[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 11 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S515-S520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1999--Continued

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are still in the process of trying 
to resolve the nuclear waste bill. As the Chair is aware, last night we 
laid down the substitute amendment; that has been circulated in the 
body. We have some amendments pending, and I will identify those at a 
later time. It is a very short list. Some may be deemed by the Chair to 
be nongermane. I think we can begin the process now of addressing this 
legislation in a positive vein inasmuch as it would provide a workable 
methodology for the Federal program to ensure that our nuclear waste is 
managed safely and efficiently.
  My point in highlighting this is to identify the value of this 
legislation, as it stands, with the substitute filed last night. I went 
through an extended statement yesterday indicating that nuclear energy 
produces 20 percent of our electricity today. We simply cannot 
jeopardize our economic future by ignoring the contribution the nuclear 
industry makes to our Nation and the realization that the industry is 
choking on its waste. And the idea remains of losing 103 nuclear 
powerplants over a period of time because of the Federal Government's 
failure to honor the sanctity of the contractual commitment to take 
that waste in 1998, even though the ratepayers contributed some $15 
billion to the Federal Government to ensure the Federal Government 
would have the funds to take and dispose of the waste. Well, we are all 
aware of the realities associated with the inability of the Government 
to do that, to fulfill that contract and honor the sanctity of that 
contractual commitment.
  What isn't generally known or understood is the extent of liability 
associated with the failure of the Government to perform its 
contractual obligation. I have indicated that it is full employment for 
some lawyers. The liability is somewhere between $40 billion and $80 
billion for failure of performance.
  I think we agree that we have an obligation to come together to solve 
this problem on behalf of the American taxpayers, where each family is 
subjected to an allocation cost of about $1,400 per family in this 
country each year as we delay the process. We have made substantial 
progress in addressing these issues and working with my friends from 
Utah--and I am sensitive to their particular position--as well as the 
minority and the ranking member from New Mexico, for whom I have the 
greatest respect. As a consequence, I believe this bill provides 
significant benefits to the consumers, who have paid $15 billion-plus 
for this Federal disposal program, and the program direction we have in 
this legislation for the Energy Department which must carry out this 
important environmental obligation.
  Now, the Senate should pass this legislation. The administration 
should support this approach to solving this critical national issue.
  Senate bill 1287 provides important changes to existing law as 
embodied in my new substitute that allows the Department of Energy to 
meet its 1998 obligation to manage used nuclear fuel from nuclear 
powerplants which have already begun to run out of space in especially 
designed storage pools.
  Further, it allows for the settlement of litigation, begins a process 
of settlement for litigation between these utilities and the Energy 
Department in a fair way, and eliminates costly litigation against the 
Federal government, hence the taxpayer.
  This bill would protect the use of billions of dollars in the nuclear 
waste fund so it is used only for the repository program and not 
diverted to cover

[[Page S516]]

the cost of long-term storage at these plants in some 40 States.
  The fund itself could be used, however, to purchase containers to 
house the fuel. Those containers were used also to ship the fuel to a 
repository. I am not suggesting that is the case, but that is possible.
  S. 1287 retains the EPA--I want to emphasize this--as the sole 
authority to establish radiation protection standards at Yucca Mountain 
and establishes a method for EPA to discuss the standards with the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Academy of Sciences. But 
it preserves, in spite of what the Washington Post reported and the 
administration, the EPA as the sole authority to establish standards.
  Finally, this bill protects consumers from unreasonable increases in 
Federal nuclear waste fund fees. It allows only Congress to increase 
those fees--not the Secretary of Energy.
  Every Member of this Senate is going to have an opportunity to 
express his or her opinion if the fees are raised. It is not going to 
be an arbitrary decision from the Department of Energy.
  These provisions represent a couple of areas in which we can by 
working together to craft a bill that provides the necessary leadership 
to finally move this program towards achieving the intent of the 
original Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I urge my colleagues to support this 
meaningful reform and begin the responsibility of managing nuclear 
waste from the 40 States at one location--not 40 locations.
  I am pleased to say I have just learned Senator Kerrey of Nebraska 
has come on as an original cosponsor of the legislation.
  Briefly, the benefits of S. 1287 are:
  Early receipt of used fuel at site in the year 2007 no later than 18 
months after authorization of construction by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission is in the amendment.
  There is protection. The nuclear waste fund section 105(e) ``source 
of funds'' states:

