[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 40 (Monday, March 15, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2654-S2657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, and Mr. 
        Crapo):
  S. 608. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                    nuclear waste policy act of 1999

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my 
colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Rod Grams to introduce the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999.
  Once again, Congress must clarify its intention toward the disposal 
of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I 
introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which passed with 
broad bipartisan support in this body last year, as did similar 
legislation in the other body. It is why I am an original cosponsor of 
the legislation this year.
  We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with disposing of 
nuclear materials. Congress must recognize its responsibility to set a 
clear and definitive nuclear material disposal policy. With the passage 
of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate expressed its will 
that Government fulfill its responsibilities. This legislation makes 
one significant change to the course we are currently on by directing 
that an interim storage facility for nuclear materials be constructed 
at area 25 at the Nevada test site and that the interim facility be 
prepared to accept nuclear materials by June 30, 2003.
  The President and the Vice President do not support this provision. 
They do not support an interim storage facility at one safe, secure 
location in the Nevada desert. What they do support, according to 
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, is an interim storage at 70 some 
sites spread across this Nation. They support storage near population 
centers and major bodies of water, but not at a site located right next 
to a permanent repository, a site where hundreds of nuclear explosions 
have already been detonated over the last 50 years.
  In an announcement last month, the administration proposes to 
federalize storage of spent fuel at commercial reactors around this 
country by having the Government come in and take responsibility for 
each site. But do not worry, folks, because they promise to come and 
pick up the waste eventually, or at least that is what they have been 
promising for a long, long while. Well, I have some experience with the 
DOE and its promises, as many of my colleagues have, especially in the 
area of nuclear waste over the last number of years.
  In 1995, the Secretary of Energy promised the State of Idaho, and 
signed a court enforceable agreement, that transuranic waste in Idaho 
would be headed out of the State to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant no 
later than next month. Now DOE says they can't meet that deadline. Why? 
The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant is safe and ready to receive waste, but the State of New 
Mexico won't issue a permit for the disposal and that the court won't 
lift its injunction.
  Now, I do believe our Secretary of Energy is trying in good faith to 
honor his commitment to the State of Idaho in moving that waste, but, 
once again, on issues of this kind of political sensitivity, our 
Government has shown no willingness to lead on this issue, and this 
administration is the prime example of a government without leadership.
  I know something about the politics of nuclear waste. I know 
something about DOE's broken promises. I mentioned the example of WIPP 
as a misuse of environmental regulation to subvert the will of 
Congress. It is this kind of game playing that we must eliminate.
  I guess my bottom line advice to those living next to one of these 
commercial nuclear reactors is, when DOE says they will come in and 
take responsibility for spent fuel and move it later, do not be fooled. 
You need a centralized interim storage facility and you need this 
legislation to make it happen.
  This administration has said that interim storage in Nevada will 
prejudge the repository site investigation now going on at Yucca 
Mountain. I think it is important to note that this legislation calls 
for beginning operation of an interim storage facility in the year 
2003, 2 years after DOE will have recommended the repository site to 
the President and 1 year after DOE will have submitted a license 
application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
This can hardly be called rushing ahead recklessly on interim storage. 
What it is is sealing the deal, trying to build credibility with the 
American people on this Government's responsibility and dedication 
toward the appropriate handling of high-level nuclear waste.
  In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have 
contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds 
of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent 
fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. 
This legislation will make good on the Government's commitment to the 
communities which agreed to host our defense laboratories--that cleanup 
of these sites will happen, that it will happen sooner rather than 
later, and that defense nuclear waste, our legacy from the cold war, 
will be disposed of responsibly.
  Just this past week, before the appropriate Appropriations Committee, 
I and Senator Domenici heard at length what this administration is 
doing to help Russia get rid of its cold war nuclear waste legacy. 
While we are going headlong to help them, it is ironic that we cannot 
help ourselves. This administration has promised and yet, in 6 years, 
has delivered nothing and finally gave up on its promises and found 
itself in a box canyon with a lot of lawyers lining up in lawsuits, 
because they are now out of compliance with an act that this Congress 
passed in the mid-1980s to deal with nuclear waste.

