[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 52 (Tuesday, May 2, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3222-S3230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000--VETO--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15 
p.m. having arrived, there will now be 30 minutes under the control of 
the Senators from Nevada, Mr. Reid and Mr. Bryan, and 30 minutes under 
the control of the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski.
  Who seeks time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to my good friend, 
the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have been around this place a long time 
and a lot of things have happened that I can't quite understand, one of 
them being the veto of this measure by the President of the United 
States. If you stop and think, you see that it is purely political. For 
that reason, I hope this Senate will not hesitate to vote to override 
the veto of S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000.
  The President's decision to veto this vital legislation is just 
further evidence that the Clinton administration has no energy policy, 
except the appeasement of the doctrinaire environmentalists.
  Because of the President's purely political veto, the United States 
will continue to have spent fuel assemblies piling up at all nuclear 
generation facilities throughout the United States--including five 
facilities in North Carolina.
  The taxpayers of my state alone have paid more than $700 million into 
the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund justifiably expecting that the spent 
fuel assemblies would be transported to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for 
permanent storage.
  But no, it was not to happen, according to the environmentalists, and 
therefore according to the President of the United States, who 
immediately got his pen out and vetoed it.
  A portion of the monthly electric bill payments of North Carolinians 
and other states goes into this fund, but while the Administration 
plays its political veto game, North Carolina's utility companies have 
been forced to construct holding pools or dry cask storage facilities 
to store this used material. This has caused additional expense for the 
utilities and higher prices for their customers.
  Why did Mr. Clinton veto this legislation? Clearly it was to appease 
the self-proclaimed environmentalists, who so piously proclaim their 
concern about the air Americans breathe. We are all concerned about 
that.
  Mr. President, it has long been self-evident that these so-called 
self-proclaimed environmentalists are opposed

[[Page S3223]]

to nuclear energy production--which is, behind hydro-power, the 
cleanest source of electricity. Nuclear power generation does not emit 
greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
  The question is inevitable. Is it not better for the environment that 
no fossil fuels are burned?
  So while the President plays politics to please the self-proclaimed 
environmentalists the spent fuel assemblies continue piling up all over 
the country in spite of the availability of the Yucca Mountain storage 
site which--according to the experts-- poses absolutely no 
environmental risks for the permanent disposal of the spent fuel 
assemblies.
  A handful of North Carolina anti-nuclear activists are complaining 
about the on-site storage of this material. If these activists were 
truly concerned about the environment, they would support this 
legislation and urge the federal government to complete construction of 
the national storage site at Yucca Mountain in one of the most remote 
areas of the United States.
  I have at hand a copy of a letter sent to President Clinton by the 
Executive Director of the Public Staff of the North Carolina Utilities 
Commission urging the President to sign S. 1287. I ask unanimous 
consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         North Carolina Public Staff Utilities Commission, 
           Raleigh, NC,
                                                   April 11, 2000.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As Executive Director of the Public 
     Staff-North Carolina Utilities Commission, I am keenly aware 
     of the need for an effective federal nuclear waste management 
     program, and I strongly encourage you to sign S. 1287 passed 
     earlier in the year by the Senate and House.
       Nuclear energy accounts for nearly half of the electricity 
     produced in North Carolina. Our state's electricity consumers 
     have paid more than $700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund. 
     The national repository for nuclear spent fuel, however, is 
     currently not scheduled to open until 2010, twelve years 
     behind the statutory obligation in the Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Act of 1982.
       The two nuclear plant operators in North Carolina--as well 
     as those around the country--are being forced to undertake 
     costly, alternative measures to compensate for the delays and 
     shortcomings in the federal program.
       The nuclear waste legislation on the table will be a 
     positive step in the right direction and will provide nuclear 
     plant operators and the communities around their facilities 
     some assurance that the Federal Government will fulfill its 
     obligations in this matter. It is not sound public policy to 
     force nuclear plants to continue indefinitely on-site interim 
     storage of their spent fuel. It is a more responsible course 
     to consolidate the spent fuel in a central facility designed 
     for safe, permanent disposal.
       I understand you have reservations about S. 1287. The bill 
     may be imperfect, but it represents a sensible and long 
     overdue first step in restoring public confidence in a 
     federal program that is a vital component of our national 
     energy policy.
       I request your support of S. 1287.
           Sincererly,
                                                 Robert P. Gruber.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  This debate is not about nuclear power. It is not about whether you 
are in favor of nuclear power generation or opposed to it. But it is 
about health and safety concerns in America we should have for nuclear 
waste and other such issues. It is about health and safety. That is 
what S. 1287 is all about--lowering health and safety standards 
relevant to nuclear waste.
  My good friend, with whom I have worked for many years on the water 
subcommittee of Appropriations--I have great respect for the chairman 
of the Budget Committee--came to this floor this morning and spoke in 
favor of overriding the Presidential veto. My friend, the senior 
Senator from New Mexico, said ``radiation standards are irrelevant.'' 
That is a quote. I can't imagine anyone saying that, including my good 
friend from New Mexico, who is someone who should know better--
``radiation standards are irrelevant.''
  I guess that is what they said earlier in this century when we had 
patent medicines. They advertised, saying they would cure all kinds of 
diseases--arthritis, lumbago, and pleurisy--and the medicines wound up 
killing people. It is the same when they talk about x rays being 
irrelevant. Radiation from x rays is irrelevant, except it kills 
people. My father-in-law was an x ray technician. He died as a young 
man from cancer of the blood as a result of being exposed to x rays.
  Radiation standards are relevant. They are as relevant today as they 
were then. They are as relevant today as they were when we were told 50 
years ago that aboveground nuclear tests were OK, that radiation was 
not relevant. We sent soldiers and others into these nuclear clouds and 
they died, and some are still sick as a result of that.
  Radiation is relevant. It is relevant in the transportation of 
nuclear waste. It is relevant in the storage of nuclear waste. That is 
what this debate is all about.
  Of course, this is a challenge. We have 100 sites that are generating 
nuclear power today. They are indicated on this chart. But to say we 
are going to eliminate all 100 sites and wind up with one in Nevada is 
not true. We will wind up with 100 of them. With the one additional 
nuclear waste site in Nevada, instead of 108 we will have 109. These 
places aren't going away. Some are generating nuclear waste. Those that 
aren't generating nuclear waste will be nuclear repositories for many 
years to come.
  The reason radiation is relevant is we have a nuclear nightmare. I 
have placed on this chart only the railways where nuclear waste will be 
transported. I haven't added the highways. This is a nuclear nightmare 
because accidents are happening every day, literally.
  This is from a recent newspaper account in LaGrande, OR. An accident 
happened because a rail was a little out of line, causing this terrible 
accident. Locomotives are dumped all over. Here are locomotives which 
you can just barely see. You can see a little bit of yellow down here. 
Here is one dumped in the marsh.
  We have a farm back here. One of my staff members happens to be here 
on the floor today, Kai Anderson. This was his family's farm. This 
train derailed where people lived.
  These accidents happen all the time--3 engines, 29 cars derailed. You 
can see stuff dumped out all over.
  Radiation matters. Radiation is not, as my friend said, 
``irrelevant.'' We have a challenge, as we indicated. But this debate 
is not about whether or not you are in favor of nuclear power 
generation. This debate is not about Nevada. It is about our country. 
It is about health and safety standards for our country.