       The Secretary may not make expenditures in the Nuclear 
     Waste Fund for any costs that may be incurred by the 
     Secretary pursuant to a settlement agreement or backup 
     storage contract under this Act except:
       1. The cost of acquiring and loading spent nuclear fuel 
     casks;
       2. The cost of transporting spent nuclear fuel from the 
     contract holder's site to the repository; and ``. . .other 
     costs required to perform settlement agreement or backup 
     storage.''

  Further, it prevents unreasonable increases in fees. Section 104 of 
the nuclear waste fee states:

       The adjusted fee proposed by the Secretary shall be 
     effective upon enactment of a joint resolution or other 
     provision of law specifically approving the adjusted fee.

  It provides for the development of a protective radiation standard, 
giving absolute authority for setting of a standard to the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  I want to repeat that.
  It provides for the development of a protective radiation standard by 
giving the absolute authority for setting a standard to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, while acknowledging for the ability of 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide consultation and comments 
to Congress, as well as the hopeful contribution by the National 
Academy of Sciences so we can get the very best science on this. But 
the decision is still the EPA.
  Specifically, the amendment drops the interim storage, requires 
Congress to approve any increases in fees to protect the consumer, sets 
the schedule for development of a repository, authorizes backup storage 
at a repository for any spent fuel that utilities ``cannot store 
onsite,'' and allows the Environmental Protection Agency to set a 
radiation standard after June 1, 2001; prior to those consultations, 
only with the NAS and the NRC to ensure we have the best science and 
that the standard is set. But it is EPA's responsibility under statute 
to set the standard. We want it based on the best science available.
  Further, it authorizes a settlement agreement for outstanding 
litigation and requires an election to settle within 180 days as 
requested by the administration.
  The idea is to start the settlement process within 6 months. It sets 
acceptance schedules for spent fuel and transfers 76,000 acres of land 
to Nevada counties to assist them with the impact of the repository in 
the counties.

  It uses the WIPP model for transportation, which is currently used in 
New Mexico, consistent with existing law under HAZMAT. I want to 
emphasize this. The State will be selecting the routes so we can move 
this waste from the 40 States where it is located to one site at Yucca 
Mountain.
  We included training provisions to ensure safety in the movement of 
that waste.
  There was a question of transportation. The minority believed very 
strongly that we should not be subsidizing international research for 
the development of transmutation. We struck that from our original 
version.
  We include the decommissioning of a pilot program for the sodium-
cooler fast breeder reactor in Arkansas.
  We included a study on the Prairie Island rate impact as well. But 
there are a couple of points I want to emphasize, specifically for 
Members of this body--and their staffs--from Delaware, West Virginia, 
Kentucky, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, 
Hawaii, and my State of Alaska.
  The significance of that list is that there are no commercial waste 
sites in those States. But we have a chart that shows where they are. 
They are in 40 other States. But they are not in Delaware, West 
Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North 
Dakota, Hawaii, or Alaska.
  If you are paying attention to this debate, you should be interested 
in the disposition of waste that may be in one of your States--one of 
the 40 States.
  This chart clearly identifies the various States where we have 
commercial reactors. We have shut down reactors. We have spent nuclear 
fuel storage. We have research reactors, naval reactor fuel, so forth 
and so on.
  Several years ago, when we started on this legislative train to try 
to resolve this problem, there was a suggestion made and legislation 
was developed that said, well, since Yucca Mountain isn't ready, it is 
not licensed, and we have some of these storage plants that are in a 
critical stage, the volume of waste has either exceeded or is about to 
exceed the licensed storage in those plants, those States can shut 
those plants down.
  What are you going to do to make up for the loss of that electric 
generation? That was left to a later date. The idea, then, was to move 
some of the waste from some of the critical reactors where storage had 
been built to a temporary repository at Yucca Mountain-- put it in 
casks until Yucca Mountain was certified, licensed, and finalized. 
There are a lot of steps to go through.

