? Of course it is. Mr. President, it is extremely important that
everyone understand that this is nothing more than a transparent effort
to kill the tobacco bill.
Today, the majority is setting out to reward two very powerful
industries--big tobacco and nuclear utilities. I think there are other
parties we should be concerned about. Why should we not be rewarding
children--3,000 children a day? That seems to be a little better
motive. But, no, the majority is setting out today to reward big
tobacco and the nuclear utility lobby.
By invoking cloture on the motion to proceed, the Senate is taking
the anti-teen-smoking bill off the floor, period. We must not vote to
invoke cloture. Literally, without being overdramatic, Mr. President,
by voting to invoke cloture we are signing the death warrants for kids
in America. Adults don't start smoking, kids start smoking; the tobacco
companies know that. For every day we stall this legislation, we have
signed death warrants for kids.
Mr. President, a number of years ago, my wife was in a hospital. She
had been there for quite a long period of time. Finally, we had no
alternative, and she had to have some very extensive surgery. The
surgery took a lot longer than we thought it was going to take or
should have taken. We were very worried. We were waiting in the room
where loved ones wait while these traumatic things go on. A physician
walked into the room--somebody we had never seen before--and he said,
``I am a cardiologist. During surgery, your wife's heart
malfunctioned.'' Then, without a second breath, he said, ``but we are
not worried because she is not a smoker.'' Doesn't that say it all? Why
don't we in this body vote for the children of America and not invoke
cloture?
Mr. President, we are talking about terrorism sweeping this country.
Today, this is legislative terrorism. We are being asked to support big
tobacco and nuclear utilities and, in effect, voting against kids. When
it is all over and done with, I think we are not going to find people
voting with big tobacco and utilities.
Now, we do not have a lot of time, Mr. President, in the presentation
that we have, to get into a lot of the merits of this legislation, that
is, the underlying legislation. We will have ample time to do that, and
everyone knows that if cloture is not invoked, the Senators from Nevada
will be involved in their own legislative terrorism; that is, we feel
so strongly about this, as does the environmental community of America,
that we are going to do everything we can to protect the health and
safety of people in this country--not only the people of the State of
Nevada but the people of this country.
Let me just close this part of my presentation by saying that the
Energy and Water Subcommittee held a hearing. I, frankly, was involved
in other things. And the Senator, the senior Senator from New Mexico,
spent a great deal of time working on setting up this very interesting
set of hearings. Testimony took place last month, the middle of last
month. We had a number of very important people testifying on nuclear
technology but, interestingly enough, they all said that spent nuclear
fuel--that is what we are talking about here--should be stored on-site.
For example, Dr. Richard Wilson was one of those who testified. He is
a professor of physics at Harvard University. He is the lead physics
professor at Harvard University. I have a direct quote:
There is no doubt in my mind that the waste from a power
plant is much safer than operating a power plant, and you can
put it next to a power plant as we are doing in some places
without appreciably increasing any risk to anybody.
I had that confirmed on a number of other occasions during that
hearing that took place.
[[Page S5553]]
Mr. President, in short, we cannot, today, reward tobacco and the
nuclear utilities. They have a cabal here to defeat tobacco
legislation, recognizing that nuclear waste legislation is all through
anyway; the President has said he will veto it. We have enough votes to
sustain the veto. The Speaker of the House has said that he is not
going to move that legislation. It seems pretty clear to me today's
issue here before this body is a gesture in futility.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in order to make this perfectly clear, I do
have a unanimous-consent request that would accommodate my desire on
behalf of the Senate to have a vote on this very important nuclear
waste issue and then return to the pending business, the tobacco bill.
So I do want to ask unanimous consent--and I am not propounding it
right now--that would say that once we have this vote, notwithstanding
rule XXII, with respect to the nuclear waste bill, we would come back
to the tobacco bill.
This is not in any way intended to delay or to drag out the tobacco
bill. There is nobody here, I do not believe, who would not like to see
us find a way to deal with the tobacco issue and move on. At the same
time, as the majority leader, I have to continue doing things as we go
along. We have some Executive Calendar things we want to vote on. We
have some other bills that I believe Senators on both sides might agree
that we want to do as we go along. We have to think about the
appropriations bills next week, beginning to move those appropriations
bills.
The thing with the nuclear waste issue, the way it comes to us,
because the issue was blue-slipped in the House, or the objections
because we did it before they did it in the House, we have to go
through a series of hoops that take time so that we can take action on
nuclear waste and then go on about our business on the tobacco bill or
defense bill, whatever it may be. So my purpose here is to get this
issue started, and then, after we have a vote, go on back to the
tobacco bill. So that is the intent here.
I would ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority
leader, after notification of the Democratic leader, to resume
consideration of the tobacco bill notwithstanding rule XXII with
respect to the nuclear waste bill.
Mr. REID. I object.
Mr. BRYAN. I object.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's intent
as he has expressed it and the unanimous consent request. As he knows,
taking this action would actually put the tobacco bill back on the
calendar, and it would then subject the leadership to a request to take
the bill off the calendar once again and move the legislation. We would
have to get either unanimous consent to move the bill or we would have
to make a motion to proceed back to the tobacco bill. So this is a
very, very difficult parliamentary challenge.
Obviously, we are in a very different set of circumstances if this
unanimous consent request would go into effect. It would put us at the
mercy of every single opponent of the tobacco bill. They know that. I
give the majority leader great credit for attempting to try to expedite
our legislative calendar. There are a lot of things we should be doing.
But I will not subject this tobacco bill to the fate that would be
destined this legislation if we were to require that we be at the mercy
of every opponent of the tobacco bill when we want to bring it back.
I would ask unanimous consent, reserving the right to object, that
regardless of the outcome, the Senate resume consideration of the
tobacco bill and remain on the bill until its completion.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator withhold so we can clarify this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. LOTT. If I could just clarify, the Senator did not object; he was
reserving his right to object to my request. Did you propound a
modification to that?
Mr. DASCHLE. I did propound a modification.
Mr. LOTT. Then I believe the correct thing would be for me to reserve
my right to object to his modification of my unanimous consent request.
The alternative here is to have the vote on the nuclear waste cloture
motion on the motion to proceed, and if we get cloture, we are on the
nuclear waste bill. If the unanimous consent that I propounded is
accepted, we could set that aside and come on back to the tobacco bill.
The problem I have with the addition that the Senator has propounded
here that we remain on the tobacco bill until it is completed is that
we don't know whether that would be a day, a week, or a month. I know
that there is other work we will need to get done over a period of days
and weeks and that we could, in fact, continue to work on the tobacco
bill.
For instance, there is a meeting that will be occurring here in the
next few minutes. Senator Daschle is familiar with it. Senator McCain,
Senator Gramm, Democrats and Republicans, are going to be involved in
that meeting at 4:30. You need a little time sometimes to work out an
agreement, a compromise even.
Under this agreement, we wouldn't be able to set it aside and go to
any other issue. So that is all I am saying. We have a lot of work we
need to get done during the month of June. It is going to take a lot of
cooperation. The tobacco bill is on the agenda. My intent is for us to
continue to make progress on it but not to the exclusion of everything
else. So I would object to the modification.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. LOTT. I withhold but I do object. I object to the modification.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer rules that since the
majority leader has the floor, the minority leader reserved the right
to object and his unanimous consent will be construed to be a request
of the majority leader to amend his unanimous consent request to
include that of the Democratic leader.
The Chair gathers the majority leader has declined to do so.
Mr. LOTT. I do, Mr. President.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader has still reserved the
right to object to the majority leader's unanimous consent request.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President for that clarification and his
interpretation of what has just been presented to him.
Mr. President, I have heard the majority leader on many occasions
come to this floor and make an impassioned speech to all of our
colleagues that we are going to stay on this bill until we get it done.
I heard him say that eloquently and passionately on NATO. I heard him
say that when we talked about the budget. I heard him say that when we
talked about the Coverdell bill. I have heard him say that on so many
occasions this year--we are going to stay on this piece of legislation
until we get it done because we have to finish it so we can move on.
I do not want to misinterpret his remarks. I know he would like to
see some completion of the tobacco bill. I just wish he and our
colleagues would show the same passion and resolve to finish this bill
so that we can move on. That is all we are asking. Let's move on to
other pieces of legislation once we have completed our work on this.
This is an open invitation to go off of this legislation, move on to
other things, and, oh, by the way, if there is time, and if my
Democratic colleagues play their cards right and behave, we will
probably have a chance to come back to tobacco.
That is the problem. I want very much to make this month as
productive as the last month was. But you know how it was productive?
It was productive when we said we were going to stay on a bill until we
finished it. We finished the highway bill. We finished the technical
bills. We finished an array of pieces of legislation because we showed
some focus and we resolved to stay on that legislation until it was
completed. That is what we are asking here. Let's stay on this bill
[[Page S5554]]
until it is done, and then let's move on to the array of other pieces
on the calendar that have to be addressed, too.
So because we fail to do that, unfortunately, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? Who yields time? The
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I just want to take 1 minute.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I defer.
Mr. REID. I also want to say I have the greatest respect for the
leader, and of course the Democratic leader also. But I have to say,
unless cloture is not invoked, the Senators from Nevada are going to
have a lot to say about what goes on on this floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me try to clarify where we stand.
