[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 10 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S463-S469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to consider S. 1287, the nuclear waste bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1287) to provide for the storage of spent 
     nuclear fuel pending completion of the nuclear waste 
     repository, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again, while the Senators from Nevada are 
here, I have already noted my appreciation for the cooperation of the 
Senators from Nevada. We wanted to make sure we did not go forward 
without their presence.


                           Amendment No. 2808

                   (To provide a complete substitute)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a manager's amendment to the desk. 
This was circulated to the Members on Friday. I know there are others 
who need to review this. I hope they will take advantage of the 
opportunity they have to review it.
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I inquire of the distinguished majority 
leader, the Friday draft is the one from which we are working. There 
have been so many. I just want to be sure. Is this the one marked 
February 4, 2000, 4:45 p.m.?
  Mr. LOTT. I believe it is.
  Mr. BRYAN. That is consistent with our understanding. I thank the 
Senator.
  Mr. REID. If I may say to the leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. I say to the leader and the chairman of the full committee 
that I am sorry I was late, but we had a hearing on suicide which 
Senator Specter was gracious enough to hold. I was there because, as 
the leader knows, my dad killed himself a number of years ago. It was a 
very emotional hearing for me. I know it has been inconvenient for 
Senator Murkowski and the leader, Senator Bryan, and others, but I do 
appreciate their understanding. The hearing is over, so I can give my 
full time and attention to this matter. I appreciate everyone allowing 
me to be late.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada, we were 
aware of this particular hearing and how important and emotional it was 
for him. We have to be prepared to yield to each other on occasion and 
be considerate of each other's needs. We certainly understand. I also 
appreciate his cooperation in moving forward.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Murkowski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2808.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the amendment to 
the desk pursuant to the gentlemen's agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring 
to a close debate on the pending amendment to S. 1287, the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999:
         Trent Lott, Frank H. Murkowski, Slade Gorton, Don 
           Nickles, Tim Hutchinson, Conrad Burns, Mike Crapo, Phil 
           Gramm, Thad Cochran, Richard Shelby, Larry E. Craig, 
           Jim Bunning, Judd Gregg, Charles Grassley, Wayne 
           Allard, and Bob Smith of New Hampshire.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as a result of our gentlemen's agreement 
last week--and I know all the Senators involved have been working to 
keep that commitment--I think progress has been made.
  I ask unanimous consent that this cloture vote occur at 2:15 p.m. 
today, that the mandatory quorum be waived, and that Members have until 
6 p.m. this evening to file first-degree amendments and 12 noon on 
Wednesday to file any second-degree amendments.

[[Page S464]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the pending 
bill to the desk. Before the clerk reports the motion, it is my sincere 
hope this cloture vote will not be necessary. It is my hope that rather 
than the cloture vote on the amendment today at 2:15 p.m., there will 
be a bipartisan outcome and the Senate can conclude this bill in a 
relatively short period of time. However, without that ironclad 
assurance, I have no choice but to file this cloture motion to the 
underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring 
to a close debate on Calendar No. 180, S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 1999:
         Trent Lott, Frank H. Murkowski, Jim Bunning, Thad 
           Cochran, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mike Crapo, Richard 
           Shelby, Larry E. Craig, Craig Thomas, Judd Gregg, Jeff 
           Sessions, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Phil Gramm, Slade 
           Gorton, Tim Hutchinson, and Don Nickles.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again, I thank Senators on both sides for 
their cooperation.
  I yield the floor to the chairman and ranking member and hope 
substantial progress can be made during today's session. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to 
resolve a problem that has been occurring ever since the first nuclear 
plant came online in this country. That date was 1960.
  The question was: While we now have this new source of power, clean 
generation, what are we going to do with the waste?
  Today we have an opportunity to resolve what we are going to do with 
that waste. It is an obligation that goes across party lines. It is an 
obligation, it is a responsibility, it is a commitment, to resolve this 
once and for all.
  How long have we been at this? One can go back 17 years when it was 
addressed at great length in an energy package that was debated at 
great length, but the portion on what to do with high-level nuclear 
waste was not resolved.
  Over a period of time, it was agreed that the Federal Government 
would enter into a contractual commitment to take the waste in the year 
1998. That went by and, as a consequence, we find ourselves in the 
situation where the ratepayers in this country who have the benefit of 
nuclear clean power have paid in some $15 billion to the Federal 
Government.
  Where did that go? It did not go into an escrow account. It went into 
the general fund. But those ratepayers and those power-generating 
companies, utilities, went into that contractual agreement with the 
Federal Government in good faith, believing that the contract would be 
honored by the Federal Government, believing that, indeed, the Federal 
Government was under an obligation under the sanctity of contract 
principle to honor the contractual commitment.
  The Federal Government has not honored that commitment and, as a 
consequence, we are dealing with an exposure to the American taxpayer 
of some $40 billion to $80 billion in damages associated with the 
inability of the Government to come to terms with the contractual 
commitment it made with the utilities.
  Each day we delay resolving how we are going to take that waste 
subjects the American taxpayer to additional liability. We did a little 
calculation, and the additional liability to each and every American 
family is somewhere between $1,300 and $1,400. That is the liability 
that extends to the American family. That is why, in spite of the 
differences as to how we resolve this problem, the commitment should be 
to resolve this problem with the legislation we have or the amendments 
that will be forthcoming.
  There is a tradeoff. We have had clean power from these nuclear 
plants. These are not isolated sources of power. These plants 
contribute approximately 20 percent of the domestic energy produced in 
this country.
  What is the tradeoff? The tradeoff is what we are going to do with 
the waste. We made a commitment to put that waste at Yucca Mountain. We 
have expended in excess of $6 billion on Yucca Mountain. There is a 
procedure to go through before Yucca Mountain can be licensed. But I 
remind my colleagues and staff and those who are following this debate, 
we simply must deal with it.
  The Senator from Alaska does not have a constituency in his State 
relative to nuclear power. We had a small plant at a military base at 
one time, but it is long since gone.