  If this bill is allowed to pass, 43 States will have nuclear waste 
passing through them without appropriate health and safety standards.
  My friend from North Carolina talked about not understanding why the 
veto took place. I made notes as he spoke. He said it was 
``political.'' If the President were political, he certainly wouldn't 
go against 40 States, many of them very heavily populated States. He 
wouldn't go against the biggest businesses in those States--utilities. 
He did it because he believed in the health and safety of the people of 
this country. He could have gone with where the numbers were. He 
decided not to do that.
  The citizens of North Carolina, he said, deserve to know why he is 
doing it. It is an easy answer why the President did this--because the 
people of North Carolina deserve health and safety standards just as 
everyone else. They may have some stored nuclear waste there. But they 
need to have it stored in a safe manner.
  As I said this morning, if you are wondering what we are going to do 
with our nuclear waste, it is an easy question to answer. What we are 
going to do with our nuclear waste is what they are doing at various 
sites around the country. They are storing it onsite.
  We have already spent in the State of Nevada over $7 billion 
characterizing Yucca Mountain. You could store it onsite safely in dry 
cask storage containers. You could establish a nuclear waste repository 
site where the waste is generated--where the power is generated. You 
could do that for $5 million. It would be safe. It would not be subject 
to terrorist threats.
  We don't have to worry about transportation. We don't have to worry 
about the loss of public confidence. It would be cheap. We could save 
this country and the utilities money. My friend from North Carolina 
talked about not millions but billions of dollars. Ground water would 
be protected. There would be no risk to children.

[[Page S3224]]

 There would be decent radiation protection standards.
  I can't express enough my appreciation to the President and the Vice 
President for their support on this issue, and also the courageous 
Senators--Democrats and the two Republicans. The Senator from Rhode 
Island and the Senator from Colorado, with untold pressure being placed 
on them, are going to vote to sustain the Presidential veto. The 33 
very powerful and courageous Democrats--and I say the same about my 2 
Republican friends--I am very appreciative of their support and 
courage.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I grant 5 minutes to Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska. I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
  I see the poster the Senator from Nevada has of a train wreck. But I 
have heard many others say on this floor that if a train carrying 
nuclear waste wrecks, the nuclear waste doesn't blow up; it just lies 
on the ground. There was once a train with chemicals on board wreck 
about 200 yards from my mother's house. That was a very dangerous train 
wreck; with explosions and chemicals leaking into the air and on the 
ground. Had it been nuclear waste, it would have been sealed up and 
would not have blown up, or have gone into the air, or seeped onto the 
ground. It would have just sat there--posing little risk to people or 
the environment. It is just not that dangerous to transport. In fact, 
as Senator Domenici has noted, ships and submarines with nuclear fuel 
in them ply the oceans every day. Those ships use the same fuel and 
create the very same nuclear waste which we are looking to dispose of 
today.

  I will note that this debate is a political issue. There was an 
excellent film on global warming on ``Frontline'' about 2 weeks ago. 
Basically, they concluded our energy needs could not be met and our 
environmental needs could not be met without nuclear energy. There was 
no other conclusion you could reach from watching that, but an activist 
who opposed nuclear energy said the main reason she opposed it was 
because we could not get rid of the waste. That is an absolutely bogus 
argument.
  We have the ability to solve this problem. But until we do, we have, 
in effect, shut off our ability to produce a cleaner environment and 
get on with emission free energy production at a reasonable cost.
  The President has noted, in the State of the Union, that we have to 
do something about global warming. He attempted to get us to ratify the 
Kyoto treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent from the 
1990 levels. But this Senate, voted unanimously, 95-0, against the 
agreement.
  Our greenhouse gas emissions have gone up 8 percent since 1990. So to 
meet the Kyoto agreement, we would have to have over a 15-percent 
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2012. There is no 
way that can be done without nuclear power.
  The Energy Information Agency predicts a 30-percent increase in 
demand in electricity in this country by the year 2015. 20 percent of 
our power today comes from nuclear energy. France produces over 60 
percent, and Japan, nearly 50 of its electricity from nuclear power 
sources.
  Between 1973 and 1997, nuclear power generation avoided the emission 
of 82.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 37 million tons of nitrous 
oxide into the atmosphere. In 1997 alone, emissions of sulfur dioxide 
would have been about 5 million tons higher and emissions of nitrogen 
oxide, 2.4 million tons higher, had fossil fuel generation replaced 
nuclear. Billions of tons of carbon and millions of tons of methane--
believed to be the most significant greenhouse gas--are not emitted 
because of nuclear power. The building blocks of ozone, a proven 
irritant and health risk to sensitive children and the elderly, is not 
emitted at all by nuclear power plants. Ozone precursors are emitted in 
all other fossil production of power.
  Sixteen percent of the world's electricity is coming from nuclear 
power, but we here in the U.S. have a strained situation because we 
cannot dispose of the waste. This problem drives up the cost of nuclear 
power which makes this cleanest of all power generation sources almost 
uneconomical. Certainly, one of the main reasons we are not building 
any new plants today is because of our inability to solve the waste 
problem.
  Even as some in the environmental movement are changing their views 
on nuclear power, the Vice President is not. In the April 22, edition 
of the Congressional Quarterly:

       Vice President Gore stated he does ``not support an 
     increased reliance on nuclear power for electricity 
     production'' but would ``keep open the option of relicensing 
     nuclear power plants.''

