[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 91 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6444-S6451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 S.J. RES. 34--APPROVAL OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN DEPOSITORY MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, in accordance with the rules of the 
Senate as set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the chairman of 
the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, introduced S.J. Res. 34 on 
April 9. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held 3 days of 
hearings. On June 5, the measure was favorably reported to the Senate.
  As the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
pursuant to the recommendations of the committee and in accordance with 
the rules of the Senate as set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
that contemplates Senate action within 90 days of introduction, I now 
move to proceed to S.J. Res. 34.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, during the last little bit we have been 
working on an orderly way to proceed on this matter. We knew before the 
break that the minority was going to bring this matter up, and we did 
not know exactly when.
  I spoke a couple times yesterday with the distinguished Republican 
leader. I spoke to my colleague, Senator Ensign, on a number of 
occasions. And the day has arrived and the motion has been made. As a 
result of that, even though Senator Ensign and I are extremely 
disappointed, this matter is now before us. It is here.
  We think it would be best resolved as follows: I ask unanimous 
consent that there be 4 hours 30 minutes for debate on the pending 
motion to proceed, equally divided between Senator Reid of Nevada and 
Senator Murkowski, or their designees; that upon the use or yielding 
back of that time, the Senate vote on the motion to proceed; that if 
the motion to proceed is agreed to, then H.J. Res. 87 be read a third 
time and the Senate vote on final passage of the joint resolution; that 
the motion to reconsider that vote be laid on the table, and the 
preceding all occur without any intervening action or debate.
  If I could say just one thing, Madam President, the reason that I 
felt so strongly, as did Senator Ensign, about this is it is important 
that Members have the benefit of some debate prior to this most 
important vote. So that is the reason. I appreciate the general tenure 
of what is going on here. I know there are strong feelings on both 
sides. Nobody is happy with what we are doing, but it is the best we 
could do.
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I do reserve the right to object but state in the beginning 
I would not and will not object. I think this is an appropriate way to 
proceed. This is something that has been fully disclosed to all on both 
sides of the argument. We certainly understand and respect the desire 
of the Senators from Nevada, Mr. Reid and Mr. Ensign, to have an 
opportunity to make their case and to maximize their effort against 
this proposal.
  I also made it clear that it was the intent of the proponents, with 
the leadership of Senator Murkowski and others on both sides of the 
aisle, that under the law there is a time limit. We have to act on this 
issue by July 27 or, in fact, this proposal could not go forward. The 
veto of the Governor, in effect, would be upheld by inaction.

[[Page S6445]]

  Not wanting to get squeezed down to the end of the session and having 
it unclear as to how we would proceed, we thought the fair thing to do 
to both sides was to say on this Tuesday, we would move to proceed to 
the issue which would be nondebatable unless agreement was worked out 
to the contrary.
  As a result of that being what our intent was, the motion was made, 
and we have now worked out this unanimous consent agreement which is 
agreeable to all sides. There would be debate before the vote, and then 
there would be a vote on the motion to proceed which would be really, 
in fact, the vote. So this afternoon somewhere not later than 5:45, or 
perhaps earlier, as I understand it--Senator Reid can maybe comment on 
this--there would be a vote on the motion to proceed.
  While nothing else is precluded, it would be clearly my understanding 
that it would not be necessary to have a vote on final passage if the 
motion to proceed is agreed to. Everybody understands that is the vote. 
We have checked on both sides of the aisle, and this agreement is 
acceptable. That would be the vote.
  Another good thing about this is it allows everybody to know when the 
critical vote will come. It also means, instead of 10 hours, we will go 
4\1/2\ hours. There is no demand or desire that we go beyond that. Then 
we can get back to other business; hopefully, defense-related 
appropriations bills and the auditing bill and get that work done this 
week.
  This is a fair way to proceed. Everybody is on notice. I am glad to 
work with the opponents and proponents to come to this agreement.
  With that statement, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. As the leader has indicated, both sides have sought to 
determine if there would be a requirement for a rollcall vote, and both 
sides have come back no. If there is anyone who attempts in the ensuing 
period to be mischievous in that regard for whatever reason, it would 
be very hard for them to get a second for that vote. I think we should 
go forward on this basis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me echo the comments of the two 
leaders relative to what we have before us. I would like to point out 
in the spirit of cooperation, the motion to proceed is nondebatable. We 
have agreed on a 4\1/2\-hour time limit. It is my anticipation that we 
will yield some time back.
  I just wanted to point out the reality that any Member could have 
brought this up for action. We worked with Senator Reid and the other 
concerned Senators trying to reach some accord. We think this is a fair 
and equitable arrangement within the Senate prerogatives, particularly 
given the opportunity on both sides for 4\1/2\ hours of debate, and 
then expedite final disposition so we can move on to other business. I 
did want to point out, the motion to proceed ordinarily is 
nondebatable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not object, I wanted to emphasize a couple of points. First of 
all, Senator Reid and I obviously vehemently oppose this bill and 
oppose this bill even being on the floor today. Given the reality of 
what we were dealing with, we knew that we could not delay this bill 
coming to the floor beyond the July 27 deadline that has been talked 
about. Because of that, we believed the procedural vote was so 
important that we have some debate prior to the vote. As Senator 
Murkowski has pointed out, it is a nondebatable motion. We appreciate 
the cooperation of the other side because it is such a precedent-
setting motion that we believed it was important to have the debate.
  We appreciate the cooperation for this 4\1/2\ hours of debate prior 
to the motion to proceed, understanding that if our side loses that 
vote, it will automatically go to a voice vote and nobody is going to 
request--although not precluded--no one will request a recorded vote.
  I will not object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that the unanimous 
consent request has been accepted; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has asked if there is further 
objection to the request.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                            Order for Recess