  There was great concern over that. Nevada felt there was a finality 
associated with it. In other words, it implies that once it is placed 
there it will never move again. They opposed that. The administration 
opposed it because they said we had not finalized and licensed Yucca 
Mountain. There is always a chance we won't be able to do that. Of 
course, that evades reality because we will still have to put it 
somewhere.
  Let me share a letter which I think personifies where we are in this 
debate. It is from the Governors of the various States in the Northeast 
corridor, for the most part: Governor Dean, Democrat of Vermont; 
Governor King, Independent of Maine; Governor Shaheen, Democrat from 
New Hampshire; Jesse Ventura, Reform Party of Minnesota; Governor Tom 
Vilsack, Democrat of Iowa; Governor Jeb Bush of Florida; Governor John 
Kitzhaber. They sent a letter to the President which I highlighted the 
other day. We have come full circle on the issue.
  The letter reads as follows:

       We governors from states hosting commercial nuclear power 
     plants and from affected states express our opposition to the 
     plan proposed by Energy Secretary Richardson in his February 
     1999 testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
     Committee. Secretary Richardson proposes that the Department 
     of Energy take title, assume management responsibility and 
     pay costs at nuclear plant sites for used nuclear fuel it was 
     legally and contractually obligated to begin removing in 
     January 1998. This proposed plan would create semi-permanent, 
     federally controlled, used nuclear fuel facilities in each of 
     our states.

  Think about that. We are not going to allow a temporary repository at 
Yucca Mountain until we get a final decision. That legislation was 
defeated. The Secretary and perhaps others suggested they take title to 
the fuel. By taking title to the fuel, that does just that: It takes 
title in each of 40 States.

[[Page S517]]

It provides no guarantee as to when or if it will be moved. As a 
consequence, 40 States have no assurance it will leave their State.
  Every Member of this body representing the 40 States that have 
nuclear power should be very concerned about the implications of this.
  In deference to the Secretary of Energy, my good friend, Secretary 
Richardson, assured me he would be able to adequately address the 
concerns of the Governors. I think he made a good-faith effort. 
Obviously, it was not enough. Perhaps the reason it was not enough--and 
this is certainly not the fault of the Secretary--was the inability of 
the Government to commit to its word to take the waste in 1998. It was 
not under his watch. The Government simply could not resolve it, so it 
was not done.
  I want to stress the significance of what this means to these States 
that have expressed their concern. They are fearful that taking title 
in their State would create semipermanent, federally controlled, used 
nuclear fuel facilities in each of the States. They continue with more 
food for thought that I think is appropriate. They say:

       The plan proposes to use our electric consumer monies which 
     were paid to the federal government for creating a final 
     disposal repository for used nuclear fuel. Such fuels cannot 
     legally be used for any other purpose than a federal 
     repository.

  They don't have that in mind.
       This plan abridges states rights--it constitutes federal 
     takings and establishes new nuclear waste facilities outside 
     of state authority and control.
       These new federal nuclear waste facilities would be on 
     river fronts, lakes and seashores which would never be chosen 
     for permanent disposal of used nuclear fuel in a site 
     selection process.
       The plan constitutes a major federal action which has not 
     gone through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
     review process.

  It is interesting that the Government agencies conveniently go around 
some of the regulations that others cannot get around.

       The new waste facilities would likely become de facto 
     permanent disposal sites.

  Listen to that, ``permanent disposal sites.'' That could happen in 
any of your States.

       Federal action over the last 50 years has not been able to 
     solve the political problems associated with developing 
     disposal for used nuclear fuel. Establishing these Federal 
     sites will remove the political motivation to complete a 
     final disposal site.

  It will remove the political motivation. Those are pretty strong 
words.
  The last page reads:

       We urge you to retract Secretary Richardson's proposed plan 
     and instead support establishing centralized interim storage 
     at an appropriate site. This concept has strong, bi-partisan 
     support and results in the environmentally preferable, least-
     cost solution to the used nuclear fuel dilemma.