  But as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have 
a responsibility to address this. I have a responsibility to the 
taxpayers. I have a responsibility to every Member of this body. That 
is what the professional staffs of both sides, Senator Bingaman, as the 
ranking member, and myself, have been working towards.
  We simply cannot address this debate in the theory of: If we don't 
like this aspect or we don't like that aspect, if we can't come to 
terms on one point or another, we are going to simply throw the baby 
out. That is absolutely irresponsible. It is mandatory that we come 
together now and resolve this issue because we have that responsibility 
to the taxpayers of this country.
  What is the administration's position on it? I can probably honestly 
say it is split. That may mean they are for certain aspects we have 
come to terms with but are opposed to certain other aspects. But I 
implore the administration to recognize that they have an obligation to 
come to grips with the contractual commitment that was made. The 
Department of Energy, as the lead agency, has to address how it is 
going to come about.
  I have had numerous conversations with Secretary Richardson. I think 
we have made progress. But the reality is, if we are going to pick this 
legislation apart and lose sight of our objective, I am wasting my time 
and, Mr. President, you are wasting your time listening to me because 
we are not going to get anywhere. We have to come into this debate 
committed to working this out and resolving this so we can address the 
problems associated with what we are going to do with that waste.
  I am not here to lament on what others are doing with high-level 
waste. We know what the French are doing. They are reprocessing their 
waste. They recover the plutonium. They put it back in the reactors. 
They vitrify the waste which has less life and is disposed of. We do 
not have that policy in this country. We may have it someday, but we 
are committed to a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
  You are going to hear a lot from my Nevada colleagues, as you should, 
because the difficulty with this issue is nobody wants the waste. You 
cannot throw it up in the air because it has to come down somewhere. 
That is all there is to it. When you have a situation where nobody 
wants it, you have a real problem because those that come from the area 
where it is proposed to go are going to do everything they can to stop 
it.
  That is the situation with regard to my colleagues from Nevada. Let's 
be honest with one another. They have a vested interest. They don't 
want it in their State. But we have to put it somewhere.
  Let me refer to a couple of charts here because I think it represents 
reality and where we are today.
  The chosen site for the waste is Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Everybody, 
I assume, knows where Nevada is. It is next to California and Arizona. 
But what we also have on this chart is where the waste currently is. 
You have it all over the East Coast. You have it in the Chicago, IL, 
area. You have it along the West Coast, and in south Texas, and so 
forth.
  What we are looking at here, shown in brown on the chart, are the 
commercial reactors. These are the power-generating reactors in the 
various States that generate power to light the homes, light the 
sidewalks, light the highways, heat the homes, heat the hot water 
tanks. This represents 20 percent of the energy in this country.

  The storage facilities where this waste is were designed to hold a 
specific volume of waste. That volume was

[[Page S465]]