  I visited the Tennessee Valley Authority's existing plant a few weeks 
ago in north Alabama. They set a record for safe operation without one 
shut down in over 500 days. It produces no environmental discharge. One 
thousand workers are there, quite happy, making excellent wages and 
providing a steady, 24-hour-a-day supply of clean electricity for the 
Tennessee Valley Authority.
  That is good for this country. It means we are not having to burn 
coal. It means we are not having to import oil to generate our power.
  But members of the Administration are not unanimous in their position 
on nuclear power. In 1998, Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat 
remarked:

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

  Another administration official, Ambassador John Ritch, speaking to 
the North Atlantic Assembly said:

       The reality is that, of all energy forms--

  This is the President's own appointee--

       capable of meeting the world's expanding energy needs, 
     nuclear power yields the least and most easily managed waste.

  I agree with Senator Domenici. We are almost at the point of lunacy 
if we cannot choose a place in the desert of this country--where we had 
hundreds of bombs exploded while developing our nuclear weaponry--to 
bury nuclear waste deep down a tunnel, under a solid rock mountain and 
secure it there. What is it that we cannot do? We are storing this 
waste in hundreds of nuclear powerplants all over America and we cannot 
put it out in the desert and seal it up, yet we have ships traveling 
all over the world powered by nuclear energy that have this same spent 
fuel in them?
  This is not wise. I call on the people of this country to rethink our 
position on nuclear power. There are 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel 
stored in 71 sites around this country. We have the ability to safely 
solve this waste problem and move ahead with a viable nuclear program 
to supply clean, low cost energy to our country.
  I thank the Chair and the distinguished chairman of this committee 
for his excellent work. I do hope this veto will not be sustained.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time do we have on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 19 minutes. The 
Senator from Nevada has 21 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Alabama said if there was an 
accident it would not be nearly as bad as a chemical accident, a 
trainload of chemicals compared to a trainload of nuclear waste because 
the container would not breach.
  I do not know where my friend got that information because we have 
already established there is no container that can sustain an accident 
where the vehicle is going more than 30 miles an hour or, in fact, if 
it was a diesel fire.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on this legislation we are talking about 
12,000 shipments through Illinois, 11,000 shipments through Nebraska 
and Wyoming, 14,000 shipments through Utah. We have already had seven 
nuclear waste transportation accidents. The average has been one 
accident for every 300 shipments.
  S. 1287 would result in 10 times as many shipments of nuclear waste 
over longer distances. Currently, the statistics would lead us to 
expect, scientifically, 150 more accidents for this

[[Page S3225]]

transportation plan. Are you ready to take that risk? I say to anyone 
the answer should be emphatically no.
  It would be no because let's assume there would not be a nuclear 
explosion when the train wrecked or the truck wrecked. But, remember, 
we are talking about the most poisonous substance known to man. If 
there is a breach in the container, a tiny, tiny breach, the amount of 
plutonium on the end of a pin would make you sick, if not kill you. 
These transportation risks are expensive and dangerous.
  The Department of Energy estimates an accident with a small release 
of radioactivity in a rural area would contaminate a 42-square mile 
area, require almost 2 years to clean up, and cost almost $1 billion to 
clean that up, one accident--the Department of Energy, in their own 
words: ``A small release.''
  This is something that is very dangerous. We are talking about the 
health and safety standards for the people of America. They deserve the 
best. This legislation gives them the worst.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to point out a couple of 
things. We can show all the pictures we want around here about ``what 
if's'' but the facts remain. There was no nuclear waste associated with 
that particular photograph of the unfortunate train wreck.
  Let's talk a little bit about how this is stored. There have been 
1,500 tests performed to confirm and approve container safety. In the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission tests, transportation canisters have been 
subject to some very tough tests, as they should be, tests that 
confirmed that they did not break open. They survived a 30-foot free-
fall onto an unyielding surface, which is the same as a crash into a 
concrete bridge abutment at 120 miles an hour. Puncture tests, as well, 
were done, allowing the container to fall 40 inches onto a steel rod 6 
inches in diameter; 30 minutes in a fire of 1,475 degrees that engulfs 
the whole container; submerging the container under 3 feet of water for 
8 hours. It goes on and on. It is rather interesting to note, about 10 
years ago we were looking at flying nuclear waste for reprocessing from 
Japan to France. At that time, the requirement was to design a cask 
that would withstand a free-fall from 30,000 feet. We were advised it 
was technically available.

  What we have here is almost a Nevada litmus test. Everyone has to be 
against Yucca Mountain. I know there is a good deal of pressure on 
Members, out of allegiance to my good friends from Nevada, from those 
who do not want the waste in their State. That is the bottom line. If 
they have to kill the nuclear waste industry to achieve it, that is 
what will happen.
  I am holding a copy of the U.S. Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program. This 
is the so-called ``Mobile Chernobyl,'' some 90 reactors moving all over 
the world. It is entitled ``Over 117 Million Miles Safely Steamed on 
Nuclear Power.'' That is the record of our Navy. What we are hearing 
today is nothing but fear tactics of the worst kind, and this is 
emanated by the veto of the President.
  Let's be realistic; the EPA has the sole and final authority to issue 
a radiation standard. I do not want to hear any Member reinterpreting 
that any other way. They--the EPA--must set forth a scientific basis 
for the rule. That is the best science. On June 1, 2001, they--meaning 
the EPA--are free to issue whatever standard they deem appropriate. 
They have the final say. We can only hope it makes a sensible and 
achievable interpretation and is based on sound science.
  We talk about the science. In the President's veto message, he talks 
about the science. The Vice President talks about the science. We are 
talking about the best science--the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, and the National Academy of Sciences, with the EPA having 
the sole and final authority. There is absolutely no question about 
that if you read the bill.
  Let's look at something else. Taking the waste is a Federal 
responsibility, the sanctity of a contract. The deadline was 1998. The 
ratepayers have paid $16 billion to the Federal Government to take that 
waste. The taxpayers have spent some $6 billion already at Yucca 
Mountain where we have the hole in which to put the waste.
  The longer the delay, the more liability the Federal Government has 
for not taking the waste because the utilities are suing the Federal 
Government for not taking the waste. That is some $40 billion to $80 
billion. It is estimated it will cost each taxpaying family in the 
United States $1,300.
  I will talk about foreign-domestic transportation. We have seen 300 
safe domestic shipments over the last 30 years--no injury, no 
radiation. This chart shows the network all over the country. Since 
1996, transport of foreign reactor fuel has come into this country from 
41 other nations. That is over 20 tons over the next 13 years.
  To where does it go? It goes into Concord, CA, Sacramento River, and 
moves up to Idaho. On the east coast, it goes to the Charleston Naval 
Weapons Center by rail up to Savannah River, and by truck on the 
highways. It is shipped as high-level waste from other countries. In 
the debate, the Senators from Nevada never acknowledged that exists. 
They never acknowledged there is an inconsistency in our policy.
  We accept it from foreign governments, and we store it in the United 
States, but this administration will not address its obligation to take 
the domestically produced waste from our own utilities and the 
ratepayers have paid the Government to take it. That is the 
inconsistency. That is what is wrong with the administration's policy.