  There it is: The inability of the Governors and the administration to 
provide the Governors with the degree of comfort they need to ensure it 
will not become permanent, and that we, in this legislation in its 
final form, have changed the take title provision and eliminated it, in 
view of the reality associated with the inability to provide the States 
with the assurance that the waste would be removed from those States.
  I had hoped the administration and the Secretary of Energy would be 
successful in allaying fears. Probably the reason they have not been 
able to do so is because there is no assurance that they could move any 
further than we did in 1998 when we could not make the contractually 
related commitment to take the waste at that time.
  I will make a couple of other points that I think represent good 
faith in the manner in which we tried to resolve concerns of the 
minority. This included a 180-day window when contract holders must 
decide whether to enter into settlement negotiation with the Secretary. 
That is back in the bill at the request of the minority. We think it is 
appropriate that a process be started.
  I think it is fair to characterize that Senator Bingaman and 
Secretary Richardson felt this must be an appropriate inclusion of this 
provision to allow the Department of Energy planning process to go 
ahead.
  I want to touch briefly on transportation. I know there has been a 
good deal of concern; people say they don't want the stuff to go 
through their State, and that is understandable. What we have done in 
accordance with the minority is to use the WIPP transportation model, 
which is a model I think I can say Senator Bingaman and Secretary 
Richardson support. Basically, it comes down to the State designating 
the routes to move the waste.
  We have also included in existing law a training provision to make 
the transportation as safe as possible.
  There was a question of transmutation. I think I have addressed that.
  But one other point I would like to make to my colleagues from Nevada 
is how we have attempted to accommodate a concern they had about what 
was in the bill. First of all, if I could have the attention of my two 
colleagues from Nevada, because I think this is important, in the 
original bill we had payments to local communities. I was sensitive to 
the impact of the ultimate disposition of perhaps finalizing a 
permanent repository in the State of Nevada. As a consequence, there 
are annual payments of $2.5 million. I think they would go for about 5 
years. It would be about $12.5 million to the local counties. Then 
there was another $5 million to come in on the first fuel receipt that 
would come in, and then annual payments after the first receipt until 
closure. We do not know when the closure is, but it would be about $5 
million a year. I think, if we figured the repository would go until 
about the year 2042, that is about $140 million to your counties.
  At the insistence of the minority, that funding was eliminated. 
However, I felt very strongly about the land conveyances that were 
requested of 76,000 acres--that is twice the size of the District of 
Columbia, if I can put it in perspective. So we have in this bill 
76,000 acres to Nevada: 46,000 acres to Nye County, 30,000 to Lincoln 
County. This is going to go for a variety of uses: For the city of 
Caliente, a municipal landfill as well as for community growth and 
community recreation; Lincoln County, for community growth. For Panaca, 
Rachel, Alamo, Beatty, Ione, Manhattan, Round Mountain/Smokey Valley, 
Tonopah, another 28,230 acres; for the towns of Amargosa and Pahrump, 
another 17,450 acres. These are areas that have been identified for 
favorable disposal by BLM.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, one thing we have to do is get 
you to Nevada to hear how to pronounce some of those names.
  In the early 1940s and 1950s, we had great football teams at the 
University of Nevada. They would bring in these football players from 
around the country, as was done in those days. Marion Motley was a 
great all-pro Hall of Fame football player. He came and signed up for 
school. He was going through registration. They asked him where he was 
from. He said Ely, NV; it is pronounced ``Elee,'' NV. That is how you 
pronounced the names. Beatty and Amargosa and Pahrump--we are going to 
have to give some lessons to you on how to pronounce the names. Just as 
if I went to Alaska, it would be hard for me to pronounce those names.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I know a lot of people who come to Alaska and visit 
``Valdeez'' think it is pronounced ``Valdez.''
  But I did want to highlight the fact we have tried to respond to the 
request for the land conveyances. They are 76,000 acres transferred 
over to the two counties that would benefit the communities. That is in 
this bill. I offer it simply as an effort in good faith to be sensitive 
to concerns I think are very legitimate. That is to transfer the land 
from Federal agencies that do not have a need for that land to the 
communities so they can put them on the tax rolls and have it 
functionally contribute to the economy of the area and benefit the 
people. I think that is appropriate as well.
  I see a few Members here awaiting recognition. It is appropriate I 
yield the floor. At a later time, it will be my intention to address 
some of the amendments that are pending.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I see my friend from North Dakota and my friend from 
Minnesota are here. I am wondering how long the Senator from Minnesota 
wishes to speak.