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 today for the 
weekly party conferences.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time not be charged to either side as it 
will be for a short time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I yield time to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I start my remarks today by saying a lot 
of the information that I am going to talk about this morning on this 
procedural vote--I will be talking more about the substance of the 
issue this afternoon, but this morning on the procedural vote, a lot of 
the information has been gathered through hours and hours of research 
with the Congressional Research Service, with the former 
Parliamentarian of the Senate, Bob Dove, as well as several 
conversations with the current Parliamentarian.
  I believe strongly this research is accurate and that the precedent 
we will be setting is a very dangerous precedent.
  Today's vote is not just about whether the Senate should allow 
nuclear waste to be dumped in Nevada. It is also about the authority of 
the majority leader, and the very meaning of a Senate majority.
  According to the rules of the Senate, it is true, any member may 
offer a motion to proceed to a bill or resolution. In practice, we all 
know that's not the way it works. The Senate isn't governed just by 
rules; it is also governed by traditions. And one of those traditions 
is that the majority leader--and only the majority leader--can set the 
Senate's agenda by deciding which legislation will be considered. As 
Senator Byrd's history of the Senate makes clear, it is the exclusive 
role of the majority leader to ``determine what matters or measures 
will be scheduled for floor action and when.''
  That's why--the rules notwithstanding--never in the history of the 
modern Senate has anyone--I repeat, anyone--other than the majority 
leader or his designee successfully offered a motion to proceed with 
legislation. It is simply not done.
  Why? Because if such a motion prevails without the majority leader's 
consent, then his office has been impaired. His ability to control the 
agenda of the Senate--which is the basis of his power and that of the 
majority party--would be dealt a devastating blow.
  That is why Senators of the majority party have always deferred to 
the majority leader's authority to set the Senate's agenda--and have 
voted with him to protect this power even when they disagreed on the 
substance of the issue at hand. Because they know that if they lose, 
what is at stake is their very power as the majority party. if any 
Senator can set the Senate agenda, then all the minority has to do to 
hijack the Senate agenda is convince a handful of Senators from the 
majority party to join them on any given issue.
  Indeed, that is why, from time to time, the minority has sought to 
challenge the majority leader's power by offering motions to proceed. 
As a matter of fact, I believe the current majority leader did so when 
he was in the minority. He did so because he knew the consequences if 
he succeeded. And those high stakes were the very reason

[[Page S6446]]

he was unsuccessful--because the majority party has always rallied 
around its leader.
  We call today's vote a procedural vote. But it is in effect, a test 
of the power of the majority.
  That being said, I suspect few on the other side of the aisle are 
jumping at the chance to proclaim the stakes in this vote because they 
hope, perhaps, that no one will notice--that it will be like a tree 
falling in the woods. If no one hears, perhaps it will not make a 
noise.
  But this vote will make a loud noise--and will change the way the 
Senate operates. It will do so because--as of this moment--every 
Senator knows that even though the Standing rules of the Senate permit 
any Member can make a motion to proceed, no one has ever done it 
successfully, save for the majority leader or his designee.
  After today, if the minority succeeds, it will be a different story. 
Each Senator will be able to decide how to interpret the results. Will 
it be OK for any Senator to offer a motion to proceed on any bill or 
resolution? Or just measures considered under expedited procedures, 
such as this bill? Or just those considered under expedited procedures 
which explicitly state that any member can make a motion to proceed? 
Take your pick, Madam President. Like beauty, this precedent is in the 
eye of the beholder. And that's what makes it so dangerous.
  Our opponents argue that this is a unique circumstance. They are 
simply wrong. The procedure in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is not 
unique.
  There are many statutes containing expedited procedures. And 6 
expedited procedures in current law, including the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act, contain language that explicitly states that ``any Member of the 
Senate'' may offer the motion to proceed. That language merely restates 
the rules of the Senate. Still no one has ever successfully done so 
without the express consent of the majority leader.

  There have been times when Congress has determined that is 
appropriate to override the traditional power of the majority leader to 
schedule the Senate's agenda, and this is important when this has been 
the will of Congress, Congress has passed legislation like the National 
Emergencies Act and the War Powers Act to do so,.
  The War Powers Act states that,

       Any joint resolution or bill so reported (from Committee) 
     shall become the pending business of the House in question 
     (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be 
     equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), 
     and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, 
     unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