basically controlled by the various States. Many of these facilities 
are full or about to be full. These States are either going to allow 
the increase of that storage in their State or in the reactor pool or 
those reactors are going to have to be shut down. If you shut down the 
reactors, where are you going to pick up the power?
  The critics of nuclear energy don't care about that because they do 
not want to see nuclear energy expanded to any extent. They are not 
interested in where you are going to get the power from another source. 
But you only have so many alternatives. You can put in more coal-fire 
plants. That does not do anything for air quality. Some suggest we just 
hook up to gas, that gas is cheap.
  But the National Petroleum Council came out with a report the other 
day that suggests that if those people think they are going to be able 
to plug into gas, they have another thing coming. The infrastructure 
isn't there for the volume demand. We are using about 20 trillion cubic 
feet of gas currently in this country. It is anticipated in the next 10 
years that will be up over 31 trillion cubic feet of gas.
  We have a problem with access in the areas on public lands, where we 
could initiate exploration for gas, because this administration simply 
will not open up public lands or offshore areas, for the most part. 
Where are you going to find the new gas necessary to meet the 
anticipated demand, even without the exposure associated with the issue 
at hand; that is, what to do with the high-level waste?
  The other issue with the gas, as I have indicated, is the 
infrastructure isn't there yet. To suggest it is going to be cheap, you 
have another thing coming. It is not going to be cheap. The price is 
going to increase. It is estimated the demand for gas, at the end of 
the next 10-year period of time, is going to amount to about 14 million 
new users. It is going to require an investment of about $1.5 trillion. 
So for those people who suggest we just go get gas, that is not 
realistic.
  Some people say: Let's go to solar. It gets dark at night, in case 
some have not noticed. In my State of Alaska, in the wintertime it is a 
long night.
  Wind. Sometimes the wind does not blow.
  So for a long time we are going to be looking to our conventional 
fossil fuel sources. We should be looking to the role of nuclear.
  But my point is, this chart highlights where the nuclear waste is. It 
is in 40 States. If we don't do something about this now, with this 
legislation, it is going to stay in those 40 States. There are 80 sites 
where various reactors are located in the 40 States.
  There is another contributing consideration to which every Member 
ought to be very sensitive. We have shut down reactors with spent fuel. 
We have them in California. We have them over here on the East Coast. 
We have several throughout the country--in Oregon.
  What are we going to do with that waste in those shut down reactors? 
The alternative is to leave it there. Do you want to leave it there? 
Nobody wants to leave it there. They want to move it.
  We have commercial spent nuclear fuel storage facilities where we 
have waste in a number of States. That is shown on the chart in black. 
As a consequence, that will stay.
  We have non-Department of Energy research reactors in States which 
are shown in green on the chart. What do we do with that? Leave it?
  We have naval reactor fuel in Idaho and the State of Washington which 
are shown in yellow on the chart.
  There is DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste strung around the country at various places.
  To those who say this isn't a crisis, that we don't really have a 
responsibility here, I say that logic is simply ducking the 
responsibility. We have to address a resolve of this issue at this 
time.
  We have to address what to do with the waste. We have to get it out 
of the areas where it currently resides. Those areas were not designed 
to hold and maintain that waste indefinitely.
  They were designed to hold the waste up to their licensed capacity. 
So that is the problem we have now.
  I want to go through and try to regionalize and personalize how 
significant this crisis is by a series of charts, the first of which 
will show you where we propose to put this waste in Nevada, in the 
desert. We have a chart that shows the area out at Yucca Mountain as it 
exists today. This is the proposed location for the permanent 
repository at the Nevada site.
  I am sensitive to the reality that this is the soil of the State of 
Nevada. But I am also a realist and recognize that, for 50 years, we 
have been using this area for nuclear testing. It is hot, Mr. 
President. We have had over 800 nuclear weapons tests in this area. If 
you believe in the theory that an area, at some point in time, becomes 
pretty heavily polluted--if I can use the word--does it make sense, 
then, to try to recognize a site for what it is and ask, well, if the 
geological area is sufficient, is this a good site for a permanent 
nuclear repository underground?
  That selection was made a long time ago, so that is not the issue 
today. The issue is how we are going to proceed with an understanding 
of how we can go forth, begin to move the waste, when this site is 
licensed by the various agencies and we can proceed in placing the 
waste in that permanent repository where we have spent $6 billion.
  I have been there. I have been through the tunnel. The tunneling is 
basically done. If we don't put it there, where are we going to put it? 
Some say, leave it at the site. Some others say, put it in casks above 
ground and store it. Well, then what do you do with it--put it off? 
Remember, all this time, we are in violation of our contractual 
commitment to take the waste in 1998. So the clock ticks. There is a 
full employment act for lawyers who are filing damage suits. They love 
this delay. The American taxpayer doesn't know what is hitting him 
because the damages click on. That is why we have an obligation as 
Members of this body to address and resolve this now.
  Let's go through some of the 40 States that are affected. I hope that 
the staffs of each of the States watch this. If you disagree with me, 
that is fine. Get ahold of the staff and we will try to proceed.
  Arkansas. A few of our prominent people come from Arkansas. Arkansas 
residents paid over $365 million into that waste fund in their utility 
bills. There are two units, Nuclear Unit 1 and 2. The waste stored is 
690 metric tons. Their waste--under their permit, unit 1 runs out in 
1996 and unit 2, in 1997. Those dates have passed. The State of 
Arkansas gets 33 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy. These 
charts were made up some time ago. So the waste stored now is more. The 
question of whether Arkansas is going to increase its licensing is up 
to the folks from Arkansas. But the point is, that is one State. We 
have 40 States. I am going to go through a few of them.
  Connecticut. Residents paid in $655 million. They have two units, 
Millstone 2 and 3. Waste stored is 1,445 metric tons, DOE/defense 
waste. Millstone 2 runs out in 2 years; Millstone 3, in 2003. That 
State is 43-percent dependent on nuclear energy. That is the hard cold 
fact.
  Massachusetts. Their waste fund is $156 million. One unit, Pilgrim 1. 
Waste stored is 495 metric tons. There is a vacancy if they install new 
racks. The State's electricity is 12-percent dependent.

  Oregon. The waste fund is $108 million. One unit, Trojan. Waste 
stored is 424 metric tons. Hanford site, waste stored is 2,133 metric 
tons. Trojan closed for decommissioning. Think about that. Do you know 
what that means? That means that waste isn't going to go anywhere other 
than to stay in Oregon, unless we pass some legislation that proceeds 
in a process so we can move this waste out of these sites.
  Moving south, Louisiana. Residents paid $339 million. Two units, 
Riverbend 1 and Waterford 3. There are 567 metric tons stored. 
Waterford runs out in 2002; Riverbend, 2007. Louisiana is 22-percent 
dependent on nuclear energy.
  Illinois. The waste fund is $2 billion. The residents of the State of 
Illinois have paid $2 billion in their electric bills. The reason they 
paid that is so the Federal Government would honor its contract and 
take the waste in 1998. They have 11 units: Braidwood 1 and 2; Bryon 1 
and 2; Clinton; Dresden 2 and 3; La Salle 1 and 2; Quad Cities 1 and 2.