What we have pending is the nuclear waste bill, the motion to proceed.
The cloture vote is set at 6 p.m. That is cloture to H.R. 1270. After
cloture, if we prevail I will introduce an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, which will be S. 104, and that is the bill that passed this
body. I propose to include in the substitute the Bingaman amendment. I
know this is very important to a number on the other side of the aisle.
Let me be clear about another matter. The idea of mixing resolution
of the tobacco legislation with nuclear waste--that is a chemical
compound that simply does not mix.
The nuclear waste bill has been before this body previously, and I
would like to recount a little history of S. 104, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1997. It passed this body 65 to 34; 53 Republicans voted
for it as did 12 Democrats, specifically: Senator Cleland, Senator
Graham, Senator Harkin, Senator Hollings, Senator Johnson, Senator
Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Levin, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator
Murray, Senator Robb, Senator Wyden.
It is my understanding that somehow, in the minds of some, by voting
for cloture we are somehow setting aside our responsibility to address
and resolve the tobacco issue. You have heard the generalization that
by prolonging this effort to resolve the tobacco legislation, we are
hastening the number of young people who will initiate the use of
tobacco. Mr. President, we had a vacation. We had a week off for the
Memorial recess. We have lost yesterday. We have lost today. The point
is, at some point in time the nuclear waste policy matter has to be
resolved by this body. The fact that we have voted 65 to 34 previously
on the issue, and the leadership has indicated a willingness to take it
up today and set aside the tobacco bill--and further, make no mistake,
it is the leader's intention to go back to the tobacco bill. As a
matter of fact, he proposed a unanimous consent request that was
objected to. So clearly the intention of the leadership on the
Republican side is to proceed with tobacco. But there is a lot going on
to resolve the tobacco issue and there will be a lot more time taken in
order to reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to this body. So let's
be realistic and recognize that today belongs to the issue of nuclear
waste. The Senate has an obligation to resolve this issue, to vote for
cloture. After cloture, set it aside, go back to the tobacco bill, and
then come back on the issue of nuclear waste.
Make no mistake about it. There is a lot of politics involved in this
bill. I know what is going on in Nevada. There is an eager House Member
who has issued a press release relative to the attitude of the House. I
am not going to go down that particular avenue. But it is fair to say
the politics in Nevada is against a nuclear waste site in that State.
But to be realistic, nobody wants to have nuclear waste in their State.
Yet 65 Members of this body voted on August 15, 1997, to put the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act in order and designate Yucca Mountain to be a
site for an interim facility. Furthermore, as passed, S. 104 set
deadlines for the Department of Energy to meet its contractual
obligations to accept and store at a single permanent repository the
nuclear waste generated at the commercial nuclear power industry site
that will be used to store all Federal nuclear waste. Congress selected
Yucca Mountain, NV, as the site to be considered for the repository.
So there you have it. You have a situation where we have designated
an area. We have expressed, by a vote of 65 to 34, the attitude of this
body. Now we are seeking cloture so we can proceed with the obligation
to address and resolve this.
So what is a ``yes'' vote for? Mr. President, a ``yes'' vote is for
storage of nuclear waste at one, safe, Government-controlled site;
responsible action to meet the Government's obligation to take our
nuclear waste after collecting $14 billion from the consumers of
electricity in this country. Currently, the Government is in violation
of its contractual commitments to the nuclear waste industry. The suits
that are pending on this could cost the taxpayers somewhere between
$60- and $80 billion because the Government was supposed to take the
waste beginning this year. What we are attempting to do with this
legislation is address the responsibility, with finality, for the
Government to deliver on its commitments. Also, as we address global
warming, the Kyoto accord, and other concerns, there is definitely a
role for the nuclear power industry from the standpoint of its
contribution to air quality. Nuclear energy provides clean air.
What does a ``no'' vote do for us? Storing high-level waste in over
80 sites instead of one site is what a ``no'' vote does for us. It is a
continuation of a breach of contract that will cost the taxpayers, as I
have said, untold dollars in damages, an estimated $60- to $80 billion.
It will basically eliminate our largest single source of emission-free
power, and it will result in moving over to another alternative which
is not clean, in the sense of nuclear power.
Today's vote is an opportunity for triumph, if you will. It is the
issue of safety of people over politics. A successful vote today will
allow us to consider and adopt a bill that will lead us to a safer
future for all Americans.
As we look at the history of this, as I have said, we passed this
bill by large margins, bipartisan margins. The House passed the
underlying bill with 307 votes. There you have a pretty good idea of
the attitude in the House.
It would be the height of irresponsibility to let our process down at
this time, and obviously, as we look to our environmental concerns, to
not have an answer to our high-level waste problem is basically a cop-
out on our responsibility.
We have, as the map on the right indicates, a number of sites around
the country. Forty States are affected, Mr. President. There are 80
sites in the 40 States. This is in addition to the waste stored at the
Department of Energy waste disposal facility.
What we have is waste being stored in the backyard of constituents,
young and old, across the country, near our neighborhoods, near our
schools. Each year that goes by, our ability to continue storage of
nuclear waste at each of these sites in a safe and responsible way is
diminished. Why, Mr. President? Because many of these sites are filling
up. They are designed for a certain capacity of nuclear waste and in
many of those pools, at reactor sites, we are seeing storage up to its
maximum-designed capacity.
As I have indicated, the Government agreed to take that waste
beginning this year, in 1998, but it can't fulfill its contractual
obligation, and that is a contractual obligation of every Member of
this body to address the responsibility of the ratepayers who have paid
in $14 billion. It is irresponsible to let this situation continue. I
for one am not going to let that happen.
Again, I would like to identify in my State of Alaska I don't have a
constituency associated with nuclear power or nuclear waste, but it is
an obligation that I have as committee chairman and that we have as
Members of this body who struggled with this issue of nuclear waste for
more than a decade.
Let me display a chart that shows the payments that have been made by
each State. Here is what the electric consumers of the United States
have contributed over the years to take care of nuclear waste beginning
this year. There they are, Mr. President, in millions of dollars. They
total $14 billion. They are asking for this Senate and the House of
Representatives to mandate the removal of the waste as a consequence of
what they have paid in so
[[Page S5555]]
that the waste can safely be stored in Nevada. The U.S. Court of
Appeals has ruled that the Department of Energy has an obligation to
take possession of this waste in 1998 whether or not a repository is
ready. Last November, the court ordered the Department of Energy to pay
contractual damages.
I told you those contractual damages are estimated to be up to $80
billion of taxpayers' money, unless we address our obligation to put
this waste out in the desert in Nevada. Neither the consumers nor the
taxpayers deserve to bear the cost of the Government's failure.
The administration has simply ducked this issue. They don't want to
deal with it on their watch. They just as soon have the nuclear waste
issue be resolved by somebody else at another time, regardless of the
liability to the taxpayers, regardless of the fact that the ratepayers
have paid in the $14 billion.
Mr. President, we are here today trying again to address a
responsible resolve, and to adopt a responsible resolve, we are going
to have to get on the bill. This is a motion to proceed to the bill.
That is all it is.
Again, I reflect on the opening statements of my colleagues on the
other side relative to tying this to the tobacco issue. Tobacco is
complex enough without mixing it with nuclear waste. It doesn't belong
there, and we have the obligation now to address it.
The statement of the administration bases its objections on a
misreading of the bill and a disregard for the reality of the Federal
Government's obligation to take the waste beginning in 1998. The
administration claims it cares about clean air and preventing climate
change.
Currently, 22 percent of our electric power is generated by nuclear
energy. This is emission-free nuclear energy. The Department of
Energy's information administration says the Kyoto treaty would require
a 41-percent reduction of CO2 emissions from a predicted
level in the year 2008 to 2012. Keep in mind, this administration isn't
going to be here in the year 2008 to 2012.
How do you get there from here in the Kyoto accord without the
nuclear industry? You don't. You can't. There are no new emission-free
sources that can economically take the place of nuclear energy. For the
moment, we can forget about the Kyoto treaty and think about the
present, the present time. Between 1990 and 1995, 37 percent of the
sulfur dioxide reductions required by the Clean Air Act came from
increased generation of existing nuclear power plants. That is where
the reduction is coming from, and this administration doesn't want to
accept the responsibility to take care of the waste. Why? It doesn't
want to address it on its watch.
Why are my colleagues on the other side mixing tobacco in the issue
and saying each day that we delay when the leadership has asked
unanimous consent to go back to tobacco after we resolve this matter?
This is a cop-out, Mr. President.
That is why I urge my colleagues to reflect on how their votes are
going to be recorded. Those on the other side who voted with us last
time are Senator Cleland, Senator Graham, Senator Harkin, Senator
Hollings, Senator Johnson, Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Levin,
Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Murray, Senator Robb, Senator Wyden.
I encourage them to reflect, again, that this shouldn't get mixed up
with Nevada politics. If we look at polling in Nevada, we have to
acknowledge Nevada does not want to be the resting place, even
temporarily, for our nuclear waste. But both sides are against putting
nuclear waste in Nevada. So it isn't a matter of competition among the
Members who are against it. They are all against it.
If you ask a Nevadan whether they want nuclear waste in their State,
the answer is no. You can go to 49 other States and you will get the
same answer. But we have a responsibility to put it somewhere, and we
are proposing to put it in the desert where we have had over 50 years
of nuclear testing.