  Madam President, unlike the War Powers Resolution, the nuclear Waste 
Policy Act does not make the resolution the pending business of the 
Senate. It does not take away the prerogative of the majority leader by 
making a resolution the pending business without any motion to proceed 
being required. Had the Senate wished to do so in this case it could 
have followed the language of the War Powers Resolution, but it did 
not.
  Unlike this War Powers provision, there is no requirement in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act for Congress to take any action with regard to 
the Yucca Mountain resolution. The procedure spelled out in the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act is not required; it is merely permitted. In other 
words, it is left up to the majority leader whether or not to proceed.
  Indeed, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act anticipates that a vote on the 
Yucca Mountain resolution might not occur that it might be blocked. 
That is why, if the deadline passes, then the statute giving the State 
of Nevada a veto will have been carried out. That was part of the 1982 
compromise.
  The junior Senator from Alaska stated that he does ``not know that it 
really matters very much'' who makes the motion to proceed to the Yucca 
Mountain resolution.
  Well, I say that it does matter. It matters very much. The majority 
leader has made clear he opposes proceeding with this legislation. He 
has staked his reputation and his office on this matter. I--and the 
people of Nevada--appreciate his courage in doing so.
  So let me be clear: any Senator who offers a motion to proceed in 
this matter is posing a direct challenge to the powers of any majority 
leader. For the majority leader to lose such a vote would be 
unprecedented.
  As I said, it may be in my interest as a member of the minority to 
see the majority leader lose such a vote. But the majority leader has 
put a lot on the line for Nevada, which is why I am standing here 
today--a Republican Senator--defending the prerogatives of the Democrat 
majority leader.
  I am doing so because this issue is the most important matter for the 
State of Nevada to come before the U.S. Senate. No single issue unites 
Nevadans--no single issue transcends region, political party, or 
industry--like our fight against becoming the Nation's nuclear dumping 
ground.
  In conclusion, let me restate how important the precedent we are 
setting today is if the majority leader is overruled. Every Senator 
needs to reflect on this vote very carefully because this vote could 
literally change the entire way the Senate operates. Many people 
believe this issue is vitally important. Some of us believe it is 
wrongheaded, as I do.
  Regardless of how one Senator feels on this issue, the procedures of 
the Senate need to be preserved. The precedent set today will be a 
dangerous one and the unintended consequences in the future could be 
very dire. I encourage all my fellow Senators to think long and hard 
before they vote. It is not just a vote on whether or not to proceed on 
Yucca Mountain but a vote on violating the rules of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
require.
  Let me first point out that it has been a long time coming. We have 
been approximately 20 years on this issue of nuclear waste, and we are 
moving in an orderly process, but I feel compelled to respond to my 
good friend from Nevada on the point on which he most eloquently 
commented relative to the authority of the majority leader in cases of 
this nature.
  I am going to comment on the motion to proceed, and I think what my 
colleagues need to understand is that despite what has been said, we 
are proceeding under Senate rules, make no mistake about it. This 
particular provision was identified under procedures set forth in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. They were very carefully developed and 
adopted as part of the rulemaking powers of the Senate.
  I quote that portion to address the concerns of my friend from 
Nevada.

       They are deemed a part of the rules of the Senate.

  We are not excluding the rules of the Senate. We are not excluding 
the authority of the majority leader. This procedure is deemed part of 
the Senate rules. So I hope we can put to rest the matter that somehow 
we are violating or circumventing Senate rules.
  Some have objected to the provision that allows any Member to make 
the motion to proceed, but they forget, or perhaps ignore, the history 
of the provision and how integral it was to the 90-day limit on 
congressional consideration.
  This came before the Senate in 1979 and 1980 when the Senate and 
House were attempting to resolve this issue, as we are today. That 
provision was considered and passed by the Senate.

  Further, it was included in the nuclear waste measure that was 
introduced in 1981 by then-Chairman Jim McClure of Idaho, who had 
assumed the chairmanship of the committee. It was also included in 
legislation offered by Congressman Udall on the House side, and it was 
included in the substitute amendments that were reported from the 
Energy Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee which 
had joint referral of the legislation.
  It was included in the legislation that passed the Senate in April 
and then was included in the final legislation that was enacted in 
December of 1982. It was part of the proposal insisted on by Senator 
Proxmire, Senator Mitchell, and others who wanted a stronger State veto 
provision. It was, in fact, what made work the compromise suggested by 
Congressman Joe Moakley, the chairman of the House Rules Committee.
  I find it somewhat off the point, if you will, and kind of a 
diversion that

[[Page S6447]]

some are speaking about violating the integrity of the Senate when we 
are moving a bill in line with what the Senate had already adopted. 
Again, I refer to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the manner in which 
this process was considered under the rulemaking powers of the Senate, 
and included in the rule are the words, `` . . . are deemed to be part 
of the rules of the Senate.''
  Let me comment briefly on the role of the majority leader. I have the 
utmost respect for procedure and traditions. As to the role of the 
majority leader, there should be no misunderstanding that this process 
does not in any manner detract from his authority or responsibility. By 
its very terms, this process applies in the situation of a resolution 
of approval only under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and no other 
situation. So no Member of this body should be misled. This process 
applies only to the situation of a resolution of approval under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  This resolution should not come as any surprise to any Member. All 
sides have known this was coming since last year. We certainly have not 
circumvented the procedure. Once the Secretary of Energy made his 
recommendation to the President, we all took out the calendars and 
figured out that 90 days would expire sometime before the end of July, 
specifically July 27. The majority leader was very much aware of this 
timeframe. Madam President, that day fast approaches.
  The chairman of the committee introduced the resolution as required 
by law, and we had a fairly good idea of exactly when the Senate needed 
to act. Throughout the process--hearings, full committee consideration, 
and reporting--the majority leader has been aware of the status of the 
legislation and the need for the Senate to act, indeed, within the 
statutory timeframe.
  The majority leader has also been aware of the desire of the chairman 
of the committee and mine as ranking member, together with other 
Members of the Senate who support the resolution, to find a time that 
was convenient for him, given his responsibilities to schedule 
activities on the Senate floor.
  The majority leader's office, in fact, proposed a unanimous consent 
request almost immediately after we reported the resolution to the 
floor. We responded, and there have been several attempts to work out a 
suitable time and schedule as well.
  It should not come as a surprise, Madam President. Everyone in the 
Senate knows what the issue is and what the issue is not. No one is 
trying to undermine the majority leader. No one is trying to circumvent 
the Senate rules.