  One example of this is U.S. participation in foreign shipments. A 
semi truck full of spent fuel was loaded into a chartered Russian 
Antonov AN-124 cargo plane and flown from Bogota, Colombia, to 
Cartagena so it could join a shipment from Chile bound for Charleston 
by freighter. The flight was believed to be necessary to avoid 
terrorists in Colombia, and the shipment went off without a hitch.
  The point of this message is obvious. We are doing it for foreign 
nations. We are shipping it all over the world to two places in the 
United States: Concord, CA, and Charleston, SC. I do not know if the 
Senators from those States are concerned about it. I do not see them 
speaking on the floor about it in indignation. Do we want to leave the 
spent fuel at 80 sites in 40 States, as this chart shows? That is the 
alternative.
  I leave all Members with one thought. Putting politics aside, how 
will you as a Senator explain why today you voted to leave the waste in 
your State, subjecting your taxpayers to continued liability for broken 
promises of this administration?
  I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto. Let's 
put this issue behind us once and for all. If we do not, it will come 
back at a greater cost to the taxpayers.
  Finally, on the issue of health and safety, about which we have heard 
so much from our good friends from Nevada, this waste is spread out at 
80 sites in 40 States, as I have indicated. I have another chart which 
shows that. These might be determined to be 80 mini Yucca Mountains, 
but they were not designed for permanent storage. They were designed 
for short-term storage, just as we have seen at Calvert Cliffs in 
Maryland. The current onsite storage was designed for short-term 
storage, not long-term storage.
  In conclusion, I encourage my colleagues to remember that in the 1999 
Department of Energy draft EIS report, it said:

       Leaving the waste onsite represents considerable human 
     health risks as opposed to one central remote facility in the 
     Nevada desert.

  That is a statement by this administration relative to the issue of 
health and safety and leaving this waste where it is in these 40 States 
at these 80 sites.
  Again, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on what they are going to 
say to their constituents when they go home and say, I guess I voted to 
leave the waste in my State, when, indeed, they had an obligation and 
an opportunity to move it to one central facility that has been 
selected at Yucca Mountain, an area where we had 800 nuclear weapons 
tests over a 50-year period and where we did our experimentation with 
the nuclear bomb--an area, frankly, that is probably already so 
polluted that it can never be cleaned up.
  I ask my colleagues to read the letter, which is printed earlier in 
the

[[Page S3226]]