There it is. This is the location for the nuclear waste storage at
the Nevada site that was used previously for more than 800 tests of
nuclear weapons. If you don't want to put it there, you tell me where
you want to put it. We spent over $7 billion at Yucca Mountain already
testing it. We are proposing that the waste be moved in accordance with
the Government's contract, move it out to a temporary repository until
Yucca Mountain can be licensed and certified.
If it isn't licensed and certified, then it is going to have to go
someplace else, but until then, this is the site, and to suggest we
shouldn't take it up simply means more storage piling up at our
reactors. Some of those reactors are going to shut down. We are going
to have to get that power someplace else. We will probably have to go
to coal-fired power which, obviously, is not going to have the same
effect that this has on our air quality.
EPA can pass all the regulations in the world, but if the
administration really does not care about clean air--well, they can do
something about it, if the President would get behind this legislation.
Instead, the administration intends to delay this issue, delay this
issue, delay this issue, and the whole time telling the American people
that it really cares for its safety, the environment, and their
pocketbook.
Let me tell you again, if you are concerned about the safety, you are
not going to put this around in the number of States where we have it,
that is 40 States with 80 sites. If you care about the dollars, you are
not going to stop the realization that the taxpayers have paid $14
billion; and now we are looking at claims for nonperformance of the
contract to the taxpayers in over $70 to $80 billion.
Is the President really concerned about clean air and climate change
or is this a cynical diplomatic or, more realistically, a political
excuse? I think it is the latter, Mr. President. There is politics in
this issue. There is politics in the mix of this issue and tobacco.
This issue should stand on its own.
Finally, Mr. President, we have really reached a crossroad. The job
of fixing this program is ours. Time for fixing this program is now.
The vote before the Senate is to move forward with a motion to proceed.
Then we are going to move back to tobacco.
We have made progress on this issue. We have made progress at Yucca
Mountain. As I have indicated, the 5-mile tunnel is complete. We spent
$7 billion of the consumers' money. We have to build on this progress.
Our bill continues site characteristics, activities for permanent
repository. It allows each State to designate the route that the
nuclear waste will move to the site proposed in Nevada.
I remind the President that we have waste moving throughout the
United States, military waste across State lines. We can move it
safely. We know how. Europe moves it safely by rail and by ship. There
is no magic in this. But the realization is that today we need a
temporary storage facility or we are going to be storing spent fuel all
across this Nation for decades to come. We are going to be in violation
of our contract, which will cost the taxpayers more money to settle the
suit.
And we can choose today whether to start on this process to resolve
the issue of whether the Nation is going to continue to have 80 interim
storage sites or just one safe site--that arid, remote Nevada test site
where I have indicated we have exploded scores of nuclear bombs during
the cold war. And it is safe and it is remote. And, unfortunately, it
has to be in one of our States, and it happens to be in the State of
Nevada. But it has brought a lot of jobs to Nevada, a lot of prosperity
to Nevada over the years.
And there is the realization that if Yucca is licensed--and it is
likely to be--it is going to be a very, very easy task to move the
spent fuel to the repository. And in the unlikely event that Yucca is
not licensed, or found to be unsuitable, Congress and the
administration are going to have to consider our options. In either
case, we will be ahead of the game regardless of what happens at Yucca.
This is a step that we should take. And remember today, yes is a vote
for cloture. It is a vote for the storage of nuclear waste at one safe
Government-controlled site. It is a responsible action to meet
Government's obligation to take the nuclear waste, after collecting $14
billion from the consumers of electricity. It is for cleaner air. And a
no vote, again, is for continuing to store high-level nuclear waste in
over the 80 sites instead of the 1 safe site. It
[[Page S5556]]
is a continuation of a breach of contract that is going to cost the
taxpayers of this country some $70 to $80 billion as a consequence of
our inaction.
A no vote is for eliminating our largest source of emission-free
power, resulting in dirtier air. And isn't it extraordinary that this
Nation, with all of our technology, cannot address or resolve our high-
level nuclear waste; but the French, the Japanese, the British, the
Swedes have all addressed it responsibly? We cannot even get our
Government to commit to its contractual commitment.
The time is now. I urge my colleagues--I know the politics of this
body. I know this is an issue in the race in Nevada, and I can
understand and be sensitive of that, but each one of us has an
obligation as statesmen to address responsibly the obligation we have
towards taking this waste and putting it out in a temporary repository
in Nevada.
I understand the arguments from my colleagues from Nevada relative to
their bottom line. They do not want it in their State. But we have an
obligation to put it somewhere. We have voted previously to put it in
Nevada, in a temporary repository. To back down now is to shirk a duty
and an obligation that we were elected to address, Mr. President,
address with a resolve; namely, the sanctity of a contractual
commitment that is due to take that waste this year and the recognition
that the Government, the administration, refuses to accept that
responsibility, therefore, that obligation becomes ours; furthermore,
the litigation and cost to the taxpayers who are going to be confronted
with this, and the full employment for lawyers if we do not address it
now.
So do not let politics enter into the vote and the resolve on this
issue. This issue should stand on its own. This issue does not belong
in consideration of the tobacco bill. This legislation should be
addressed and resolved with a vote in favor today so we can move on and
meet our responsibility.
Mr. President, I ask how much time I have remaining on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine minutes 40 seconds.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the President, and reserve the remainder of my
time.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Before yielding to my colleague from Nevada, I would like
to ask my friend, the junior Senator from Alaska, do you disagree with
Dr. Richard Wilson, professor of physics, Harvard University, who
testified before the Energy and Water Subcommittee 2 weeks ago,
recognizing this man is one of the foremost experts on things physics
and nuclear power in this country, when he said, ``And you can put it
[nuclear waste] next to a power plant, as we are doing * * *, without
appreciably increasing any risk to anybody''?
Do you disagree with his statement?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Relative to powerplants, let me advise the President
there are safety and economic advantages to having 1 central storage
facility rather than 80. I think my colleagues would agree on the other
side. Throughout the debate, we keep hearing suggestions like: ``Why
don't we study the issue some more? Why don't we just leave it at the
plant sites?'' which is what is suggested, and ``Why do we have to
solve the problem now?''
Well, why should we leave spent fuel at the nuclear power plants in
34 States when there is a less costly storage method with an increased
margin of safety in an area that has already been proven for its
storage of waste?
Mr. REID. Let me reclaim my time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me try to finish.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
Mr. REID. I would say, of course, my friend from Alaska did not
answer the question because the answer is so obvious. We have here one
of the most eminent scientists in America dealing with nuclear waste,
with things nuclear. He said, ``And you can put it next to a power
plant [nuclear waste], as we are doing * * *, without appreciably
increasing any risk to anybody.''
I also say to those within the sound of my voice, it is cheaper to
have dry cast storage containment. It only costs about $5 million to
establish one on-site.
It would seem to me that this is so clear that it is easy to see
through the transparency of what the nuclear utilities are trying to
do. They are trying to wash their hands of this terribly deadly waste
that they produced; namely, plutonium, wash their hands of it and give
the responsibility to somebody else. Otherwise we would go for the
cheaper, safer version that has been underscored as being safe by Dr.
Richard Wilson, professor of physics, Harvard University.
I yield to my colleague from the State of Nevada whatever time he may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, for those who are not familiar with the parliamentary
intricacies of the Senate process, I think a reasonable question should
be raised, and that is why are we debating this issue; namely, the
placement of a temporary nuclear waste dump at the Nevada test site in
Nevada, when, No. 1, the Speaker of the House has indicated that no
such legislation will be processed in the House; and, No. 2, the
President of the United States has said if any such legislation should
reach his desk, he will veto it.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I ask my colleague a question?
Mr. BRYAN. I yield briefly.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, could the Senator identify the
statement of the Speaker of the House of Representatives relative to
the statement of the Senator from Nevada that the House will not take
it up? I have not seen that statement from the Speaker of the House.
Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to respond to my colleague. Let me just say
very briefly that statement appears in the form of a statement issued
by the Congressman from the First Congressional District in Nevada in
which he quotes the Speaker directly and explicitly, I must say, based
upon a previous statement that the Speaker made with respect to the
same House Member in 1996, when he indicated at that time no action
would be taken on the temporary nuclear waste bill. In 1996, the
Speaker was good to his commitment and did not do so. I presume that he
would be in the same vein committed to honor the commitment he has
made.
I say to my friend from Alaska, I have no reason to challenge that. I
have seen nothing from the Speaker to indicate that the Congressman's
statement is inaccurate.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have been unable to get a copy of his
statement from the Speaker. I read the statement from Congressman
Ensign on the issue relative to the attitude of the Speaker, but we
have not been able to get a release.
I suggest at this time we are perhaps misleading in the sense of
suggesting that is the Speaker's position.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. BRYAN. Let me reclaim the floor and simply make the point that
this bill, if it ever reaches the President's desk, will be vetoed. I
have no question, based on the assertion not contradicted in any way,
this statement was released yesterday. It has not been contradicted. I
can understand why the Speaker may be reluctant to talk with my friend
from Alaska because of the strong views. I suspect the nuclear power
industry has also been unable to get a response.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Is this not the statement from the Congressman that is
running for the Senate seat that is vacant in Nevada?
Mr. REID. Vacant? Vacant?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska should address the
questions through the Chair.