  When I brought the nuclear waste legislation to the floor last 
Congress, I tried to fully accommodate the desires of my colleagues 
from Nevada, and I certainly intend to see that they have every 
opportunity to express their concerns today.
  I also advise my colleagues again that under the motion to proceed, 
which is nondebatable, we have agreed to a reasonable debate, 4\1/2\ 
hours. This shows good faith on the part of those of us who believe 
this matter should be brought to a head and resolved.
  As I indicated, the motion to proceed is nondebatable. We could have 
relied on the statute to proceed, but we have worked out a satisfactory 
compromise that is fair and equitable. I think the method under which 
we are proceeding is a fair one, given the circumstances, but I want 
everyone to understand that we have gone the extra mile to accommodate 
procedure, the majority leader, each Member, and of course our friends 
from Nevada.
  Provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act are there to allow the 
leader to decide that he would not make the motion to proceed but allow 
someone else to do it. I did that this morning by proposing the motion 
to proceed, and we have now agreed on a procedure.
  We have a choice to make. The Senate will today decide very simply 
whether we should permit the Secretary of Energy to apply for a license 
to operate a repository at Yucca Mountain.
  Madam President, I am going to yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I inquire of the distinguished manager 
if I may ask him a question or two. I discussed this with Senator 
Murkowski.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be happy to respond to my friend from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska.
  The question of concern to this Senator and I think many others is 
the issue of safety in transporting this nuclear material. What are the 
plans in the general sense? That is, how will the material be 
transported? By truck? By rail? And in a general way, what will the 
routes be? Will they pass through densely populated areas?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In response to the Senator from Pennsylvania, under 
the licensing process, I emphasize the action we are taking today does 
not address the transportation system or the procedure associated with 
the transportation system. That would come under the licensing process 
which takes place at a later time.

  All we are authorizing today is the procedure to allow the Secretary 
to apply for the license. So the licensing process will in great detail 
examine all parameters associated with transportation safety, the 
manner in which the waste will be not only transported by rail and by 
truck but containers, and the safety of the containers to ensure they 
can withstand any anticipated exposure associated with derailment or 
whatever.
  What we have in the transportation of nuclear waste is a number of 
historic examples of moving spent nuclear fuel. We have had about 2,700 
shipments in the last 30 years. The distance these have been shipped 
totals almost 2 million miles. There has not been a single release of 
radioactivity.
  Now, in other parts of the world--in Europe--they have shipped over 
70,000 tons in the last 25 years. The estimates are 175 shipments to 
Yucca Mountain will take place over a 24-year period. I could go on and 
enlighten my friend at great length relative to the procedure, but I 
emphasize what we are doing today is giving the administration and the 
Secretary the authority to proceed with the licensing. The licensing 
will address the transportation issue.
  I am happy to respond to further questions.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, my next question is, is the Senator 
from Alaska in a position to respond to what the tonnage would be, over 
how long a period of time, and how many shipments there would be to 
handle the nuclear waste involved in the projection for being a 
repository of Yucca Mountain?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That Department estimate is 175 annual shipments to 
Yucca Mountain.
  Mr. SPECTER. Over how long a period of time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Over 24 years; that is 4,300 shipments. In comparison 
to 300 million hazardous material shipments that take place annually in 
the United States today with no notice given because these are military 
shipments associated with the breakup of reactors, most associated with 
our nuclear Navy fleet.
  That is strict guidelines for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 
the Department of Transportation. In testimony before the Senate Energy 
Committee, both the NRC and the DOT testified they can and will take 
all precautions necessary for safe and secure transportation. As I am 
sure the Senator from Pennsylvania is aware, the transportation is in 
nearly impenetrable casks. For every 1 ton of spent fuel there are 4 
tons of protective shielding. The casks have to pass the test to ensure 
there will be no breach. Tests show they can withstand a 120-mile-per-
hour crash into a concrete wall and prolonged exposure to fires at 
1,475 degrees.
  Some of that will depend, of course, on routing and volume. But 175 
shipments is a responsible estimate.
  Annual numbers, as I indicated, depend on transportation plans and 
the combination of truck or train is not yet decided. This will be 
decided under the licensing process. It is fair to say we will have 
another opportunity for input on the adequacy of the transportation 
plan once the licensing process is undertaken. The action of the Senate 
today will lead to that next step.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, when I inquire as to the next step, the

[[Page S6448]]