  Mr. GRAMS. Probably less than 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from North Dakota wants to speak as in morning 
business for 15 minutes.

[[Page S518]]

  I have just a few things to say. If it will be OK with the Senator 
from North Dakota, as soon as I finish, I ask the Senator from 
Minnesota be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMS. Somewhere around there; maybe 12. I am just guessing.
  Mr. REID. And then I ask the Senator from North Dakota be recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be brief. I did want to respond to 
some of the things that were mentioned by the Senator from Alaska, the 
manager of this bill.
  When I practiced law, I represented a number of automobile dealers. I 
remember one of the big problems we had is that once in awhile someone 
would buy a lemon. That is what they were called. Something just went 
wrong in the manufacture of that car, and whatever was done, it turned 
out bad; you just could not fix it.
  I remember one dealer I represented. There was a man who was 
picketing his place of business. He had his car painted yellow, and he 
had it so it looked like a float that looked like a lemon. The dealer 
told me: You have to settle this case. You have to get rid of this 
case.
  That is kind of how I feel about this legislation. This legislation 
is a big lemon. Whatever they do with it, it is still bad. It is just 
like those cars that are lemons.
  Senator Murkowski, the manager of this bill, I have no doubt, is 
doing his very best, and that is usually good enough. In this instance, 
he is dealing with a lemon and it is not good enough. Take, for 
example, the fact that everyone knows the 1987 act deleted the State of 
Washington and the State of Texas and began the characterization of 
Nevada, Yucca Mountain. That is going forward as we speak, the 
characterization of Yucca Mountain. S. 1287 was supposed to streamline 
the process. It would not do that.
  For example, there is a provision in S. 1287 that the utilities badly 
wanted. What did that legislation call for? It said the utilities would 
no longer hold title to the nuclear waste but title would instead be 
transferred to the Department of Energy. That was the big purpose of S. 
1287. That was the bill, S. 1287. The big part of it was what they call 
``take title.''
  We were here yesterday at 5:55; 5 minutes before the deadline, 
amendments were filed, and take title is gone. S. 1287, the take title 
provision is out of this bill. It is like the proverbial lemon from 
which we try to protect automobile dealers. For the first time in the 
history of this legislation, we now have the utilities fighting the 
States.
  The EPA provision that the managers of the bill worked so hard to try 
to get resolved has made it worse. The problem we have here with the 
EPA provision is that the manager, recognizing he would rather deal 
with a Republican President, has inserted a provision in this amendment 
that puts off the decision by the Environmental Protection Agency until 
the next administration. He is hoping, of course, that either President 
McCain or President Bush will be elected.
  The fact is, that is a crapshoot, I guess, but it should not be part 
of this legislation. All it does is further ``lemonize'' this 
legislation.'' The EPA is concerned about this. The President is 
concerned about it because it is attempting to make him a lame duck 
President, attempting to dissipate and do away with the rulemaking 
power of his agencies. Secretary Richardson is totally opposed to this 
legislation. As I said, Carol Browner is opposed to it. The League of 
Conservation Voters is opposed to it; most every other environmental 
organization is opposed to this bill. So we understand why the League 
of Conservation Voters--I am using them as just a representative 
because they speak for everyone, really--are concerned.
  This legislation is placed ahead of the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
public schools, Social Security, prescription drug benefits, and all 
the other things we need to be talking about, including minimum wage 
and the juvenile justice bill.
  The environmental community considers defeating this bill a major 
priority during this election year. In fact, I have a letter from Deb 
Callahan, who is head of the League of Conservation Voters, who has 
made it clear they may score S. 1287 as it poses ``unacceptable risks 
to public health and the environment.''
  The League of Conservation Voters is not some radical environmental 
group driving stakes in trees; it is a middle-of-the-road environmental 
group that speaks for the American public. They are decidedly and 
appropriately bipartisan.
  It is interesting. I prepared these remarks long before the junior 
Senator from the State of Rhode Island started presiding, but just last 
year, the League of Conservation Voters honored Senator John Chafee, a 
Republican, for his lifetime and stalwart support for environmental 
protection. Voting against this bill is about protecting the 
environment, not just in Nevada, but as the letter indicates, in the 43 
States where S. 1287 will accelerate nuclear waste trafficking.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                                 February 7, 2000.
     Re Oppose S. 1287--The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 
         2000.