Mr. BRYAN. I reclaim the floor and I simply say, because I want to
talk about a number of issues, I inform my friend and colleague that a
House leadership aide today told one of the local publications here on
Capitol Hill.
. . . that the nuclear industry and other bill proponents
should have seen this one coming. It was presumed among the
leadership that a vote on an issue as contentious as nuclear
waste storage could never take place in an election year.
That is June 2, 1998. It comes from Congress Daily, a confirmation
from a House leadership aide. I have no doubt it is true.
Let me get to the point as our time is limited. There is a lot more
in operation here than nuclear waste. We are
[[Page S5557]]
talking, my friends, about an unholy alliance between two of the
largest corporate entities in America--the nuclear power industry and
the tobacco lobby. Here is how both of them win and the American
taxpayer and the kids of America lose. The Democratic leader was
absolutely correct when he said we should stay on the tobacco bill
until we complete it, just as we have with other issues that are deemed
priorities by the leadership in this Chamber.
The way to do that is to stay on it, not to get sidetracked on
another issue. From a procedural point of view, the majority leader, at
any time, can file a motion to proceed to invoke cloture at any time.
It seems to me more is in operation here than might meet the eye. No.
1, if we get off tobacco, and that will be the effect if cloture is
granted--everybody in this Chamber knows that our time limit for this
session is extremely limited, 13 weeks or less; there are 13
appropriations bills that have to be processed, and many other pieces
of legislation--in effect, a vote to invoke cloture is a vote to kill
tobacco. That is a vote that kills children in America. Three thousand
each day take up smoking for the first time; 1,000 of them will die
prematurely as a result of smoking-related complications.
A decade ago we thought we had made progress in reducing smoking of
the underage. However, from 1990 to 1996 the statistics have been
tragic and disastrous. The rates of teenage smoking have soared. In
some categories of youngsters, African-American, they have more than
doubled. In my view, it is absolutely important and imperative as a
matter of public policy that we deal with the tobacco issue.
Obviously, the nuclear waste industry has its own agenda but they
find common ground with another industry in America, and that is the
tobacco industry. The two of them come up with this strategy and both
are winners and the American people are losers.
Let's talk a little bit about the process for a moment. We are urged
to move to consideration of a bill that is the House bill. That bill,
by every standard, is much worse than a bad bill processed out of this
Senate earlier in this Congress. The chairman of the Energy Committee
has indicated that he has an amendment that will be offered shortly
after--but everybody here understands what is happening. There is a so-
called substitute that most of us have never seen--that at best is a
work in progress--that we have no idea what it might be. There has been
no conference, no conference. The Democratic members of the committee
have not been involved or consulted in any way. This has been the
nuclear utilities working out various provisions in the back room which
serve their best interests, and which we have not yet seen in the light
of day.
My colleagues, you are asked to bring to the floor a bill that
ultimately, if the substitute is offered, we don't have any indication
as to what its contents may be. I agree with the majority leader when
he said the responsible thing to do is to deal with each of these
issues, tobacco and nuclear waste, separately and the way to do that is
to vote no on the cloture motion and to stay on tobacco until we have
completed it. Then if there is any desire to proceed, something that
the majority leader has every right under the rule to do, he can
proceed along that line. But there is no reason--none--to bring this
issue to a head now.
Now, let's just talk a little bit about the merits of this
legislation and the need. For the last 18 years, the nuclear power
industry in America has been crying there is an urgent need,
catastrophe will fall upon us, that there is a crisis.
Here is a statement made by our former colleague on the floor of the
Senate, July 28, 1980--18 years ago--referring to a piece of
legislation which was then referred to as away-from-reactor
legislation, but essentially the same thing, a so-called temporary
nuclear waste dump. Our former colleague said in discussing this:
It is an urgent problem, Mr. President, for this Nation. It
is urgent, first, because we are running out of reactor space
at reactors for the storage of the fuel, and if we do not
build what we call away-from-reactor storage and begin that
soon, we could begin shutting down civilian nuclear reactors
in this country as soon as 1983.
Didn't happen, didn't happen. No nuclear utility in America has ever
been closed down because of inadequate space. Some have been closed
down because they are dangerous and they constitute a public health and
safety risk, and others have shut down because simply in the evolving
electrical markets of the day they are simply no longer economic. So
that is the need argument. We are hearing that it is urgent; we need to
deal with it.
Let me talk about what the scientific community has said, the Nuclear
Waste Review Board, not comprised of Nevada citizens who have strong
views, as the chairman of the committee properly addresses. This is the
scientific community. ``The board sees no compelling technical or
safety reasons to move spent fuel to a specialized safety facility.''
None. Indeed, our colleagues have specifically incorporated into the
law a provision that would be changed if this piece of legislation is
processed that specifically precludes the establishment of a temporary
nuclear waste dump until such time as a permanent dump is established.
They knew then, as we ought to know now, that something that becomes
temporary is de facto permanent in America.
So the scientific community is not supportive. The President of the
United States has indicated that he will veto this legislation. It is
said the great joy of this piece of legislation is that all nuclear
waste will be congregated in a single site. Not true, Mr. President.
Not true. In effect, what we do is we will add one additional site.
These designated sites on this chart indicate commercial reactors
around the country.
Those who are familiar with nuclear power understand that a nuclear
reactor is powered by spent-fuel rods. Those spent-fuel rods, after a
period of time, lose efficiency, so that they need to be removed from
the reactor core and placed in storage. Those spent-fuel rods are what
we are talking about here. That is the commercial nuclear waste. What
is done, because they generate enormous amounts of heat, is they are
placed in pools of water at the reactor site, so every commercial
nuclear reactor in the country that has an active reactor will have
someplace that by necessity they will have to store these spent nuclear
rods for a period of 8, 9, 10 years. So this allusion that sometime we
will have a single site is simply not the case at all. So long as there
are commercial reactors in America, that is the process we must go
through.
Finally, a word about the court case and the responsibility of the
Department of Energy. Mr. President, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was
enacted in 1982. It indicated there would be a series of contracts that
would be entered into by each of the reactor sites and, indeed, that is
what has occurred. Those contracts defined the responsibilities of the
parties. The responsibility of the Department of Energy is, in the
event that there is a delay in taking the nuclear waste from the
reactor site--everyone must concede that is the case; there is no way
possible that those dates can be met, and January 31, 1998, was the
date--it expressly indicates that the remedy that is provided is that,
to the extent the delay is ascertained, ``the contract will be
equitably adjusted to reflect any additional cost incurred by the party
not responsible for or contributing to the delay.''
What that means is to the extent that a nuclear utility incurs
additional expense for on-site storage that it would not otherwise have
incurred had the Department of Energy been able to take the nuclear
waste, the nuclear utility and its ratepayers are entitled to be
compensated. I do not disagree with that. I have introduced legislation
since coming to this body that would provide for that. The simple way
that could be done is to reduce the amount of a contribution which the
nuclear utility makes to the nuclear waste fund in the form of a mill
tax levy on each kilowatt hour of nuclear power generated so that the
ratepayers may be whole. That has been offered time and time again. The
nuclear utilities reject that because they have a different agenda. We
will talk more about that. Their agenda is to transfer the financial
responsibility from the nuclear utilities to the American taxpayer, and
that is one of the most outrageous features of this legislation.
[[Page S5558]]
I yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Who yields time?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my friend from
Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me join my colleague from Nevada and
say we are debating a motion to proceed. To proceed to what? To proceed
to something that the House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress have
spoken to in a substantial majority for the last 3 years, which is that
the Government of the United States should honor the 1982 Nuclear Waste
Act and take possession of the waste that they promised the utilities
they would take in return for the ratepayers paying out billions of
dollars to build a permanent repository.
The Senators from Nevada have alluded that there is no cost or
obligation. It is the word of our Government; it is the law that
speaks. It is a solemn obligation under taxes that we have taken to
take possession and build a permanent repository. The courts have also,
just in the last year, clearly reflected that. This administration has
had to quietly admit it. Now they are fighting in court saying, ``We
don't want our hands dirtied by our obligation.''
Mr. President, you are without claim, you are without program, but
you aren't without politics. I must say that when the Senators from
Nevada talk about the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board saying
certain things, let me remind the Senate the chairman of that board was
appointed by this President. Would it be so unusual that he would
reflect the political attitudes of this President? I suggest not.
Now, I find it very interesting that the Senators from Nevada are
standing on the floor today wringing their hands and suggesting that we
are avoiding the debate on tobacco. Since when has the Senate been a
single legislative body? Under the leadership of Democrats and
Republicans alike, for the purpose of moving timely policy issues, this
Senate has dealt with a multitude of issues. That is exactly what the
majority leader is attempting to do today--to start a process on the
nuclear waste bill and to move on with tobacco.
Who has denied the Senate the right to do two things at one time? The
Senators from Nevada. They are the ones that say it is either/or and it
is not both. So I find it a bit ironic that they would suggest today
that thousands of children may die from tobacco. Let me tell you that
any child that starts smoking tobacco doesn't die from it immediately;
10, 15, 20 or 30 years down the line, if they are foolish enough to
continue, they might. So back off. That is an illogical argument, and
the reality is very clear. This Senate is capable of doing a multitude
of things, and we must if we are going to move timely policy issues for
this country.