[[Page S466]]

 DOE research reactor full, stored 40 metric tons. Dresden 3 expires in 
2000. Dresden 2 expires in 2002. Clinton expires in 2003. Quad Cities 
expires in 2006. Zion expires in 2006. La Salle expires in 2013. Bryon 
expires in 2005. Braidwood expires in 2019. The State is 39-percent 
dependent.
  From where is this power going to come? Not from thin air. Somebody 
has to produce it. Do you want a brownout? These plants are in 
violation after that date. There is a necessity of us resolving this in 
a bipartisan manner. We have that obligation. We should make a 
commitment on this floor to proceed with the objective of solving this.
  Michigan. Their waste fund is $696 million. There are four units: 
Cook 1 and 2; Fermi 2; Palisades. Waste stored is 1,493 metric tons. 
DOE research reactor. Palisades expires in 1992; Fermi, in 2001; Cook, 
in 2014. The State is 24-percent nuclear dependent.
  Wisconsin. I remind my fellow colleagues from these States that if we 
don't do anything, it is going to stay right in your State. Is that 
what you want to have happen? In Wisconsin, the waste fund is $344 
million. They have three units, Kewaunee and Point Beach. Waste stored 
is 967 metric tons. Point Beach expires in 1995. Kewaunee expires in 
2001. They are 8-percent dependent. Maybe they are waiting on the 
assumption that we are going to address this problem once and for all.
  Georgia, in the South. Their waste fund is $529 million. They have 
four units: Hatch 1 and 2, Vogtle 1 and 2. The waste stored is 1,182 
metric tons. The Savannah River site waste stored is 206 metric tons. 
Hatch 1 and 2 were out in 1999. The State is 30-percent dependent.
  Washington State. The waste fund is $344 million. One unit, WNP 2. 
Waste stored is 292 metric tons. They are up this year. State's 
electricity is 6 percent. To a large degree, they depend on hydro, but 
they still have a problem.
  Maine. Their waste fund is $233 million. One unit shut down, Maine 
Yankee. Waste stored is 536 metric tons. Does Maine want that waste to 
sit there? Do the elected Representatives of the State of Maine want 
this waste to sit there or move it to one central location that was 
designed to take the waste?

  I see my colleague from Pennsylvania on the floor. In his State, the 
ratepayers have paid $1.338 million for the waste fund. They paid $245 
million in their electric bills. They have nine units: Beaver Valley, 
Limerick, Peach Bottom, Susquehanna, Three Mile Island, and 3,327 
metric tons. Beaver Valley is out in 2015, Limerick is out in 2005, 
Peach Bottom is out in 1999, and Susquehanna is out in 1998. 
Pennsylvania has a generating capacity of 34 percent which is dependent 
on nuclear energy.
  Finally, Vermont. I am not going to go through all States. But I want 
to make the point that $186 million has been paid by the ratepayers 
with one unit.
  Vermont Yankee: Waste stored, 429 metric tons. Vermont Yankee runs 
out in 2005. In this State, generating capacity is 73 percent nuclear 
energy.
  I think that highlights my point that there are very few States that 
are exempt. Out of the 50 States, there are about 10 that have no 
nuclear waste in their States.
  Again, the locations of the spent fuel and radioactive waste designed 
for geologic disposal are all of these colors. From all of these places 
it is going to go to the proposed one site at Yucca Mountain. How can 
we work with Nevada to reach some kind of an accord?
  That is tough because Nevada doesn't want it as a principle, but it 
creates jobs. But, by the same token, they are very sensitive to this. 
I can appreciate that sensitivity. I again appeal to reason. We have to 
put it somewhere. We identified this as the appropriate place.
  We are proceeding with the process of licensing. We have an 
obligation as elected Representatives to resolve the problem. It is not 
a partisan issue. I defer the thought process to the obligation we are 
putting on the taxpayers as we put off, whether it be the Senate, the 
House, or the administration, reaching a decision on how to proceed 
with this because it is costing the taxpayers more money. One of these 
days the taxpayers are going to wake up to the fact that each family in 
this country is carrying a proportionate share of between $1,300 and 
$1,400 for the damages that are anticipated associated with the 
inability of the Government to take that waste in 1998 as it agreed to 
do under a contractual commitment, let alone overlooking the fact that 
the ratepayers have paid $15 billion to the Federal Government to take 
the waste.
  It is beyond me as to why the current administration has not been 
more aggressive in saying, yes, it is our responsibility to get it 
resolved. We have had a number of objections from the administration 
over the years in the process of trying to proceed with this.
  These objections cover a series of legitimate concerns. But I think 
in some sense they have lost sight of what our objective had to be, and 
that is to recognize we have the obligation to resolve the problem.
  I met with the Secretary of Energy early last year. At that time, we 
were hung up on how to proceed and what to do about the extended 
litigation that was occurring as a consequence of the Government's 
inability to honor the contractual commitment. The issue was, well, how 
can we find a compromise? We agreed to meet the administration's 
proposal that the Department of Energy may take title to spent fuel and 
may pay some of the costs of that storage. That was a significant good-
faith effort to try to reach an accord.