Senator from Alaska comments we will have another opportunity to make 
an inquiry. Will these procedures, if I may inquire of the Senator----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding----
  Mr. SPECTER. Let me finish the question.
  Having been here for 22 years, having come to the Senate the same 
day, we can almost communicate without speaking very much. But my 
question goes to the issue of another vote here. You say we will have 
another opportunity. Will there be something presented to the Senate 
where we have an opportunity to vote on our views as to the adequacy of 
the safety procedures?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding there will not be another 
opportunity for a vote. The licensing process is a procedure under the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission that will examine and certify the safety 
of the transportation mode, but there will not be another opportunity 
for a vote.
  Under the rules of procedure we have outlined, this is quite 
explicit. It allows the licensing process to go ahead. The licensing 
process will determine the adequacy of transportation and safety. We 
should recognize we have moved nuclear waste, military waste--primarily 
military waste--throughout the country for many years and have done it 
successfully. There is no reason to believe we cannot use 
transportation methods we have and technology we have to move high-
level nuclear waste to one site as opposed to leaving it in 131 sites 
in 34 States.
  Clearly, the Yucca Mountain provision which identifies it at one 
central location and without transportation, obviously, is going to 
have to stay in the States where it currently is located, which were 
not designed for a permanent repository.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, another couple of questions. In the 
absence of a vote, my question to the Senator from Alaska would be, 
What congressional oversight is possible? Sometimes licensing 
procedures are fine and sometimes they are not, but they do not have 
the assurance which this deliberative body can apply.
  So my specific question is, What level of oversight would the Senator 
from Alaska envisage with the licensing procedures?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to give my friend from Pennsylvania the 
comfort that suggests we are the parties in making a determination of 
safety. We certainly have the obligation of oversight. But the 
appropriate agencies that have this responsibility are the Department 
of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of 
Transportation.
  They have the obligation to address, if you will, transportation 
procedures, safety, routing, the manner in which casks are stored and 
safeguarded. It is fair to say that the National Academy of Sciences is 
a participant in the process as well.
  What we have is the very best science, engineering, and technology to 
address the legitimate concerns of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I 
personally believe they have the expertise, the experience, and have 
certainly a record that suggests there has not been an accident. It 
does not mean there couldn't be, but all the necessary precautions 
within reason have been taken.
  Of course, in comfort to the Senator from Pennsylvania, again, we 
have legitimate oversight of the agencies I have named and will 
continue to have and maintain that which I would hope would be 
sufficient to meet the concerns of the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. My final question relates to the issue as to the 
precautions in the event, perhaps unlikely, that there would be an 
accident. What assurances are there, if it should happen, for example, 
in Russell, KS, my hometown--what could happen in Alaska could happen 
in the hometown of the Senator from Alaska--

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I could respond, I would almost make sure the waste 
would not go through my State or through Russell, KS.
  Nonetheless, it is a legitimate question. In the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission proceedings there is obviously work in progress where there 
would be a response procedure associated with any inevitability of an 
accident at any time. That is part of the responsibility of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, and they would work, of course, with Federal and 
State agencies to respond. It would involve the Department of 
Transportation and the Department of Energy. These procedures are 
already established.
  Again, recognizing the movement of this waste over a period of time, 
there would be an increased degree of sophistication because, unlike 
military waste, which moves with little notice, clearly it would be 
known when nuclear waste was moving from reactors to the Yucca Mountain 
site so there would be special escorts, special procedures, and so 
forth, to safeguard it because it wouldn't be done without the 
knowledge, obviously, of the public.
  What precautions are taken are outlined in the spent fuel 
transportation procedure, which has been put out by the Department of 
Energy, Office of Public Affairs. I would be happy to share this.
  It is a lengthy list of what precautions the Government has taken in 
transportation routing. It covers routing, it covers security, it 
covers tracking, it covers coordination with State officials, as well 
as State participation. It involves training procedures. It involves 
what the Government is doing with emergency procedure assistance. It 
identifies the specific States, proposed routing, casks, and so forth. 
I am further advised there is a certification here by the Chairman, Mr. 
Meserve, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It reads as follows:

       Federal regulation of spent fuel transportation safety is 
     shared by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

  It relates to the transportation of all hazardous materials. It 
further goes on to say:

       For its part, NRC establishes design standards for the 
     casks used to transport licensed spent fuel, reviews and 
     certifies cask designs prior to their use. Further, cask 
     design, fabrication, use and maintenance activities must be 
     conducted under an NRC-approved Quality Assurance Program.
       NRC has reviewed and certified a number of package designs. 
     . . .
       We believe the safety protection provided by the current 
     transportation regulatory system is well established [and 
     they] continually examine the transportation safety program.

