[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6336-6354]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000--VETO

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the veto message accompanying S. 1287, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Veto message on S. 1287, a bill to provide for the storage 
     of spent nuclear fuel pending completion of the nuclear waste 
     repository, and for other purposes.

  (The text of the President's veto message is printed on page S3017 of 
the Congressional Record of April 27, 2000.)
  The Senate proceeded to consider the veto message.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there shall be 90 
minutes under the control of the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, 
and 90 minutes under the control of the Senators from Nevada, Mr. Reid 
and Mr. Bryan.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Bingaman 
has indicated a desire to speak. I believe he is off the floor at this 
time and will be coming momentarily. I suggest the absence of a quorum 
and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally taken off both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intent to accommodate Senator 
Bingaman's schedule.
  I yield to the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, Senator Bingaman, with the understanding that the time be 
charged to the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to give my 
perspective on this upcoming vote to override the President's veto.
  The question before the Senate is not whether the Senate supports the 
construction of a nuclear waste repository. Clearly, I support 
construction of a nuclear waste repository. The President has indicated 
he does. The Department of Energy has made significant progress on a 
repository in the time this administration has been in office. In fact, 
the Department of Energy has made much more progress in the past 7 
years under President Clinton than during the preceding 10 years under 
Presidents Reagan and Bush.
  The President, according to the statement he issued, is ``committed 
to resolving the . . . issue in a timely and sensible manner consistent 
with sound science and protection of public health, safety, and the 
environment.''
  This bill was not vetoed by the President because he does not want to 
solve the nuclear waste problem. He vetoed it because, as he stated in 
his veto message, this bill ``will do nothing to advance'' the program. 
That is a quote out of the statement that was issued. And secondly, 
instead of doing something to advance the program, the bill will be ``a 
step backward.''
  What are the problems that face the nuclear waste program today? Let 
me go through those problems with a little bit of detail so we all 
understand what those problems are and we can assess whether or not 
there is anything in this bill that helps us address that.
  First, burying tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste 
in Yucca Mountain and making sure it does not escape for tens of 
thousands of years--that is the goal we set for ourselves--raises very 
difficult scientific and technical questions.
  Only last month, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which 
Congress created to advise us on these matters, warned that ``a 
credible technical basis does not exist for the repository design.'' 
This is the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. This is a group that 
Congress established. This is not some left-wing environmental 
organization that made this statement.
  That report also went on to say, ``large uncertainties'' still exist 
in how the Yucca Mountain site will behave, and ``much work remains to 
be completed.'' That is an exact quote from that review board.
  The bill before us does nothing to advance the scientific program 
that is trying to resolve these issues. Instead, the bill will make it 
harder for the Department of Energy to resolve these issues by imposing 
substantial new requirements which will divert the limited resources 
they have away from the essential scientific work that needs to be 
done.
  A second problem facing the program is public confidence. People need 
to know that the repository will be safe

[[Page 6337]]

