[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 11 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S522-S534]
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, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
Senate's consideration today the following amendments, following a 
brief debate, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon 
the table. The amendments are the Conrad amendment No. 2819 and the 
Murkowski amendment No. 2813.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 11 a.m. 
on Thursday be equally divided between the two managers, or their 
designees, and at 11 a.m. on Thursday the pending substitute amendment 
be agreed to, the bill be advanced to third reading, and passage occur, 
all without any intervening action or debate.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the time between 10 a.m. and 11 
a.m. on Thursday be under the control of Senators Murkowski and 
Bingaman, or their designees.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled to 
occur on the bill be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we will have two 
brief amendments, with voice votes, by Senators Conrad and Murkowski--
the two amendments that have been given to the Chair in number--and 
after that there will be debate on the bill itself, with a half hour 
for each side in the morning, and there will be no other amendments 
considered on this legislation until final passage.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, that is my understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, might I further inquire?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. BRYAN. I think that is consistent with the understanding we have. 
I presume that this afternoon it is in order for us to continue to 
debate the measure, subject to whatever accommodations both sides need 
to make to permit equal opportunities to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, I can 
announce that there will be no further votes today and final passage of 
the nuclear waste bill will occur tomorrow at 11 a.m.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, briefly interrupting the manager of the 
bill, I think it would be appropriate to ask for the yeas and nays on 
passage of the bill tomorrow, and I do so now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2813 to Amendment No. 2808

              (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2813.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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.'')


                Amendment No. 2819 to Amendment No. 2813

    (Purpose: To include the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
       Wisconsin, and Michigan in the study required by this act)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2819 in the 
second degree offered by Senator Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), for Mr. Conrad, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2819 to amendment No. 2813.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 26, line 20 of the amendment, strike ``Minnesota'' 
     and insert ``Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
     Wisconsin, and Michigan.''

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on either 
of the amendments and ask the Chair to put the question on the 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the second-degree amendment 
is agreed to. Without objection, the first-degree amendment, as 
amended, is agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 2819 and 2813, as amended) were agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Let me take this opportunity to again thank my colleagues from Nevada 
for their understanding of this difficult issue and the effect, of 
course, it has on their State.
  I encourage other Members who are seeking recognition and who might 
want to speak on this issue, this would be a good time to do it because 
we probably have an hour or two left today. Time being what it is in 
the morning, we have yet to hear from leadership as to what time the 
Senate will convene tomorrow.
  Might I inquire of the Chair, is there any indication of that?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. REID. Senator Bryan wants to speak on the bill itself this 
evening. We have one other Member who wishes to speak in morning 
business. That is all we know of this afternoon. As the Senator 
indicated, if there are other Senators who wish to come and speak on 
this legislation, or as if in morning business, they should work their 
way over to the Capitol.
  I also say to my friend that I haven't spoken to either leader, but I 
think we probably would come in at 9:30 in the morning. That is the 
normal time. Senator Thurmond is available.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to my good friend from Nevada, I 
don't think we have been able to ascertain when. But I join him in 
encouraging Members to come over and speak at this time. I have been 
notified that Senator Craig will be coming over this afternoon. Senator 
Domenici will be coming over, and I believe Senator Sessions. In any 
event, there probably will not be a lot of time tomorrow.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will again yield, it was the understanding 
of the minority that the time between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. would be 
equally divided. It doesn't matter when we come in, just so everyone 
understands that.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. I certainly agree with my colleague from Nevada. 
That hour is to be split between both sides.
  I would like to continue for a moment, if I may. There are a couple 
of points that I think are necessary to highlight. They concern the 
issue of the Environmental Protection Agency and just what the role is 
as determined by the changes we made.
  I refer to language that is on pages 3, 4, and 5 as opposed to the 
statement we have from the administration on their

[[Page S523]]

position. I should point out, that statement was given on February 8. 
It is a statement of administration policy. It states that as of 
February 4, 2000, the manager's amendment to S. 1287--I understand this 
amendment will be brought to the floor--undermines EPA's existing 
statutory authority to set standards to protect public health and the 
environment from radioactive releases. As a consequence, it is 
unacceptable to the administration because they say it undermines EPA's 
existing statutory authority and is, therefore, unacceptable.

  They further acknowledge that the amendment allows EPA to exercise 
its existing authority to set appropriate radiation release standards 
for Yucca Mountain. It will allow another entity to block EPA's 
authority until June 1, 2001. Consequently, if the February 4, 2000, 
manager's amendment to S. 1287 is approved, and if the Senate bill with 
these provisions is presented to the President, the President will veto 
the bill.
  I appeal to the administration. According to the Washington Post 
article which I read, the White House says it opposes the bill because 
it would take away from the EPA the sole authority to determine 
radiation exposure requirements at a future permanent waste repository 
if it is built in Nevada.
  Let me read what it says.

     Adoption of standard:
       Notwithstanding the time schedule in section 801 of the 
     Energy Policy Act, the administration shall not publish or 
     adopt a public health and safety standard for the protection 
     of the public from releases from radioactive materials stored 
     or disposed of in the repository at the Yucca Mountain site 
     except in accordance with this section before June 1st, 2001.

  To suggest that they don't have the sole authority is not what the 
legislation says. It says they shall not have the authority to publish 
or adopt before June 1st, 2001.
  Further, relative to this portion, it says: not later than April 1st, 
2001, the Commission and the National Academy of Sciences shall, based 
on the proposed rule and the information provided by the 
Administrator--that is, the Administrator of EPA--under paragraph 1, 
shall submit a report to Congress on whether the proposed rule is 
consistent about section 801 of the Energy Policy Act;
  Or, B, provides a reasonable expectation of the public health and 
safety and the environment will be adequately protected from the 
hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel disposed 
of in the repository;
  And, C, it is based on the best reasonable obtainable scientific and 
technical information concerning the need for and consequences of the 
rule;
  And, D, imposes the least burden consistent with obtaining the 
regulatory objective of protecting the public health and safety and the 
environment.
  No. 3, in the event that either the Commission--that is, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission--or the National Academy of Sciences finds the 
proposed rule does not meet one or more of the criteria issued in 
paragraph 2, it shall notify the Administrator--that is, the EPA 
Administrator--not later than April 1st, 2001, of its finding and the 
basis for such finding.
  I repeat that the Environmental Protection Agency has the final say 
and, under the statute, shall have the sole authority to address the 
levels of radiation but not before June 1st, 2001. We have not heard 
from the administration relative to those changes. I hope the 
administration will be sensitive to our effort to ensure that, indeed, 
the Environmental Protection Agency will have the last word.

  The objective is not to take away from the obligation of the EPA, 
which has the authority under statute. The effort is to bring forth the 
best science available. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that 
licensed and monitors the plants has more Ph.D.s in the area of nuclear 
science and the National Academy of Sciences can contribute something, 
is that not in the public interest?
  Again, I appeal to my colleagues to recognize our bottom line is 
simply to have an emission standard that is attainable and that allows 
Congress to address a final resting place for the waste.
  Senator Kerrey's office advised me he wishes to be deleted as a 
cosponsor of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that request be 
honored.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I assure my colleagues, Senator Bingaman, and the 
administration of our willingness to use the remaining time to try to 
be responsive to their concerns.
  I will summarize the situation. We have been at this a long time. We 
all agree we have an obligation as elected representatives to resolve 
this problem. The failure of the Government--certainly not under this 
Secretary of Energy--to take the waste in January of 1998 is what we 
are living with today. The ratepayers have paid $15 billion in electric 
rates on their bills with the assumption the Federal Government would 
take that waste; the damages and the claims go on and on and on as a 
consequence of time passing as that waste remains at the sites of our 
nuclear plants. The nearest estimate we have is $40 billion to $80 
billion. The longer we wait, the greater the burden of the taxpayer. I 
think the public looks to Congress to address this with resolve.
  Some have suggested this administration simply does not want to 
resolve this matter on its watch. That may be the basic position of the 
administration. That may be justified in their minds. There is another 
group out there that sees the passage of this legislation to resolve 
what we will do with our nuclear waste as some kind of a significant 
benefit to the nuclear industry. If they can defeat this and bring the 
industry to its knees by causing it to choke on its own waste, nuclear 
power as we know in this country will die. It will reach a slow process 
of strangling on that waste, the nuclear power industry will go away, 
and we will simply generate power from some other source.
  The difficulty I have with that is the inability to identify what 
that other source will be and what it will do to our air quality. To me 
there is a tradeoff in the process. If we lose the nuclear power 
generating capacity, which is about 20 percent in this Nation, what 
will we replace it with?
  We have to solve the waste problem. If this administration does not 
want it to occur on its watch, we are still going to have to solve it 
under another administration, whether it be Republican or Democratic, 
or we are simply going to add this obligation of the damages to the 
American taxpayer. I think we are all in agreement that we simply must 
deal with it. We have an equal responsibility.
  I gave an interview a few minutes ago. The first question was: 
Senator, why can't you resolve this? I am sure all my colleagues know 
why we can't resolve it. Nobody wants the waste.
  Unfortunately for our good friend from Nevada, a decision was made to 
proceed with Yucca as a permanent repository some time ago. We have 
spent over $6 billion. The tunnel is drilled. We are awaiting 
licensing. That is where we are.
  I am also told the administration is split on this. Some would like 
to see it resolved. Some don't want it resolved at all.
  I guess it rests with each Member to recognize his or her 
responsibility as elected representatives to bring this to a resolve 
responsibly. If somebody else has a better idea of how to resolve it 
responsibly, they can certainly have this dais, the microphone, and 
whatever else goes with it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor this 
afternoon and support the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee in an effort he has led for a good number of years. I have 
participated with him in trying to bring some reasonable resolution to 
the issue of a permanent repository for the high-level nuclear 
radioactive waste of this country.
  Mr. President, this debate will proceed. It is my understanding we 
have a vote tomorrow morning. Already we have heard a variety of 
opinions on the process used to deal with the issue of high-level 
nuclear waste. Without question, this is an issue that Congress has 
dealt with over the years in which the public has had to go through 
more misstatements, false statements, or emotional statements about 
what isn't

