[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S1652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I alert my colleagues that an 
extraordinary thing happened yesterday in the House of Representatives. 
The House accepted the Senate bill on nuclear waste without amending 
the Senate bill.
  As the occupant of the Chair knows, oftentimes the House has a little 
difference of opinion on what is good for the country. The bill we 
passed in the Senate on nuclear waste had certainly a vigorous debate 
in this body. There were 64 votes recorded for the legislation which 
would resolve what to do with our high-level nuclear waste and how to 
proceed with the dilemma associated with the reality that the Federal 
Government had entered into a contract in 1998 to take this waste from 
the electric-power-generating units that were dependent on nuclear 
energy. This is the high-level rods that have partially reduced their 
energy capacity and have to be stored. We have had this continued 
buildup of high-level waste adjacent to our reactors.
  The significance of this is that this industry contributes about 20 
percent of our power generation in this country. There are those who 
don't favor nuclear energy and, as a consequence, would like to see the 
nuclear industry come to an end. But they accept no responsibility for 
where the power is going to be made up. Clearly, if you lose a 
significant portion, you will have to make it up someplace else.
  The point of this was to try to come to grips with a couple of 
things. One is that the ratepayers have paid the Federal Government $15 
billion over an extended period of time to take the waste in 1998. The 
second issue is the cost to the taxpayers because since the Federal 
Government has failed to meet the terms of the contract and honor the 
sanctity of the contract agreement, there are damages and litigation 
from the power companies to the Federal Government. That cost is 
estimated to be somewhere in the area of $40 to $80 billion to the 
taxpayer in legal fees associated with these claims that only the court 
will finally adjudicate.
  By passing the Senate bill in the House--I believe the vote was 275--
indeed, it moved the issue closer to a resolve. Many in this body would 
like to not address it. That is irresponsible, both from the standpoint 
of the taxpayer and from the standpoint of the sanctity of a 
contractual commitment. If we don't do it, somebody else is going to 
have to do it on a later watch.
  The difficulty is, nobody wants the nuclear waste. But if you throw 
it up in the air, it is going to come down somewhere.
  France reprocesses theirs. The French learned something in 1973, 
during the Arab oil embargo. They learned that they would never be held 
hostage by the Mideast oil barons and be subservient to whatever the 
dictates of those oil nations were and what it cost the French economy 
in 1973. As a consequence, they proceeded towards the development of a 
nuclear power capability second to none. About 92 percent France's 
power is generated by nuclear energy. They have addressed the issue of 
the waste by reprocessing it through recycling, recovering the 
plutonium, putting it back in the reactors, and recovering the residue. 
The residue, after you take the high-level plutonium out, has a very 
short life. It is called vitrification.
  In any event, we are stuck still. We can't resolve what to do with 
our waste. But we have a bill that has moved out of the House. It is 
our bill. I have every belief it will go down to the White House. We 
will have to see if the President wants to reconsider his veto threat 
in view of the energy crisis we have in this country now and the fact 
that the administration does not have an energy policy, let alone the 
willingness to address its responsibility under the contractual terms 
to accept the waste. If the administration chooses to veto it, we have 
the opportunity for a veto override. In this body, we are two votes 
short.
  I encourage my colleagues, particularly over this weekend as they go 
home, to recognize that this issue is going to be revisited in this 
body. If they have nuclear reactors in their State and they don't 
support a veto override, they are going to have to wear the badge, the 
identification of being with those who want to keep the waste in their 
State. That is where it will stay. It will stay in temporary storage 
near the reactors that are overcrowded and that were not designed for 
long-term storage. It will never get out of their State unless we come 
together and move this legislation, if the President does not sign it 
now that it has gone through the House and Senate.

  Unfortunately, this would put the waste ultimately in Nevada where we 
have had 50 years of nuclear testing out in the desert, an area that 
has already been pretty heavily polluted. We have spent over $7 billion 
in Nevada at Yucca Mountain where we are building a permanent 
repository. Quite naturally, the Nevadans, my colleagues, will throw 
themselves down on the railroad track to keep this from happening.
  But the point is, you have to put it somewhere. In my State of 
Alaska, we don't currently have any reactors.
  As chairman of the Energy Committee, my responsibility is to try to 
address this national problem, with a resolve. What we have, obviously, 
is this legislation that has passed both the House and the Senate. It 
will be back. It will be revisited. I encourage my colleagues to 
recognize that we have a responsibility to address this on our watch. 
If we put it off, somebody else is going to have to address it. It is 
going to cost the taxpayer more. Now is the time, since we finally have 
a bill that has gone through the House and Senate.
  The interesting thing is, had the House taken up our bill and amended 
it, we would be hopelessly lost because there would be a filibuster on 
appointment of conferees. It would take 9 days or something like that. 
It could not be done.
  That didn't happen in the House. I commend the Speaker, Denny 
Hastert, for keeping a commitment. I commend our leader, Senator Lott, 
who made a commitment that we were going to bring this up. Not only did 
we bring it up but we passed it.
  I alert my colleagues, again, what goes around comes around. We are 
going to get this back. If you are against it, you had better come up 
with something else that is a better idea. Otherwise, it will stay in 
your State. If you want to get it out of your State in a permanent 
repository, you had better get behind this bill, if we have to go for a 
veto override.
  I thank the Chair and 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. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, are we in morning business at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business, and the Senator 
from Idaho controls 60 minutes.

                          ____________________