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is 
     the bipartisan, political voice of the national environmental 
     community. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     Members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the press.
       The League of Conservation Voters urges you to vote against 
     the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000 (S. 1287). S. 
     1287 poses unacceptable risks to public health and to the 
     environment.
       The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be in 
     charge of setting the final standard for Yucca Mountain and 
     should set the most protective standard possible. S. 1287 
     would undermine EPA's standard-setting process by delaying 
     the issuance of a final standard until as late as June 1, 
     2001. The bill also would require agreement between the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission and EPA on the final standard. 
     EPA has already published a proposed standard for Yucca 
     Mountain that appropriately includes a separate standard for 
     groundwater--the most likely avenue for contamination at 
     Yucca Mountain. The NRC's proposed standard does not set a 
     separate groundwater standard, and is designed to accommodate 
     the anticipated failures of Yucca Mountain to contain 
     radionuclides. Further, the NRC's proposed radiation standard 
     is higher than the highest radiation standard recommended by 
     the National Academy of Sciences in its 1995 report on 
     standards for Yucca Mountain.
       S. 1287 would put Americans in communities across the 
     nation at risk by mandating dangerous shipments of spent 
     nuclear fuel to an as-yet unidentified ``backup'' storage 
     site from reactors across the country beginning as early as 
     2006. S. 1287 would dramatically increase nuclear waste 
     shipments, together with the risk of a transport accident 
     involving nuclear waste. Up to 100,000 shipments of nuclear 
     waste will travel through 43 states and within half a mile of 
     50 million Americans over 25 years.
       LCV urges you to vote ``No'' on S. 1287 and to work instead 
     for a national nuclear waste policy based on sound science, 
     citizen involvement, and protection of public health and 
     safety.
       LCV's Political Advisory Committee will consider including 
     votes on this issue in compiling LCV's 2000 Scorecard. If you 
     need more information, please call Betsy Loyless in my office 
     at 202/785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
                                                        President.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Alaska talked about 
conveyances of Federal public lands to Nevada. The Senator from Alaska 
has been very good working with Nevada which has 87 percent of its land 
owned by the Federal Government. We have worked very well with him. His 
committee has helped us get parcels of land put in the private sector, 
but in this instance, the State of Nevada has had no input.
  There are about 20 maps on file at the DOE showing where these lands 
are located. The Governor of the State of Nevada knows nothing about 
this. Our public lands administrator in the State of Nevada knows 
nothing about this. I have not been provided copies of these maps, so I 
assume none of my colleagues have either. No hearings have been held to 
find out whether the land conveyances are good or bad. We want land in 
the private sector, but we do not want land conveyed that will have

[[Page S519]]