[[Page S524]]

true or what some wished might be true. All we can do is look at the 
scientific and engineering facts of the history of the management of 
nuclear waste in our country to say that this country, about 99.9 
percent of the time, has done it right and not exposed their citizenry 
to the mismanagement of the storage of waste.
  Yes, we have learned periodically of the handling of radioactive 
materials where mistakes were made and immediately corrected. However, 
our country has a positive legacy in nearly all instances of dealing 
with this issue.
  The Senator from Alaska and I have brought different versions of this 
issue to the floor over the last 4 years as we have tried to force this 
administration to move responsibly following the enactment of a law in 
1982 that was a long-term approach toward funding and establishing a 
permanent geologic repository. We are now at a time when the issue of 
radiation release standards at what may become the permanent geologic 
repository at Yucca Mountain has been largely the focus of what this 
legislation deals with.
  It think it is important to put the debate in the context of what is 
happening under current law, not under the legislation, under the law 
as it stands today.
  My purpose in describing the current situation is to explore with my 
colleagues what I believe is a problem with EPA's current path and for 
my colleagues to understand why I have reservations about the games 
that are currently being played.
  My frustration with EPA is that sometimes their science is rolled up 
in politics.
  Let me also be clear about what is at stake. I firmly believe, if 
Congress does nothing on this issue, what is at stake is the viability 
of geologic disposal. In other words, to me this issue is larger than 
the site at Yucca Mountain. It is about whether or not we will be able 
to site and license a geologic repository anywhere in our country.
  It is not by accident that legislatively we picked Yucca Mountain 
years ago. It was not done with a crystal ball. It was done with some 
reasonable knowledge that the geology of the region might well hold up 
and would probably be a point of isolation of the kind we would want 
for a repository, compared with no other place in the Nation. That has 
still held up and remains true today.
  I do not believe the current process for setting radiation standards 
in dealing with this is what I would hope we would have. It is not 
being informed by good science, and I hope that Congress will bring 
good science back into the process. That is why this legislation is 
very important.
  The chairman's original bill, S. 1287, contained the remedy of giving 
authority to set radiation standards to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. Why? Credibility. Honesty, no politics, in large part, and 
a historic standard of doing it with the kind of science and knowledge 
that you want to have to make these kind of decisions.
  The chairman's substitute bill has a different remedy. EPA would 
still set the radiation standards but only in consultation with the NRC 
and the National Academy of Sciences.
  I wish EPA were not setting those standards. I don't think they have 
the scientific knowledge or credibility to do so, although we have 
created this myth about them because it says: They are the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Surely their commitment is to the 
environment.
  Sometimes their commitment is to politics. You cannot say that about 
the National Academy and you cannot say that for the NRC. So what we 
have tried to do and what the chairman, I believe, has successfully 
done is bring all this together. Therefore, we can maybe satisfy the 
political side of it and, I hope above hope, we can address the 
scientific and the engineering side of it in a way that is credible 
and, most important, safe for our public and, of course, safe for the 
State of Nevada. Both of these approaches are superior to the current 
situation which I would like to describe.
  Today, the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for setting 
the radiation standards at the Yucca Mountain repository. That 
authority was granted to EPA in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. So on 
August 19 of last year, 1999, the EPA finally proposed a draft 
radiation standard. That draft standard is lengthy and has a lot of 
technical detail, but it boils down to two critical items. In other 
words, when you sort through the chaff, here are the facts that make 
this issue important.
  First, EPA's draft proposes an individual protection standard from 
all exposure pathways--food, water, air, et cetera--of no more than 15 
millirems per year.
  Second, EPA proposes a ground water protection standard that limits 
ground water contamination to levels at or below EPA's maximum 
contaminant levels for drinking water--drinking water, in an area where 
none is drank, or where there are no people to drink it.
  What that means, in simple terms, is that if we are able to sink a 
well at the repository and draw the water up and into a glass, EPA says 
you have to be able to drink that water straight from the ground 
without treatment.
  Not much water is consumed without treatment today, except maybe in 
an isolated farmsteads and in some rural areas. There are very few 
places, even in remote wilderness areas, where I would be willing to 
sample drinking water in the way I have just described it. Even in some 
of the pristine, beautiful areas of my State of Idaho, I suggest you do 
not drink from a stream. My forebears were able to do that, but today 
you might get a bacterial contamination known as Giardia.

  So we have a 15-millirem standard overall for Yucca Mountain and 
requirements for underground water that translates, I am told, to a 
limit of about 4 millirem exposure from underground water. Those are 
technical terms. That is why I have tried to break them down to a 
simple explanation as to what it might mean.
  What I want my colleagues to understand is that these levels, 15 
millirems and 4 millirems, are measured against a background level, a 
point of measurement. You have to have that to determine any increases. 
You go to what is known as a background level of naturally occurring 
radiation--from the rocks, the nature of rocks, and of course the Earth 
and the atmosphere itself--naturally occurring radiation of about 300 
millirems per year.
  Yucca Mountain is located in a very arid, desert environment. If you 
had to try to find a site within the entire contiguous United States 
where you might have some hope of meeting a 4-millirem ground water 
standard, Yucca Mountain is the kind of site you would want to pick. 
Yet even in the case of Yucca Mountain, the period of performance is so 
long and the radiation limit is so unrealistically stringent that there 
is some doubt that the Department of Energy will be able to demonstrate 
with absolute certainty that a 4-millirem ground water standard could 
be met.
  If a dry, desert site cannot meet a 4-millirem ground water limit, it 
is reasonable to question whether any site anywhere could meet this 
unrealistic standard.
  I could talk at length about how ridiculous I find these kinds of 
radiation limitations, but I think there is a body of criticism of 
EPA's proposal already existing in many of the comments that have been 
submitted by experts--not politicians but by experts on EPA's draft. 
Perhaps it will be more persuasive to my colleagues if I quote from the 
comments submitted to EPA by radiation experts regarding this draft 
radiation standard.
  The American Nuclear Society, which is a nonprofit professional 
association made up of 11,000 members who are nuclear scientists, 
engineers, administrators, educators, physicians--you notice in that 
list I did not say politicians; they do not have a reason to be 
political, they are professionals in an area of importance to this 
country--they submitted comments on EPA's radiation standards. The 
American Nuclear Society had the following to say regarding the 15-
millirem proposal:

       The individual dose limit that EPA is recommending is not 
     appropriate.

  That is what they said.

       EPA points out that the proposed dose limit of 15 millirem 
     per year is far below the level of background radiation--

  I have already mentioned that--

     (about 300 millirem per year) and that any hypothesized 
     effects of background radiation are not detectable against 
     the rate of health

[[Page S525]]

     effects in the general public. While this is certainly true, 
     we believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a 
     better basis in scientific logic than EPA. The individual 
     dose limit that the NRC has proposed (25 millirem per year) 
     is also lower than warranted. . . . [W]e conclude that a dose 
     standard of 70 millirem for the repository alone is 
     appropriate, conservative, and adequately protective.

  So the American Nuclear Society, an association of these 11 million 
professionals, has endorsed a radiation standard as high as 70 millirem 
per year.
  What does the American Nuclear Society have to say about the 4-
millirem groundwater standard? They say the following:

       A ground water standard is unnecessary. . . . EPA's reasons 
     for applying a groundwater standard appear to stem from a 
     desire to influence the engineering design of the repository 
     and to reduce collective dose to the general population, 
     neither of which is appropriate. Both approaches are 
     inconsistent with the National Academy of Sciences conclusion 
     that an individual dose standard is adequately protective. . 
     . .

  In other words, you do not need to do both.

       [V]ery small individual doses are not meaningful in 
     assessing public health impacts. . . . In addition, the 
     Linear, Non-Threshold theory of radiation health effects is 
     being questioned with increasing intensity, and a body of 
     scientific opinion exists today that holds it to be without 
     scientific basis. . . .

  If it is ``without scientific basis,'' then maybe the only basis left 
is a political basis. That is the frustration with which the chairman 
and I have had to deal for the last few years as we have tried to bring 
this issue to completion so the American people would know they had a 
permanent, safe repository in which to put high-level nuclear waste.
  How do other nuclear experts look at this? Let me turn to the 
comments submitted to EPA by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a 
letter dated November 2, 1999, providing NRC's review of EPA's draft 15 
and 4 millirem radiation standard.
  On the ground water standard, NRC commented the following:

       The NRC staff objects to the inclusion of separate 
     groundwater protection requirements for the proposed 
     repository at Yucca Mountain because these requirements would 
     result in non-uniform risk levels, they misapply the Maximum 
     Contaminant Levels . . ., and they far exceed what is needed 
     for protection of public health and safety.

  If the public is listening to me or if they have listened to some of 
this debate, they would say: But, Senator Craig, don't you really want 
to make this as safe as humanly possible?
  The answer, of course, is yes. The only problem with what EPA is 
saying is that if we make it that safe, we cannot make it. Of course, I 
am sure my colleagues from Nevada hope that would be the case. If that 
were true and if it were to become true, this Nation would still be 
without what the world of engineering and science says is a safe, 
permanent repository for nuclear waste. Why? Because we allowed 
politicians instead of scientists to make a determination as to what is 
right and how this facility ought to be constructed for the purpose of 
long-term safety.
  What does the NRC have to say about the 15-millirem limit as compared 
to the NRC's proposed 25-millirem limit per year? Again I quote from 
the NRC's comment letter to EPA:

       Although the EPA rule proposes a lower limit of 15 
     millirem, and the difference between 15 and 25 millirem is 
     small, the lower value is not necessary for protection of 
     public health and safety and would provide little, if any, 
     reduction in health risk when compared with 25 millirem. It 
     is also important to consider that the average American 
     receives approximately 300 millirem per year from background 
     radiation.

  Oh, my goodness, you mean we are all being irradiated as we stand 
here or as we travel in our cars or live in our homes or walk in our 
back yards? The answer is, yes, we are. It is natural. Shame on that 
Sun and shame on the ground and shame on the minerals within the ground 
because they collectively give us 300 millirem per year in background 
radiation.
  NRC goes on to say:

       In addition to the lack of public health and safety 
     benefits, there are regulatory concerns associated with 
     lowering the dose limit to 15 millirem. Specifically, as the 
     dose limit becomes smaller, limitations in the DOE's models 
     used for estimating performance, and the associated 
     uncertainties in supporting analysis, become more pronounced.