  I think that pretty much addresses the input, the testimony at the 
hearings by those responsible for oversight.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for those 
responses.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Who yields time?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I wonder if the junior Senator from Alaska will yield for 
a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. ENSIGN. While the Senator from Pennsylvania is still here--this 
was part of the hearing. I think it is something important for us to 
get cleared up.
  The 175 shipments per year the Department of Energy--and you have 
mentioned this morning that has been a common number that has been 
tossed around. The piece of paper I have in my hand is page J-11. It is 
from the final EIS statement. I am sure your staff has a copy of this. 
This is part of the final EIS statement from the Department of Energy, 
table J-1, a summary of the estimated number of shipments for the 
various inventory, national transportation analysis scenario 
combinations.
  They go through the various types of ways that we would ship and the 
minimums and maximums.
  From what I understand, the 175 per year would be if every shipment 
was in dedicated trains, which the Department of Energy so far has been 
opposed to because of the expense of dedicated trains.
  The other thing is that we have no rail built in Nevada to make 
possible the rail segment or the rail scenario. You have to have the 
rail built in Nevada to be able to go from rail to rail, and there is 
no rail leading to the Nevada Test Site.
  The reason I bring this up, and the reason I would like at least to 
have this on the record as part of the Senate debate is because it is 
huge amounts

[[Page S6449]]

more of shipments, from what I understand, unless it is all dedicated 
trains. Is that the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think, in response to my good friend from Nevada, he 
has to understand where we are. The licensing plan will address the 
legitimate mass questions because there is no rail into the area. That 
is going to come under the licensing plan. But there is a Union Pacific 
route that is adjacent to the area. It would not be difficult to put a 
spur in. This was discussed in hearings and so forth.
  Mr. ENSIGN. It is about 400 miles it has to go, 300-some depending on 
the route, it may have to go, from the Union Pacific to the Nevada Test 
Site.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. This line of consideration, while appropriate, is 
really part of the transportation plan which will come out of the 
licensing procedure. That is not what we are here for today. We are 
here to advance the process so the appropriate agencies can address 
whether they are going to issue a license. They might not issue a 
license. But what we are doing is giving the authority for the 
administration to proceed to try to obtain a license. That will be from 
the Department of Transportation, it will be from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, and it will be from the Department of Energy. 
And they will address the questions of how access is provided, whether 
it be by rail or certainly truck is available as well; we can talk 
about these things, but these are all proposals that are going to be 
addressed in due course.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield, the 
reason I brought it up and the reason I thought the question of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania was so appropriate is because this stuff that 
may be proposed is very important, first of all, because the cost of 
rail is not included in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The cost of the 
rail into the Nevada Test Site is not in the budgetary projections.
  The second thing is that if a Senator is voting on whether this thing 
is going through--in other words, if I am a Senator from Pennsylvania, 
and I have a couple of nuclear powerplants, but I know I have a lot 
more shipments may be coming through my State--if I think there are 
only going to be 20 shipments a year through my State versus maybe 
1,000 shipments through my State, that may make a difference on how I 
would vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I could point out, I do not mind 
responding to questions, but we are dividing time here. It is 
important, if the Senator from Nevada wants to speak, it is on his 
time.
  Mr. ENSIGN. That is fine. If Senator Reid has control of the time, it 
is fine with us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Boxer is due here any minute. I was 
waiting for her to speak. She is not here. I ask my friend from Nevada 
if he wants an extra 5 minutes now, or would he rather wait.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, 5 minutes now I would really appreciate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from Idaho that I 
hope the Senator from California will be here at that time. If she is 
not, I will yield. But Senator Murkowski could yield some time. I yield 
5 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, what is the remaining time on either 
side so we can start off anew relative to where we are?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 106 minutes, 
and the Senator from Nevada controls 125 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand that after the Senator 
from Nevada speaks, the Chair will recognize the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. REID. When the Senator from California is here, I have explained 
to the Senator from Idaho that she would go first.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Alaska would engage, I 
think it is an important part of our discussion.
  The point I was making was that if a Senator were worried about 
transportation coming through their State--it seems to be one of the 
biggest issues, and I think it should be one of the biggest issues, if 
people are thinking about the way to vote on this issue--it is 
important to know how many shipments, or approximately how many 
shipments, or the types of shipments that are going to be coming 
through the State.
  As the Senator from Alaska has said, that is going to be determined 
in the future. But as was pointed out, the only chance for the Senator 
from Pennsylvania to vote is today. Today is the only chance to vote on 
whether or not I have 20 shipments coming through my State or whether I 
may have 100 shipments coming through my State. The numbers can be that 
different.
  Once again, based on table J-1 on page J-11, in the final EIS report, 
if we have a mostly truck scenario just on one of those proposed 
actions, we would have 52,000 shipments over the period of time that 
Yucca Mountain is open. Under mostly rail, we would have around 11,000 
shipments. When we have dedicated trains, the numbers go way down. But 
these aren't dealing with dedicated trains. In fact, the final EIS 
Department of Energy report did not contain dedicated trains.
  That is the reason I was asking the question and why I wanted to get 
it cleared up. If we don't know we are going to be using dedicated 
trains, how can the Senator from Alaska and others, including the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, say there are 175 shipments per year? We 
toss that number around as if it is a fact when, in fact, it is not a 
fact. It is something that is conjecture, pure conjecture, from the 
Department of Energy based on dedicated trains when they are not even 
putting that in their final EIS report.