and will not leak radiation into their water supply now or long into 
the future. Again, the bill will do nothing to advance public 
confidence in the repository's safety. Instead, it will undermine that 
public confidence. Under current law, the repository must meet 
radiation standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency to 
protect public health and the environment.
  The bill on which we are now voting to override a Presidential veto 
forbids the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing those 
standards until this administration leaves office. The proponents of 
the provision are plainly hoping Governor Bush will be elected 
President and that his administration will adopt more lax standards 
than the Clinton administration would adopt. Such a blatant attempt to 
manipulate the scientific review process is sure to undermine public 
confidence in the ultimate site suitability determination.
  A third problem facing the program is that it is behind schedule. 
Again, the bill does nothing to accelerate the program. On the 
contrary, the bill will delay the program further by forbidding the 
Environmental Protection Agency from issuing its radiation protection 
standards before June of 2001.
  Under current law, EPA will issue the standards this summer, in 
plenty of time for the Secretary of Energy to take the standards into 
account in determining whether Yucca Mountain is suitable in 2001. But 
by delaying the issuance of the standards by nearly one year, the bill 
is likely to delay the Secretary's suitability determination and his 
recommendation that the repository be built.
  A fourth problem facing the program is that the Department of Energy 
has not been able to begin moving waste from the States where it is now 
stored to Yucca Mountain. Again, the bill does nothing to begin moving 
waste to Yucca Mountain or to accelerate the date at which shipments 
can begin. On the contrary, the bill will probably obstruct shipments 
of waste by imposing a host of new obstacles to such shipments.
  The bill says no shipment can be made until the Secretary of Energy 
has determined that emergency responders in every State, every local 
community, and every tribal jurisdiction, along every primary and every 
alternative shipping route, have met certain training standards and 
until the Secretary has given all of those entities financial 
assistance for 3 years before the first shipment. That is what the bill 
provides.
  The transportation provisions of the bill are far more restrictive 
than those for shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in my 
State. They are an open invitation to opponents of the nuclear waste 
program to obstruct shipments to the repository. I think we are all 
familiar with the availability of the courts to assist in that 
obstruction, where we put unreasonable restrictions on the Department 
of Energy, as we have done in the case of transportation to the site.
  A fifth problem facing the program--this is the nuclear waste 
repository program--is the claims against the Government for failing to 
accept the utilities' waste by the original deadline. The bill permits 
the Department of Energy to settle these claims by paying the utilities 
compensation out of the nuclear waste fund--which the utilities said 
they did not want.
  This bill does not permit the Department of Energy to take title to 
the utilities' waste at the utilities' sites, which is the one near-
term solution that was sought by the administration when we went into 
this debate. In fact, that provision was in the bill when we reported 
it out of the committee, which I think was a step forward.
  Moreover, the bill creates new unfunded liabilities for the 
Government. It does so by imposing new deadlines that the Department of 
Energy cannot meet and imposing substantial new requirements without 
providing funding mechanisms to meet those obligations.
  A sixth major problem facing the program is inadequate funding. Our 
current budget rules make it impossible to give the program the money 
it requires, even though the fees the utilities pay the Government far 
exceed what Congress appropriates to the program each year, and the 
nuclear waste fund has a $9 billion surplus in it. Yet, at the same 
time, the bill imposes substantial new unfunded spending requirements. 
So we are setting up and maintaining a prohibition against spending the 
money at the same time we are imposing new unfunded spending 
requirements on the program.
  These unfunded spending requirements are to provide relief to the 
utilities under the settlement agreements, to provide financial 
assistance for transportation planning and training, and to conduct 
research on alternative waste management technologies.
  Finally, the bill does nothing to help the one utility that is 
actually threatened with having to shut down one of its plants because 
of insufficient onsite storage capacity. Here I am talking about 
Northern States Power's Prairie Island plant in Minnesota. Nothing in 
this bill forestalls the shutdown of that plant in January of 2007.
  The bottom line is that this bill will not fix what is wrong with the 
nuclear waste program. On the contrary, it will make matters worse and 
move us further from a final solution.
  The question before the Senate is whether the bill should pass, ``the 
objections of the President notwithstanding.'' That is the question for 
us to vote on this afternoon.
  The President said he remains committed to solving the nuclear waste 
issue. The administration has made considerable progress toward that 
end and is close to completing the work needed for the site suitability 
decision next year.
  The President says the bill does not help; it does not advance the 
program's goals.
  On the contrary, in his view, it is a major step backward because it 
is likely to delay the site suitability determination, it undermines 
public confidence, and it is likely to create new unfunded liabilities 
for the Government--in fact, not likely, but it does create them.
  The President's objections to the bill are well taken, and, in my 
view, the Senate should not pass the bill over the objections that have 
been raised by the President.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are again faced with the decision of 
whether to put off an obligation that we have to store nuclear waste 
that is threatening our industry or just talk some more.
  If we reflect on reality, we will find that the last time this issue 
came before the Senate we had 64 votes in favor. There was one Senator 
who was absent. We anticipate that Senator to be here today, so we 
anticipate approximately 65 votes. In the House, it passed 253-167. So, 
clearly, a majority in the House and Senate have spoken on this issue.
  We have before us the question of the President's veto on the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act. I say that the President is wrong. He is wrong for 
the environment, wrong for the U.S. energy policy, wrong for the 
economy, and he is wrong for international security.
  This has become pretty much a political issue on the floor--whether 
to override the President's veto and do what is right. What is right is 
to address the responsibility that we have to the taxpayers of this 
country. I urge every Member of this body to reflect on the obligation 
that he or she has at this time. We have a situation where, as a 
consequence of the inability of the Federal Government to take the 
waste, which was to occur in 1998, we have a breach of contract with 
several of our utility companies. That breach of contract has resulted 
in liability and damages--damages that are assessed now at somewhere 
between $40 billion and $80 billion. So every Member of this body who 
does not support an override better be prepared to respond to the 
American taxpayer and address the reasons and have an excuse for not 
moving this and terminating that extended liability to the taxpayers.
  While the President's veto wasn't based on good science, it was based 
on crass politics. The President's veto is particularly troublesome 
because Congress has bent over backward to meet