  The other alternative would have been the utility simply suing the 
Federal Government. But this was the suggestion of the Secretary. We 
concurred and agreed with it.
  The other issue was the concern of previous bills which would allow 
interim storage to occur at Yucca Mountain until Yucca Mountain was 
licensed. This is important because we need relief. The most immediate 
way to get relief is to begin moving this waste to Yucca for temporary 
storage in casks on the surface until such time as Yucca Mountain is 
licensed and the waste can be put in a permanent repository. The 
administration opposed that. Nevada opposed that because they looked at 
it as the last straw and with certainty that the waste was definitely 
going to Nevada. We were trying to find a way to remove the crucial 
time element where some of these plants had to shut down, move the 
waste out under some plan, and put it in casks on the surface until 
such time as Yucca Mountain opened. We dropped that at the insistence 
of the administration. We eliminated the ability to temporarily move 
that waste until Yucca could be licensed.
  That was a very significant effort to come to grips with the concerns 
of the administration. But clearly the administration was concerned 
about elections in Nevada. I can understand that and appreciate that. 
We didn't move the waste into temporary storage. Now the question that 
seems to be crucial is how we are going to get a radiation standard 
that is attainable. It is a legitimate question.
  We are proposing to get the best science available. What is the best 
science? There is a lot of science out there. We want a radiation 
standard that will be attainable which will allow us at such time as 
Yucca is licensed to be able to move the waste there. If we have a 
standard that is unattainable, this whole thing is for naught. We will 
have expanded dramatically the obligation of the American taxpayer not 
only in damages where we failed to adhere to the sanctity of the 
contract but damages associated with further delay.
  We have proposed in general terms to bring with the best science, 
which is pretty hard to do in this kind of climate. That science 
consists of those who are very familiar with items of this nature. One 
of them is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licensed the plants 
and which has probably more Ph.D.s associated with the nuclear industry 
and nuclear issues than any other agency--to bring that agency together 
with the National Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Protection 
Agency to work towards a solution on a radiation standard in a positive 
sense so that we have good, sound science. We have a problem with that 
to some extent.
  I hope we can come to grips and recognize in the spirit of good faith 
the objective is to get the best science, from whatever sources.
  The EPA has the final obligation for rulemaking. However, we are 
proposing that not occur until after June of the year 2001. In the 
meantime, we want them to come together to achieve an

[[Page S467]]