  The Senator can answer it on my time. If the Senator from Alaska 
would like to comment on that, I think it is very important to try to 
clear this up, because when the Department of Energy testified, they 
certainly didn't clear this up in the committee.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. This is an estimate. It is all it can possibly be at 
this time because, clearly, we do not ship this material. We have had 
experience in shipping in the United States. We had 2,996 shipments of 
spent fuel under the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
from 1964 to the year 2000. We have shipped that waste 1.7 million 
miles. There it is on the chart. Low-level radioactive waste--you can 
see it on the chart--896 shipments. That is what we have done in the 
past.
  I cannot in good conscience do anything more than submit what we have 
been given as an estimate of the number of shipments. I will not make a 
determination as to whether that is factual, but it is their best 
estimate. There is no reason to believe it should not be relatively 
accurate.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, the Senator said there 
were the 175 shipments as a statement of fact. He said, as a matter of 
fact, he is relatively sure of that statement. Because he said he was 
relatively sure of that statement----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think in this interpretation I used the word 
``estimate''--an estimate. It is all it can possibly be. It couldn't be 
anything else other than an estimate because it is has not shipped.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Except, according to the EIS--and I don't know whether 
the Senator will address the EIS--on dedicated rail, it is around 175 
shipments per year. According to their EIS, they don't use 175. That is 
only if it is dedicated rail.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to the Senator from Nevada, that may 
be only dedicated rail. There are other alternatives other than rail.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. What those might will be determined by the licensing 
process. But I would encourage my colleagues to recognize the reality 
here: Do we want this waste to stay where it is or do we want to move 
it to one central repository? You don't get it to a central repository 
and out of the States unless you move it.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I understand my time is up. I think this 
is an important question which we will have to deal with a little more 
this afternoon. I yield the floor so the Senator from Idaho can be 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from California is not here. I 
ask the Senator from Alaska to yield time to the Senator from Idaho.

[[Page S6450]]

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, might I ask how much time the Senator 
from Idaho is going to require?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will consume the remainder of the time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the remainder of the time for this morning to 
the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, already this morning we have seen an 
example of the kind of record that is attempting to be made in part by 
the Senator from Nevada who would, first, argue a procedural issue that 
I and others, including renown Parliamentarians, argue does not exist. 
Clearly, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established an 
extraordinary procedure--not a precedent-setting procedure. 
Parliamentarians have agreed that is the case.
  But even today, as the Senator from Alaska has mentioned, we have 
been willing to shape that to accommodate the Senators from Nevada to 
allow debate on a motion to proceed prior to that vote. Clearly, the 
majority leader was not engaged on the floor. He already engaged us by 
saying he would not schedule a vote. He has walked away from his 
responsibility, if in fact it was there. I would argue that it was not 
there. Any Senator, by an act of Congress and by the law of the United 
States, could have done this.
  When we talk about precedent-setting action on the floor of the 
Senate as it relates to the rules of the Senate, we talk about the 
normal processes of configuring the schedule. I agree with the junior 
Senator from Nevada on that statement. This is not a precedent-setting 
action today. In fact, I think those who have observed it have 
recognized the kind of flexibility and give and take and the 
responsibility that this Senate had to take under the 1982 law.
  I believe the record will be complete. I do not believe that complete 
record in any way can or will demonstrate that future Parliamentarians 
would argue that a precedent has been set. Quite the opposite has 
happened. The Senate of the United States voted in 1982 to establish a 
process. Therefore, the Senate collectively spoke. It was clear in its 
speaking that a motion could be placed. And the reason they did that 
was very clear. They did not want a single person, a majority leader, 
Democrat or Republican, blocking the responsibility of the Federal 
Government as it related to a necessary step in the process of 
determining whether this Nation would establish a deep geologic, high-
level waste nuclear repository; that it was more important than one 
Senator, in that case the majority leader.
  It set in place a time schedule. It even gave the State of Nevada--
the two Senators are on the floor speaking in behalf of phenomenal 
power--the power to veto. They have vetoed this. But even in that case, 
it did not allow a total State prerogative because this is a national 
issue of very real importance. And that is why we are on the floor 
today.
  We can debate procedure, if we want. But I think that is clear and it 
has been well established, and several Parliamentarians argue on either 
side of the case.

  What is clear is a law, and a law clearly stating and a law being 
passed by the Congress itself and signed by a President. That is what 
is important. It is from that law that we act today. But because, as 
the Senator from Nevada has spoken, we wanted and we believed it most 
important to accommodate my colleagues from Nevada--as I would want to 
be accommodated if this were happening in my State--we have given that 
kind of flexibility inside the law by a unanimous consent. And it is 
under that action that we are currently debating Senate Joint 
Resolution 34.
  What are we doing today? We are taking another step forward. This 
action today does not, in itself, establish a deep geologic repository 
for high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It says that 
we, the Senate, agree with the Department of Energy that a 
certification process has gone forward to determine the minimum 
standards and capabilities of geology and water tables and all of those 
kinds of things to meet tremendously high level protocol, and now we 
hand it forth into the next step, and that is licensure.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is concerned about transportation, as 
he should be. But the Senator from Alaska responded appropriately. That 
is part of a very meticulous effort at licensing a facility, how it 
will be constructed, under what conditions it will be constructed, how 
the waste will move from the State of Pennsylvania or from the State of 
Idaho to that facility.
  Yes, we have ample oversight capacity and capability, and we ought to 
exercise it. I serve on the Energy Committee from which this resolution 
came. I want to make sure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission handles 
that transportation portion of the licensing well. We also have 
multiple jurisdictions--the Department of Transportation. Therefore, 
Environment and Public Works will have some say in oversight.
  Will there be another action or another vote? No. That is not 
prescribed within the law. But I also know the State of Nevada is not 
through either. They will exert phenomenal oversight, as they should, 
as this process goes forward if--if--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
determines that a license is appropriate for this facility under all of 
these kinds of conditions.
  I would suggest that we have also spent $4 billion. And $4 billion is 
an important figure. It was not our money. It was not taxpayer money. 
It was ratepayers' money from the 39 States that have commercial 
nuclear reactors operating power-generating facilities who have paid 
into a fund to take us this far, a fund that continues to grow, and a 
fund that will, in large part, finance the construction and the 
operation of this facility.
  So we are taking the next step, the important step. I must tell you, 
a vote today on a motion to proceed is a vote to take the step or to 
not step at all. If we do not, we step back 20 years--20 years--into a 
debate about how to manage high-level nuclear waste with commercial 
facilities, and temporary repositories filling up with waste as we 
speak.
  Do we say, if we do not speak today, there will be no future for the 
nuclear industry in this country? Well, we certainly say we have no 
resolution of how to manage its high-level waste stream, except to 
leave it in well over 100 facilities spread across 39 States.
  Will the States then respond by allowing additional repositories to 
be built in those States when they were promised that those were the 
only repositories and that high-level waste would move out and move to 
a permanent repository, as the Congress decided, in a single location? 
Those are the unknowns.