  In other words, how you prove your case becomes more complicated.

       Further, a 15 millirem dose limit is likely to cause 
     unnecessary confusion for the public and cause the NRC to 
     expend resources without a commensurate increase in public 
     health and safety.

  Zero risk. Is it possible in the world today, with all of our talent, 
all of our intelligence, and the best computers in the world, to 
construct a zero-risk environment? The answer is no. It cannot be done. 
It is humanly impossible under any circumstance for any situation; not 
just for radioactive material, but automobiles and planes, walking 
across the street, or riding the train back to our offices in the 
Senate. Zero risk? No. It does not exist. It does not exist in science, 
and it does not exist in the environment. It never has, and it never 
will.
  Yet I am quite sure the public believes we are so sophisticated today 
that we in fact could create that with the unique talents of this 
country. We cannot. It is important we say that. That is why we have 
professionals determine what is doable, right, and responsible, and 
that is all tied with costs and the ability to create.
  What the NRC is saying by that--``the expending of resources without 
commensurate increase in public health''--is one can lower it to such a 
level of safety that there is no justification to go beyond that.
  I could continue quoting from these various radiation experts for a 
very long while because the list is long; remember, experts not 
politicians. Their objections to EPA's current draft radiation 
standards reflect a very thorough and well-researched review of EPA's 
proposal, and the criticisms of these experts should inform our debate 
as we struggle to understand what all of these numbers mean and what 
they mean for the future of this country's nuclear waste disposal 
program.
  But I think perhaps DOE said it best, in a letter to EPA transmitting 
DOE's comments on the draft radiation standard. And the reason that I 
like this quote is, I think it sets the larger context for what these 
radiation standards mean for our ultimate success or failure.
  DOE says the following:

       EPA's standards will play a pivotal role in achieving the 
     long-standing policy of the United States to properly dispose 
     of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in an 
     underground mined geologic repository. The Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission must implement EPA's standards in its regulations 
     for licensing a repository at the Yucca Mountain site, and 
     DOE must be able to comply with those NRC regulations in 
     order to construct a repository. If EPA were to select 
     unrealistic, unnecessarily conservative, or non site-specific 
     standards, the result could be the rejection of an otherwise 
     suitable site, and the de facto rejection of the geologic 
     disposal option without commensurate benefit to the 
     protection of public health and safety. Such rejection would 
     not avoid the consequences of radioactive water management, 
     but it would require resort to a different and currently 
     undefined approach.

  I think the statement I just read describes the situation we are in 
now with EPA's unrealistic and unsupportable draft standard. I hope my 
colleagues will agree with me that this is a situation Congress must 
act to correct, by bringing good science back into the process of 
setting a radiation standard.
  We need a disposal program. Congress, more than a decade ago, chose a 
course, a path. We began to tax the ratepayers of the utilities that 
have nuclear generation in this country to pay for that path.
  That is where we are today. Some resist that path using all the 
reasons they can humanly generate, and that is why it is important we 
have this legislation. I hope the Congress can pass it and the 
President will sign it.
  Those are the issues with which we have to deal in understanding this 
problem. It is critically important to our Nation.
  At lunch today, I addressed a group of congressional staff and people 
in town who represent energy companies and those who do not. I said: I 
find it fascinating that the administration would want to take us 
through a climate change initiative, known as the Kyoto Protocol, in 
which they want to reduce carbon emissions in this country; therefore, 
we would have to reduce the use of fossil fuels which are currently our 
most abundant source of energy. In doing so, they are also not

[[Page S526]]

willing to find a way to deal with nuclear waste, so that we can see an 
extension of the nuclear generation of our country for electricity. 
They are downplaying that energy source also, and, at the same time, we 
have a Secretary of Interior who wants to blow up hydro dams. They 
downplay hydro, and they will not even put hydro in the renewable 
resource category.
  I find it fascinating, a country that exists on energy, an economy 
that is being driven today by artificial intelligence as a new 
industry, and that very industry operates on electricity itself.
  I see our staff on the floor with computers in front of them. If you 
turned off the power of that computer, its brain would go dead, we 
would no longer have the tremendous expansion of this economy from 
which we are all benefiting. Yet we have an administration phenomenally 
resistant to the establishment of a permanent repository for nuclear 
waste but is open to the idea that if you do not handle the waste, you 
will ultimately kill the industry; and if you kill the industry, you 
will never build another nuclear reactor to generate environmentally 
clean electrical energy. And they want to get rid of the dams and they 
want to stop burning fossil fuels. Oh, my goodness.
  What a reality check for our country, to have as our national policy 
no energy policy at all. Our wealth and our very existence, as a major 
economic force in the world, has always been built on the abundance of 
reasonably inexpensive but readily available energy.
  That is a part of all of this debate. I think it is probably separate 
from what my colleagues from Nevada would say in opposing this 
legislation. Obviously, they have to reflect the politics of home, as 
they should.
  But for a President to say, in a relatively unspoken way, as a policy 
for the country, we have no energy policy at all--we do not even have 
an energy strategy except maybe a few windmills and solar cells--it is 
no policy at all.
  That is why we are on the floor trying to close the link between the 
generator of electrical power, by the use of the atom, and the 
necessity to have a responsible method for handling the waste that is 
created by that form of generation.
  While the rest of the world around us builds nuclear reactors for 
generating power, and has responsibly handled their waste--and has 
used, in large part, our technology to do so--we have been bound up in 
the politics of it for well over a decade. I hope, finally, an 
opportunity exists for us to break through it.
  In my opinion, this is one of the most significant environmental 
bills we will have before the Congress this year. While those on the 
other side would like to cast it as antienvironment, finding a way to 
collect the nuclear waste of this country, and putting it in one safe 
spot, far from any human being, high in the dry desert of Nevada, seems 
to me, and a lot of other people, to be darn good policy.
  So let me thank my colleague from Alaska for his leadership. While he 
and I over the years have had disagreements on this issue, we have 
worked them out. We have asked the Senate to work with us to work out 
the differences. In most instances they have because this policy is too 
important for the normal course of politics that it has been served. 
This is an issue whose time has come. I hope the Senate and the House 
recognize that as we attempt to deal with it.
  Again, I thank my chairman and yield the floor.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I acknowledge that this piece of 
legislation, as it has worked its way from the committee to the floor, 
is better than its original form. But the old adage that you can't make 
a silk purse out of a sow's ear is applicable to this piece of 
legislation. It represents exceedingly bad policy.
  I am bemused by my friends who are advocating on behalf of this piece 
of legislation in that laced throughout their comments is the 
suggestion that somehow those of us who oppose this legislation are 
``playing politics.'' I think it is important, once again, to recite a 
little of the history.
  In 1982, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted into law, 
Congress made a judgment. I think it was a sound judgment. Congress 
concluded that it lacked the expertise to set public health and safety 
standards. They chose the Environmental Protection Agency, which is 
responsible generally for setting health and safety standards, as the 
appropriate agency to serve that function.
  I think that was a sound policy judgment. It was to use the language 
I frequently have heard on the floor, responsible. It was good science. 
It was responsible then and it is responsible now.
  Had that 1982 piece of legislation gone unchanged, it would have set 
in motion a chain of events that would, in fact, have at least been, at 
the outset, predicated upon science and not politics.
  As I have said before in this Chamber, I think that piece of 
legislation was a balanced approach. It would search the entire country 
and look for the best possible geological formations. We would have had 
regional equity so no one part of the country would bear it all; that 
three sites could be studied. Once they met the scientific criteria, 
they would be submitted to the President of the United States. The 
President would select one. I think that is fair. I think that is 
balanced. I think it is good science.
  Let me respond to this issue of politics because I am both bemused 
and frustrated.
  The first example of politics is the Department of Energy's own 
decision to eliminate one particular section of the country from any 
consideration at all in terms of being considered. That was the 
Northeast. The Department of Energy, in their internal documents, said: 
The political resistance will be too strong. We will never be able to 
get a site established in that part of the country, even though granite 
may be an acceptable geological material in which to place a 
repository.
  What was that? Was that science? Was that responsible? It was 
politics--not politics played by the Senators from Nevada or the good 
people of my State but politics by the Agency.
  As I stated yesterday, in 1984, we had a Presidential election. 
During the course of that election, the then-incumbent President said: 
Look, we're going to eliminate the folks in the Southeast. Salt dome 
formations will not be considered.
  Was that science? Was that responsible? It was politics--not politics 
by the Senators representing Nevada at that time, nor politics by the 
people in our own State.
  What occurred? In 1987, the law was changed so that only one site 
would be studied at Yucca Mountain. I have expressed my strong 
opposition to that. I do not like it. Was it science? Of course not. 
Was it responsible? Of course not. That was naked politics--naked 
political aggression visited upon my State. You have heard me 
characterize that legislation as the ``Screw Nevada Bill,'' as it is 
known throughout my State. That is politics--politics played by the 
Senate and the House of Representatives and the President in offering 
what was originally a balanced piece of legislation. There is not a 
scientist in the country who would argue that those changes were made 
in the interest of science or that they could be categorized as 
anything else other than a political decision.
  My point is, this process, that was set out in the 1982 Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act, is self-executing. It sets forth the process as to how we 
ultimately make this determination.
  What has occurred over the years is the injection of politics--
originally on a regional basis and now, as we debate it on the floor, 
with the nuclear utility industry.
  I suspect there are very few people who are listening to this debate 
who can define a millirem or tell us the difference between a millirem 
and a kilowatt. I confess that I am not a scientist. So let me try to 
categorize this as best I can in terms of what we are doing.
  In the location of the transuranic waste storage facility in New 
Mexico, the Environmental Protection Agency, then as now, is charged 
with the responsibility of setting a health and safety standard.
  These are the basic principles involved: A geologic repository 
designed to isolate radioactive waste from humans and the environment. 
That is