Record, from Governor George E. Pataki, who indicated that the citizens 
of New York State have been forced to temporarily store more than 2,000 
tons of radioactive waste and urged the President to sign this bill 
into law, and the statement that disposal of this waste is one of the 
most important environmental concerns facing New York and other States 
with nuclear facilities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield to my colleague from 
Illinois 3 minutes of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the issue of nuclear waste is an important 
one in my home state of Illinois. More than half the electricity 
generated in our state comes from nuclear power plants. We have an 
extraordinarily large amount of nuclear waste in our state. We would 
like to see it moved, once and for all, to a safe facility away from 
population centers in Illinois and virtually in every other state.
  In that respect, I admire the Senator from Alaska for his tenacity in 
trying to come forward with a nuclear waste bill that will put to rest 
an issue that literally will challenge us for centuries to come.
  This nuclear waste, once transported, is still dangerous. We have to 
find a politically and scientifically acceptable way to move it to a 
safe spot in America where we can not only store it for the future 
generations that we can think of, but also for the generations in 
centuries to come who could still be exposed to this hazard.
  Having said that, the nuclear waste bill supported by the majority, 
and vetoed by President Clinton, fails the most important test. This 
bill, S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000, is not 
environmentally responsible.
  First, it prevents the Federal Government from taking ownership and 
legal responsibility for the nuclear waste in Illinois and around the 
nation. The omission of this provision undermines the U.S. Department 
of Energy's efforts to resolve lawsuits with utilities and to focus on 
the development of a permanent repository for this waste.
  In addition, this bill establishes unrealistic deadlines for the 
completion of a repository and the transportation of waste to that 
facility. The bill sets deadlines for the Department of Energy under 
terms that the Department of Energy says they cannot meet. They are 
physically impossible. Failure to set realistic deadlines threatens 
public health and safety and the environment, and will only lead to 
further lawsuits in the future.
  Finally--I believe this is the most telling point--this bill 
purposely bars the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 
establishing a radiation safety standard for the national waste site 
until after the Presidential election. The science will not change 
after the Presidential election, but many writing this bill hope the 
President will change and that they will be able to elect a President 
who has a different environmental point of view.
  When it comes to the safety of future generations from radiation 
hazards, it should not be determined by the outcome of an election. It 
should be determined by scientists who take into account public health 
and safety.
  I refuse to be part of this deal that plays politics with the health 
and safety of Illinoisans and millions of Americans. I want the nuclear 
waste safely removed from my state and stored safely so it will never 
endanger future generations. The President was right to veto this bill. 
I support his position.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I begin by thanking Senator Murkowski 
for his efforts in introducing and promoting the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Amendments Act which addresses an issue of critical importance to the 
nation and in particular to the State of Illinois. I rise today to ask 
my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto of 
this vital legislation.
  Nuclear waste disposal policy is one of the most significant issue 
facing our nation and my home State of Illinois. Illinois is home to 11 
operating nuclear units which account for 38.4 percent of the 
electricity generated in Illinois in 1998. Nuclear energy also provided 
20 percent of the electricity consumed by the nation as a whole last 
year.
  Nuclear power also yields a large amount of nuclear waste. Since we 
do not presently reprocess this material, it must be stored, usually on 
site at nuclear facilities in communities throughout our nation.
  Illinois is home to over 4,300 metric tons of commercial nuclear 
waste out of 30,000 tons located throughout the nation. This is more 
commercial nuclear waste than is found in any other State in the Union.
  Utility companies from Illinois and throughout the country along with 
their consumers have paid approximately $16 billion into a fund to 
provide for a central national site for the storage of this waste 
mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. But as of yet, there 
has been no action taken by the Department of Energy to take this waste 
as it was mandated to do by 1998. Illinois consumers alone have 
contributed $2.14 billion to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund since 1983. 
This is about 12.5 percent of the total amount contributed to the fund 
today.
  The DOE was required by statute to take possession of this waste in 
1998. It failed to do so, and we now have a very serious problem. We 
need to decide the best way to allocate the costs of storage at 
existing facilities. To this end, Senator Murkowski offered this 
legislation which addresses DOE's failure and requires the Department 
to take responsibility for the costs associated with its failure to 
act.
  I again thank Senator Murkowski for his longstanding support on this 
issue of critical importance to my State of Illinois and the nation. It 
is my hope that we can enact Senator Murkowski's legislation and I urge 
all of my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois because he has 
encapsulated the essence of this argument. This is not about science. 
This is about politics, as he reminds us. Because the time is short, I 
will respond to some of the issues that have been raised.
  First of all, we have heard many paeans to the nuclear power 
industry. Whether you are for or against nuclear power is not the 
issue. I might say, parenthetically, there is nothing preventing any 
community that wants to establish a nuclear reactor from doing so. That 
is a matter of community choice. The fact that for 20 years no 
community has chosen to do so may tell us the concerns people have 
about their health and safety.
  We have heard the Kyoto agreement discussed and interim storage. None 
of those are the issues. We have talked about why Paris apparently has 
less pollution than the United States because of nuclear power. All of 
these things have no relevance.
  Here are the issues--and the only issues. The question is one of 
health and safety. Who is going to make that determination? Is it going 
to be the Environmental Protection Agency, which, by law, for 20 years 
has provided that standard?
  What this is all about, when striped to the bare bones, is an attempt 
to circumvent the standard proposed by the EPA of 15 millirems. That is 
what we are talking about today.
  My friend from Illinois is so right. They want to put this off until 
next year, hoping that a new political process, with a new President, 
might change the results in a measure far more favorable to the nuclear 
power industry. That is politics.
  We hear over and over again the deadline of 1998 has been missed. It 
is true that the deadline for accepting the waste was missed in 1998. 
And where does the fault lie? It lies right here in the Congress. It is 
politics. Because the original nuclear waste bill said that we would 
search all over the entire country and look for the best geology, the 
best site. That was the science in 1987, when the legislation focused 
on one site and one site only. That was politics. The geology of that 
site is immensely complex. We will not know for some years whether or 
not that is scientifically suitable.
  We are told about the costs that are incurred by utility ratepayers. 
Indeed, there have been costs incurred. But for more than a decade this 
Senator and this administration has said to each

[[Page S3227]]

