[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 11 (Thursday, January 24, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S285-S287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Barrasso,
Mr. Bond, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Crapo):
S. 2551. A bill to provide for the safe development of a repository
at the Yucca Mountain site in the State of Nevada, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Nuclear
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008.
I have said many times on this Senate floor that we do have a crisis
in energy and that we need all of the following: We need nuclear
energy, but we also need clean coal technology, we need oil and gas, we
need renewables. We need all of the above. I feel very strongly about
this, and I know there is a disagreement on that issue, even within our
committee. But I am concerned about the continued delays in opening our
Nation's repository at Yucca Mountain, that it would hinder the
resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States. It seems as though
right now we are making a major breakthrough. People who were objecting
to nuclear energy just a few years ago are now realizing that it is
clean, it is safe, it is abundant. Not that I use France as our model
very often, but in this case, they are between 80 and 90 percent
nuclear, and they have done the right thing.
A bit of history on this. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
established a program to locate and develop a repository for nuclear
waste, including both Defense waste, a legacy from the Cold War, and
civilian spent fuel. In 2002, after 20 years of research, the President
recommended to the Congress that Yucca Mountain should be developed as
the repository. The State of Nevada objected. I wasn't surprised to see
that happen, and it did. It certainly is their right to do so under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. However, Congress passed a joint resolution
affirming or reaffirming the administration's recommendation of Yucca
Mountain with strong bipartisan majorities in both Houses.
The location has been decided. The debate is no longer in existence
of whether a repository should be built at Yucca Mountain. That
decision was made in 2002. The task that remains is to develop a
repository that protects public health and safety and the environment,
a permanent solution for our Nation's nuclear waste. It is high time we
accomplish these tasks now. This is very serious. We passed laws and
resolutions to do it. We have collected over $27 billion--that is with
a ``b''--$27 billion for electricity from consumers to pay for it. The
courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that we have the obligation--not
the legal right to do it, the legal obligation.
Now, I am frustrated that the Department of Energy is 20 years behind
schedule. However, I am pleased that DOE appears to have made
significant progress in the past few years and will hopefully file a
license application this year, despite the persistent assault on
program funding.
I understand that opposition to Yucca Mountain remains, advocating
that we abandon it in favor of interim storage. There have been many
proposals on interim storage, and I expect there will be more in the
future, but we have interim storage right now at 121 locations in 39
States. Make no mistake, interim storage is a temporary fix. It forces
future generations to solve a problem that we ought to be resolving
today. It is time to move forward with a permanent solution at Yucca
Mountain.
I have visited the site. I have a question for those who would want
to abandon Yucca Mountain: If you can't build a repository in the
middle of a mountain in the middle of a desert, where should it be?
Let's think about this for a minute. The logical first step to
finding a new repository site is to begin by reevaluating sites that
have been considered before. I have a map--which is not here, but it
will be here before I finish talking--showing the 37 States that DOE
and its predecessor, the Energy Research Development Administration,
have evaluated in the past based on the presence of favorable geologic
formations. Those States are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, and it goes on and on, including my State of
Oklahoma--37 of the 50 States. Now, 37 States have been considered as
possible candidates for developing a repository. Does it really make
sense to abandon a site where we have already invested 25 years and $8
billion before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission even considers it,
only to turn around and start from scratch, reevaluating sites in 37
States? I don't think so.
As the generation that has benefited from the use of nuclear energy
and the resulting spent fuel, I believe it is incumbent upon us to
manage spent fuel in a manner that is fair to current generations and
generations to come, and the bill I am introducing now will do just
that.
DOE has indicated there are legislative provisions they need to
complete the licensing process and begin construction of the repository
our electricity consumers have paid some $27 billion for already.
Senators Domenici and Craig introduced their NU-WAY bill, S. 37, which
includes those provisions within the jurisdiction of Environment and
Public Works. My bill includes the remaining DOE provisions that are
within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
My bill goes beyond that. My bill will incorporate a flexible framework
for future generations to apply their knowledge and innovations to
improve the repository.
The task at hand is to develop a safe repository using state-of-the-
art technology and cutting-edge science. The trouble is technology that
is state of the art now won't be 50 years from now, much less 100 years
from now. When you are making decisions on how to develop a facility
that will be safe for up to a million years, we should not limit
ourselves to science and technology that is available today. We should
establish a flexible framework that incorporates technological advances
into the facility design over time, one that allows our grandchildren
and great-grandchildren to improve on the project we have started. In
other words, we know that even though we are using the million-year
benchmark, things are going to happen next year and the year after and
the year after where we can have dramatic improvements. But the one
thing we have to do is make the decision today--or keep the decision
that has already been made.
Several international bodies, including the National Academy of
Sciences and the International Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, have advocated repository
development in stages that will incorporate technological advances over
time--just what
[[Page S286]]
we are talking about. The reformed licensing process in this bill
integrates that concept into the current licensing process. My bill
reforms the licensing process for authorizing construction, operation,
and closure of the repository.