[[Page S527]]

what is occurring at Yucca Mountain. I don't like it, but that is what 
is occurring. That is going forward. This notion that there is an 
overriding necessity to enact some new piece of legislation is simply 
not true. This process continues. Sometime at the end of this year, 
perhaps, there will be a finalized environmental impact statement, and 
a couple or 3 years down the road there will be a recommendation for 
site selection. None of that has occurred at this point. It may occur 
down the road. It has not yet occurred. No reason to act other than 
that the nuclear utility industry, in the middle of this ballgame, 
wants to move the goalposts because they cannot be sure the guaranteed 
outcome they seek, irrespective of public health and safety--namely, 
opening the repository at Yucca Mountain--can occur if, indeed, public 
health and safety considerations are allowed to prevail.
  So we have essentially a geologic repository designed to isolate 
radioactive waste. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and Yucca Mountain 
share the same. The possibility of widespread contamination of both 
food and water sources and the human population likewise is a concern 
of the WIPP facility and Yucca Mountain. Radiation standards are to be 
established by the EPA to protect human health and the environment; 
that is true with WIPP, and those standards had been set at 15 
millirems, and Yucca Mountain.
  So I think the question has to be asked: Why should Yucca Mountain be 
treated any differently? Is there a scientific reason? The answer is 
no. It is a political reason: to accommodate a nuclear utility industry 
which exercises enormous power and influence in the Halls of Congress 
and, frankly, wants to change the rules of the game in midstream; not 
to protect public health and safety but to get rid of nuclear waste 
irrespective of the consequences.
  We could talk about background radiation and all of that sort of 
thing forever and ever. I think this is the most important issue: Is 
the standard that was set for the WIPP fair and reasonable? I assume 
that it is. There was no controversy attached to that. Nobody said we 
ought to take the EPA out of that; we ought to put in the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. There was no objection to it. It moved forward.
  Is the EPA being reasonable and responsible and scientific? I think 
the answer is clearly yes. The 1992 energy bill, which has been 
referenced in this debate, had inserted a provision which said the 
National Academy of Sciences needs to take a look at whatever the EPA 
standard is to see if it is reasonable and within a recommended range. 
They have done that. Here is what the National Academy of Sciences' 
recommended range. This is the millirems we are talking about, which 
simply means the amount of radioactive exposure an individual can have 
in a given year from this source. What was proposed at WIPP? Fifteen 
millirems. The EPA proposes 15 millirems at Yucca Mountain.
  Now, S. 1287 in its original version, not the bill we are now 
debating, had a 30-millirem standard. What does the National Academy of 
Sciences say? I confess, I don't know the difference between 2 
millirems and 3 millirems. I suspect if my colleagues are as forthright 
as I am, they couldn't tell the difference either.
  The point that needs to be made is, the National Academy of 
Sciences--these are scientists; they are not politicians--says that is 
a reasonable standard. They say the standard, to be reasonable, could 
be as little as 2 millirems or as great as 20. That is a reasonable 
standard.

  What did the EPA come up with? Fifteen millirems. Why is this debate 
occurring? It is all about politics--not politics in Nevada but 
politics by the nuclear power industry because they want a standard 
that is less protective in terms of public health and safety. That is 
what this issue is all about: public health and safety. We would not be 
on the floor debating today if the nuclear power industry was not 
pushing and driving to weaken that standard the EPA has proposed. That 
is a fact of life, my friends.
  Let us talk about the 4-millirem standard for water for a moment. I 
know my good friend from Alaska is privileged to be from an absolutely 
magnificently beautiful State. I have been to his State. I love it, 
perhaps not with the same passion and conviction he does, but it is a 
gorgeous State. The State of Alaska, unlike the State of Nevada, is 
fortunate that nature has been more bountiful in terms of the amount of 
water it has. Nevada is the most arid of the 50 States. Las Vegas, with 
a metropolitan population of more than 1.3 million, is the most arid of 
all of the major population centers in America.
  When we talk about this 4-millirem standard for safe drinking water, 
it has been suggested that somehow that water would have to be 
extracted from the aquifer--that is the underground formation in which 
water is situated--and would be capable of being consumed at that very 
minute. That is simply not true. All the 4-millirem standard deals with 
is the amount of radiation. That water may have other contaminants--
arsenic. It may have to be subject to a whole series of processes, 
whether it is a reverse osmosis process, which sometimes we have to use 
in southern Nevada, adding chlorine to it, or whatever else might have 
to be done to make it fit for human consumption. But what we do not 
want to do is to damage a water resource which a growing State such as 
Nevada will need in the future.
  The notion that somehow we can cavalierly dismiss the notion of a 
standard to protect us in terms of safe drinking water is somewhat 
outrageous. Perhaps if nature had been more bountiful, we could say 
maybe that aquifer isn't all that important. Maybe we don't need to be 
concerned about it because we have water all over the place.
  In point of fact, Nevada has marvelous geography. It is a State for 
which I have great passion, and I am eager to return at the conclusion 
of this year and the end of my term. But the one thing we do not have 
is a lot of water.
  I think Mark Twain once hit it right on the head when he came to 
Nevada as a young man. He came believing there was a position as an 
assistant to his brother, who was the secretary of state during 
Nevada's territorial period of time. He wrote a book about those 
experiences. He talked about water. He said: Whiskey is for drinking, 
and water is for fighting.
  In the arid West, water is life itself. Water is a resource that we 
protect because it is vitally important to us. This aquifer needs the 
protection, and the EPA, the agency which Congress chose, has said that 
a 4-millirem standard for safe drinking water is reasonable and is good 
science. That is science.
  What is occurring here is a political effort to divert that standard 
from going into effect. I appreciate the candor of my friend, the 
chairman of the committee. We want to make sure that the measuring is 
under a regulation that allows waste to go to Yucca Mountain.
  That says nothing about health and safety. And as a Nevada Senator, 
that energizes me. It angers me. It makes me very angry and I don't 
like the process that has occurred. I do not like the fact that Nevada 
was designated in a ``screw Nevada bill'' as the only site to be 
considered. I don't like that. I am opposed to that. But if it is going 
to occur--and that is the state of the record--that Yucca Mountain is 
the only place to be studied, why? And by what conceivable rationale, 
if there is any public morality at all, would we suggest that somehow 
the people of Nevada ought to be subject to a lower public health and 
safety standard than our good friends from New Mexico in the WIPP 
facility--15 millirems and 4 millirems for the safe drinking water?

  As I have said, is it somehow that Nevadans are subcretins, less 
human? I am outraged at that suggestion or notion. As offended as I am 
by the process by which Nevada was selected--by politics, not science--
the ``Screw Nevada Bill''--at least the people in our State, as this 
process moves forward, ought to be entitled to the basic minimum health 
and safety standards of the EPA.
  Let me be clear. The EPA was not established by some left-wing, 
radical, commie sympathizer group of folks. This agency was brought to 
life during a Republican administration--the administration of Richard 
Nixon. In 1982, there was essentially a Republican Senate, and a 
Republican President made the determination in this piece of 
legislation--the Nuclear Waste Policy

[[Page S528]]

Act--that the Environmental Protection Agency was the appropriate place 
for the determination to be made in terms of public health and safety 
standards.
  So I submit that you don't have to know a lot about millirems, or 
about aquifers, and you don't have to know a whole lot about this issue 
to understand that the one agency that is charged by law with providing 
public health and safety, the Environmental Protection Agency, was 
charged with that responsibility 18 years ago in this act, and has 
exercised that responsibility with WIPP, and there was not a murmur--no 
suggestion--that that was somehow radical, that it was political, not 
science.
  We are simply asking for no more and demanding that there be no less 
protection for us. That is really all you need to know about this 
argument. It is simply an attempt to reduce those standards. And 
somehow to suggest that unless we pass this piece of legislation, this 
process that began back in the early 1980s to locate a permanent 
repository cannot go forward, that simply is not true. This process 
continues.
  We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars studying that Yucca 
Mountain facility to see whether or not it is suitable, and that is 
ongoing. That would continue, much to my regret, as I have indicated, 
if this piece of legislation had never been conceived or seen the light 
of day.
  What is involved here is the nuclear utilities. Yes, sure, they would 
like the American Society for Nuclear Engineers to make the judgment. 
It doesn't give me, as a citizen, great comfort that crowd is going to 
be more concerned about my health and safety, that of my children and 
grandchildren--two of whom live in Nevada--but the EPA has a pretty 
decent track record, and it was not challenged previously--not 
challenged.
  So what this is all about is to kind of bump this standard over into 
next year. Presidential politics. We know we are going to have a new 
President, and the hope of the nuclear utility industry is that a new 
President will say to the nuclear utilities, look, you can have 
whatever standard you want. I hope and pray to the good Lord that does 
not occur, but that is what this is all about. It is not necessary. It 
is not scientific, and it is not responsible to proceed on the 
course of action that we are asked to follow in this piece of 
legislation.