[[Page 6338]]

every legitimate concern expressed by this administration. So it is 
simply clear that this administration doesn't want to take up this 
matter and resolve it under any circumstances under their watch.
  Instead, they apparently want to use it as an election year issue. 
Well, I think it will come back and bite them as an election year 
issue. The bill the President vetoed would have disposed of our nuclear 
waste in a rational and effective way. It would do so by providing 
early receipt at Yucca Mountain of our civilian and our defense nuclear 
waste 5 years earlier than under existing law but not until after the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a construction permit for the 
facility, and it would have protected the $16 billion nuclear waste 
fund from being raided to pay for the Government's default on its 
contract with the utilities--money that consumers have paid through 
higher electric rates. It would have protected consumers from the 
Secretary of Energy unilaterally and unreasonably raising the nuclear 
waste tax on electricity without the consent of Congress, and it would 
have preserved the right of the Environmental Protection Agency to set 
the radiation standards in a manner that fully protects public health 
and safety.
  If you go back and read the bill, it clearly gives the Environmental 
Protection Agency the obligation of setting the standard. Failure to 
address this problem does not solve the problem by any means; it simply 
leaves the waste where it is.
  I would like to refer to this chart in back of me because this is the 
reality. We have the waste at 80 sites in 40 States. It is located in 
our backyards. Each year that goes by, our ability to continue to store 
nuclear waste in each of these sites in a safe and reasonable way 
diminishes. Why? These sites were designed for temporary storage and, 
in many cases, they have about reached their maximum. Isn't it better 
to put this at one site, at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which was 
designed for the waste?
  It is irresponsible to let this situation continue. Rather than 
exhibiting courage and signing legislation that would address the 
problem, the President has abdicated his responsibility. Rather than 
protect the American people, he has chosen to sacrifice them to satisfy 
the anti-nuclear interests.
  The veto is absolutely wrong for the environment. Again, I refer to 
this chart. Is it better to have this material scattered at 80 sites in 
40 States or one, single, easily-monitored location which, I add, is 
where we have had over 50 years of nuclear testing out in the Nevada 
desert? This veto means that the administration wants to continue to 
keep this material near our major population centers, near schools, 
hospitals, parks, homes, areas where we have earthquakes, such as in 
California, and in other areas, such as Illinois, where we have severe 
windstorms at times. The administration's own draft environmental 
impact statement released in August of last year makes it clear that 
leaving the material spread around the country could represent a 
considerable human health risk.
  His veto is wrong for the U.S. energy policy. The real agenda of this 
administration is to kill nuclear power as a means to provide 
electricity, but they never answered the tough questions--the reality 
that nuclear power generation consists of 20 percent of the Nation's 
electricity. It does so without emanating any air pollution or 
greenhouse gases. How do we address the risk of global warming without 
nuclear power? It is pretty hard to do. How do we meet our clean air 
requirements and goals without nuclear power?
  There is no alternative suggested by the administration. How do we 
provide consumers and our economy with the electricity they need if we 
rule out our nuclear power? The answer is very simple: We can't.
  The choice we face is either replace nuclear power with coal-fired 
power or consumers will go without; that means brownouts, perhaps 
blackouts. But this should come as no surprise to an administration 
that has allowed this Nation to become dependent on insecure sources of 
foreign oil to meet our energy needs. Our energy policy consists of the 
Secretary of Energy going hat-in-hand to beg for help from countries 
that once sought our protection to maintain their existence. We have 
recently seen our increased dependence on oil from Saddam Hussein and 
Iraq. It was 300,000 barrels a day last year, and this year it is 
700,000 barrels a day.
  Isn't it rather ironic, as we look at the foreign policy of this 
country, to recognize that we buy Saddam Hussein's oil and give him our 
dollars, and we take that oil, put it in our airplanes, and we go out 
and bomb him.
  That is really what we are doing. How ironic.
  Furthermore, it has cost the American taxpayer about $10 billion 
since the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 to keep Saddam Hussein 
fenced in.
  The veto is wrong for the economy. Failure to resolve the nuclear 
waste problem may well turn into a budgetary disaster that will rival 
the savings and loan crisis.
  I say that as a consequence of the increasing liability that goes to 
the Federal Government for its inability to take that waste when it was 
due under the contract terms in 1998. That is over $40 billion. It may 
be closer to $80 billion. That is a liability that is being assumed by 
the American taxpayer as we delay addressing this obligation.
  By failing to resolve the nuclear waste problem, the Federal courts 
have said this administration has violated its contractual obligations. 
As I said, this means the Department of Energy may have to pay as much 
as $40 billion to $80 billion in liability, and possibly more. Where do 
you think this money is going to come from? You guessed it. The 
taxpayer. And every Member who doesn't support this veto override had 
better be able to explain that to his or her constituents. Instead of 
using this money to keep Social Security solvent, we have to use it to 
pay for this administration's willful failure to comply with the law.
  But keep in mind that even after the taxpayers foot this bill, the 
nuclear waste problem still won't be dealt with because the President 
simply won't stand up and recognize that we have an obligation under a 
contract made 20 years ago to accept the waste.
  Further, it is wrong for the international security of this Nation. 
How do we convince our allies and those who are not to abide by our 
goal of nuclear nonproliferation when we demonstrate that we have 
neither the will nor the intelligence to deal with our own domestic 
problem? How do we convince our European allies to look to us and not 
Russia for solutions when we demonstrate that we do not have the 
courage to follow science and our own law? What type of leadership do 
we show to the world when we are unwilling to honor our commitments to 
our own citizens? It is not only our security that is jeopardized but 
also that of our allies who depend on our willingness and capability to 
defend them to enforce a peace.
  This is referred to as a ``mobile Chernobyl'' by some. Opponents of 
the legislation argue that shipping nuclear waste across the Nation 
will create a ``mobile Chernobyl.'' The administration seems to agree 
with these opponents. Yet this very same administration agreed in 1996 
to accept 20 tons of foreign nuclear high-level waste shipped to the 
United States. The administration's Foreign Research Reactor Program 
brought that in. This foreign nuclear waste is being moved safely in 
the very same way and in the very same casks that the opponents say 
U.S. nuclear waste cannot be moved safely.
  Let me also observe as we are talking about ``mobile Chernobyls'' 
that there are 83 nuclear-powered U.S. submarines and naval warships 
which operate under nuclear power. They are around the world. They 
operate around the clock in both U.S. and foreign ports to ensure our 
security. They carry the reactors, and they have done it in a safe and 
admirable manner for a long period of time. There does not seem to be 
any concern about these ships. And the shipments we are talking about 
are dry, stable waste, and not reactors. But they criticize it in the 
capacity of suggesting this is a Chernobyl-style act.