I have to say we have come a long way already on this. When I became
chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air within this committee, we had
not had an oversight committee hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for 12 years. I don't care what the bureaucracy is, you have
to have oversight. Well, we have come a long way.
The threshold for approval of construction of a repository is based
on a determination that the facility could be safely operated for 300
years. During this time, a long-term science and technology program
will be established to monitor and analyze the repository's performance
and to conduct research into technologies that would improve the
facility. The repository license will be amended every 50 years at a
minimum to incorporate these improvements. During this phase, waste
would remain retrievable so that future generations may recover
valuable material or upgrade disposal systems, for example.
When the DOE applies to permanently close the repository, it must
then demonstrate compliance with EPA's radiation standard before
ceasing operations at the site. Until then, the facility will be
subject to the strict NRC regulation and oversight as an operating
facility.
Today, this program has been litigated into a corner. After several
lawsuits, the EPA has responded by drafting a radiation standard for 1
million years. That is right, based on what we know today, DOE must
prove a reasonable expectation that Yucca Mountain will be safe for 1
million years before DOE can even begin building a repository. This is
a ridiculous and arrogant requirement that assumes we know right now
all that will ever be known about the management of spent nuclear fuel
and its impact on public health and safety. That compliance decision
only makes sense when DOE decides to close the repository and cease
operations. Until that time, repository enhancements reflecting 300
years of scientific innovation will improve its protection of public
health and safety and, I might add, the environment.
Now, my approach is not about kicking the can down the road and
forcing future generations to solve the problem. That is what concerns
me about a lot of the things we do around here. My wife and I have 20
kids and grandkids, and they are the ones who are going to be doing a
lot of the things we should be doing today. My approach is about
meeting a legal and moral obligation to build the best facility we can
now, laying a solid foundation for future generations to improve it
based on what they learn.
I am confident we can build a repository that will protect public
health and safety and the environment, but I am equally confident that
50 years from now our grandchildren could build a better one. Fifty
years from now, they will have learned a lot about the actual
performance of repositories; something we can only predict right now,
they will know by that time. Fifty years from now, the waste placed in
the repository may require isolation for a few hundred years instead of
a million.
Lastly, my bill includes provisions necessary to support new nuclear
plant construction. Before receiving a license, nuclear plants must
meet two requirements. The first is that companies must sign a contract
with DOE to provide for the disposal of spent fuel. My bill modifies
those provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to make them current.
The second is known as waste confidence. Nuclear plants must
demonstrate there is confidence that the spent fuel will be managed and
disposed of in a manner that protects health and safety. My bill
clarifies that the repository program meets this requirement for
disposal.
So when a society takes on the task of building a complex, first-of-
a-kind facility envisioned to remain robust for a million years, it
immediately raises questions about generational equity. As Senators, we
must balance fairness to the future generations that haven't been born
yet with fairness to the generations we currently represent. Finding
that balance must be based on several principles, including protecting
the health and safety of current generations; protecting the health and
safety of future generations; minimizing the impact on the environment;
meeting the need for reliable, cost-effective energy; meeting legal
obligations; minimizing taxpayer liability; and the costs are covered
by those who benefit from the waste. My bill adheres to these
principles and strikes that balance.
Rumors of Yucca Mountain's demise have been highly exaggerated. It is
time we focus on developing the safest state-of-the-art repository we
can, one step at a time. We owe it to our generation and to the
generations that follow.
I have to say, regarding all of the emphasis recently on the concern
we have for the environment, nothing is cleaner, nothing has been shown
better for the environment than this type of energy, which we have to
have in our mix.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Feingold, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Cantwell,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Obama, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Cardin, and Mr. Brown):
S. 2554. A bill to restore, reaffirm, and reconcile legal rights and
remedies under civil rights statutes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues
Senators Leahy, Dodd, Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Mikulski, Akaka, Boxer,
Feingold, Murray, Durbin, Schumer, Cantwell, Clinton, Lautenberg,
Obama, Menendez, Cardin, and Brown in introducing the Civil Rights Act
of 2008. This legislation is vital to realizing the full promise of our
civil rights laws and labor laws to protect all of America's people.
Civil rights is still the unfinished business of America. Prejudice,
discrimination, and outright bigotry continue to limit the lives of
large numbers of our people. Unfortunately, in recent years, the
Supreme Court has rolled back some of the core statutory protections
for civil rights and workers' rights. The Civil Rights Act of 2008 will
strengthen existing civil rights protections and restore the bedrock
principle that individuals may challenge all forms of discrimination in
public services.
It has long been clear that effective enforcement of civil rights and
fair labor practices is possible only if individuals themselves are
able to seek relief in court. Our legislation will strengthen existing
protections in cases where the courts have let us down by narrowing
individuals' right to demand accountability for discrimination.