  I appeal to my colleagues in the name of fairness. All we are asking 
is to have the same measure of protection that is accorded to the good 
people of New Mexico with respect to their nuclear facility, which the 
Nevadans will be entitled to if Yucca Mountain is ever determined to be 
scientifically and suitably situated for the receipt of that waste. 
That is not an unreasonable premise. It is not an unreasonable request. 
We are not asking you to repeal the ``Screw Nevada Bill,'' much as I 
object to the political way in which our State was savaged for it. That 
is a fight for another day.
  Having had that piece of legislation shoved down our throat, we 
certainly ought to be entitled, as human beings who happen to live, as 
I do, within 90 miles of that site, to the protection of the agency 
that is charged by law with protecting the health and safety 
recommendations, and that an independent oversight group, the National 
Academy of Science, says is within the recommended range.
  What is wrong with that? The answer is, nothing is wrong with that 
except the politics that the nuclear industry would visit upon this 
Chamber and say: Look, you have to help us out; I am not sure we can 
make that standard. Reduce it, dilute it, kick it over until next year, 
and maybe we will get a new President who will be less responsive to 
the concerns of public health and safety.
  I ask my colleagues, when we vote on this at 11 o'clock tomorrow, to 
reject this ill-conceived piece of legislation. It will be vetoed by 
the President and opposed by the EPA, opposed by the Council on 
Environmental Quality, and by every environmental organization of which 
I am aware.
  It is said that this is an important piece of environmental 
legislation. Let me correct the Record. This is not an important piece 
of environmental legislation. If this is allowed to occur, this is an 
environmental travesty. I hope my colleagues will not allow that to 
occur.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to join the occupant of the chair 
on his remarks in support of this legislation, which is far too long 
overdue and which has cost the taxpayers money because your efforts to 
see it passed have been frustrated.
  The leadership you, and others have given to this bill has made a 
compelling case for its passage. I believe we ought to move forward 
with it, and hopefully we will this time.
  I do not agree with some who say this is not an important piece of 
environmental legislation. It clearly is. We have nuclear waste all 
over this country in nuclear facilities in less than ideal conditions. 
That waste can be moved to an ideal location approved by the Federal 
Government. This is a bill which would help make that happen and clean 
up the environment.
  I would like to share some thoughts. I come at this with a little bit 
of a different view, as I am sure others do. I don't speak for anybody 
else, and certainly not the chairman who has advocated this legislation 
so ably. I would like to share a personal insight into where I am 
coming from with regard to this legislation.
  During his State of the Union Address, President Clinton remarked:
  ``The greatest environmental challenge of the new century is global 
warming. The scientists tell us that the 1990s were the hottest decade 
of the entire millennium. If we fail to reduce the emission of 
greenhouse gases''--that comes from burning fossil fuel--``deadly heat 
waves and droughts will become more frequent, coastal areas will flood, 
and economies will be disrupted. That is going to happen, unless we 
act.''
  But just because the President declared it so does not necessarily 
make it so. Science surrounding climate change is very complex. In 
fact, NASA has found through satellite data that the upper atmosphere 
has not warmed at all over the last 20 years. But, regardless of that, 
we don't know what is happening out there. Change is always about.
  The notion that our coastlines will flood or that heat waves will 
plague the world is a view that is shared by a lot of radical 
environmentalists, non-growth people in this country and around the 
world. Some scientists have actually studied the matter, however, and 
concluded that there are many beneficial changes that occur when carbon 
dioxide levels increase. If there is more carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere, plants grow better. They suck in carbon dioxide and emit 
oxygen in the process of life that all plants go through.
  Regardless of who is right and the status of this debate, all of us 
should look forward to working together in developing a plan to reduce 
air pollution. In doing so, we will at the same time reduce these 
greenhouse gases, many of which are not damaging to our health. But we 
will do that anytime we reduce pollution, as a general rule.
  The largest component of greenhouse gases, of course, is carbon 
dioxide, CO2, which is not an unhealthy gas. President 
Clinton and Vice President Gore have already tried to commit our 
country, through the Kyoto global warming treaty, to an agreement which 
would call on the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7 
percent below the 1990 level by the year 2002. That was a goal of 
Kyoto. The Vice President was adamant about committing the United 
States to reducing emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, just 
12 years from now. And the United States already produces greenhouse 
gas emissions that are 8 percent over 1990 levels.
  The Energy Information Administration predicts that the United 
States, however, will need about a 30-percent increase in electricity 
by the year 2015. We are talking about reducing greenhouse gases in the 
next 12 years by 15 percent from current levels during a

[[Page S529]]

time when we need a 30-percent increase in power. It is going to be 
very difficult to do under any circumstances.
  But at the same time we are faced with these difficult choices, this 
administration has surprisingly and openly opposed the use and 
continued development of the only options we have to realistically meet 
the emissions reduction goals--nuclear power and natural gas.

  Nuclear power currently provides over 20 percent of the electric 
power in this country. Given the state of energy technology today, a 
critical component of our emissions reductions plan should be the safe 
use of nuclear power. We must maintain this energy source, perhaps 
making it a larger source of our energy mix, and not dismiss its future 
use outright by opposing this critical legislation.
  As an example of the environmentally friendly capacity of nuclear 
power, consider this: Between 1973 and 1997, nuclear power generation 
avoided the emission of 82.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and more 
than 37 million tons of nitrogen oxide, which would have been released 
if that electricity had been produced by fossil fuel plants. In 1997 
alone, emissions of sulfur dioxide in 1 year would have been about 5 
million tons higher, and emissions of nitrogen oxide would have been 
2.4 million tons higher had fossil generation plants replaced this 
nuclear generation. In addition, literally billions of tons of carbon 
and millions of tons of methane emissions--believed to be the most 
significant greenhouse gas--could have been avoided by the sensible use 
of nuclear power in this country.
  Even though we are still fighting health problems associated with 
pollution, a problem that is measurable and real, the safe use of 
nuclear power in this country and elsewhere has helped all of us to 
breathe easier. In fact, there has not been a single incident in this 
country of a person being significantly injured or losing their life at 
a nuclear power plant in the entire history of US nuclear power 
production. That wouldn't have been true at plants burning coal. How 
many coal trucks have had wrecks and killed people? How many coal 
miners have been injured or killed? How many people have been killed in 
moving gas through pipelines and that kind of thing? Nuclear power has 
actually been much safer than those options.
  Indeed, other countries are far ahead of us. In France, 76 percent of 
their power is nuclear. And soon, 50 percent of the power in Japan will 
be generated by nuclear plants. Nuclear powerplants provided some 16 
percent of the world's energy production in 1998. Yet the United States 
hasn't proposed to build a new plant in over 23 years. One reason is 
the cost is rising and is being driven up by our inability to dispose 
of even small amounts of nuclear waste.
  On November 8, 1997, just after signing the Kyoto greenhouse gas 
treaty, Vice President Gore stated:

       There are other parts of the Earth's ecological systems 
     that are also threatened by the increasingly harsh impact of 
     thoughtless behavior: The poisoning of too many places where 
     people--especially poor people--live, and the deaths of too 
     many children--especially poor children--from polluted water 
     and dirty air.

  Perhaps the Vice President should heed his own rhetoric and stop the 
thoughtless behavior put forth by his own administration that has 
discouraged both the use of nuclear power and the production of our 
cleanest fossil fuel--natural gas.
  On September 3, 1999, Vice President Gore pledged to stop the new 
leasing of oil and gas sites offshore.
  It is really a stunning thing. We are producing natural gas mainly in 
the Gulf of Mexico at unprecedented rates. And we have the opportunity, 
through recent discoveries there, to produce even more. Producing more 
natural gas in this country will reduce our burden on coal and it will 
reduce our burden on oil, which is more polluting. It will reduce our 
trade imbalance and debt to foreign producers in the Middle East where 
we are shifting huge amounts of our wealth.
  Vice President Gore said we are going to stop natural gas production. 
He went on to state his intention to shut down even existing gas wells. 
Near my home in Mobile Bay, I fished around the oil and gas rigs there. 
It is some of the cleanest water you can find. We are having no 
problems with those wells.
  The Vice President said:

       If elected President, I will take steps to prevent any 
     drilling on the older leases that were granted during 
     previous administrations . . .

  He is even committing to shut down current natural gas wells that are 
producing the cleanest form of fossil fuel energy we have today.
  These comments and the policies of this administration on pollution 
and the environment just don't mesh. There simply is no way to meet our 
pollution reduction goals while simultaneously stopping the production 
of clean natural gas and blocking the development of a healthy nuclear 
power industry in this country.
  The Senator from Idaho earlier said we have no energy policy in this 
country. We are drifting from poll to poll. Well I think he may be 
right.
  Some say wind, solar, and biomass technologies are the way to meet 
our air pollution goals. I know of some good research projects. One in 
my home State uses switch grass and coal to help produce electricity. 
It is an environmentally friendly project and I hope it will be 
successful. While a lot of progress has been made in this area, we must 
face the reality that these new technologies are good steps--but they 
are small steps; they simply cannot be relied upon to meet our energy 
needs over the next 40 to 50 years.
  Every day, new ideas, new procedures, and new techniques cut fuel 
use, allowing citizens to get energy with less pollution. Refrigerators 
today are using less than half the electricity they did 15 or 20 years 
ago. That is good progress. The fact is, electricity consumption is up 
in the last 8 years despite these huge increases in efficiency. World 
demand also will rise.
  The theory of global warming does not hinge solely on pollution in 
the United States. The theory suggests that global air emissions are 
creating, so the theory goes, a greenhouse effect that might raise the 
temperature around the world. I know people have become absolutely 
convinced this is a scientific fact; my staff and I have been doing 
research and I am not yet convinced. Again I repeat: NASA has monitored 
the temperature of the upper atmosphere for over 20 years using 
satellites, and they find the upper atmosphere has not warmed. 
Originally, the greenhouse gas theorists believed that this part of the 
atmosphere would be where the warming would first occur. It has not.
  I point out that even members of President Clinton's own 
administration have recognized that nuclear power must play a large 
part in our energy mix. In March of 1999, Ambassador John Ritch, 
President Clinton's appointed Ambassador to the North Atlantic 
Assembly, an assembly of parliamentarians to the North Atlantic 
countries, commented on this issue we are debating today. He said:

       The reality is that, of all energy forms capable of meeting 
     the world's expanding needs, nuclear power yields the least 
     and most easily managed waste.

  In October of 1998, Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat 
remarked:

       I believe very firmly that nuclear [power] has to be a 
     significant part of our energy future and a large part of the 
     Western world if we are going to meet these emission 
     reduction targets. Those who think we can accomplish these 
     goals without a significant nuclear industry are simply 
     mistaken.

  However, we cannot have this industry if we cannot dispose of the 
waste.
  By passing sensible nuclear waste legislation, we have the greatest 
opportunity to reduce air pollution since the passage of the Clean Air 
Act. Nuclear power produces virtually no air emissions and generates an 
extremely small amount of solid waste. In fact, relative to the amount 
of power generated per ton of waste produced, nuclear power rates among 
the cleanest of all energy technologies.
  My judgment, which has been formed over time, is that we have to 
develop policies which will encourage the future development of nuclear 
power in this country--not build roadblocks to its use. How can we 
continue to maintain 20-percent power production from nuclear plants if 
these plants are now going to reach an age where they will have to be 
closed down? What will we do? The only choice is to burn fossil fuel if 
we don't use nuclear power.