[[Page 6339]]

This is fear mongering. It is unnecessary. It is fear in the worst 
case.
  Finally, we recognize the obligation of our Chief Executive. The 
President of the United States had a choice. The President could have 
shown courage and chosen for the environment. Instead, he declined. The 
President could have shown leadership and chosen a sound energy policy. 
Instead, he refused. The President could have demonstrated concern for 
the future and chosen for a healthy economy. Instead, he ducked. The 
President could have shown resolve on our national and international 
obligations and chosen for our national security. Instead, he 
abdicated. The President's veto was wrong for the environment, for 
energy policy, for the economy, and for our national security.
  Today, our choice is a simple one.
  Again, I note on this chart behind me, all of those areas in green 
are the States where nuclear waste is stored, 40 States. Do we want to 
have that, or do we want to have one central disposal facility at Yucca 
Mountain where we have already expended $6 billion or $7 billion in the 
design of a permanent repository? Do we want to move it to one central 
facility in an area where over 800 nuclear devices were tested?
  I show you a chart and a picture of the proposed location for the 
permanent repository at the Nevada site. It was used for previous 
testing of more than 800 nuclear weapons.
  I urge my colleagues not to be misguided and to support the veto 
override.
  Before I yield some time to the other side, I want to make a couple 
of points relative to the radiation issue which has come up from time 
to time.
  One of the principles originally in S. 1287 was that the Yucca 
Mountain radiation standards should be set by the NRC and not the EPA. 
Although I still strongly believe that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission should set this standard, the managers' amendment contains 
new language--I hope my colleagues will read it--that will permit the 
EPA to go ahead with its rule as long as both the EPA and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, in consultation with the National Academy of 
Sciences, agrees that the standard will protect public health, safety, 
and the environment, and is reasonable and obtainable. If that isn't 
the best science available, I don't know what is.
  This is a very reasonable approach that provides the very best 
science and the very best peer review, yet allows the EPA to have the 
obligation to ultimately complete the rule after all the best minds on 
the subject have been consulted.
  I think it is apparent as we address this issue--and I recognize that 
my State of Alaska does not have nuclear waste stored in it--that if we 
don't resolve it today, we are going to have to address it at a later 
date because the fact is nobody wants this waste.
  I am particularly sensitive to and appreciate the position of my 
colleagues from Nevada. The bottom line is they don't want the waste. 
If the waste were going to be stored in Colorado, we would have the 
Senators from Colorado speaking here on the floor and objecting to it. 
It is going to be stored in California, or New Hampshire, or somewhere. 
That is just the harsh reality of recognizing that no one wants this 
waste.
  But my colleagues from Nevada claim that the Congress chose Nevada to 
be studied for nuclear waste disposal purely for political reasons. 
They would have you believe that there are no rational, technical, or 
scientific reasons for placing spent nuclear fuel in Nevada. That is 
what they would have you believe. But it is wrong.
  The DOE spent over $1 billion studying other potential sites before 
narrowing the list to three sites, one of which was Yucca Mountain. 
Congress settled on Yucca Mountain back in 1987. It is geologically 
unique. The Nevada Test Site has been used to explode nuclear weapons 
for over 50 years.
  This is a picture of the Nevada site. The last weapon exploded there 
underground was in 1991. The underground tests are still being 
performed, with nuclear materials being exploded with conventional 
explosives, with the wholehearted support of the Nevada delegation. In 
fact, not too long ago one of the Senators from Nevada supported 
storing spent fuel at the test site. There was a resolution that I 
believe took place back in 1975 or 1976.
  The resolution reads as follows. This is a resolution from the Nevada 
Assembly, Joint Resolution 15:

       Whereas, the people of Southern Nevada have confidence in 
     the safety record of the Nevada test site and the ability of 
     the staff of the site to maintain safety in the handling of 
     nuclear materials;
       Whereas, nuclear disposal can be carried out at the Nevada 
     test site with minimal capital investment relative to other 
     locations;
       Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Assembly of the 
     State of Nevada jointly with the Legislature of the State of 
     Nevada strongly urges the Energy Research and Development 
     Administration to choose the Nevada test site for the 
     disposal of nuclear waste.

  This resolution passed the Nevada Senate by a 12-6 vote, aided by a 
vote at that time of then State Senator Bryan and signed by the 
Governor of Nevada.
  What has changed? The Nevada Test Site has not changed. It has the 
workers, a workforce, an infrastructure for dealing with nuclear 
materials. The geology has not changed.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Los Angeles 
Times article called ``Marketing a Nuclear Wasteland.''
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 4, 1998]

                     Marketing a Nuclear Wasteland

    (U.S. tries to drum up business for Nevada Test Site by urging 
 companies to use it for research too risky to try anywhere else. ``No 
             job is too big,'' promotional brochure boasts)

                          (By Stephanie Simon)

       Mercury, Nev.--This sun-scraped scab of desert has been 
     pounded by the worst mankind could hurl at it: four decades 
     of nuclear explosions.
       Those trials are over now. But this echoing expanse remains 
     the proving ground for audacious inventions. Only now it's 
     not the government experimenting, it's private industry.
       Need to blow up a building to test a new anti-terrorism 
     design? Do it at the Nevada Test Site. Need to set a chemical 
     fire to try out a new foam flame retardant? Feel free, at the 
     Nevada Test Site.
       Dump toxins on the ground to train emergency crews. Bury 
     land mines to test detection technology. Send a brand new, 
     one-of-a-kind reusable rocket hurtling into orbit.
       Even the most violent and volatile of experiments can do 
     little to land that has been assaulted by 928 nuclear 
     explosions over the years.
       That is why the U.S. Department of Energy is marketing the 
     site--a wasteland bigger than Rhode Island--as the perfect 
     place to conduct research that would not be welcome in the 
     average American neighborhood. As the promotional brochure 
     boasts: ``No job too big.''
       The push to woo private industry to the Nevada Test Site 
     mirrors transitions underway at nuclear facilities across the 
     country. With the Cold War over, the government has been 
     trying to shrug off surplus weapons plants by cleaning them 
     up and turning them over to communities for commercial 
     development.
       The test site, however, presents some unusual challenges:
       It's huge. It's impossible to scrub clean. And it might one 
     day be needed for more nuclear tests. Thus, unlike some other 
     nuclear facilities, it can't be transformed into, say, an 
     industrial park. Instead, the Energy Department seeks to 
     bring in private projects compatible with the site's legacy.
       ``We're selling the concept of a place where you can do 
     things you can't do anywhere else,'' said Tim Carlson, who 
     runs NTS Development Corp., a nonprofit group commissioned by 
     the government to market the site.
       Of course, not every company wants to be associated with a 
     nuclear testing ground, even one that no longer sends 
     mushroom clouds roaring through the dawn. Hundreds of craters 
     from underground blasts still pock the earth like giant 
     thumbprints in a just-baked pie. Yellow signs still warn of 
     radiation here and there in the desert scruff.
       ``Gerber baby food will never move out here, because of the 
     image,'' NTS consultant Terry Vaeth acknowledged.
       But plenty of other companies will. Exempt from many 
     environmental restrictions, the site allows researchers to 
     step outside their labs and conduct real-life, full-scale 
     tests too dangerous to carry out elsewhere.
       Consider the Hazardous Materials Spill Center, a tangle of 
     criss-crossing pipes and mock smokestacks gleaming in the 
     dull brown emptiness. It's centered around a