Oh, my goodness, Dr. Richard Wilson is suggesting that waste stored
at generating sites is safe. What is the difference between storage at
a generating site and storage at a temporary site awaiting final
disposition in the Nevada desert? Well, I will tell you that there is a
difference. The difference is that neither is a problem. So to the
Senators from Nevada who claim this great difficulty of human risk to
the State of Nevada, there is no risk, by the admission of Dr. Richard
Wilson. What there is, is the reality of the law and a timely
responsible disposition of this issue.
How can any Senator stand on the floor and say we are going to
collect $14 billion in taxes, which we have done, and then we are going
to turn and run away from the issue and spend the money elsewhere? That
is what the Senators from Nevada are suggesting. They are suggesting
that somehow we collect the money, but we have no obligation after the
fact.
The law and the courts are clear. The reality is that we move toward
the development of a permanent repository. And while we are doing that,
and while it is the Congress of the United States that, by law,
designated Yucca Mountain for the purpose of the necessary scientific
and engineering studies to determine its desirability for that, we have
the responsibility of the law to fulfill the obligation.
By the way, what Dr. Richard Wilson did not say is that every site
that stores waste at every generating site today, by definition, is
temporary--by definition, is temporary. And yet it is safe. Yes, it is
safe. It has been well managed. But because it is temporary, the
Congress of the United States in 1982 said it is time this country
developed a permanent--permanent--resolution of this issue.
I would suggest, with a smile on my face, that the Senators from
Nevada, when using the tobacco argument, are hiding behind a bit of a
smokescreen today. But let's clear the smoke and face the reality that
we can deal with more than one issue at one time in this Chamber. The
Senators from Nevada are denying us the ability to deal with tobacco,
because if we get cloture today, we are on nuclear waste, and we will
stay there until this issue is resolved, when we could move forth and
debate both tobacco and nuclear waste with a timely allocation to each
issue for the purpose of resolving it to final disposition.
That is what the majority leader was talking about. That is what this
Senate is trying to do. It is our obligation, and it is our
responsibility. The Senator from Alaska has talked about the waste, the
amount of storage facilities, and what we are attempting to do--81
sites in 41 States, commercial spent fuel. Are big utility companies
trying to shove off the responsibility, as has been alluded to by the
Senators from Nevada? Quite the contrary. The big utility companies
entered into an agreement with their Government. They signed a
contract, and they paid the tax. Is that shoving anything off?
Absolutely not. It is the reality of the law, and the Senators from
Nevada know that.
Can I blame them for their arguments in defense of their State? No.
But they are not entitled to their own truth when it does not match the
reality of the law. Facts cannot be generated on a daily basis. The
reality is very clear--$14 billion later and better than a decade and a
half, the Congress of the United States has not forced their Government
and has not forced this administration to own up to the law, and it is
now time we do so. A majority of this body agrees with that; 65
Senators agree with it, 307 House Members, because they understand that
they have an obligation to uphold the contractual relationship of this
Government as was established.
And what did our courts say? Yes, contracts mean something. Last
year, the Supreme Court said: You have a contract; the Government is
responsible for delivering on the contract. The Senators from Nevada
say quite the contrary. Well, they can debate about the Supreme Court
if they want to; I will not. What the legislation that we have before
us proposes to do is to honor the contract and to do so in a reasonable
and timely way, to build a temporary repository, to begin to handle
waste in the very way, the very safe way, by the admission of the
Senator from Nevada, that it is being handled at temporary sites.
So what is the fear? I think there is none. In fact, if you study the
issue, you know there is no fear. How many nuclear bombs were trucked
right down through the middle of Las Vegas--hundreds of them were--as
they moved out to the test site in Nevada for the purpose of their
testing. We in this country have the phenomenal integrity of managing
nuclear waste in a sound and safe way. And that is the record. We know
that is the record. But the legislation that we have before us, or at
least that we are attempting to get to, even tightens up on that. It
even gets much, much tougher. It goes on to talk about the
responsibility of establishing the transportation sites and working
with the States to assure that those transportation sites' integrity is
maintained.
Nevada as a State, as does my State of Idaho, has had a long history
of dealing safely and soundly with nuclear materials and doing it in a
way that has been cost-effective, that has brought hundreds of millions
of dollars to our State in the form of revenue, jobs, and taxation.
Is it a double standard we talk about today? Not this Senator. It is
a contractual obligation of our Government to find and build a
permanent repository for the long-term safe disposition
[[Page S5559]]
of nuclear waste material. That is the debate today. I cannot blame the
Senators from Nevada for the fight they put up. But it is very clear
where this Congress and where this Government intends to go, and it has
been very clear since 1982, because that is what the citizens of our
country have wanted, and that is what we have obligated ourselves to
do.
We have a nuclear legacy that some would like to walk away from, but
it is a nuclear legacy of which this country can well be proud.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 10 minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Alaska yield me additional time?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I ask the Chair, Mr. President, how much remaining
time we have on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 18 minutes 30
seconds.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. About 8 minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this Nation has a nuclear legacy that some
would like to shy away from. It is, in fact, the legacy of which I am
proud. It has brought safety and security to this country for decades.
Now we must handle it in a responsible fashion, because from that
legacy there is a debt, and the debt is the safe and responsible
management of nuclear waste from the military side.
Some years ago, we decided that a permanent repository would also
house high-level military nuclear waste. While all of that legacy is a
responsibility of our Government and our citizens, there is another
legacy that we can be even more proud of, and that is the history of
the commercial electrical generating industry that chose to generate
electricity from nuclear energy. About 20 percent of our electrical
base today is nuclear, and our scientists and environmental friends
tell us that if we are to obtain the clean air standards in the
nonattainment areas, we will probably have to have more nuclear
generated electricity, or at least we will have to keep the same ratios
even with the growth of our country.
All of a sudden, out of a Kyoto discussion comes a new recognition of
a phenomenally clean, safe form of electrical generation. We all
understand that. We all find it terribly important. If we are going to
address the reality of climate change--and all of us are concerned
about it--one of our obligations is to provide a safe, clean source of
energy, and it is nuclear. And to do so, we must find a safe, clean way
to handle the spent fuel. That is what we have understood for a long
time, and that is what this country will demand.
That is what we are putting forth today--to deal with this
legislation, to put it to the President, hopefully, for his signature.
And I will tell you that the Senators from Nevada have said he might
veto it. Well, the President of the United States does not run the
legislative branch of Government, nor should we view that threat as
something that would deter or direct our policy formation. We are a
separate branch, and while the President might suggest he would veto
it, we also have the power to override. And in the last vote we had on
this issue, we missed that by one vote. I am convinced today, based on
the increased importance of this issue and the reality of the court
tests and the simple explanation of our President as he throws his
political hands up and says, ``I have no solution to the problem, and I
will do nothing,'' even though the courts and the law say he must, that
he is acting in a fully irresponsible fashion. The Congress of the
United States knows that, and 41 States know that. And the public is
beginning to say, ``Wait a moment, Mr. President. You have an
obligation under the law. Didn't you take an oath of office? Aren't you
responsible for upholding the law?''
But so is the Congress. And the Congress and the President, in
concert, can resolve this issue. The resolution is in the very
legislation that we are attempting to debate on the floor, to build a
safe, temporary repository to begin to take possession of the waste
that we promised we would in 1982 as we began this process and as we
began to tax the ratepayers of the nuclear-generating utilities of this
country.
We can do that and we should do that, if that is what we debate
today. This is not a debate about tobacco. That is a false argument. It
was the Senators from Nevada and the minority leader who denied the
Senate the right to debate both issues. So let us not use that again.
It is a phony argument. It is a false-based argument. This Senate,
under Democrat or Republican leadership, has dealt with two or three
issues at a time. When we get under time constraints, as we are in this
political year when our colleagues will want to be out campaigning by
early October, there will be many times on the floor of the Senate when
we will want to deal with multiple issues.
This is one where some have chosen to be selective, but let the
record show that is a false choice. We can do both. We should do both.
That is the intent. That is why we are here today, to debate a motion
to proceed so we can handle both at the same time in a responsible way,
so we can turn to our citizens and our electorate and say, as we close
the business of the 105th session of the U.S. Senate, that we dealt in
a timely fashion with our environmental responsibilities with nuclear
waste, high-level waste materials, and that we also dealt with the
responsibility to the teenagers of America, and that is to deal with
tobacco and try to restrict it from their access and their use. We can
do both, and we should, and that is what we are attempting here this
afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope my friend from Idaho would review the
comments that he made. I, of course, recognize that a child who begins
smoking today doesn't die today. No, that is true. As the Senator from
Idaho said, that person doesn't die today. That person dies later, an
agonizing death from lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease. No, they
don't die today. They die later.
Also, I think my friend should go back and look at the statement he
made about those who are not teenagers who are foolish enough to
continue smoking. The tobacco legislation is about addiction. The
tobacco companies addict our children. Mr. President, 3,000 children a
day are addicted to tobacco. It is not something they can just stop
when they turn 19, something they can stop when they turn 32. They are
addicted to a substance that causes them to want this product. They pay
huge amounts for it. Why? Because they are addicted to it. They are
addicted--when? They are addicted, 90 percent of them, when they are
teenagers.