[[Page S2655]]

  This bill will assure that the spent fuel from our nuclear fighting 
ships and submarines, currently stored at the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, can be sent to the interim 
storage facility beginning in the year 2003. This is good news for both 
the Navy and for Idaho. Our nuclear Navy ought to be concerned that DOE 
is still playing games with the real hard fact that sooner, rather than 
later, they must have a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel 
coming from our Navy vessels.
  Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the agreed 
date of the year 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho 
Governor Batt, DOE and the Navy. This legislation will provide 
assurance that nuclear waste now in Idaho for permanent storage will 
eventually be disposed of at the repository. The tragedy here, of 
course, and we understand it, in the building of safe facilities, is 
the long lead time necessary. That is why this legislation is important 
now, to construct an interim storage facility ready to receive by the 
year 2003.
  Critics of this legislation will attempt to distract you over the 
issue of transportation. In just a few months we will hear on the floor 
of the Senate the term ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This is just so much 
politics or political statement. There is absolutely no fact or record 
behind that statement other than a scare tactic that some of my 
colleagues will attempt to use to support an absence of fact. The fact 
is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of spent fuel 
in the United States and that there has not been a single death or 
injury from the radioactivity nature of the cargo. In my State of 
Idaho, there have been over 600 shipments of naval fuel and over 4,000 
other shipments of radioactive material. Again, there has been not one 
single injury related to the radioactive nature of these shipments.
  This is a phenomenal safety record, but it is a real safety record, 
because this Government has insisted that the appropriate handling of 
our spent nuclear fuels and waste long term be dealt with in the right 
way. The proof is in the reality and the responsibility that this 
country has taken for years in the transportation of its waste. Those 
are the facts as I have related them.
  I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of 
spent nuclear fuel disposal. Some of my colleagues are probably 
fatigued at the prospect of debating this issue once again in the 106th 
Congress. Unfortunately, as long as this administration continues to 
stick its head in the sand, sand that is now going to cost millions of 
dollars in legal fees, my colleagues and I have no choice but to 
address this issue once again for the sake of our country, for the 
future of energy production in our country from radioactive materials, 
and just the tremendous responsibility we have in making sure to our 
public that all of it is done well and safely.
  As this legislative body sets policies for the Nation, the Congress 
cannot sit by and watch while key components of the energy security of 
this Nation, the source of 20 percent of this country's electricity--
and that is coming from nuclear powerplants--risk going down simply 
because we cannot manage our waste.
  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 will address what neither the 
1982 nor the 1987 Act did, and that is to provide a cost-effective and 
safe means to store spent fuel in the near term while we continue to 
investigate and provide for the ultimate disposal.
  I thank you, Mr. President. I see my colleague, the chairman of the 
full committee, has joined me now on the floor. I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a pleasant afternoon.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, for his statement relative to 
the reality that 22 percent of the Nation's power is generated by 
nuclear energy.
  Here we are again today, Mr. President, with an obligation to fulfill 
a commitment. That obligation and that commitment was made to the 
ratepayers, the individuals all over America who depend on nuclear 
energy for their power. They paid $14 billion over the last 18 years.
  What have they paid for? They have paid the Federal Government to 
take the waste under contract in the year 1998. That was a year ago. 
Shakespeare wrote in Henry III, ``Delays have dangerous ends. . . .'' 
We might also add, ``expensive ends.''
  In addition to what the ratepayers have paid, there has been over $6 
billion expended by the Federal Government in preparation for the waste 
primarily at Yucca Mountain. Delay has been the administration's answer 
to the problem of what to do with nuclear waste in this country. This 
administration simply doesn't want to take it up on its watch under any 
terms or circumstances.
  In 1997, the administration objected to siting a temporary storage 
facility before 1998 when the viability assessment for Yucca Mountain 
would be complete.
  The so-called ``dangerous ends'' to that delay is that 1998 has come 
and gone. The viability assessment was presented and guess what? There 
were no show stoppers. Safety issues requiring that we abandon the 
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project were not 
called for. The next step, of course, is to move on with the licensing, 
which is to take place in the year 2001.