[[Page 6340]]

     giant wind tunnel built to spew toxins into the air--on 
     purpose.
       Private firms and government agencies pay up to $1.2 
     million for the privilege of dumping dangerous brews by the 
     tens of thousands of gallons through the wind tunnel or 
     elsewhere at the facility. From a bank of nearby TV cameras, 
     they can then monitor how the fumes spread in different 
     weather conditions, or whether experimental cleanup methods 
     work.
       ``It's the only place we've found where we can spill this 
     stuff,'' said Mark Salzbrenner, a senior engineer at DuPont 
     Chemical Co.
       Every other year, DuPont holds two weeklong workshops for 
     industrial customers who buy fuming sulfuric acid for 
     products such as shampoo, laundry detergent and 
     pharmaceuticals. Engineers spill the stuff into huge steel 
     pans, then demonstrate how to battle the resulting blazes.
       Each workshop costs DuPont $40,000 a fee Salzbrenner 
     considers well worthwhile. After all, he says, ``we're not 
     going to do this in the middle of Los Angeles.''
       The spill center has been operating for more than a decade, 
     but promoters are just starting to market it intensively to 
     private industry as part of the drive to commercialize the 
     site. It's a startling shift of focus for this lonely chunk 
     of desert 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
       For decades, the test site was top secret, off limits a 
     proud if mysterious symbol of America's determination to 
     preserve peace through overwhelming military strength.
       Before the test site was established in 1951, the United 
     States had exploded five nuclear bombs on the Bikini Atoll in 
     the Pacific Ocean. With tensions rising in Korea, President 
     Harry Truman decided to shift the nuclear program to the 
     mainland, Nevada, with its dry weather and low population, 
     was selected.
       The government conducted a handful of tests on peaceful 
     uses for nuclear explosions in Alaska, Mississippi, New 
     Mexico and Colorado, as well as 104 blasts on Pacific 
     islands. But more than 90% of the nation's nuclear tests took 
     place at the Nevada site.
       Then the Cold War crumbled.
       In 1992, President George Bush declared a moratorium on 
     nuclear testing that has held to this day. The Energy 
     Department, which runs U.S. nuclear programs, responded with 
     painful cutbacks at weapons assembly and testing facilities 
     from Tennessee to New Mexico.
       In the past six years, the department has slashed its 
     nuclear work force by a third. The Nevada site, suddenly 
     stranded with no clear mission, fared even worse: Employment 
     has collapsed from a Cold War peak of 11,000 jobs to fewer 
     than 2,500.
       Scientists lost their jobs, of course, but so did lab 
     technicians and welders and mechanics. Half of the site's 
     3,300 buildings, ranging from trailers to offices to 
     elaborate labs, were vacated and declared surplus. ``It 
     created a kind of vacuum,'' said Susan Haase, a vice 
     president of NTS Development.
       To cushion the blow, the Energy Department set aside more 
     than $190 million over five years to help communities 
     affected by the downsizing. Cities could use the grants to 
     retrain laid-off workers, convert weapons plants to 
     commercial use or put together incentive plans to lure new 
     employers.
       The Nevada Test Site received nearly $9 million of these 
     funds, but with a caveat: Privatization would have to proceed 
     with caution, because the government still has first dibs on 
     the rugged, mountain-fringed site.
       Though the United States has not set off a nuclear 
     explosion in nearly six years, the Nevada site is still used 
     for underground experiments designed to assess the stability 
     of aging weapons.
       Also, by law the Energy Department must be prepared to 
     resume full-scale tests within two years if the president 
     ever gives the word. So the government could not simply hand 
     the site to Las Vegas developers and let them have at it.
       Clearly, a Ground Zero Casino was out. Instead, NTS 
     Development has tried to market the site to industries that 
     can take advantage of the equipment and brainpower assembled 
     over the years to support nuclear tests.
       ``You've got a tremendous amount of energy . . . sitting 
     there waiting to be of service again,'' Carlson said.
       Local leaders hope that wooing scientific projects to the 
     site will diversify the state's economy, which now leans on 
     gambling and tourism for nearly half its revenue. At the same 
     time, the government is eager to busy laid-off nuclear 
     workers with peacetime challenges so they'll keep their 
     skills sharp in case testing ever resumes.
       Whatever the motivation, electrical foreman Clifford Houpt 
     is glad to see so much interest in revving up business for 
     the repair shops and assembly facilities of Mercury, a town 
     that serves as the last site's faded barracks-style base 
     camp. ``We need all the work we can get out here,'' he said.
       Some of the projects drawn to the test site represent 
     efforts to atone for the Cold War years of environmental 
     destruction.
       Most of the site's new ventures so far have come from 
     private, for-profit companies such as Kistler. Eventually, 
     though, local leaders hope that the federal government will 
     step in with its own projects.
       The nonprofit Nevada Testing Institute is pressing Congress 
     to fund a $1-million anti-terrorism center. Engineers could 
     subject buildings to terrorist-style assaults to determine 
     how best to safeguard lives and property, said institute 
     President Pete Mote.
       ``They may say, `We need a 20,000-pound bomb, and we want 
     to simulate a building in New York City that a Ryder truck 
     can get within 20 feet of,' '' he said. ``We'll say, `OK, 
     we're the place to do it.' ''
       The prospect of such projects cheers Nevada civic leaders 
     who would love to see the site once again serve national 
     security--without sending mushroom clouds billowing toward 
     Las Vegas as the early atmospheric tests in the 1950s did.
       ``We want to take the technology and the personnel we had 
     [for the nuclear industry] and apply it to new areas so we're 
     doing things for society instead of just blowing up bombs,'' 
     said Stephen Rice, associate provost of the University of 
     Nevada, Las Vegas. Or, as NTS Development's Haase put it: 
     ``Taxpayers paid for this place, after all.