So, for my friend from Idaho to say, ``if they are foolish enough to
continue smoking''--I think the facts should be reassessed, as, I
submit, should be a number of the other facts stated by my friend from
Idaho. For example, he agrees with Dr. Wilson. He said that storing
nuclear waste at a repository next to the nuclear generating facility
is safe. The problem is with the logic that he carries forward, that it
is also safe if you put it 3,000 miles away. We lose track of the fact
that this has to be hauled 3,000 miles away or 2,000 miles away or
whatever the distance. The logic is not there. His review of Dr.
Wilson's statement is simply without foundation.
Dr. Wilson said, ``And you can put it next to a power plant, as we
are doing sometimes, without appreciably increasing any risk to
anybody.'' Dr. Wilson does not say you can haul it 3,000 miles and it
will be safe.
Also, I am amazed that my friend from Idaho does not understand a
basic truth--that nuclear bombs aren't hauled through Nevada and then
set off in the desert. There are components, separate components, like
a puzzle, none of which standing alone will cause any damage to anyone,
that are brought to the Nevada test site. Many of the parts are shipped
by air to the Test Site landing strip. And these components are then
assembled. We have an assembly facility out there that cost almost $1
billion. That is where they are assembled. So, for someone to say these
have been hauled through the highways of Nevada or the city of Las
Vegas for years is baseless, without foundation.
This is a debate on tobacco. This is a subterfuge to stop us from
going to tobacco. I could talk about tobacco all day, and I will talk
about it a little while longer. But I just want to mention a little bit
about where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--
[[Page S5560]]
and I am sorry to say, I do say this ``on the other side of the
aisle,'' because this has become a partisan issue. There are matters
passed out, ``Senate vote analysis,'' passed out on everyone's desk,
compiled and written by the staff of the Republican Policy Committee.
This is not a bipartisan issue. This is being pushed by the leadership
of the House and the leadership of the Senate.
I also say, however, if we go to this partisan issue that wants to
put the above-ground storage at the Nevada test site--I show you this
chart. It has on it information, not gathered by the Senators from the
State of Nevada, but from the Council of National Seismic System
Composite Catalog. It shows earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 and greater in
the vicinity of the repository right here, the above-ground repository.
This area is loaded with earthquakes. Not one, not two, not three--
there are so many of them you cannot count, right on-site. These are
earthquakes that have already taken place in the last 20 years. Don't
you think it would be nice if this issue were debated in committee,
that they hold some hearings on this?
This is stealth legislation.
We are proceeding on a bill that came from the House. Anyone would
consider this legislation an environmental abomination. I should not
say ``anyone.'' But the vast majority of the people of this country
would. The bills that have passed the House and Senate cannot be
reconciled. With time running out, the nuclear utilities are furiously
working behind closed doors to come up with a final bill. No one has
any idea what they are going to come up with. Maybe the nuclear
industry does. I wouldn't be surprised if they wrote it. But the final
surprise bill is going to be proposed and sprung upon us at a later
time, yet this body is voting to proceed to this measure. That should
be reason enough not to proceed.
It is important to keep in mind that the President of the United
States has already promised to veto this legislation, not once, not
twice, but numerous times. I would say scores of times. He doesn't like
this legislation. It is unfair. We should stick with what has been
talked about, and that is whether or not there should be a deep
repository at Yucca Mountain. Let the scientists go ahead and work on
that. But that is not good enough for the very powerful, greedy nuclear
utilities. That is not good enough for them. What they want is to
short-circuit the system, go to the Nevada test site where we have all
of these earthquakes, and pour a big cement pad on top of the ground
and dump the canisters on top of the ground. It is easy. It is out of
their hair. Even though my friend from Idaho agrees it is safe if they
leave it where it is, why should we worry about transporting it all
those miles? Why? Because the nuclear utilities want to get rid of it.
They created the most poisonous substance known to man. They created
it.
So, is it any wonder that this has been decried as a do-nothing
Congress? The President said he will veto it. The Speaker of the House
of Representatives said, ``I'm not going to touch nuclear waste.'' Yet,
we are marching forward on this legislation. Why? Why? Because, if the
motion to invoke cloture prevails, we will go to nuclear waste and
tobacco is history.
There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with satisfying the
legislative interests of the nuclear waste industry. Are we satisfying
them at the expense of a bill designed to curb teenage smoking, a goal
that many publicly support. But secretly, do some want this
legislation, tobacco legislation, to go away?
Preventing teenage smoking is something that is important. This room
is not big enough to put in 3,000 kids. If they did, they would be
jammed in pretty tight, on top of each other. Three thousand kids a day
become addicted to tobacco smoking. And, no, they don't die today. But
many, many of them are going to die because of one thing, tobacco,
inhaling tobacco.
In the State of Nevada, almost 20 percent of high school kids chew
tobacco, smokeless tobacco--18 percent.
We may have our differences over the best way of bringing about the
cessation of teenage smoking and other forms of tobacco abuse, but I
hope we don't disagree on the goal.
The two Senators from Nevada, I want it spread across the Record of
this Senate, will exercise every right that we have as Senators today,
tomorrow, next week, the week after. We will make sure this issue is
considered fully and fairly; that if cloture is invoked on this very
inopportune legislation, we are going to do everything we can to make
sure that our message is heard.
This is the wrong time to bring up legislation that has been
guaranteed a veto by the President, and the Speaker of the House has
said he will not move forward on it. We are prepared to spend as much
time as possible debating this measure, even at the expense of other
business that is important to this Senate.
There is a lot to go over on this legislation. We are voting to
proceed to either a House bill that is an unacceptable environmental
disaster or a substitute measure that has been written by the nuclear
industry and seen by very few. I haven't seen the substitute. I assume
the nuclear industry has. I haven't seen it. It has not been the
subject of any hearings. It has not been given the opportunity to be
marked up. It is not enjoying the benefit of public scrutiny and input
from other interests.
Yet, the proponents of this measure are getting ready to spring this
on this body and file cloture on it. That is the way they do it,
because they know the longer it is subject to the light of day, the
more warts will be revealed. Environmental groups will rip this
substitute apart. Proponents would have you believe they are sweetening
the pot to broaden their support. Nuclear waste is a witches' brew that
is unacceptable and cannot be made palatable.
I urge all Members--Democrats and Senators of good will--recognizing
the importance of tobacco, to vote against cloture. We need to get back
to the problems of addressing teenage smoking. We don't need to be
wasting this body's time on a measure that the President said he will
veto and just yesterday the Speaker of the House said, ``We're not
going to touch nuclear waste.''
I ask the Chair how much time the Senators from Nevada have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes.
Mr. REID. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If neither side yields time, time is equally
charged.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Chair will advise how
much time is remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 12 minutes and 30
seconds; the Senator from Nevada has 13 minutes and 39 seconds.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the last few minutes we have heard
from our friends from Nevada a good deal about the status of tobacco.
How tobacco relates to high-level nuclear waste is beyond this Senator
from Alaska. I think both can kill. Certainly tobacco, as we have
evidenced, can kill and high-level nuclear waste, if not properly
stored and not properly transported and not properly basically put to
rest, can kill. But when I look at the reality of where we are in this
debate, I refer my good friends to reflect on the action that was taken
by the majority leader when he asked:
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the
majority leader, after notification of the Democratic leader,
to resume consideration of the tobacco bill, notwithstanding
rule XXII with respect to the nuclear waste bill.
That was objected to, Mr. President. It was objected to by the
minority leader. Let's not make any mistake about who is whom in
wanting to go back to the tobacco bill. This was a unanimous consent
request of the majority leader, a legitimate request, to guarantee
going back, and it was objected to by the other side. So who is
objecting to moving on tobacco? It is pretty clear. It ought to be
clear to everybody.
We are all concerned about the disposition of the tobacco bill, but
this bill has no relation. We have an obligation on this bill to
address it with a resolve.
Do you have a few questions? Well, let's take a few, Mr. President.
Anyone who buys the line that the tobacco industry and the nuclear
power industry
[[Page S5561]]
are somehow in bed together, why that is preposterous. It is absolutely
preposterous. There is absolutely no connection, and we all know it.
The Nevadans would have the alternative of doing absolutely nothing--
absolutely nothing--about high-level nuclear waste.
Mr. President, this also is about Nevada politics, not about tobacco.
It is Nevada politics, again, on who can generate the responsibility
for killing this issue in the Congress of the United States, whether it
be the House Member who is running for the Senate office or the Nevada
Senator who is up for reelection. Whoever can put the best spin on it
in Nevada is going to claim a victory. That is politics, but make sure
we understand it, Mr. President.
When my good friend on the other side says that he has no idea what
the substitute is about, well, somebody's memory is short because we
debated the issue. We had a vote on the issue. The substitute we
debated on April 15, 1997. The substitute was adopted 65 to 34. When he
indicates that he has no idea relative to the amendment proposed to be
offered, that was the Bingaman amendment. That was debated and debated
extensively. So the record will note that the substitute was voted on
65-34 and was adopted. The Bingaman amendment was debated on the floor;
it was rejected. The Senator from Alaska is proposing to take the
Bingaman amendment, if we can move off the motion to proceed, and get
this issue behind us.