  What is the delay this year? It is the inability of the 
administration to recognize its contractual commitment under the 
agreement. To his credit, the new Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson 
has come forward with the first ever--and I mean first ever--
administration proposal on nuclear waste. The Department of Energy 
would assume ownership of the used nuclear fuel and continue storing it 
at its commercial and defense sites in the 41 States across the 
country. The cost of the storage would be offset by consumer fees 
collected by the Department of Energy over the past 18 years, as I have 
stated. These are fees that were to have been dedicated to the removal 
and permanent storage of the spent fuel.
  While this proposal may seem interesting, let's reflect on it a 
little bit, because what it means is that there is no date certain to 
remove the waste. The waste would sit onsite near the reactors.
  It seems that we have gone full cycle in one sense. If you recognize 
that the Government had contracted to take the waste in 1998, the court 
has specifically stated that the Federal Government is liable to take 
that waste. So the court says, in effect, the Federal Government owns 
the waste onsite.
  The proposal is the Government take the waste onsite. In fact, it 
owns the waste anyway. Think about it. There is a duplication, of 
course. I have a map here that I think warrants a little consideration. 
It shows some of the sites where we have nuclear fuel and radioactive 
waste that is destined for the geologic disposal.
  The commercial reactors are in brown in California, in Washington, in 
Arizona, in Texas, up and down the east coast, in Illinois.
  We have the shutdown reactors with the spent fuel onsite. These are 
the little triangles. We have them in Oregon, California, and Illinois. 
We have them in Michigan. This is significant amounts of waste that 
would go to a central repository at Yucca Mountain if this 
administration would come to grips with its responsibility.
  Commercial spent nuclear fuel storage facilities are depicted by the 
little black squares. There are a few of them around.
  Non-DOE research reactors. These are reactors that are spread through 
the country.
  Then we have the Navy reactor fuel in Idaho. And we have the 
Department of Energy-owned spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste in 
New Mexico.
  We have this all around the country, Mr. President, and the whole 
purpose of this legislation is to provide for and put this waste in one 
central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada where it would be 
retrievable. As a consequence, as we look at this proposal--and, again, 
I would like to point out there is no date for removal--one of the more 
interesting things is that there are claims now brought about by the 
nuclear industry against the Federal Government for nonperformance of 
its contract. Those claims total somewhere between $60 billion and $80 
billion.
  The Government is in default for nonperformance of its contractual 
obligation. One of the proposals circulated

[[Page S2656]]

is if the Government agrees to take the waste onsite, that those claims 
be dropped. If you think about this a little bit more, the Government 
has already collected a significant amount of money from the ratepayers 
over the last 18 years, some $14 billion. Now the Government is going 
to take this waste and use that money, paid for by the ratepayers, to 
store the nuclear waste onsite for no timeframe that can be 
ascertained. In other words, this waste is going to sit where it is, 
Mr. President. We do not know how long because there is no definite 
date in the proposal for the administration to take the waste.