                        Nevada's Nuclear Legacy

       The United States conducted 928 nuclear tests at the Nevada 
     Test Site between 1951 and 1992. Though most were 
     conventional bombs, the government also tested a nuclear 
     artillery shell, experimented with a nuclear-powered rocket 
     and sought peaceful uses of atomic explosives for earth-
     moving projects.


                     Some facts about the test site

       Las Vegas residents used to stand on their doorsteps to 
     toast the passing mushroom clouds.
       In the early 1950s, troops from all four military services 
     were deployed within a few thousand yards of atmospheric 
     tests to train them in atomic combat.
       For a 1953 test dubbed ``Doom Town'' scientists built a 
     mock American community near ground zero, complete with cars, 
     bunkers and mannequin families. The explosion destroyed all 
     but two houses.
       The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for years managed 
     a 36-acre farm on the site to test the effect of radiation on 
     cattle, crops and wells.
       For a 1957 test, ``Priscilla,,'' engineers built concrete 
     domes, underground garages, bridges and other shelters near 
     ground zero to see how they would fare in a blast. Most did 
     poorly, although a bank vault survived intact.
       Scientists built a Japanese-style town and bombarded it 
     with radiation in 1962 to determine whether houses shielded 
     residents from exposure during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki 
     bombings.
       Apollo 16 astronauts practiced driving their moon rover 
     through test-site craters thrown up by nuclear explosions.
       The test site's base camp, in Mercury, includes dormitory 
     housing for 1,200 as well as warehouses, laboratories, repair 
     shops and a hospital. Recreation facilities include a bowling 
     alley, movie theater, pool, track and cafeteria.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The subheading reads:

       U.S. tries to drum up business for Nevada's Test Site by 
     urging companies to use it for research too risky to try 
     anywhere else. No job is too big, promotional brochures 
     boast. It is huge. It is impossible to scrub clean. We are 
     selling the concept of a place where you can do things you 
     can't do anywhere else, said Tim Carlson, who runs the NTS 
     Development Corporation, a nonprofit commission by the 
     Governor to market the site.