  Currently, there are tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at 71 sites in 
34 States around this country. Most of the spent

[[Page S530]]

fuel is stored onsite at nuclear plants. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
of 1982 established a nuclear waste storage fund and required the 
Department of Energy to begin accepting nuclear waste from these plants 
all over the country by 1998. The fund was paid for by a user fee 
imposed on customers of electricity--that is, American citizens. That 
is, in effect, a tax on American citizens that has been paid for quite 
some time to store this nuclear waste.
  To date, the fund has grown to over $15 billion, as the chairman has 
pointed out. Not a single ton of spent nuclear fuel has been accepted 
by the Department of Energy. That is an outrage. As a result of the 
Department's failure to meet the 1998 deadline, the Department is 
currently facing multiple lawsuits which could cost the Federal 
Government--and taxpayers--tens of billions of dollars for their 
failure to produce a safe storage spot and make it available.
  The Department of Energy has spent over $4 billion to study the 
safety and environmental impact of storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca 
Mountain site. That is $4 billion. The general fund budget of the State 
of Alabama, with 4 million citizens, is $1 billion. Four billion is a 
lot of money that has been spent.
  The Department's findings indicate that Yucca Mountain is ideally 
suited for the long-term storage of nuclear power.
  Despite the rhetoric put forth by those who oppose this bill, the 
fact is, Yucca Mountain is located in the heart of a remote Nevada 
nuclear test range where nearly 1,000 nuclear devices have been 
detonated and tested over the years during the cold war. It is a 
desert. It is not located near any population center and would pose no 
threat to the surrounding areas.
  The safe long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel--which has no 
potential to blow up--is a problem we can and should have solved. By 
passing S. 1287, we will set in motion a well-researched plan to safely 
solve this problem once and for all and allow America to move forward 
in meeting our goals: Cleaning up the environment of nuclear waste and 
reducing air pollution by continuing to allow the nuclear industry to 
function.
  The Clinton-Gore administration has suggested it may veto this bill 
if it arrives on the President's desk. The effect of this announcement 
is to frustrate a $15 billion plan agreed to years ago.
  To say ``no'' to nuclear power use in this country is to say ``no'' 
to our best chance to significantly reduce air pollution and save the 
environment. A vote against this bill is a vote against the 
environment, a vote against common sense and a vote against fiscal 
sanity. We have dawdled and delayed far too long. Now is the time to 
store this hazardous waste under a mountain, at an old nuclear test 
range in the Nevada desert, at Yucca Mountain.
  I thank the chairman of this committee for his courageous, steadfast, 
and determined effort to bring this outrage to an end and to get this 
matter settled.
  I appreciate his leadership, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. He has 
highlighted some points that certainly needed to be identified. In 
reality, the issue is twofold.
  No. 1, are we going to have a future in this country for the nuclear 
power generating capability associated with our power industry? Is that 
in the future of this country? Or are we hell-bent to kill it?
  Further, do we want this high-level waste stored at 80-some-odd sites 
in 40 States for an extended period of time or do we want to get on 
with the job of collecting it and putting it in one permanent 
repository?
  Listening to the debate, I am sensitive to the difficulties 
associated with the decision that was made at a time when we had a 
Democratic chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my 
good friend, Senator Bennett Johnston. This has been a tough vote for 
my colleagues from Nevada. I recall a Republican Senator who probably 
lost the election in his State. He fought valiantly against putting the 
waste there. But, as I have identified time and time again, nobody 
wants the waste. That is the first premise with which you enter into 
this discussion. But you have to put it somewhere because it will not 
stay up in the air. As a consequence, we find ourselves still debating 
the issue.
  At the hearing we had in the Energy Committee some time ago, the 
statement was made by our colleagues that regardless of the science, 
they would have to oppose the selection of a site in Nevada. Let's face 
it; that is a tough set of circumstances. But we have a job to do 
because we have to put it somewhere.
  I do not want to oversimplify it. My friend said the bill is a lemon; 
it is ugly. I do not dispute that. But Nevada has been selected for the 
permanent repository, assuming it can be licensed. That is the hard 
fact. It might not be pretty. I guess I would say that we have, really, 
no other alternative because it is critical that we maintain a nuclear 
power industry in this country.
  We have had a conversation about removing the take title. It has been 
removed. I know that disturbs my good friend and ranking member from 
the State of New Mexico. Secretary Richardson, the Secretary of Energy, 
raised this issue. I have held it in the legislation until the very 
end. But it became obvious that the administration could not deliver on 
their promises, that they could reassure the States that this was not 
just another ruse or another broken promise. And the broken promises 
obviously go back to 1998 when the Federal Government did not deliver 
on its contractual commitments to take the waste. The administration 
simply could not assure the States that they would not become some 40 
repositories, which is what they are now.
  I know the Secretary of Energy did the best he could, but it simply 
could not be done. So it is quite natural these States would say: Wait 
a minute, the Federal Government has not performed on its contractual 
commitment. Now it wants to take title in our State, without giving us 
the assurance it is going to be moved. As a consequence, as my 
colleagues know, those States were represented in the letter I 
introduced into the Record from six States claiming they would urge 
their representatives in the Senate not to support legislation unless 
the take title was removed.
  I do not fault the Secretary of Energy. But I think it is fair to say 
the administration has not had its act together for one reason or 
another. Maybe it is to accommodate my friends from Nevada, but, 
nevertheless, it has not been resolved.

  I tried my best. I am willing to revisit this in the future if the 
administration can follow through with some type of commitment. But I 
think it is unfair for the administration to criticize legislation 
because of their failure to follow through on their commitment. That is 
where we are on this.
  We have heard suggestions from our friends from Nevada that putting 
the issuance of a radiation standard off is politicizing the process. 
We can point fingers around here because this is a political body. But 
if we look at the facts, the opposite is probably true.
  The administration chose to abandon sound science and to inject 
politics into the standard-setting as part of its opposition to the use 
of nuclear power. Under the law, the Energy Policy Act, the EPA was to 
follow the guidelines set by the National Academy of Sciences. The 
National Academy is not an appointed body. Its membership is elected, 
based on professional scientific background, by the other scientists. 
The National Academy called for ``all pathways'' as a standard.
  EPA chose to go outside that guideline and threatened to create a 
separate groundwater standard in addition to the ``all pathways.'' I 
guess the only reason was to frustrate the development of the 
repository. They ignored science and yet injected politics. If 
anything, I think my amendment will remove politics from the process, 
and that is my objective.
  Talking about whether or not this is environmental legislation, the 
Senator said environmental groups oppose this legislation and the 
League of Conservation Voters is watching every one of us. Think about 
that. Here is an environmental agency that is genuinely concerned about 
the safety, health, and welfare of people regarding issues it

[[Page S531]]

has every right to be involved in. But what is its objective? Is the 
objective to kill the nuclear power industry in this country? Is that 
the true objective? I wonder. Because maybe the League of Conservation 
Voters, as they indicate their opposition to this legislation, 
indicating they are watching, thinks having spent fuel spread around 
this country at 80 sites in 40 States is a good idea.
  I do not think so and I do not think the majority of Senators think 
so. Maybe they think shutting down 20 percent of our generating 
capacity is a good idea, when they do not come up with any alternative. 
What do they want us to do? Maybe they will ignore that we will have to 
replace that capacity with fossil fuel-fired plants. Is that what they 
want? They do not have to take the responsibility that you and I do, to 
come up with and address an alternative. It is very appropriate that 
they criticize, but I wonder where they are going. Are they really 
going to shut down the nuclear power industry? They do not say that.
  Maybe they do not care about the cost to the taxpayers, the elderly, 
the poor, when we have to replace that capacity at the taxpayers' 
expense--the ratepayers' expense.
  Maybe they do not have a better use for the $80 billion, or whatever 
it is, in liability we are facing as a consequence of this delay. They 
have a responsibility to come up with answers, and they do not accept 
that responsibility. As a consequence, I find fault with their logic as 
well as their objective.
  Maybe they simply do not care. Maybe they do not care about human 
health and safety or the environment or the cost and the impact on the 
taxpayers, the poor or the elderly, because they want to pursue their 
own agenda. Is that a political agenda? I think it is. It is a 
political agenda against nuclear power.
  This is a major environmental bill, and if you are not for the 
environment in moving this quantity of high-level nuclear fuel to one 
site, how in the world can you suggest in any manner or form that you 
are for the environment by leaving it at these sites? It does not 
belong there. The sites were not designed for it. It is contrary to the 
health and welfare of the public.
  What we have here is a progressive bill to address the problem. I say 
to those who receive threats or notification on the merits of the 
environmental aspect that this is not a good environmental bill, this 
is an environmental bill that addresses and solves the problem.
  I conclude my remarks--since we are beginning to get statements from 
various groups that either oppose or support the bill--by asking 
unanimous consent that a letter dated February 8 from the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Department of 
           Government Affairs,
                                 February 8, 2000, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
     urges your support for S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
     of 1999. Passage of this legislation is crucial to solving 
     the ongoing problem of safe storage of spent nuclear fuel.
       Thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel are stored onsite 
     at nuclear plants in approximately 110 temporary storage 
     facilities in communities across the nation. No one disagrees 
     that nuclear waste belongs in a single safe repository far 
     removed from population centers. Yucca Mountain, located on 
     the Nevada Test Site, which S. 1287 designates as the site, 
     is just such a facility.
       This legislation directs the Department of Energy to 
     develop and operate a simple, safe construction plan for 
     Yucca Mountain. The plan includes development of a safe 
     transportation system from nuclear power plants to the site. 
     We anticipate that this could support more than 10,000 
     Teamster jobs.
       To ensure the safe and responsible handling of all phases 
     of construction and management of the facility, as well as 
     the transfer of waste to the facility, S. 1287 provides 
     extensive training to all workers involved in the 
     transportation of used fuel as well as to emergency response 
     personnel. Specifically, the legislation requires the 
     Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor and the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop an appropriate 
     training standard, and goes the extra mile of ensuring that 
     employers possess evidence of meeting that training standard 
     before workers are permitted to remove or transport nuclear 
     waste.
       In addition, the legislation provides grants to 
     organizations like the Teamsters Union to train workers who 
     transport spent nuclear fuel. These training programs ensure 
     that the high standard of safety that has been demonstrated 
     in nearly 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel in the United 
     States since 1964 will continue. The fact is that there has 
     never been any human injury or environmental damage in the 
     transportation of nuclear waste, and none of the sturdy 
     nuclear fuel shipping containers has ever been breached.
       Finally, the legislation supports programs to enhance road 
     and vehicle maintenance and inspection efforts, all of which 
     contribute to continued safe transportation of high-level 
     radioactive materials.
       For these reasons, the Teamster Union believes that S. 1287 
     is a well-reasoned, balanced approach to solving the on-going 
     continuously growing problem of nuclear waste. We urge you to 
     support it as it moves to the Senate floor.
       Should you have any questions or need additional 
     information, please contact Jennifer Esposito or me at 202/
     624-8741.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael E. Mathis,
                                     Director, Government Affairs.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in paragraph 2, it states:

       No one disagrees that nuclear waste belongs in a single 
     safe repository far removed from the population centers. 
     Yucca Mountain, located on the Nevada Test Site, which S. 
     1287 designates as the site, is just such a facility.