utility that incurs costs as a result of not having a 1998 permanent 
repository open that we will reimburse them for the cost.
  If in this legislation we said, look, take title and eliminate the 
potential liability that the reactor utility sites would have and 
compensate the utilities for any expenses they have incurred because of 
the delay, this Senator would support that legislation.
  What is involved here is not compensation or reimbursement or delay; 
it is to change the basic science. Health and safety is the issue.
  Let me say to my friend from Alaska, with whom I agree on many other 
issues, the area depicted by the photo, when he repeatedly made 
reference to Yucca Mountain, is 25 miles from Yucca Mountain. That is 
the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about an area that is totally 
geographically removed.
  Let me talk about the issue that the nuclear utilities run all of 
these full-page ads, that rather than 101 sites--we heard today 80 
sites--how about a single site? Just have a single site in Nevada. That 
is a bogus issue, a red herring.
  So long as each nuclear reactor continues to generate power, there 
will be a nuclear waste site at that reactor. As those spent fuel rods 
are removed from the reactor, they are placed in pools about which the 
senior Senator from North Carolina talked. That has nothing to do with 
whether Yucca Mountain is established or not established. That is the 
way these spent fuel rods are first addressed. There will be storage at 
those sites for years to come if Yucca Mountain were determined 
tomorrow to be suitable.
  The proposed site contemplates that, if approved, there will be a 25- 
to 30-year period of shipments. So the notion that somehow this 
legislation will establish a single site is a bogus argument.
  Let me talk about transportation for a moment because that has been 
treated very lightly, in my judgment, by colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle. Transportation is a legitimate issue. We are talking 
about 43 States. We are talking about 51 million Americans who live 
within a mile or less of these sites.
  This map shows the highways in red, the rail in blue, going through 
all of the major cities, particularly in the eastern part of the United 
States.
  What about the accidents? The Department of Energy itself says over 
the lifetime of this disposal process, one could expect 70 to 310 
accidents.
  Each year in America there are 2,000 derailments. Each year there are 
approximately 200 collisions. We are talking about shipments of a 
magnitude that we have never seen before: 35,000 to 100,000 shipments 
over this 25-year period of time.
  Although these casks have been described as having fallen from the 
heavens, in point of fact, the casks that the Department of Energy 
would like to use are much larger than any that have been previously 
tested. There have been no tests conclusively done with respect 
thereto. They are an earlier model.
  What does this all really amount to? It amounts to congressional 
irresponsibility, to yield to the pressure of a special interest group 
that wants to change the rules that are designed to protect 270 million 
Americans.
  Finally, I would say the answer to the question that the Senator from 
Alaska propounded--how do you explain, as a Senator, your vote to 
sustain the President's veto?--that ought to be a proud moment for 
every Senator. Because every Senator could stand up and say: I resisted 
the pressures of a special interest lobbying group, the nuclear 
utilities in America. What I voted for was what was right for the 
country and that is to protect the health and safety of the American 
public--270 million of us who rely upon the Environmental Protection 
Agency standard, a standard that was unchallenged for 20 years that 
exists with respect to the nuclear repository in New Mexico, the so-
called WIPP site, at 15 millirems.
  Remember, the original version of S. 1287--we tend to forget that is 
the bill before us, which admittedly has been modified--would have set 
health and safety standards where the American public--each citizen--
could be exposed to twice the amount of radiation that the EPA has said 
is safe for us.
  Is that what we really want in America, to set health and safety 
standards to accommodate the interests of the special interest groups, 
the nuclear utilities, or should we not as Senators, Democrats and 
Republicans, from the Northeast to the Southwest, from Seattle to 
Tampa, be saying that we ought to support the health and safety 
standard that protects the American public?
  We can debate energy policy in America. That is a debate for another 
day. However, as Americans, how can we provide less safety, less 
protection than the Environmental Protection Agency? Every Senator on 
this floor knows, as do I think most Americans who follow the issue, 
the only reason we would propose to change the standards--not sites, as 
my friend from Illinois reminds us --is that it is politics, with the 
hopes that perhaps in November there may be a new administration that 
is beholden to the nuclear power industry and will make it easier, at 
the risk of public health and safety, to site nuclear waste somewhere 
in America.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 8 minutes. The 
Senator from Nevada has 4 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, 
the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this has been a very difficult issue for 
us to try to resolve. It is with a great deal of thought and 
consideration that I come to the floor to announce that I will be 
voting to override the President's veto. It is a very difficult vote, 
obviously, but a correct and necessary vote for my State of Louisiana.
  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the Department of 
Energy to provide a Federal repository for used nuclear fuel no later 
than January 31, 1998. Here we are, 2 years after that deadline, and 
there is still no central repository for spent nuclear fuel in 40 
States. In fact, according to the Department of Energy's latest 
projections, the placement of waste underground at Yucca, which I have 
visited, would take place, at the earliest, in 2010, and only then if 
it receives full regulatory approval. That leaves us at least 12 years 
behind schedule.
  Meanwhile, millions of American families and businesses have been 
paying, not once but twice, for this delay. They pay once to fund the 
Federal management of used nuclear fuel at a central repository and 
again when electric utility companies have to build temporary storage 
space. As a result, since 1983, American consumers have paid 
approximately $16 billion to this nuclear waste fund through add-ons to 
their utility bills without a real satisfactory result. Still, the 
Federal Government continues to collect nearly $700 million a year from 
electricity consumers. Future generations of Americans, our children 
and grandchildren, will pay a high price for continued inaction. We 
must push to do something, and that is what this debate is about.
  Also, the situation for the more than 100 operating nuclear 
powerplants storing used fuel onsite grows ever more urgent. Plants are 
running out of storage space. In Louisiana, we have two nuclear 
powerplants: Riverbend Reactor in St. Francisville and Waterford near 
New Orleans. These plants will reach maximum storage capacity very 
soon, and waiting until 2010 poses definite problems for my State.
  This legislation is a necessary step toward meeting the Federal 
Government's legal obligation to safely and responsibly manage used 
nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. It provides the necessary 
tools to begin moving used nuclear fuel to a central facility for 
disposal if scientific investigation demonstrates that the Yucca 
Mountain repository site in Nevada is suitable. This is an important 
step that we need to take.
  S. 1287 establishes three definitive deadlines for developing a 
repository for used nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. First, it reaffirms 
that by December of 2001, the Secretary of Energy must make a 
recommendation to the President on whether Yucca Mountain

[[Page S3228]]

is a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. Second, it requires 
the President to make a subsequent recommendation regarding Yucca 
Mountain's suitability to Congress by March 2002. Third, it requires a 
decision on the construction authorization application for a repository 
at Yucca Mountain by January 2006. In addition, the bill enhances an 
already safe transportation system with more training and state 
involvement in routing.
  According to the President's veto message issued on April 25th the 
administration has two primary concerns with S. 1287. First, ``the bill 
would limit the EPA's authority to issue radiation standards that 
protect human health and environment and would prohibit the issuance of 
EPA's final standards until June 2001.'' In fact, under the bill the 
EPA retains authority to establish radiation standards that protect 
public health and the environment near Yucca Mountain. The bill seeks 
the participation of experts on radiation safety at the National 
Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to 
establish the best public health and environmental standards possible. 
Second, the administration argues that ``the bill does little to 
minimize the potential for continued claims against the Federal 
Government for damages as a result of the delay in accepting spent fuel 
from utilities.'' I point out that the federal government bears 
responsibility for this delay and should not be completely absolved. 
Under the legislation the Energy Department is given specific authority 
to reach settlements with the utility companies that have filed 
lawsuits for the Department's failure to meet the congressionally 
mandated requirement to move used nuclear fuel. In addition, the 
Department is prohibited from using the funds accumulated in the 
Nuclear Waste Fund for settlements, except when the funds are used for 
containers or other aspects of storage that would be required to meet 
the Department's obligation to move the fuel to a repository.
  Mr. President, it is difficult to come to the floor to speak on an 
override. It will be very rare, I hope, in my career that I will vote 
to override any President because I do respect the office, but I also 
respect the role of the Congress.
  I think this is the right vote for the Congress and for my State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 4 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Alaska has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to make a point one more time on the 
issue of transportation. This has often been characterized as an issue 
of Nevada versus the entire country. As more and more people around the 
country are aware of the implications for their families and their own 
security in terms of health and safety, we are beginning to get the 
attention of the public. Just this past week, the Deseret News in Salt 
Lake City, UT, strongly supported the President's veto. That 
publication does not have a long track record of being supportive of 
this administration and particularly this President. But it indicates 
the nature of the concern.
  Here again, take a look at the routes that are involved in the 
transportation. This will occur around the clock for 25 to 30 years: 
30,000 to 100,000 shipments. It is said that, gee, we have had 
transports before and nothing has happened. That is true; we have had 
no fatalities as a result, but we have had 58 accidents. I suppose 
before the disaster of the Challenger we could talk proudly about our 
space program and the shuttle launches that never had a fatality.
  It is not a question of what the history has been as to whether or 
not there has been a fatality. We are talking about something of a 
magnitude many times greater, and I think our colleagues must look at 
that. There are many States--43 States and 51 million Americans. But it 
has been said repeatedly that we have to do something. The deadline has 
been missed, there is no question. But as I pointed out a moment ago, 
this Congress bears the responsibility. It politicized the action. Had 
we let the Nuclear Waste Policy Act unfold as it was originally 
contemplated back in 1982, we might very well have had the solution to 
the permanent repository issue.