a negative effect on the people of the State of Nevada. We need to 
review the proposed land conveyances. These are not small conveyances. 
This bill could convey land larger than the State of Connecticut from 
public lands to private lands in the State of Nevada.
  This legislation is a big fat yellow lemon. In addition to that, 
although I usually like the looks of lemons, this is an ugly lemon, and 
the best thing we can do is vote against this legislation. It is bad 
legislation, and the amendment of my friend, the Senator from Alaska, 
is not going to improve it. It just further, as I say, ``lemonizes'' 
this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to 
express my support for an amendment I was planning to offer, along with 
Senators Snowe, Collins, and Jeffords, to strike the so-called take 
title provision from S. 1287. I thank Chairman Murkowski for including 
this in his substitute. We are withholding offering that amendment.
  For as long as I have been in the Senate, I have argued that the 
Department of Energy has a legal responsibility to remove nuclear waste 
from my home State of Minnesota. We all know the DOE was obligated to 
begin removing waste from civilian nuclear reactors by January 31, 
1998. Sadly, the DOE virtually ignored that date and instead has 
engaged in a protracted struggle to dodge any responsibility it might 
have to our Nation's ratepayers.
  As everyone in this Chamber knows, Washington's involvement in 
nuclear power is not new. Since the 1950s Atoms for Peace Program, the 
Federal Government has promoted nuclear energy in part by promising to 
remove radioactive waste from powerplants. 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. It has been on record for 18 
years, a mandate by the Congress, to do this.
  These acts established the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management to conduct that program. It selected Yucca Mountain, NV, as 
the site to assess for the permanent disposal facility. It also 
established fees of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour on nuclear-
generated electricity, and it provided that those fees would be 
deposited into 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. The DOE then 
signed individual contracts with all civilian nuclear utilities 
promising to take and dispose of civilian high-level waste beginning on 
January 31, 1998. The DOE signed contracts to do this.
  Other administrative proceedings, such as the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's waste confidence rule, told the American public they 
should literally bank on the Federal Government's promises.
  This point needs to be clearly understood by the Members of this 
body. Our Nation's nuclear utilities did not go out and invest in 
nuclear power in spite of Federal Government warnings of future 
difficulties. Instead, they were encouraged by the Federal Government 
to turn to nuclear power to meet our increasing energy demands. 
Utilities and States were told to move forward with investments in 
nuclear technologies because it is a sound source of energy production, 
and the Federal Government's support for nuclear power was based on 
some very sound considerations.
  First, nuclear power is environmentally friendly. Nothing is burned 
in a nuclear reactor, so there are no emissions released in the 
atmosphere. In fact, nuclear energy is responsible for over 90 percent 
of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that have come out of the 
energy industry since 1973. Between 1973 and 1996, nuclear power 
accounted for emissions reductions of 34.6 million tons of nitrogen 
oxide and 80.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide.
  Second, nuclear power is a reliable baseload source of power. 
Families, farmers, businesses, and individuals who are served by 
nuclear power are served by one of the most reliable sources of 
electricity.
  Third, nuclear energy is a home-grown technology, and the United 
States led the way in its development. We have long been the world 
leader in nuclear technology and continue to be the world's largest 
nuclear-producing country. Using nuclear power increases our energy 
security.

  Finally, much of the world recognizes those same values and promotes 
the use of nuclear power, again, because of its reliability, because of 
its environmental benefits, and its value to energy independence. For 
those reasons, the Federal Government threw one more bone to our 
Nation's utilities. It said: If you build nuclear power, we will take 
care of your nuclear waste, we will build a repository, and we will 
take it out of your State. Again, they told the public: You can bank on 
those promises by the Federal Government.
  In response to those promises, States across the country took the 
Federal Government at its word. It allowed civilian nuclear energy 
production to move forward.
  As we all know, ratepayers agreed to share some of the 
responsibilities but were promised some things in return. They agreed 
to pay a fee attached to their energy bill in exchange for an assurance 
that the Federal Government meet its responsibility to manage any waste 
storage facilities.
  Because of those promises and measures taken by the Federal 
Government, ratepayers have now paid roughly $16 billion, including 
interest, into the nuclear waste fund. Today, these payments continue, 
exceeding $600 million annually or about $70,000 for every hour for 
every day of the year. For the ratepayers of Minnesota, these 
contributions have claimed over $300 million of their hard-earned money 
since the creation of the nuclear waste fund.
  In summary, the Federal Government promoted nuclear power, utilities 
agreed to invest in nuclear power, States agreed to host nuclear 
powerplants, and the ratepayers assumed the responsibility of investing 
into the long-term storage of nuclear waste. Still nuclear waste is 
stranded on the banks of the Mississippi River in Minnesota and on 
countless other sites across the country because the Department of 
Energy has a very short-term memory and this administration has 
virtually no sense of responsibility-- --let me say that again--because 
the Department of Energy has a very short-term memory and this 
administration has virtually no sense of responsibility.