  But what is known today is that the 20 percent of the electrical 
energy of this country that is generated through nuclear reactors is 
the cleanest electrical energy outside of hydro in the United States. 
Some who are concerned about climate change and want even cleaner 
energy--and this Nation demanding even higher volumes of high-quality 
electrical energy--are recognizing that, at least under current and 
immediate-future technology, the nuclear industry is the right industry 
to turn to for advanced generation.
  So do we want to walk away from that industry today, as we will if we 
vote down a motion to proceed? Or do we want to take a step forward in 
a licensing process that says the whole industry can move to, 
potentially, a future opportunity of producing 25 or 30 or 40 percent 
of our electric energy needs of this country in a clean and responsible 
fashion?
  Let me talk for a few moments about transportation. I do not fear 
transportation. The reason I do not fear transportation is the history 
of transportation of radioactive materials and high-level waste in this 
country. There have been 2,700 shipments, over the last 30 years, of 
spent nuclear fuel; some 300 million hazardous and radioactive 
shipments annually in this country; and there are currently about 3 
million shipments annually of radioactive material in this country. So 
there is a lot of movement going on.
  So why the alarm? It is a tactic. It is an alarmist political tactic 
to try to kill this very effort. Should we be concerned about 
transportation? You bet we should. But we have a very good record to 
date of a lot of movement of nuclear waste in this country and 
radioactive material in a safe and sound fashion.

[[Page S6451]]

  The reason is quite clear: Because the Federal Government has 
demanded from day one that those shipments be done in extraordinary 
ways, extraordinary super-built containers, much of it traveling by 
rail. The high-level waste that comes to Idaho is naval waste. It comes 
by rail. But the low-level waste that leaves Idaho leaves by highways 
in very well designed, tremendously strong containers, and well-
managed, selected routes, all of it guided and monitored by GPS. It is 
tremendously safe today as that waste goes from Idaho to the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM.
  Yes, we have a right to be concerned, but we do not have a right to 
use alarm and fear where they should not exist. But we have a right to 
do what is responsible to keep it out of our populated areas, to move 
it in appropriate fashions in less populated ways.
  The Senator from Nevada speaks about rail and an appropriate and safe 
way to handle it, well demonstrated, well proved. And the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission may well want even enhanced containers. But what 
I would suggest is that if we fail to act today to determine the next 
step, and many of these utilities go to a private location and 
establish a private repository--as some are now contemplating--then 
there is a strong possibility that, in a much less regulated way, in a 
much less orchestrated and monitored way, we will see nuclear waste 
moving across this country simply because we failed to act and failed 
to organize and failed to respond to a highly regulated, highly 
controlled, and highly monitored transportation system.
  Those are the realities of where we are today with this industry and 
where we are today with the volume of nuclear waste, high-level spent 
fuel nuclear waste that is building up in repositories across the 
country. It isn't damned if you do and damned if you don't. It is a 
responsible and important step to take to move this resolution through 
to a licensing procedure which will then have full transparency, which 
will then have the ability of the Senate of the United States and the 
House to do the kind of oversight necessary to make sure that we can 
recognize what both Senators from Nevada, who are in the Chamber, need: 
The best assurance possible, in a zero sum game, if you can get there, 
that this has been done to the maximum capability of the engineering 
talent of the best we have to offer.
  The 10,000-year protocol established all of those kinds of things 
that meet the standards that are so critically necessary to do what is 
right and responsible for this country: store our high-level waste in a 
deep geologic repository; cause the next step to happen; advance the 
future of the nuclear industry; advance clean electrical energy for our 
country well into the future.

  It is a responsible act that the Senate undertakes today to allow 
that very kind of thing to happen. I hope this afternoon, when we have 
an opportunity to vote on the motion to proceed, which, in fact, is a 
vote on whether we will allow the process to go forward, a majority of 
the Senate will vote in favor of that motion to proceed.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________