  This health and safety standard ought to anger every American 
watching. It is cynical for a political and a special interest 
purpose--this is what this bill is all about, special interest 
legislation--to change a health and safety standard that is designed to 
protect the Nation.
  Finally, just a reference that comes up again and again. We were told 
by someone obliquely that if we don't do something, somehow the waste 
will pile up and we will not be able to generate nuclear power.
  Twenty years ago this summer, the same argument was advanced by the 
distinguished chairman's predecessor--that if we did not get, what was 
then referred to, away from an active program on line, we would soon 
have to shut down nuclear reactors around the country. It was not true 
then, and it is not true now. No reactor waste is exposed because of 
space. There is dry cask storage available, it is licensed, and 
approved for up to a period of 100 years.
  Let's do this right. Let science and not politics prevail.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we wind down our debate, I 
compliment my friends from Nevada for their points of view. But I would 
like to remind all of my colleagues of the obligations we have.
  Senator Durbin from Illinois expressed concern about why we are 
waiting until 2001.
  We are all very much aware that this administration and the 
Environmental Protection Agency came down today without a doubt to set 
a standard that was unattainable. Make no mistake about it, that is 
what some of these folks would like to see happen.
  I quote from the press release of my friend, Senator Reid, of 
February 9:

       Under this bill, the Environmental Protection Agency will 
     have full authority to set radiation standards for Yucca 
     Mountain, which many experts say will ultimately prevent the 
     site from ever being licensed as a nuclear waste dump.

  There you have it. They don't want to ever see it accomplish its 
purpose.
  We talk about courage. We talk about health. We talk about safety. 
But the real issue is politics, and it is Nevada politics against the 
recognition of the rest of the country that we have this waste at 80 
sites in 40 States, and this administration is simply caving in to 
Nevada politics.
  Let me talk about courage.
  It is going to take courage to tell your constituents the money they 
paid to move the waste has been taken by the Federal Government and the 
waste is still not moved.
  It is going to take courage to tell your constituents the Federal 
Government has broken its word again, and you support that Government, 
you support that decision, and you support the President who tells you 
he has justification for overriding the veto.

  It takes courage to tell your constituents you think this waste is 
safer near their homes, their schools, their hospitals, and their 
playgrounds than it is in one site in Nevada.
  It takes courage to tell your constituents to ignore the findings of 
the administration's draft EIS that found that leaving the material 
spread around the country would ``represent a considerable health 
risk.''
  There you have it. There you have the capsule of what this is all 
about.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto and to 
meet our obligation as Senators to resolve this problem once and for 
all.
  I thank the Chair.
  Again, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3:15 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now vote on the question of 
overriding the President's veto.
  The question is, Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President 
of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding? The yeas and nays 
are mandatory under the Constitution. The clerk will call the roll.
  The Legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

[[Page S3229]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Roth
       
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I change my vote to no, and I enter a motion 
to reconsider the vote by which the veto message was sustained, and I 
send the motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider would be premature 
until the vote is announced.
  On this vote, the yeas are 64, the nays are 35. Two-thirds of the 
Senators voting not having voted in the affirmative, the bill on 
reconsideration fails to pass over the President's veto.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which the veto message was sustained, and I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to express my personal 
disappointment that today the Senate was unable to override the 
President's veto of S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 
2000.
  Twelve years have passed since Congress directed the Department of 
Energy (DOE) to take responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste 
created by commercial nuclear power plants and our nation's defense 
programs. Today, there are more than 100,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel 
that must be dealt with. DOE is absolutely obligated under the NWPA of 
1982 to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from utility sites. Today 
DOE is no closer in coming up with a solution. This is unacceptable. 
This is in fact wrong--so say the Federal Courts. The law is clear, and 
DOE has not met its obligation.
  The President sent his message--once again he chose not to enact 
sound energy policy. Once again, he chose to ignore the growing energy 
demands of this nation. Therefore, it became Congress's duty to vote 
for sound science, fiscal responsibility, safety, and honoring a 
federal commitment to tens of millions of consumers across the nation 
who benefit from nuclear energy.
  This should be a bipartisan effort for a safe, practical and workable 
solution for America's spent fuel storage needs. The proper storage of 
spent fuel should not be a partisan issue--it is a safety issue. This 
bill incorporates key concepts embraced by the Congress, the 
Administration, and the nuclear industry.
  Where is the Administration? Where is DOE? Where is the solution? All 
of America's experience in waste management over the last 25 years of 
improving environmental protection has taught Congress that safe, 
effective waste handling practices entail using centralized, permitted, 
and controlled facilities to gather and manage accumulated waste. It is 
the goal of our nation's nuclear waste management policy to develop a 
specially designed disposal facility. The federal government is now 12 
years behind schedule in managing nuclear waste from 140 sites in 40 
states. The sites have spent fuel sitting in their ``backyard,'' and 
this fuel needs to be gathered and accumulated. This lack of a central 
storage capacity could very possibly cause the closing of several 
nuclear power plants. These affected plants produce nearly 20 percent 
of America's electricity. Closing these plants just does not make 
sense.
  This bill would permit early receipt of fuel at Yucca Mountain 
following issuance of a repository construction authorization by 
federal regulators. In the meantime, improved environmental and public 
safety would be provided at the site and during transportation from the 
states to a federal repository.
  The citizens, in some 100 communities where fuel is stored today, 
challenged the federal government to get this bill done. It is 
unfortunate that this goal has not yet been achieved.
  The nuclear industry has already committed to the federal government 
$16 billion exclusively for the nuclear waste management program. The 
nuclear industry continues to pay $700 million annually with only one-
third of that amount being spent on the program. The federal government 
needs to honor its commitment to the American people and the power 
community. The federal government needs to protect those 100 
communities. This bill would ensure adequate funding for the lifecycle 
of this program and limit the use of these funds.
  To ensure that the federal government meets its commitment to states 
and electricity consumers, it is vital that there be a mandate for 
completion of the nuclear waste management program--this program would 
give the federal government title to nuclear waste currently stored on-
site at facilities across the nation, a site for permanent disposal, 
and a transportation infrastructure to safely move used fuel from 
plants to the storage facility.
  Mr. President, nuclear energy is a significant part of America's 
energy future, and must remain part of the energy mix. America needs 
nuclear power to maintain our secure, reliable, and affordable supplies 
of electricity. We have realized this year more than ever that this 
Administration lacks a sound energy policy. The President's veto of the 
Nuclear Waste Storage Act is a prime example.
  Mr. President, this federal foot dragging is unfortunate and 
unacceptable. It is in the best interest of this nation for Congress to 
override the President's veto. This is achievable, and I look forward 
to the opportunity to revisit this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my good friends, Senator Reid 
and Senator Bryan, for the spirited debate on this nuclear waste 
legislation on the President's veto override.
  I also thank the professional staff on the other side who assisted 
with this bill and my own staff: Colleen Deegan, Andrew Lundquist, and 
Kristin Phillips, Trici Heninger, Jim Beirne, Bryan Hannegan.
  I also thank the leader for his guidance and counsel. As we look at 
this vote, which, as I understand, officially was, prior to the 
reconsideration, 65-34, we have one Republican Senator out today, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth. We would have had, had 
he been here, 66 votes. We are 1 vote shy. It is my understanding, 
according to the rules of reconsideration, that this matter may come up 
again at the pleasure of the leadership because it does remain on the 
calendar. Is that correct, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is correct; it would 
take a motion to proceed.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, I thank my colleagues for their confidence and 
recognition that this matter still remains to be resolved by either 
this Senate in this session or at a later time because the contribution 
of the nuclear industry is such that we simply cannot allow it to 
strangle on its own waste. We really do not have that alternative.
  I yield the floor and thank the leader for his courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the leader does not mind--I see him 
standing--I also extend my hand of congratulations to the Senator from 
Alaska. He has been a gentleman during this entire debate. We have 
appreciated his courtesies. We also appreciate the leader working out a 
time arrangement for us. It saved everybody a lot of time and effort.
  Of course, part of the wait was because there were a number of 
Republicans who were missing last week, and