  So what have we done? We have simply gone full circle. The court said 
the Federal Government owned the waste. The Federal Government says 
they will take it and store it at site. They will not tell you when 
they are going to get rid of it. They use the money the ratepayers pay 
to store it there. I don't think that is satisfactory. It is a little 
different. It is acknowledging that they have come up with a proposal, 
but I do not think it is workable.
  What we have here is, if you will, more delay. The Department of 
Energy--and really it is not the Department of Energy's fault--it is 
the administration that has broken its promise to the electric 
consumers, who depend on nuclear energy, people who have paid more than 
$14 billion to the Federal Government.
  That $14 billion paid by consumers was designed specifically to 
remove this waste, Mr. President, to a single--a single--storage 
facility at Yucca Mountain. And that is what we have been building. The 
waste, again, was supposed to be taken in the year 1998.
  Where have we been over the past 15 years? We have done nothing but 
slip the schedule on nuclear waste. First it was to have this waste 
removed by the year 2003, then 2005, then 2010, now 2015. With this 
proposal that I have just mentioned, that is in draft form, they are 
proposing it go back to 2010. Maybe that is progress; I don't know. 
Through it all, the nuclear ratepayers have paid the bill, but we are 
not through with the cost.
  As I have indicated previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled 
the Department of Energy had an obligation to take possession of the 
waste in 1998, whether or not a repository was ready. The court ordered 
the Department of Energy to pay contractual remedies. This is a pretty 
big hit on the Federal Government and, hence, the taxpayer, Mr. 
President.
  Estimates of damages range as high as $40, $50, $60--up to $80 
billion. How do the damages break down? Here they are: the cost of 
storage of spent nuclear fuel, $19.6 billion; return of nuclear waste 
fees, $8.5 billion; interest on nuclear waste fees, $15 to $27.8 
billion; consequential damages for shutdown of 25 percent of nuclear 
plants due to insufficient storage--these are power replacement costs--
$24 billion.
  That is a pretty disastrous scenario for the consumers. It would add, 
if you will, the high cost of replacement power if these reactors go 
down as a consequence of not being able to basically remove their 
waste. There is loss of emissions, a free source of electric energy if 
the nuclear plants are forced to close. And again, I would remind you 
that 22 percent of our total electric power is generated from nuclear 
energy.
  These costs, these ``dangerous ends'' can be fixed. It is really time 
for the administration to stop trying out bats, if you will, and step 
up to the plate on its obligation. So today I once again, along with 
Senator Craig, and a number of my colleagues, Senator Grams, are 
introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to solve our immediate 
liability problems by establishing an interim nuclear waste facility at 
the Nevada test site.
  Why the Nevada test site? Over the last 50 years, we have tested 
nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons in that area numerous times. As a 
consequence, it appears, and was selected, to be the best site for a 
permanent repository.
  What we are proposing, by this legislation, is to move this waste out 
and put it at site, but have it retrievable so when the permanent 
repository is ready it can be placed there. In the meantime, we will 
remove the waste from some 70 sites around the country.
  In addition, this measure improves the process towards a permanent 
nuclear waste repository by making sure that funding is adequate and 
that the process to reach that goal is sound and viable?
  While my committee will examine the proposal put forth by the 
Secretary, there is some circular reasoning inherent in it.
  One, the administration's arguments to date have been that building 
an interim storage facility would divert funds from the study of the 
proposed permanent repository. But the Secretary's proposal for 
continued onsite storage would do just that. It would redirect consumer 
funds to pay for continued onsite storage.
  Do we really want this nuclear waste piling up at 71 sites around the 
Nation rather than one? That is the critical question, Mr. President. 
Here is the proposed site for the nuclear waste--out in the Nevada 
desert. And the Nevada test site was previously used for more than 800 
nuclear weapons tests. There it is.
  There is some conversation that suggests, What if the current 
repository at Yucca Mountain does not prove to be licensable, what will 
you do with it then? Obviously, we will have to address that. But in 
the meantime, we would concentrate it out in this area in retrievable 
casks that would allow us to move it someplace for permanent storage. 
Or there is the technology that is developing on reprocessing that the 
Japanese and the French have proceeded with, which is to recover the 
plutonium out of the spent nuclear fuel and put it back in the 
reactors. That is another alternative.