Key elements of our proposals will make it easier for working women
to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. Our bill enhances
protections against discrimination in federally funded services, and
enacts needed safeguards for students who are harassed because of their
national origin, gender, race, or disability.
We make sure that victims of discrimination and unfair labor
practices can receive meaningful damages where appropriate. Our
legislation will also enable members of our Armed Forces to enforce
their Federal right to be free from discrimination by States because of
their military status.
In addition, our legislation will ensure that older workers who
suffer age discrimination are not denied the chance to seek relief
because they work for a State government. It will also prevent
employers from requiring workers to sign away their right to bring
discrimination claims and fair labor claims in court, in order to
obtain a job or keep a job.
This bill is a needed step in restoring the effective remedies that
our civil rights laws and fair labor laws must have in order to ensure
accountability for discrimination. America will never be America until
we do.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our great Nation was founded on the
fundamental principle that all persons are created equal. We have long
committed, and recommitted, ourselves to ensuring that all persons have
the
[[Page S287]]
right to prosper through hard work and ingenuity. However, for many
Americans, those rights still remain illusory. Today, we introduce a
comprehensive bill to vindicate our founding principles and make the
promise of equal opportunity in the workplace a reality for all
Americans.
I am proud to cosponsor the Civil Rights Act of 2008, and I thank
Senator Ted Kennedy for his leadership in the Senate on this issue, and
Representative John Lewis for his leadership in the House. I have been
a long-time supporter of efforts to rid the workplace of unlawful
discrimination, and I believe the Civil Rights Act of 2008 is critical
to achieving that important goal. We must continue to fight to end all
workplace discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
This legislation we are introducing today responds to several
disappointing decisions by conservative courts. These court rulings
have misconstrued congressional intent, and have had the effect of
limiting important civil rights protections provided by Congress.
A 2000 decision from the Supreme Court of the United States greatly
restricted the capacity of workers who suffer age discrimination to sue
for full relief. In Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, the Supreme
Court ruled that, contrary to Congress's original intent, State
employers do not have to provide back pay or other monetary damages
when workers are discriminated against based on age. As a result,
millions of State workers who are 40 or over lost the right to back
pay. This bill would restore Congress's original intent that State
employers give workers full relief for age discrimination, including
back pay.
The bill would clarify the standard for challenging employment
practices that have an unjustified discriminatory impact on older
workers. It would make clear that the standard of proof in cases
alleging a disparate impact based on age is the same as in cases
alleging a disparate impact based on race, color, gender, national
origin, or religion.
The bill would also restore the rights of victims of discrimination--
in the workplace or otherwise--to challenge practices that have a
disparate impact on certain communities based on race, national origin,
sex, age, or disability. Since the Supreme Court's decision 7 years ago
in Alexander v. Sandoval, individuals can no longer challenge
discrimination by entities that receive Federal funding without facing
the high burden of proving purposeful discrimination.
Currently, only the Federal Government has the right to challenge
sophisticated forms of discrimination--by federally funded entities--
that fall disproportionately on certain minority groups. So if a State
decided to administer a driver's license exam only in English, rather
than administering the exam in multiple languages, a non-English
speaker would be denied his or her right to have their day in court.
This measure returns the Federal law to our original intentions by
allowing individuals a right to challenge such practices:
These added protections provide a significant step forward in the
fulfillment of our goal to eliminate the footprint of unlawful
discrimination from the workplace and broader society. Civil rights
legislation over the last 44 years--including antidiscrimination in the
workplace laws--represents some of Congress's greatest achievements.
With the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
Congress gave victims of discrimination a way to address the wrongs
that they have suffered and put teeth into the sanctions faced by those
who unlawfully discriminate against their victims.
Despite these gains, efforts to eliminate bias from the workplace and
larger society have been largely eroded by decisions from conservative
jurists on the Supreme Court and other Federal courts. Year after year,
conservative courts have rolled back rights by denying certain types of
relief and taking certain tools--designed to fight intentional and
sophisticated forms of workplace discrimination--from individual
workers. This bill would reverse that rollback, and restore the rights
of victims to have their day in court and to have meaningful remedies
when those rights are violated.
Discrimination on the basis of certain personal characteristics has
no place in any workplace or in any State in America. It is long
overdue for Congress to reinforce Americans' protections against bias
in the workplace and eradicate barriers to full and equal participation
in our society.
The time for this bill is now. It is particularly important that, on
the week our Nation observes and honors the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., Congress has introduced this bill. We must remain vigilant
in ensuring our precious civil rights, which generations of Americans
fought and bled to protect, remain available for our children and
grandchildren.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 2556. A bill to extend the provisions of the Protect America Act
of 2007 for an additional 30 days; read the first time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
placed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2556
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007.
Subsection (c) of section 6 of the Protect America Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-55; 121 Stat. 557; 50 U.S.C. 1803 note)
is amended by striking ``180'' and inserting ``210''.
____________________