attainable level of a radiation standard with which we can live. The 
radiation standards are all over the ballpark. They are in the eyes of 
the beholder.
  In this debate, we will have an opportunity to explain at greater 
length the concern we have that, after completing this process, the 
Environmental Protection Agency promulgates a rule on radiation 
standards that is simply unattainable. If everything were equal in 
evaluating this, I would not have that concern. However, there are some 
in this country, including environmental groups--and I am sure the 
National Academy of Science as well as the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission perhaps to a lesser extent, but certainly within the 
Environmental Protection Agency--who would like to see no solution.
  What is their motivation? There is a fear that somehow we will expand 
nuclear energy or the role of nuclear energy. Some suggest if we 
overcome what to do with the waste, it will stimulate the construction 
of new plants.
  I am not here as an advocate of nuclear energy, but I am here as a 
realist to recognize we cannot have it both ways. We are concerned 
about air quality. We are concerned about global climate change. We are 
concerned about Kyoto. We should be. Is there a role for nuclear 
energy? There should be. From the administration, the Vice President, 
no mention is made of the role of nuclear energy in any proposals on 
climate change. One can only assume that the environmental groups that 
oppose the nuclear industry prevail in the mindset associated within 
the administration. If they do, that is fine; let's be open. But we 
should recognize we have an obligation to come up with an alternative.
  To suggest the solution is simply to let this industry choke on its 
own waste is unrealistic and irresponsible. That is why we must work in 
a bipartisan manner for a solution and not lose sight of our objective, 
which occurs around here, by getting hung up on various aspects of 
detail and legalistic language. We are either going to move this waste 
or we are not. If we move it, we are going to save the American 
taxpayer money. We will adhere to the sanctity of the contractual 
agreement to take that waste in 1998. That is where we are.
  Mr. President, I know my colleagues want to be heard and we have not 
entered into any time agreement. Ordinarily, we break for the policy 
luncheon. I believe we have a cloture vote scheduled at 2:15. Without 
losing my right to the floor, how can we accommodate our colleagues, 
recognizing we have a limited time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, we break at 12:30 
p.m. for the policy luncheons. Under the Pastore rule, only germane 
debate can be accepted in the first 3 hours.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That occurs beginning at 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 11:21 was the start of the debate, so for the 
next 3 hours the debate has to be germane.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is the intention to break at 12:30 and we come back 
in at 2:15 and we have a cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if I could make a parliamentary inquiry, 
it is my understanding we have a unanimous consent agreement in place 
calling for a vote on the cloture motion at 2:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I hope to speak for about 15 minutes to 
give an opening statement explaining my views on this issue. I know 
there are other Senators wishing to speak on this issue. I have no need 
for additional time other than that.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend. I 
hope in a bipartisan spirit we can come to grips with our obligation to 
resolve this issue to benefit the American taxpayer as a renewed 
sanctity of the contractual commitment the Federal Government has made.
  I pledge to work with the Senator and my colleagues from Nevada in 
that spirit in hopes we can reach a satisfactory resolution and not be 
buried in an impossible situation that simply detracts from our 
objective.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, as well as the 
Senator from Alaska.
  Let me first discuss where we are procedurally because I think it is 
important to put my comments in context. We are going to vote at 2:30 
on a cloture motion to proceed to consider an amendment I will be 
discussing in my remarks. There have been substantial discussions 
between the chairman and me since that amendment was distributed last 
Friday. It is my understanding there are going to be major changes made 
to this amendment after the cloture vote occurs. We will be able to see 
those. We have not seen them in writing yet, but we have had extensive 
discussion.
  I want to make it clear that I will raise serious questions about the 
bill on which we are voting cloture. At the same time, I will indicate 
I support cloture so we can move the process forward and I hope we can 
find in the course of this debate a way to resolve the issues to which 
I will allude in these comments.
  The issue of disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste has been debated in the Senate, in one form or 
another, as long as I have been a Member.
  Nuclear waste is a serious issue that demands serious attention by 
all Senators. It is a problem that is national in scope.
  It is also a particular responsibility of the Federal Government. 
After all, it was the Federal Government that proposed, beginning with 
the Atoms for Peace Program in the Eisenhower administration, to 
develop the peaceful uses of nuclear power. The problems of disposal of 
spent nuclear fuel that we face today are the legacy of our past laws 
and decisions.
  There are serious problems facing the national nuclear waste program 
that merit attention now, in this Congress.
  I have some important disagreements with the chairman. I will go 
through those in some detail here, about the substitute amendment that 
is going to be voted on, on cloture, because I believe that particular 
amendment is fatally flawed in several respects. But I also believe the 
chairman is doing the right thing by pushing the issue to decision and 
by forcing the Senate and the Congress to grapple with the issue of how 
to store our Nation's nuclear waste.
  Let me point out what I think are some of the important nuclear 
waste-related issues that call out for our attention and require us to 
take some action, if we can, in this Congress.
  First, ratepayers have paid over $8 billion in fees to the nuclear 
waste fund. That money which has been paid in has earned about $2 
billion in interest. Only $5 billion of that total of $10 billion has 
been spent on the program. Our current budget rules and accounting 
principles make it nearly impossible to give the program, each year, 
the appropriation it deserves and requires. For example, in fiscal year 
1996, the President asked for $640 million for DOE's Yucca Mountain 
program. Congress appropriated $315 million, less than half of that.
  As a result, the program had to abandon a comprehensive program plan 
that was less than 2 years old and go through yet one more strategic 
planning exercise to figure out how to cope with the inadequate funding 
they had been provided.
  The result of all this is to create considerable concern on the part 
of many about this nuclear waste program, in particular the Nuclear 
Waste Technical Review Board, which has stated the program is not 
making adequate technical progress at Yucca Mountain in order to make a 
defensible determination of its suitability in the next few years.
  I think that is a concern we need to take seriously in the Senate. 
Not surprisingly, the utilities themselves and the public utility 
commissions and the States that are paying in $600 million each year 
and seeing only a fraction of that being spent, and the possibility 
looming there will be further delays because we lack the technical 
answers to questions about site suitability, are also upset by the 
state of affairs, and they have every right to be.
  Let me go on to another reason why we need to address this issue in 
this Congress. The Department of Energy did not meet the January 31, 
1998, deadline to which Chairman Murkowski referred. That is a deadline 
to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Not only did we not meet that, we are 
way behind the original schedule in building the repository.

[[Page S468]]

 Utilities and ratepayers are beginning to make plans to pay for onsite 
storage for spent fuel in addition to what they would otherwise have 
needed if the Department of Energy had met its deadline.
  While many thought the 1998 deadline was unrealistic when it was 
first picked as a target date, nobody thought we would miss it by as 
wide a margin as we have. Lawsuits have been filed. The Department of 
Energy has concluded it does not have the legal authority to settle the 
suits by directly addressing the needs of utilities to do something 
with the fuel that is on their hands. So additional legislation is 
required to deal with that issue. Hopefully, we can come up with an 
agreement on that legislation before we conclude action on this bill.
  We could choose to ignore the problem, but I believe we would do so 
somewhat at our own peril. Lawsuits are working their way through the 
Court of Federal Claims with contradictory results at the lower levels 
of the court, so no one can say how the courts will ultimately rule on 
the Department of Energy's contractual obligations--but the Federal 
courts have surprised the Government previously in recent years with 
rulings in favor of the utilities.
  A third reason we need to deal with this in this Congress is the 
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste is a 
legitimate concern to the communities through which it will travel on 
its way from the nuclear plants where it is located to any repository. 
This is true nationwide. It is true in my own State of New Mexico. The 
standards governing shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste 
are currently below those for less radioactive waste streams, such as 
the waste going to the WIPP project in my own State. This situation 
arises because Congress instituted higher standards for packaging and 
shipment of transuranic waste in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of 1992. 
The WIPP provisions have, so far, had some success. One could argue 
whether there are lessons learned that should be applied to spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level waste in the form of even stricter 
requirements than for WIPP, since spent fuel and high-level waste 
plausibly involve greater risks to the public, in case of an accident. 
It certainly does not make much sense, though, and it is not in the 
public interest to ignore the advances in standards and transportation 
procedures that have occurred since passage of the original Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act of 1982.