Mr. President, let's make sure we understand what this issue is all
about. It is about ducking our responsibility. It is about Nevada
politics, and we are now told that the House won't take it up. I
haven't seen a statement from the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. Anyone can issue a press release, and it is important
to recognize who is issuing the press release. It is the Congressman
who is seeking the Nevada Senate seat so he can get aboard and claim
that he is responsible for killing it.
As I said, anyone can issue a press release, but I can tell you what
is true: We have a bill that received a big bipartisan vote. This is
not a partisan issue, as evidenced by the vote last time.
We had 12 Democrats that voted with 53 Republicans. All right, that
is a fact. I have the word of Chairman Bliley in the House that he is
committed to getting this bill done. I know the majority and minority
staff of the Commerce Committee spent all day every day in the last
recess negotiating a compromise. I do not think they would have done
that if the leadership did not intend to take up the bill.
I think this is a blatant attempt to influence the vote today in
effect to perhaps become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have to focus
on the substance of the bill and vote to do what is right, not put this
off, not listen to political posturing from the other body or political
posturing that affects this body.
So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture. You know, if you look
at this picture, here is the Nevada test site, Mr. President. The last
weapon there was exploded underground in 1991. Underground tests are
still performed there with nuclear materials being exploded with
conventional explosives, all with the wholehearted support--the
wholehearted support--of whom?
Well, here it is, Mr. President. Here is what the State of Nevada in
its resolution says about the site. I would like to read relevant
portions of the Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution No. 15 of February 26,
1975.
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 * * * [and]
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 and 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 wastes. . . .
That is what some people in Nevada and the Nevada legislature think
about this idea. It is a pretty good idea. It means jobs. They want to
see the ongoing development, if you will, of this area.
Let me tell you what the Sierra Club has to say about it. The Sierra
Club is quite succinct. And I will read it as follows:
``They're never going to be able to reclaim [this site, the
Nevada test site] for 10,000 or 15,000 years,'' says Randy
Harnes of the Sierra Club's Las Vegas chapter. ``They might
as well do [their research] there.''
He concludes:
Given the constant monitoring, the site ``is probably the
safest place in the whole United States.''
There you have the Sierra Club, if you put a good deal of faith in
their analysis.
Why can't we leave the waste at the reactors? First of all, as my
friend from Idaho indicated, the court said the Department of Energy
has a contract obligation. The Government has a contract obligation to
take the waste in 1998. Congress cannot change that obligation. It is a
taxpayers' liability. And the spent fuel was never meant to be stored
for long-term storage. We know that.
It is estimated that if you are going to store it at the sites of the
nuclear plants, it is going to cost you almost $8 billion. Who is going
to pay for that? The ratepayers--ultimately the taxpayers.
We have heard a lot about Dr. Wilson today. Let me tell you what Ivan
Selin, the chairman of the NRC said. Spent fuel can be managed more
effectively and efficiently at a single site rather than at multiple
sites. Dr. Selin, in a statement in March of 1995 to the Senate Energy
Committee, said the NRC--that is the law of the nuclear land--
``believe[s] that a centralized facility will provide safety advantages
relative to dispersed storage at individual sites. Considering the 100-
year potential time frame of licensed storage, a centralized facility
would allow for a more focused inspection and surveillance program by
both DOE and NRC.''
So make no mistake about it, putting it in one site simply makes
sense, and it is a logical observation that anybody would make relative
to having temporary sites near the location of the reactors where it
was never intended.
Mr. President, I would like to save a few minutes on this side for
concluding remarks. So I ask how much time we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 45 seconds.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask that we may withhold that time.
Mr. REID. I yield to my colleague from Nevada such time as he may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank my senior colleague, and I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, this debate is winding down, but I think we need to
make very clear that there is no misimpression created that somehow the
Senators from Nevada have injected the nuclear waste and the tobacco
issue together. It is my strong preference, as a member of the Commerce
Committee, having served on that committee, and having voted with the
great majority 19-1 to report this bill out--I am referring to Senator
McCain's legislation--and serving on the Finance Committee where it was
reported out by a 12-6 vote--I was with the prevailing majority--my
priority is to consider the tobacco legislation.
It was not the Senators from Nevada who interjected nuclear waste in
the midst of our discussion on tobacco. Now we have a way in this body
of determining what our priorities are. If our priorities are addressed
to finishing and completing a piece of legislation, neither hell nor
high water can divert our attention and focus, and as the majority
leader has said many times, and rightly so, we are going to stay on
this issue until it is finished.
What is different here? It is a matter of priorities, I suspect, an
agenda that may not be spoken. The best and the most effective way to
deal with the tobacco issue is to stay on the bill until we complete
it, and that is the logical thing to do. To go off that bill, go on
nuclear waste, back and forth, is not the logical way to do it.
Mr. President, there is absolutely no urgency in the world to move to
nuclear waste today. There is urgency to process this tobacco
legislation. At the end of this day, when we return to our respective
homes, another 3,000 young people in this country will have taken up
smoking. And as we have said time
[[Page S5562]]
and time again, 1,000 of them--1,000 of them--one-third will die
prematurely as a result of smoking-related complications.
That is the urgency. That is the priority that I attach. Let me say
that there are some things that have been said about this legislation
that I do not have time to respond to completely, but the Nevada
legislature has very strongly expressed its opposition. It is suggested
by the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee that you can understand
why Nevadans would be opposed to this legislation.
Let me suggest that opposition to this legislation has not come from
Nevadans alone. When the American people are asked--the country as a
whole--66 percent indicate they oppose temporary nuclear waste storage
as proposed in this legislation. Only 17 percent support it; and
another 17 percent do not know. This is a product of research done for
the University of Maryland's 1997 National Omnibus Survey.
I have very little time, Mr. President, but I want to talk about what
I call the ``dirty little secret'' that is involved here. What the
nuclear utility industry wants more than anything else is for the
American public--the taxpayers in America--to lift this financial
responsibility.
Our friends in opposition who urge cloture frequently invoke the
sanctity of this contract. This contract, as well as the legislation
before us, requires those utilities to make a contribution to the
nuclear waste trust fund of $1 million. That is a tenth of a penny for
each kilowatt hour of nuclear power generated by these reactors. Here
are the numbers. At no time did it contemplate, in addition to the
expense incurred in terms of a permanent repository, that there would
be an interim that would be added to this cost.
Here are the total costs to this program: $53.9 billion that is kind
of broken down in terms of the Nevada transportation crosscountry, the
so-called centralized interim storage facility that is being talked
about here, all of the other expenditures.
So, $53.9 billion is what nuclear waste storage is going to cost us
in America when this program ultimately winds down.
Here is the agenda, here is the agenda: total program costs, $53.9
billion; total revenue derived from the utilities, and that is at the
current rate of 1 mill for each kilowatt-hour, is $28.1 billion.
Guess who gets stuck with that number? Guess who gets stuck with that
number? All of you, all of you. Every taxpayer in America, $25.8
billion. That is at the current rate. If that gives you a little bit of
elevated blood pressure, under H.R. 1270, the contribution of 1 mill
would be roughly reduced by a third. So it would be, like, three-tenths
of 1 mill, which would mean this number--rather than going to $25.8
billion, billions of additional dollars will have been added.
That is what the agenda is on the part of the utilities. Their
contract, the same contract that has been invoked with such sanctity,
as well as the legislation, requires the nuclear utility industry to
cover the costs of the high-level waste disposal program in America.
They would like to shift that burden to you.
Now, we haven't talked about one other issue, and that is, finally,
the transportation issue. It is absolutely crazy, and the Congress
recognized this, to ``site'' an interim storage, whatever merit an
interim storage might have. Assume for the sake of argument there was
some conceivable merit to it, although I must say I find none and there
is no compelling reason and none of the scientists tells us it ought to
be done. Assume for the sake of argument, no one agrees we should have
a site for interim storage until the permanent site is determined.
This chart depicts the transportation routes. Nevada is frequently
the focus because we wind up at the end. But there are over 50 million
Americans who will be affected within 1 mile or less of the site of the
various transportation routes. This chart shows rail routes and highway
routes. Every American is placed at risk. That makes no sense, either.
That is why the current law, the law that would be changed by H.R.
1270--no temporary facility until we make a judgment with respect to
the permanent.
I conclude as I began. There is a lot more to this than meets the
eye. The President of the United States has indicated he is going to
veto this legislation and he has indicated the reasons for that. Bad
policy and bad science conclude that this ought not to be passed. The
Speaker of the House, who wears a different political jersey than the
Senators of Nevada, indicates that this legislation is not going to be
enacted or acted upon by the House this year. He made a similar
statement in 1996 and it was not processed.
So, why are we doing this? Why are we going off of the tobacco bill?
Could it be that there are some in this Chamber who really don't want
to see tobacco legislation enacted? There is no conceivable reason that
we have to have the vote on nuclear waste today. The leadership has
every right at any time to file a motion to invoke cloture under our
rules to proceed to the bill, and it is simply a matter of time
elapsing for that to mature. That could be done next week, the week
thereafter, or in anticipation of the conclusion of the tobacco debate.
I respectfully submit, Mr. President, that the timing of this issue
is highly suspect. To those of us who are committed to the tobacco
legislation, that is a priority in America. Can there be any greater
priority than the young people in America, at a time when the data
reflects that the rate of increase of youngsters under the age of 18
has increased dramatically? We need comprehensive tobacco legislation.