[[Page S3230]]

we thought it appropriate they be here when the vote took place.
  We are in a parliamentary position now where the leader, at any time 
he desires, can call this forward. It is a nondebatable motion to 
proceed. I hope, however, that the leader will continue the good faith 
that has been shown by all parties on this issue for many years, not 
only this year, and that if, in fact, something comes up because of 
travel or illness the leader will give us an opportunity to know when 
this matter will come forward.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. President, I assure the 
Senators from Nevada that we have proceeded in good faith on both sides 
of the aisle on this issue from day one. I have always understood how 
important it is and how difficult it is for the Senators from Nevada. I 
also understand, on the other side, how important this issue is to 
Senators all across America who have nuclear waste in their respective 
States in cooling pools or in conditions of uncertainty where something 
needs to be done.
  There will not be a surprise on this issue. If there is a decision 
made that we will need to reconsider, it will not be based on absentees 
or something of that nature. But I do think  it is such an important 
issue and it is so close now--really 1 vote--keeping that option open 
for a while longer is worthwhile, but I will certainly notify Senator 
Reid and Senator Bryan, as I have in the past, before we proceed on it.

  Mr. REID. I thank the leader.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a moment?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the leader's 
forthrightness in indicating that we have tried to accommodate each 
other in terms of the time. I recognize that, as the leader, he has a 
difficult schedule to maintain. This is an issue that for Senator Reid, 
for me, and for Nevadans is of paramount importance. We think it is 
important for the country. I appreciate the spirit of the Senator's 
response. I appreciate the spirit in which the chairman of the Energy 
Committee has conducted this debate. We disagree, but he, as well, has 
been courteous and very responsible in the exchange.
  I thank three members of my staff who have done an extraordinary job: 
Brock Richter, Brent Heberlee, Jean Neal, and previously Joe Barry; 
they have worked on this issue for many months, some for the past 12 
years. I acknowledge and thank them for their efforts. Again, I thank 
the leader for his commitment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on February 10th of this year, the Senate 
passed S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 2000. I commend 
the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy Committee 
for the time and effort they have dedicated to this issue. However, I 
did not vote for this bill, because it contains many of the same flaws 
as in past bills, including safety and licensing issues, inadequate 
delivery schedules, and a failure to address specific storage problems 
of some companies.
  One of the companies in our region of the country that has such a 
storage problem is Northern States Power, NSP. Minnesota state law 
prevents NSP from expanding its nuclear waste storage capacity. As a 
result, NSP will be forced to shut down its Prairie Island nuclear 
power plant when it runs out of storage space in January, 2007. Mr. 
President, this is an issue of critical concern. NSP serves 1.5 million 
electricity users in five states, including 84,000 customers in my own 
state of North Dakota. If NSP is forced to close its Prairie Island 
plant, the resulting impact on electricity customers in our region 
would be devastating. Grid reliability could be compromised, and the 
energy costs of many North Dakotans could increase substantially. In a 
cold-weather state such as mine, any increase in electricity costs is a 
matter of great concern. In short, this utility is caught between a 
state law and federal inaction--and we need to address the problem.
  While I agree with the Administration's decision to veto the nuclear 
waste bill, I am also disappointed by its failure to proactively work 
with Congress to reach a compromise on nuclear waste storage, 
particularly in light of the fact that North Dakotans have invested 
nearly $14 million to pay for the construction of a permanent waste 
storage facility with little to show for it.
  In the coming weeks, I will be working with the Appropriations 
Committee to craft a solution to the problems brought on by state laws 
that limit or restrict the storage of spent nuclear fuel. I encourage 
the participation of the Administration and my colleagues in the Senate 
in this effort. I hope that this will be one of many efforts to address 
the outstanding issues that have, up to this point, prevented 
comprehensive nuclear waste legislation from becoming law.

                          ____________________