  These issues I mentioned speak for themselves. It is possible to 
build a good set of amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 
and to deal with these problems. The amendment we are going to vote 
cloture on does not do that. I hope the substitute we can come up with 
will.
  Let me cite some areas where we have agreement because there are 
some. Clearly, those need to be mentioned. Anyone who looks at the 
substitute amendment and compares it to the original bill introduced in 
the Congress has to admit, and I readily do, that although there are 
still crucial flaws in the bill, major progress has been made on a 
number of topics--progress toward getting a decent bill. These include 
abandoning the plan to have interim storage in Nevada while the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission is deliberating on the license application for 
the permanent repository. That was major progress for which I commend 
the chairman.
  Second, embracing instead a plan to have the Department of Energy 
authorized to take title to fuel where it can work out settlement 
agreements with utilities, that is also major progress in my view. And 
making a significant move toward accepting the EPA's final rulemaking 
authority, that is important. I hope that is something to which we can 
finally agree.
  But there are areas of disagreement. Let me mention those very 
briefly. They include restrictions on the EPA standard-setting process; 
second, inadequate transportation safeguards--these are concerns with 
the bill which we are voting cloture on; third, one-sided take-title 
provisions--I can go into detail on these; fourth, the support for 
foreign reprocessing of nuclear fuel which, to my mind, is not a good 
investment of taxpayer dollars. If there is research to be done, we 
should go ahead and do it, and there is clearly research to be done. 
And fifth, neglect for the pressing funding needs of the program, that 
also is not addressed.
  Preserving the integrity of the EPA rulemaking process for the Yucca 
Mountain radiation standard is one of the threshold issues in this 
bill. The chairman's substitute dilutes both EPA's rulemaking authority 
for the remainder of this administration as well as changing the 
substantive standard of protection. Right now, the standard EPA has to 
follow is to protect public health and safety and the environment. 
Under the chairman's substitute, EPA, for the next 16 months, would be 
able to do so only to the extent that it would allow the agency to meet 
the standard of being ``attainable'' at Yucca Mountain. This 
effectively stacks the deck in the standard-setting process. It also, 
in my view, may create a more lasting problem of legitimacy for the 
standard and for the program as a whole in the minds of disinterested 
citizens.
  In New Mexico, we have had experience with EPA standard setting for 
radioactive waste disposal facilities. EPA both set the compliance 
criteria for the waste isolation pilot plant, or WIPP, and certified 
that the faculty, as built, met those criteria. It was a long and 
arduous process. But in the end, the fact that EPA was able to do the 
job on the merits was important to the facility gaining legitimacy in 
the minds of most New Mexicans.
  I believe that EPA can do a fair job of setting a standard for Yucca 
Mountain, and I will continue in that belief until someone shows me the 
record in this rulemaking that indicates the contrary. Surely, the 
draft rule published by EPA last August, which laid out a number of 
options for such a standard, cannot be characterized as arbitrary or 
capricious. DOE, the NRC, and the National Academy of Sciences have 
taken exception to a number of options and approaches in the rule, as 
is their right. They have put comments in the rulemaking file that EPA 
will have to grapple with honestly, if the agency wants to see its 
standard survive judicial review.
  Given this, I would not favor either transferring the job of EPA to 
another agency, or giving some other Federal agency an effective veto 
over EPA's discretion. The bill reported from the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources did the former, and the chairman's substitute did 
the latter. This is a major reason for my opposition to this 
substitute.
  A second major concern that I have with the substitute is its 
approach toward the transportation of nuclear waste. Transportation of 
nuclear waste is a matter of concern to many members of the general 
public. The chairman's substitute does not address these concerns 
adequately, in my view. There is no independent oversight of the design 
and manufacture of the shipping canisters in which nuclear waste will 
travel. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has testified before the 
Senate Energy Committee that it lacks adequate regulatory authority 
over DOE shipments. Unfortunately, this gap in regulatory authority is 
not addressed in the bill or the substitute. What is in the bill looks 
like an excessively ornate structure of plans that conflict with one 
another and probably give rise to lost of litigation. It is hard to see 
how that sort of extra bureaucracy protects public safety.
  In addition to provisions that don't effectively protect the safety 
of citizens living along routes where nuclear waste will be 
transported, the chairman's substitute contains provisions that cancel 
out certain routes in certain states, by means of criteria such as 
maximum downgrade percentages. I would oppose  this sort of provision 
on principle, as I have consistently opposed carve-out amendments on 
prior nuclear waste bills. In this particular case, my own State of New 
Mexico is being particularly disadvantaged, as trucking routes in 
Colorado are canceled out, thereby shifting truck shipments through 
Wyoming on I-80 and New Mexico on I-25 and I-40. Speaking for New 
Mexicans, I can think of few worse places for a truck of nuclear waste 
than on the interchange, in the center of Albuquerque, of I-25 and I-
40. New Mexicans call it the ``Big I,'' and it is legendary for its 
poor design.