  So the alternative to leaving it at the 71 sites, vis-a-vis putting 
it out in one place where we have had over 800 nuclear tests over the 
past 50 years, obviously is a logical and reasonable progression to 
remove this from the various sites around the United States.
  Finally, Mr. President, the time for delay is long past. We have had 
enough delay now. In the last Congress, we had a vote on this matter. 
It was overwhelmingly bipartisan. There were 65 Members of the U.S. 
Senate that voted yes--that voted yes--to put the waste in a temporary 
retrievable repository at Yucca Mountain. In the House there were 307 
Members that voted yes.
  Obviously the time is now at hand to move this bill out, to meet the 
responsibility that we have committed to with the ratepayers over these 
last 18 years and take that $14 billion and move this waste out to the 
Nevada test site once and for all until the permanent repository is 
licensed.
  So, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on the merits 
of this bill--the debate went on in the last Congress--and recognize 
that we simply cannot put our heads in the sand and ignore this. This 
is a contract commitment. You have to recognize the sanctity of that 
contract and the recognition of 22 percent of our power is from nuclear 
energy, and if we are to allow this industry to strangle on its high-
level waste, we are doing a great disservice and simply are going to 
have to come up with power sources from other generating capabilities 
that do not offer the air quality that is available by nuclear energy.
  As we look at global warming and greenhouse gases and various 
legislative proposals by the administration, the role of nuclear energy 
is noticeably absent. I think that is unfortunate as we recognize that 
nuclear energy contributes to reducing greenhouse gases and hence 
global warming.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1999.
  First, I would like to thank Senators Murkowski and Craig for once 
again authoring this legislation and for their combined efforts in the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee on matters related to nuclear 
waste storage.
  As we all know, Washington's involvement in nuclear power isn't new. 
Since the 1950's ``Atoms for Peace'' program, the federal government 
has promoted nuclear energy, in part, by promising to remove 
radioactive waste from power plants. Congress decisively committed the 
federal government to take and dispose of civilian radioactive waste 
beginning in 1998 through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and its 
amendments in 1987. These acts established the DOE Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management to conduct the program, selected Yucca

[[Page S2657]]

Mountain, Nevada as the site to assess for the permanent disposal 
facility, and established fees of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour 
on nuclear-generated electricity, and provided that these fees would be 
deposited in the Nuclear Waste Fund. Furthermore, it authorized 
appropriations from this fund for a number of activities, including 
development of a nuclear waste repository.
  Eventually, publication of the standard contract addressed how 
radioactive waste would be taken, stored, and disposed of. The DOE then 
signed individual contracts with all civilian nuclear utilities 
promising to take and dispose of civilian high-level waste beginning 
January 31, 1998. Other administrative proceedings, such as the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, told the American public 
that they should literally bank on the federal government's promise.
  Because of these promises and measures taken by the federal 
government, ratepayers have paid over $15 billion, including interest, 
into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Today, these payments continue, exceeding 
$1 billion annually, or $70,000 for every hour of every day of the 
year.
  Up until recently, however, the administration has acted as if there 
is no problem. They have maintained a hands-off approach to the issue 
and when they have engaged Congress on nuclear waste storage, it has 
only been to issue a veto threat against this legislation.
  As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee last 
year, I had the opportunity to question Secretary Richardson on nuclear 
waste issues during his Senate confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, 
his answers to my questions were generally incomplete and contained 
little substantive discussion on the very real problems facing our 
nation's utilities, states, and ratepayers.
  Mr. Richardson did, however, write some interesting things about 
nuclear power in his responses. Let me share with you a few of those 
responses. They read:

       Nuclear power is a proven means of generating electricity. 
     When managed well, it is also a safe means of generating 
     electricity.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       It is my understanding that spent nuclear fuel has been 
     safely transported in the United States in compliance with 
     the regulatory requirements set forth by the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The widely publicized shipment last week of spent fuel from 
     California to Idaho is proof that transportation can be done 
     safely. The safety record of nuclear shipments would be among 
     the issues I would focus on as Secretary of Energy.