  On page 2:

       The fact is that there has never been any human injury or 
     environmental damage in the transportation of nuclear waste. 
     . . .

  In the last paragraph:

       For these reasons, the Teamster Union believes S. 1287 is a 
     well-reasoned, balanced approach to solving an on-going, 
     continuously growing problem of nuclear waste. We urge you to 
     support it as it moves to the Senate floor.

  It is signed Michael E. Mathis, Director of Government Affairs.
  As we wind down this debate, I again urge we all focus on the reality 
of whether we want to kill the nuclear industry in this country, if 
that is the objective, or whether we want to get on with addressing the 
responsibility which we have, which is to address what we are going to 
do with this high-level waste.
  Since we have been committed at the expense of some $6 billion at 
Yucca Mountain, since we have in this legislation addressed the 
appropriate role of the Environmental Protection Agency as having the 
final say on the determination of what the radiation standards should 
be, since we have addressed the transportation system by leaving it up 
to the States to designate how and where and under what terms and 
conditions, the waste will move out of the States where it presently 
resides. We have met the challenge we have been charged to address. As 
a consequence, we should recognize that it is time to finally put this 
matter behind us and not contribute additional expense to the American 
taxpayers or the ratepayers who have been paying into this fund for the 
last several years.
  I save the remainder of my remarks for the remaining time tomorrow 
where I understand the proponents and opponents have an hour equally 
divided beginning at 10 o'clock, with a vote scheduled at 11.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor for comments by my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee 
for his remarks. I will make a few remarks this afternoon. There will 
be more in the morning. I will be back on the floor in the morning to 
express it in more detail.
  First of all, for anybody who is watching this debate and trying to 
understand what is happening, it is not easy to understand because we 
have a complicated set of procedures we have followed around here to 
get to this point.
  Yesterday, I outlined my reasons for opposing the manager's amendment 
that was being considered at that time. It was No. 2808. That was the 
manager's amendment on which we voted to invoke cloture, or to bring 
debate to a close.
  I said at that time I believed the overall legislation, not that 
particular amendment but the overall legislation, was very important 
and was necessary to solve particular problems we have with our nuclear 
waste program, but that the particular provisions in that amendment 
that was before us yesterday did not solve those problems and, in fact, 
the particular language in that amendment created some additional

[[Page S532]]

problems. That was why I could not support the language we were 
considering yesterday.
  We have, of course, gone beyond that. We now have a new substitute 
amendment which has many changes in it. It was my hope that when we got 
to this substitute, it would fix the problems and concerns I had. I 
commend the chairman of the committee for a number of constructive 
improvements he did make in this substitute. Unfortunately, though, my 
own view is that while the new substitute makes improvements, there are 
still serious flaws and, more important than that even, there is 
a major step backward, and that relates to the dropping of the take 
title provision. I will try to explain in more detail why I think the 
take title provision is important to us.

  Let me also parenthetically say, I can sympathize with the statement 
the chairman makes about people who criticize and offer no alternative. 
Let me make it very clear, and I do not think this will be disputed by 
the chairman or anyone else, from the beginning of this process, I have 
not only expressed concerns, I have offered alternative language. In 
fact, when we were considering this bill in committee, I offered a 
complete substitute that was voted on by the committee and was defeated 
at that time but got quite a few votes. It is not as though we have 
refused to offer alternatives. We have offered alternatives. They have 
not been acceptable. I understand that. Each Senator votes their best 
judgment, and their best judgment was that the alternatives were not 
improvements. I disagree strongly with that judgment.
  This new substitute on which we are getting ready to vote tomorrow 
morning--and we will, as I said before, have time to speak about it 
tomorrow morning; we will have an hour equally divided--eliminates the 
so-called take title provision which was the core of the committee-
reported bill and was the focus of our efforts to reach a consensus 
with the administration.
  Let me explain a little bit about what this take title provision is 
because that is probably not understood well by a lot of folks who have 
not spent a lot of time on this subject.
  The Federal Government, particularly the Department of Energy, was 
obligated to actually take delivery of this nuclear waste that had been 
developed at these nuclear powerplants around the country by January 
31, 1998. We had written that into the law. We said that is an 
obligation, the Department of Energy has to do it, and the Department 
of Energy entered into contracts with the various utilities around the 
country.
  The map is not up right now, but every place you saw a dot on that 
map, there is a utility, and they have entered into contracts with the 
Department of Energy where the Department of Energy says: We will 
accept your waste at a particular time, and we will move it to a 
permanent repository.
  We in Congress were way too optimistic, and the Department of Energy 
was too optimistic about how quickly they could do all this. They 
entered into these contracts. When January 31, 1998, came, the 
Department of Energy had no place to put this waste, so they defaulted 
on at least the first of those contracts. The contracts become due. The 
obligation of the Department of Energy to pick up that waste and move 
it to a site becomes due each year to more and more utilities as we 
move forward.

  So today the reality is we have a bunch of lawsuits, lawsuits in the 
Court of Claims, by utilities against the Department of Energy, saying: 
You owe us money; you are continuing to be in default; you should have 
picked this waste up; you have not picked the waste up; for every day 
you don't pick the waste up, you owe us some more money.
  That is the situation.
  The take title provision was a provision we worked out with Senator 
Murkowski, with the Department of Energy, and with my staff to solve 
that problem. Basically, what it said was that we would give authority 
to the Department of Energy to enter into a contract--if a utility 
wanted to--whereby that utility would give up title to the waste, the 
Department of Energy would take title to the waste, and that would be 
done as part of a settlement of the litigation that is presently 
pending or that would otherwise be filed.
  We provided a particular length of time in which utilities would have 
to decide whether they wanted to enter into negotiations to do this, 
whether they wanted to take advantage of this. There was nothing 
mandated. But it was a way out of this morass of litigation in which 
the Department of Energy now finds itself.
  This bill we are going to vote on at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning 
eliminates that way out. That way out was a main reason for actually 
considering this bill. It was the core reason our committee reported 
the bill in the first place. It was the core reason I thought it was 
important for us to go ahead and pass the legislation.
  The new substitute still does preserve the Department of Energy's 
authority to settle lawsuits arising from its failure to meet its 
contractual obligations to begin accepting this waste in 1998, by 
reducing the fees they pay or providing other forms of financial 
relief. That is still in the bill. But the Department already has that 
authority. We did not need to legislate that authority again. I think 
it is clear to anybody who will study it for a little bit, it is not an 
objectionable part of the bill but it is an unnecessary part of the 
bill.
  What the Department lacks, and what we were trying to provide in the 
legislation, and what would benefit the country, the taxpayers, the 
utilities--particularly the taxpayers, because the taxpayers ultimately 
are going to wind up footing the cost of the judgments, whatever 
judgments are imposed on the Federal Government--but what clearly would 
benefit all of these groups and individuals I have talked about here is 
for the Department to take title to the utilities' waste and assume 
financial and legal liability for management pending the completion of 
the repository.
  The truth is, Yucca Mountain is being characterized. It is not being 
done as quickly as we would like because we have not provided all the 
funds necessary to do it on a timely basis, but it is being 
characterized. If it passes muster in the final analysis, if it can 
meet the standards the Environmental Protection Agency establishes, and 
then is going to be used, it is still going to be 8 or 10 years from 
now before waste will actually be moved to that site. That is just the 
reality. It is not a question of whether you like it or dislike it; 
that is just the reality.
  What we were trying to say is, during these 8 or 10 years, there is 
no reason why the Federal Government's liability for not moving that 
waste beginning in 1998 should continue to grow and to accrue. The new 
substitute drops that provision. The new substitute eliminates this way 
out for the Department of Energy, for the utilities, and, more 
importantly than anything, for the American taxpayers.
  There are other provisions where this new substitute we will vote on 
tomorrow, like the original one, creates problems that would limit the 
ability of the Department of Energy's waste program to succeed. Let me 
mention a few.
  The substitute imposes deadlines on the Department of Energy, saying 
the Department must ship spent fuel to Nevada on a schedule that the 
Department of Energy says they cannot meet.
  I know that is what we did before. We set a deadline. At that time, 
the Department of Energy did not say they could not meet it. But at any 
rate, we set a deadline they did not meet and now we have litigation.
  If we pass this bill, we are in danger of setting another deadline or 
another series of deadlines which this time the Department says they 
cannot meet--of course, prompting a lot of new litigation as a result 
of that. So it holds the Government and the taxpayers liable if the 
Department of Energy misses those deadlines.
  There are also some broader issues affecting the program we have been 
unable to address in this bill that I think are important to consider. 
One example is Northern States Power's problem. This gets a little bit 
arcane, but I do not think too arcane.
  Under Minnesota law, Northern States Power will have to shut down the 
Prairie Island nuclear powerplant in January of 2007 if the Department 
of Energy has not picked up Prairie Island's waste by that date. That 
is Minnesota law I just paraphrased for you. The manager's substitute 
could require

[[Page S533]]

the Department to enter into a ``backup'' storage contract with 
Northern States Power to take the Prairie Island waste to Yucca 
Mountain so that Prairie Island can keep operating. The problem is, the 
Department of Energy will not be able to honor that contract by January 
of 2007, so the provision does not prevent the reactor from shutting 
down. The truth is, we have put in a requirement that the Department of 
Energy cannot meet.