  A third major flaw in this bill concerns the ground rules that the 
bill

[[Page S469]]

lays out for the Department of Energy in its negotiations with the 
utilities over taking title to spent nuclear fuel. The only reason to 
have a take-title mechanism is to respond to DOE's non-performance with 
respect to specific contracts. Yet, the language of the chairman's 
substitute contains several changes to what the committee reported last 
spring on these lines. All these changes are in the direction of 
clouding the issue of what DOE is responsible for. The probable result 
of this blurring of responsibility is that numerous utilities will 
claim that the Congress intends for DOE to go beyond making them whole 
for specific non-performance on specific contracts. The bill for this 
extra scope for DOE's relief of the utilities will be borne by either 
the general taxpayer or the Nuclear Waste Fund, and both sources of 
funds are a problem. In the former case, it is not fair. In the latter 
instance, the Waste Fund is already supposed to pay for the repository 
and the legitimate costs of taking title. It is not reasonable to 
create a scenario where utilities can claim that Congress intended DOE 
to pay more than those legitimate costs associated with contractual 
breaches.
  A fourth major flaw in the bill is its authorization for DOE to spend 
taxpayer dollars to fund foreign reprocessing and transmutation 
activities in countries that are not willing to pay for such activities 
themselves. I do not know why we should have blanket authority for DOE 
to spread reprocessing technology worldwide in this manner. Most other 
countries that have looked at the sort of reprocessing and 
transmutation that would be supported by this bill have concluded that 
there are serious technical challenges that will take decades to 
resolve. Our own National Academy of Sciences agreed in its 1996 report 
on ``Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation.''
  Finally, the fifth major flaw in the bill is its lack of attention to 
the most critical problem facing the Yucca Mountain program--the lack 
of funding to characterize the mountain properly, or to build the 
repository, if authorized. The chairman's substitute does nothing 
either to make the balances in the Nuclear Waste Fund more readily 
available to fund the work needed to demonstrate the mountain's 
suitability and licensability, or even to make a special one-time fee 
under current law for certain utilities directly available to the 
program. The latter provision would not score under our budget rules, 
since it is currently outside the 10-year scoring window. If DOE took 
title to fuel from certain utilities, it might be able to collect the 
one-time fee early, but without special legislation, the fee would 
vanish into the Treasury without a trace, and without helping the 
program.
  Let me get to a conclusion so others can speak before we go into 
recess for our caucuses. I do think this issue of adequate funding so 
the program can go forward, so the site can be characterized, is 
absolutely crucial. I hope very much the Senate will address that 
before we pass a bill or before we conclude action on an amendment on 
the Senate floor in the form of a substitute.
  Let me conclude my remarks by reiterating the basic principles behind 
my opposition to the substitute amendment. These are things which I 
hope very much can be resolved in the alternative that is now being 
prepared and is going to be available for us to review this afternoon. 
We ought to focus, in this legislation, on making the current program 
work. That means, No. 1, giving the Department of Energy the tools it 
needs to resolve current litigation over its failure to meet past 
contractual obligations. I hope we can do that in an effective way.
  Second, it means upgrading transportation standards for spent nuclear 
fuel and high-level waste. Again, I hope we can do that in the 
legislation we finally act on.
  Third, it means making the needed funds available to characterize 
Yucca Mountain, and to build Yucca Mountain if it is licensed by the 
NRC. I hope we can act on that.
  The fourth item is, the program does not need to suffer a loss of 
public legitimacy by legislatively stacking the deck against EPA's 
ability to carry out its statutory authority on protecting health and 
safety. We can find a solution to that. I hope very much we do.
  Finally, the fifth item I want to mention is the program does not 
need extra doses of paper-pushing bureaucracy and bureaucracy related 
to transportation of nuclear waste, accompanied with unrealistic 
deadlines for putting waste on the road.
  We found that we, American taxpayers, have incurred substantial 
liability because of our writing into law deadlines which turned out to 
be unrealistic before. Let's not make that same mistake again in 
legislation on the Senate floor this week.
  I did not support the chairman's amendment even though I appreciate 
his attempts to improve it.
  He has been negotiating in good faith to improve this amendment, and 
I greatly appreciate that. We have not seen that alternative substitute 
provision, so I cannot say whether we have reached agreement or not on 
the various items I have identified, but I hope we have made progress 
on each of them.
  It is important to move the process forward. It is important to come 
to closure on this bill in a bipartisan way. This is not a partisan 
matter. I hope all Senators will support the effort to invoke cloture 
so we can move ahead, and then I hope we can all work in good faith to 
improve the basic bill we are considering before we have to vote on a 
final bill.
  Obviously, I could not support a vote in favor of the final bill on 
which we are invoking cloture, but I hope before the process concludes 
I can support a piece of legislation that will solve the problems I 
have enumerated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I came to the floor 40 
minutes ago with the expectation of introducing legislation. We found 
we were already on the bill. I have checked with the managers, Senator 
Murkowski and Senator Bingaman, who have no objections--nor does 
Senator Bryan--to Senator Harkin and myself proceeding for 
approximately 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin 
and I be permitted to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business for 
the purpose of introducing legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter and Mr. Harkin pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2038 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________