  Now we can all argue all day long on the floor of this Chamber on the 
merits of nuclear power. But we cannot stand here on the Senate floor 
and deny that the Federal Government promoted nuclear power and that 
the Federal Government promised to take care of nuclear waste.
  Taking title to the waste does not fulfill that promise.
  Unfortunately, if the DOE is allowed to take title to nuclear waste 
at the plant site, I can't provide the ratepayers of my State with any 
reason to believe the waste will eventually be moved.
  Allowing the DOE to take title to waste and to leave it at the 
reactor site is an invitation to even more ratepayer abuse at the hands 
of the Department of Energy. I think the record of the DOE has shown 
that this administration would much rather leave waste where it is than 
move it to a centralized storage facility.
  A number of my colleagues in the Senate have suggested the same 
thing. I don't believe that is a good policy, nor is it the policy in 
which the ratepayers of Minnesota have so generously invested--again, 
not only in Minnesota but across this country.
  I met yesterday with Minnesota's Commerce Commissioner, Steve Minn. 
He made it very clear to me that for States, the most objectionable 
aspect of this bill is the take title provision. He indicated that the 
provision is viewed with extreme skepticism by the State of Minnesota.
  I understand why.
  I know Senator Murkowski has read from the letter the Governors, 
along with Governor Ventura of Minnesota, have written and sent to 
President Clinton dealing with this problem. It says:

       We governors from states hosting commercial nuclear power 
     plants and from affected

[[Page S520]]

     states express our opposition to the plan proposed by Energy 
     Secretary Richardson in his February 1999 testimony before 
     the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Secretary 
     Richardson proposes that the Department of Energy take title, 
     assume management responsibility and pay costs at nuclear 
     plant sites for used nuclear fuel it was legally and 
     contractually obligated to begin removing in January 1998.

  The Department of Energy says: Oh, we'll pay for it. But where are 
they going to get the money? They are going to take it from the 
ratepayers or the taxpayers. So basically this is a punt by the 
Department of Energy--again, not committed to those contracts that it 
signed with all the States.

       This proposed plan would create semi-permanent, federally 
     controlled, used nuclear fuel facilities in each of our 
     states.

  This letter states some of the objections by the Governors:

       This plan abridges states rights--it constitutes federal 
     takings and establishes new nuclear waste facilities outside 
     of state authority and control.

  The Governors went on to say, in their objection to the take title 
provision offered by Secretary Richardson of the Department of Energy:

       The new waste facilities would likely become de facto 
     permanent disposal sites [some 100 sites across the country]. 
     Federal action over the last 50 years has not been able to 
     solve the political problems associated with developing 
     disposal for used nuclear fuel. Establishing these federal 
     sites will remove the political motivation to complete a 
     final disposal site.

  The Governors across the states that are affected are very concerned. 
Again, I understand why.
  Quite reasonably, States don't want to see the Federal Government 
take up permanent residence at these waste sites. It is the nuclear 
waste equivalent to having the fox guard the hen house.
  Allowing the Federal Government control of waste sites removes a 
State's oversight role. It removes the State's authority and control 
over these sites and it does not--I underline that--it does not remove 
waste from Minnesota or any other State.
  In closing, I ask my colleagues to listen to the Governors of our 
States and to vote to remove the take title provision from this 
legislation, in other words, support Chairman Murkowski's substitute.
  With this bill, we need to lock in transportation provisions, protect 
the ratepayers from increases in their contribution, facilitate a 
constructive resolution to the radiation standard dispute, and also 
advance the goal of completing a national repository for the permanent 
storage of nuclear waste.
  We do not need to provide the DOE with an excuse to leave waste 
stranded permanently in Minnesota and across the country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As previously ordered, the Senator from North 
Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I had sought permission to speak as in 
morning business--not on this bill--for 15 minutes. I shall not take 
that entire time.

                          ____________________