  There are also funding problems besetting our nuclear waste program. 
As I said yesterday, I think this is one of the most critical problems 
facing the Yucca Mountain program. The substitute does nothing to make 
the balances in the nuclear waste fund more readily available or even 
to make deferred payments for waste generated before 1983, the so-
called one-time fee under current law available to the program. I 
believe this latter provision would not score under our budget rules 
since it is currently outside the 10-year scoring window. That is 
pretty arcane, but it is an important provision.
  By dropping the take title provision and by failing to make this 
simple budget adjustment, in my view, the manager's substitute fails to 
capture and apply this important source of funds to the program when it 
is urgently needed.
  None of us is ever 100-percent satisfied with any vote we cast here 
in the Senate. We all have to compromise, to give things away, to 
settle for less than a perfect bill. Senator Murkowski has certainly 
shown his willingness to do that. I, too, believe I have done that and 
shown my willingness to make concessions on key issues--issues such as 
funding, on capping the nuclear waste fee, on potentially shifting the 
funding burden to taxpayers, conveying 76,000 acres of Federal lands to 
Nevada localities. These are all things in the bill that I have not 
thought were really appropriate, but I am certainly willing to 
compromise on them in order to reach agreement.
  But as I look at the new amended bill on which we are going to vote 
tomorrow, and I try to weigh it in relation to the Nation and the 
taxpayers--what the Nation and the taxpayers of the country are getting 
versus what they are giving up--I find that the balance that is 
required for me to support the end result is not there. Legislators, as 
doctors, need to obey the rule: First do no harm. When I look at the 
substitute on which we are going to vote tomorrow, to my mind, it does 
more harm than good. Unfortunately, as a result, I will be compelled to 
vote against it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, in order to 
attempt to advance the process, for the benefit of everybody----
  Mr. REID. If the Senator would withhold for me to make a brief 
statement, while the Senator from New Mexico is on the floor, I would 
appreciate it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Go ahead.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator.
  While the Senator from New Mexico is here, I want to say I personally 
appreciate his hours of time, and the tens of hours his staff has 
spent--probably hundreds of hours--on this legislation. I am grateful 
to the Senator for the work he has put into this legislation and for 
the fairness he has demonstrated to the chairman of the committee and 
the Senators from Nevada. The fact that Senator Bingaman has done 
everything within his power to get satisfactory legislation passed 
should be spread throughout the Record. That does not mean the Senators 
from Nevada would be happy with it, perhaps, but I think he has tried 
to work on something that would bring a general consensus in this 
Senate and would satisfy the administration.
  The Senator worked very hard to do that, and I commend and applaud 
his legislative abilities and constant fairness in this regard, keeping 
us informed, keeping the majority informed. I think it bodes well for 
the Senate to have the Senator as the ranking member and, hopefully, in 
the not-too-distant future, chairman of this very important committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I shall not further debate the issue 
today.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to compliment Senator Murkowski's 
leadership on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. I appreciate his 
efforts to enable progress on the Nation's need for concrete action on 
spent nuclear fuel.
  I find it amazing how fear of anything in this country with 
``nuclear'' in its title, like ``nuclear waste,'' seems to paralyze our 
ability to act decisively. Nuclear issues are immediately faced with 
immense political challenges.
  There are many great examples of how nuclear technologies impact our 
daily lives. Yet few of our citizens know enough about the benefits 
we've gained from harnessing the nucleus to support actions focused on 
reducing the remaining risks.
  Just one example that should be better understood and appreciated 
involves our nuclear navy. Their experience has important lessons for 
better understanding of these technologies.
  The Nautilus, our first nuclear powered submarine, was launched in 
1954. Since then, the Navy has launched over 200 nuclear powered ships, 
and about 85 are currently in operation. Recently, the Navy was 
operating slightly over 100 reactors, about the same number as those 
operating in civilian power stations across the country.
  The Navy's safety record is exemplary. Our nuclear ships are welcomed 
into over 150 ports in over 50 countries. A 1999 review of their safety 
record was conducted by the General Accounting Office. That report 
stated:

       No significant accident--one resulting in fuel 
     degradation--has ever occurred.

  For an Office like GAO, that identifies and publicizes problems with 
government programs, that's a pretty impressive statement!
  Our nuclear powered ships have traveled over 117 million miles 
without serious incidents. Further, the Navy has commissioned 33 new 
reactors in the 1990s, that puts them ahead of civilian power by a 
score of 33 to zero. And Navy reactors have more than twice the 
operational hours of our civilian systems.
  The nuclear navy story is a great American success story, one that is 
completely enabled by appropriate and careful use of nuclear power. 
It's contributed to the freedoms we so cherish.
  Nuclear energy is another great American success story. It now 
supplies about 20 percent of our nation's electricity, it is not a 
supply that we can afford to lose. It's done it without release of 
greenhouse gases, with a superlative safety record over the last 
decade. The efficiency of nuclear plants has risen consistently and 
their operating costs are among the lowest of all energy sources.
  I have repeatedly emphasized that the United States must maintain 
nuclear energy as a viable option for future energy requirements. And 
without some near-term waste solution, like interim storage or an early 
receipt facility, we are killing this option. We may be depriving 
future generations of a reliable power source that they may desperately 
need.
  There is no excuse for the years that the issue of nuclear waste has 
been with us. Near-term credible solutions are not technically 
difficult. We absolutely must progress towards early receipt of spent 
fuel at a central location, at least faster than the 2010 estimates for 
opening Yucca Mountain that we now face or risk losing nuclear power in 
this country.
  Senator Murkowski's bill is a significant step toward breaking the 
deadlock which continues to threaten the future of nuclear energy in 
the U.S. I appreciate that he made some very tough decisions in 
crafting this bill that blends ideas from many sources to seek 
compromise in this difficult area.
  One concession involves tying the issuance of a license for the 
``early receipt facility'' to construction authorization for the 
permanent repository. I'd much prefer that we simply moved ahead with 
interim storage. An interim storage facility can proceed on its own 
merits, quite independent of decisions surrounding a permanent 
repository. Such an interim storage facility could be operational well 
before the ``early receipt facility'' authorized in this Act.
  There are absolutely no technical issues associated with interim 
storage in dry casks, other countries certainly use it. Nevertheless, 
in the interests of seeking a compromise on this issue, I

[[Page S534]]

will support this Act's approach with the early receipt facility.
  I appreciate that Senator Murkowski has included Title III in the new 
bill with my proposal to create a new DOE Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel 
Research. This new Office would organize a research program to explore 
new, improved national strategies for spent nuclear fuel.
  Spent fuel has immense energy potential--that we are simply tossing 
away with our focus only on a permanent repository. We could be 
recycling that spent fuel back into civilian fuel and extracting 
additional energy. We could follow the examples of France, the U.K., 
and Japan in reprocessing the fuel to not only extract more energy, but 
also to reduce the volume and toxicity of the final waste forms.
  Now I am well aware that reprocessing is not viewed as economically 
desirable now, because of today's very low uranium prices. Furthermore, 
it must only be done with careful attention to proliferation issues. 
But I submit that the U.S. should be prepared for a future evaluation 
that may determine that we are too hasty today to treat this spent fuel 
as waste, and that instead we should have been viewing it as an energy 
resource for future generations.
  We do not have the knowledge today to make that decision. Title III 
establishes a research program to evaluate options to provide real data 
for such a future decision.
  This research program would have other benefits. We may want to 
reduce the toxicity of materials in any repository to address public 
concerns. Or we may find we need another repository in the future, and 
want to incorporate advanced technologies into the final waste products 
at that time. We could, for example, decide that we want to maximize 
the storage potential of a future repository, and that would require 
some treatment of the spent fuel before final disposition.
  Title III requires that a range of advanced approaches for spent fuel 
be studied with the new Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. As we do 
this, I will encourage the Department to seek international 
cooperation. I know, based on personal contacts, that France, Russia, 
and Japan are eager to join with us in an international study of spent 
fuel options.
  Title III requires that we focus on research programs that minimize 
proliferation and health risks from the spent fuel. And it requires 
that we study the economic implications of each technology.
  With Title III, the United States will be prepared, some years in the 
future, to make the most intelligent decision regarding the future of 
nuclear energy as one of our major power sources. Maybe at that time, 
we'll have other better energy alternatives and decide that we can move 
away from nuclear power. Or we may find that we need nuclear energy to 
continue and even expand its current contribution to our nation's power 
grid. In any case, this research will provide the framework to guide 
Congress in these future decisions.
  I want to specifically discuss one of the compromises that Senator 
Murkowski has developed in his Manager's Amendment. In my view, his 
largest compromise involves the choice between the Environmental 
Protection Agency or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set the 
radiation-protection standards for Yucca Mountain and for the ``early 
release facility.''
  The NRC has the technical expertise to set these standards. 
Furthermore, the NRC is a non-political organization, in sharp contrast 
to the political nature of the EPA. We need unbiased technical 
knowledge in setting these standards, there should be no place for 
politics at all. The EPA has proposed a draft standard already, that 
has been widely criticized for its inconsistency and lack of scientific 
rigor--events that do not enhance their credibility for this role.
  I appreciate, however, the care that Senator Murkowski has 
demonstrated in providing the ultimate authority to the EPA. His new 
language requires both the NRC and the National Academy of Sciences to 
comment on the EPA's draft standard. And he provides a period of time, 
until mid-2001, for the EPA to assess concerns with their standard and 
issue a valid standard.
  These additions have the effect of providing a strong role for both 
the NRC and NAS to share their scientific knowledge with the EPA and 
help guide the EPA toward a credible standard.
  The NRC should be complimented for their courageous stand against the 
EPA in this issue. Their issuance of a scientifically appropriate 
standard stands in stark contrast to the first effort from the EPA. 
Thanks to the actions of the NRC, the EPA can be guided toward 
reasonable standards.
  Certainly my preference is to have the NRC issue the final standard. 
But I appreciate the effort that Senator Murkowski has expended in 
seeking compromise in this difficult area.
  By following the procedures in the Manager's Amendment, we can allow 
the EPA to set the final standard, guided by the inputs from the NRC 
and NAS. Thus, I will support the Manager's Amendment.
  I thank Senator Murkowski for his superb leadership in preparing this 
new act. We need to pass this Manager's Amendment with a veto-proof 
majority, to ensure that we finally attain some movement in the 
nation's ability to deal with high level nuclear waste.

                          ____________________