A vote invoking cloture jeopardizes that bill, may kill the tobacco
legislation. Oppose the cloture vote, we stay on tobacco. We do what
the American people have a right to expect us to do, and that is to act
on behalf of the young people of America.
I reserve any remainder of time I may have.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as we begin our second week of debate on
the tobacco settlement legislation introduced by Senator McCain, we are
faced with a cloture vote on H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
As we all know, the issues surrounding nuclear waste storage are
extremely complex, often contentious, and no simple solutions exist.
While I do not agree with everything in the bill, I have supported
legislative action on this critical issue in the past and hope to in
the future. This country cannot afford inaction on this issue, and it
is my hope that we will soon move to address this vital issue.
That being said, I oppose the effort to invoke cloture on H.R. 1270
today. We concluded one week of debate on a national tobacco settlement
prior to the Memorial Day recess. That legislation, which is absolutely
critical to public health, and especially children's health, remains
the pending business before the Senate, and I cannot support any effort
to substitute other legislation before this body at this time.
We all know the vital statistics surrounding underage tobacco use.
Every day, 3,000 children will start smoking. One thousand of them will
die prematurely from this addiction. It is time to pass comprehensive
tobacco legislation that addresses the critical public health issues
caused by tobacco use. Such an approach will reduce teen smoking,
invest in public health research and programs to help smokers quit, and
protect tobacco farmers and their communities.
Let us keep in mind that the tobacco industry has carefully targeted
children. They have done this because children are most vulnerable to
nicotine addiction and they are most easily affected by slick
advertising and promotional ploys. The evidence is overwhelming that
smoking is a pediatric disease. Almost ninety percent of all people who
ever try a cigarette, do so by age 18, and 71 percent of people who
have ever smoked daily were smoking by age 18.
My own state of South Dakota ranks second among all states in
underage tobacco use. Almost 40 percent of our high school kids smoke
cigarettes, and even more use smokeless tobacco. Almost a quarter of
all expectant mothers in South Dakota report using tobacco during
pregnancy; an appalling statistic that results in low birth weight and
other natal difficulties.
Mr. President, we face an historic opportunity to address a critical
public health problem. I firmly believe that this legislation will be
remembered as a dramatic change in our government's
[[Page S5563]]
efforts and policies. This bill will be one of the most socially
significant items this Congress tackles. Therefore, I will oppose
cloture on H.R. 1270 at this time. The Senate should maintain focus on
tobacco legislation that will help our children withstand the pressures
and inducements of the tobacco industry to addict them to tobacco
products.
I must also express my frustration over a recent statement from the
Speaker of the House. He has apparently determined that the nuclear
waste conference report will not be considered by the House of
Representatives. If that is the case, any further action on the Senate
floor is obviously for partisan political purposes, and I will not
support furthering that goal.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will vote against cloture on the motion to
proceed to the House version of the nuclear waste bill, but I want to
be very clear that my vote does not change my strong support for
nuclear waste legislation--and for passing such legislation this year.
The federal government must act to fulfill its legal responsibility to
store used fuel from more than 100 nuclear power plants across America.
Over a decade ago, the federal government promised the ratepayers of
Wisconsin that it would take possession of all the spent nuclear waste
in the State by 1998 and send it to the desert of Nevada for long-term
storage. On the basis of that promise, the ratepayers of Wisconsin have
paid over $250 million into a fund to help pay for the construction of
the storage site. But we have seen no return on that investment, only
delays.
This vote today has nothing to do with nuclear waste. The fate of
that legislation lies in the House. The vote today is about tobacco--
and whether we will continue to work on the strong tobacco control
legislation that we started on two weeks ago.
Let me be clear about that because most people watching this debate
outside of Washington D.C. may not understand how these two important
issues are linked. Very simply, if we invoke cloture right now, the
tobacco bill will be bumped off the Senate floor and will not come back
until the majority leader, and every Member of this body, agrees to
bring it back. Though I think there is tremendous support for tobacco
legislation, I do not think there is unanimous support--and that's what
we would need to bring the bill up again.
So I will oppose cloture today, but I will continue to support the
nuclear waste bill; I will vote for it if it comes up again this year;
and I will support cloture motions related to it--as long as they are
not simply legislative maneuvers to kill other important initiatives.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 41 seconds and the other side has 4
minutes 14 seconds.
Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator from Alaska or the Senator from Idaho
yield for a question?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am pleased to yield, but I would like to ask on
whose time.
Mr. GRAHAM. I have no time.
I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to ask questions for no longer
than 2 minutes without counting against either side.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in light of what the Speaker announced
were his intentions, is it your understanding that if we made any
amendment to this legislation and therefore caused it to have to return
to the House, that we would essentially be defeating the legislation?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend from
Florida, first of all, we have not been able to obtain a copy of any
statement from the Speaker. The statement that has been alluded to on
the floor is a statement by the Congressman from Nevada who is running
for the Senate office. He released a statement which indicated that the
House leader would not take up the bill. We have not been able to
confirm that with the House leader.
It would be my intention to offer the Senate-passed bill, Senate bill
104, with an addition of the Bingaman amendment, which was circulated
at the time of the Senate consideration. If informal negotiations with
the House bear fruit, which they certainly have been, I will probably
offer a perfecting amendment, but there is no agreement at this time.
Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator not agree, in order to deal with the
statement that the Speaker made as well as his actions over the past
period in frustrating the adoption of a Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we
would be well advised before we take up this cloture vote to adopt by
unanimous consent agreement that no amendments would be in order to
H.R. 1270, thus to assure that the bill would, if passed, go directly
to the President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond, I don't have any type of vote counts
on the House bill, and I would have to defer from any guesstimate.
If I may reclaim my remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have heard tobacco brought into this
discussion. Tobacco certainly is a problem. We recognize that. So is
nuclear waste responsibility. We have that before the Senate now. But
with nuclear waste, the Government has a liability already established
and established in a court of law. There is no such obligation with
respect to tobacco. We are trying to address that now.
On nuclear waste, we have collected $14 billion from the taxpayers
for its disposal. On tobacco, we have not collected one dime.
I also remind my colleagues we have had a unanimous consent request
to take up tobacco next. It has been objected to by the minority
leader.
So make no mistake about it, Mr. President, we spent a lot of time
trying to resolve this important issue. We are in the homestretch now.
The House bill got 307 votes, if there is any question about the
attitude prevailing in the House. The Senate bill we are voting on
today had 65 votes the last time. That is the kind of overwhelming
bipartisan support--and there is no reason this bill should not be
passed now. Democrats who were with us last time included Senators
Cleland, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Johnson, Kohl, Leahy, Levin,
Moseley-Braun, Murray, Robb, and Wyden.
The whole business is there today. The obligation remains here today
to address this and not put it off. The Senators from Nevada say not
today, not today, not today. Well, when? How many dollars does the
taxpayer have to address as far as his responsibility, when the
ratepayers have paid $14 billion and the taxpayers are now stuck for
liability when we go to court and we don't have a resolve of this
problem. There is no use putting it off today. The time to act is now.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity. I strongly
support the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. As the Senator from Alaska just
stated, I was one of the 65 Senators who voted for it when we last
passed it. I think it is very important that we pass a Nuclear Waste
Policy Act as part of a national effort to assure that nuclear energy
will continue to play a significant part in America's energy future.
This importance is underscored by the contribution which nuclear energy
can make to the United States meeting its global warming commitments
without incurring major economic disruption in the rest of our economy.
I am concerned, however, Mr. President, that I do not believe what we
are about this afternoon is serious legislation but, rather, is a
subterfuge. If I felt that by invoking cloture today and then passing
it today or tomorrow we would move toward the adoption of the National
Waste Policy Act, I would be a strong supporter. But the Speaker of the
House, through a statement of an honorable Member of the House, has
indicated that it is not his intention to take this legislation up in
the House of Representatives. Therefore, unless we are willing to adopt
precisely what the House has submitted and send it directly to the
President for signature, any amendment that we might consider would
have the effect of dooming this legislation.
I am also concerned, Mr. President, that the effect of this would not
only be to send the Nuclear Waste Policy
[[Page S5564]]
Act to sure death in the House of Representatives, but it would also
kill the tobacco bill here in the U.S. Senate. Without a unanimous
consent agreement that assures that we would return immediately to the
tobacco legislation, I am unwilling to take the risk of removing it as
the business before the Senate and substituting the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, as much as I support that legislation.
So for those reasons, I will vote against invoking cloture.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). There is 1 minute 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. REID. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Florida has cut to
the core of this issue. From the perspective of those who want this
legislation to proceed, the question of adopting the House bill without
amendment obviously moves that process forward. We are now told that,
no, that is not the strategy, that we want to offer a so-called
Bingaman amendment; and then we hear that there is a so-called
perfecting amendment, which nobody has seen. Out our way, that is
called keeping some cards up your sleeve. We don't have any idea what
we are going to be asked to vote on. I think our colleague makes a good
point. I urge rejection of the motion to invoke cloture.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the action today is a waste of time. Let's
move to tobacco, to the Patients' Bill of Rights, to IRS reform, or to
the appropriations bills--13 in number--or let's move to school
construction; let's do something that is worth while. The President
said he will veto this. The Speaker has said he won't consider it. This
is a waste of time.
I urge everybody to vote no on cloture.
____________________