  I asked Mr. Richardson to tell me who would pay the billions of 
dollars in damages some say the DOE will owe utilities as a result of 
DOE failure to remove spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. After 
writing about the DOE's beliefs on their level of liability, he wrote: 
``I will give this issue priority attention once I am confirmed as 
Secretary of Energy.''
  I asked Mr. Richardson if he felt the taxpayers had been treated 
fairly. Again, after telling me about the history of the Department's 
actions to avoid its responsibilities, he wrote: ``I share your 
interest in resolving these issues and I will continue to pursue this 
once I am confirmed.''
  Now, Mr. President, let's look at how then-nominee Federico Pena 
responded to my question regarding the responsibility of the DOE to 
begin removing spent nuclear fuel from my state. He said in testimony 
before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

       . . . we will work with the Committee to address these 
     issues within the context of the President's statement last 
     year. So we've got a very difficult issue. I am prepared to 
     address it. I will do that as best as I can, understanding 
     the complexities involved. But they are all very legitimate 
     questions and I look forward to working with you and others 
     to try to find a solution.

  Does that sound familiar? I suspect Secretary O'Leary had something 
equally vague to say about nuclear waste storage as well. Secretary 
Pena, I believe, said it best when he stated, ``I will do that as best 
as I can, understanding the complexities involved.'' Those 
complexities, Mr. President, are not that complex at all. Quite simply, 
the President of the United States, despite the will of 307 Members of 
the House of Representatives and 65 Senators, last year refused to keep 
the DOE's promise.
  Now, Secretary Richardson has come before the Senate and offered a 
``new'' approach to the nuclear waste storage crisis. He believes we 
should leave the waste at sites across the country and merely transfer 
title, or ownership, to the federal government. The federal government 
would then be responsible for the costs associated with maintaining 
each of the 73 interim storage sites in 34 states, including the 
Prairie Island facility in Minnesota. To pay for this, Secretary 
Richardson is suggesting we raid the Nuclear Waste Fund, which was 
created to pay for the removal of that same spent nuclear fuel.

  While I am glad to see the Administration is finally engaged in the 
nuclear waste debate and that Secretary Richardson has finally been 
allowed to address the issue before the U.S. Senate, his proposal is a 
``year late and several billion dollars short.'' It does nothing to 
actually move the waste out of our states and into an interim storage 
facility. It is unclear whether his proposal would do anything to 
prevent the premature shutdown of nuclear facilities in states like 
Minnesota. And the one thing we know it will do, is take money from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund that was supposed to pay for the removal of spent 
nuclear fuel, not the indefinite continuance of a failed approach to 
nuclear waste management.
  Mr. President, I want to be very clear that I am sincere in these 
complaints. My concern is for the ratepayers of my state and ratepayers 
across the country. They have poured billions of dollars into the 
Nuclear Waste Fund expecting the DOE to take this waste. They have paid 
countless more millions paying for on-site nuclear waste storage. 
Effective January 31, 1998, they began paying for both of these costs 
simultaneously, even though no waste has been moved.
  When the DOE is forced to pay damages to utilities across the nation, 
the ratepayers and taxpayers will again pay for the follies created by 
the DOE. Some estimate the costs of damages to be $80 to $100 billion 
or more. The ratepayers will also have to pay the price of building new 
gas or coal-fired plants when nuclear plants must shut down. And, if 
the Administration gets its way, my constituents will pay again when 
the Kyoto Protocol takes effect in 2008--exactly the same time 
Minnesota will be losing 20 percent of its electricity from clean 
nuclear power and replacing it with fossil fuels.
  That is why we must move forward, pass the legislation introduced 
today, and send it to the President for his signature. If he refuses to 
sign the bill, then I believe we will be able to find those last two 
votes we need to override his veto and remove the cloud hanging over 
our nation's ratepayers. There is no scientific or technical reason why 
we should not move this bill forward and pass it into law.
  The administration has admitted nuclear waste can be transported 
safely. They have admitted they neglected their responsibility. They 
have admitted nuclear power is a proven, safe means of generating 
electricity. And they have admitted there is a general consensus that 
centralized interim storage is scientifically and technically possible 
and can be done safely. If you add all of these points together and 
hold them up against this Administration's lack of action, you can only 
come to one conclusion: politics has indeed won out over policy and 
science.
  Mr. President, I am proud to once again support these amendments to 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and urge my colleagues to move this bill 
quickly through committee and onto the Senate floor where it will once 
again be approved by an overwhelming majority.
                                 ______