  A few more observations from Nevadans quoted by the story:

       We take these companies out of someone's backyard and put 
     them here. They are never going to be able to reclaim it for 
     10,000 or 15,000 years, says Randy Harness of the Sierra 
     Club's Las Vegas chapter. They might as well do research 
     there.

  He concludes:

       Given the constant monitoring, the site is probably the 
     safest place in the whole United States.
       We want to take the technology and the personnel we have in 
     the nuclear industry and apply it to new areas so we are 
     doing things for society instead of just blowing up bombs, 
     said Steven Rice, assistant provost for the University of 
     Nevada, Los Vegas.

  Or, as the Nuclear Testing Site Development's Haase put it:

       Taxpayers paid for this place, after all. They should get 
     some use out of it.

  We are seeing a situation develop where it is fair to say we have the 
final obligation in the Congress of the United States to address this 
with resolve once and for all.
  I will comment briefly on the specifics of the veto the President saw 
fit to initiate. In looking at the President's veto message, the 
President presented the argument that S. 1287 is a step backward 
because delaying the issue regarding radiation standards delays any 
decision with regard to the site recommendation. The reality is the 
radiation standard is only necessary for the license application 
through March 2000.

[[Page 6341]]

  The other argument the President reports is that the bill adds 
unnecessary bureaucracy to issuing standards and delays. The bill says 
specifically that the EPA issues the radiation standards by June 2001. 
EPA must also compare provisions with the National Academy's 
recommendation and justify this scientific basis for the rule. If good 
science unduly burdens the EPA, then perhaps we have a problem with the 
proposed rule. We are talking about the EPA having the final 
determination.
  The President further states that the bill does not help with claims 
against the Federal Government for damages related to failure to accept 
fuel. The opposite is true. The bill provides early receipt as soon as 
construction is authorized. That is as early as 2006, January. It 
permits the Secretary of Energy to enter into settlement agreements 
with utilities, thus limiting continued liability. I think this is 
another example of the administration putting responsibility for its 
own problems on Congress. They seek to minimize damages from their own 
failure to take the waste and minimize the $40 to $80 billion liability 
by cooperating with Congress. Is that too much to ask? I ask my 
colleagues to explain to their constituencies why they are exposing 
them to continued litigation at the expense of the taxpayer, as the $40 
to $80 billion claims against the Federal Government continues to 
mount.
  Another argument is S. 1287 doesn't promote settlement because it 
doesn't have ``take title'' language. Mr. President, one time it had 
take title language but the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Richardson, 
didn't do his part to gain support from the States that opposed it. Why 
did the States oppose it? They feared the Federal Government would 
simply leave the waste in their States, take title to it and leave it. 
More importantly, the DOE has argued in the past; the Ninth Circuit, in 
1991, said that the Department of Energy already had the authority to 
take title. That was granted by the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. This is 
another smokescreen.
  What is lacking is not legal authority but a political exercise of 
will. This administration, unfortunately, does not have that political 
will.
  It is interesting to note some of the support. I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Governor of the 
State of New York, George Pataki.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             State of New York

                                                   April 21, 2000.
       Dear Mr. President: Now before you is the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Amendments Act of 2000 (S. 1287). On behalf of the 
     citizens of New York State who have been forced to 
     temporarily store more than 2,000 tons of radioactive nuclear 
     waste, I urge you to sign this bill into law.
       Because the Federal government has failed in its statutory 
     obligation to build a permanent and safe nuclear disposal 
     site by 1998, our State and others are faced with continued 
     on-site management of high-level radioactive waste. With S. 
     1287 Congress has developed a sensible plan that will, if 
     signed by you, begin a process leading to this facility 
     finally being built.
       This bill has passed both the U.S. Senate and House of 
     Representatives by large majorities and would allow New York 
     State to transport the radioactive waste we have been storing 
     on an interim basis. Disposal of this waste is one of the 
     most important environmental concerns facing New York and 
     other states with nuclear facilities and failure to seize the 
     opportunity we now have with passage of S. 1287 could pose 
     serious risks for us all.
       Enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 
     2000 will also allow us to avoid continued litigation over 
     the Federal government's failure to live up to its commitment 
     to accept this waste. The plan laid out after years of debate 
     and discussion in Congress moves us closer to protecting the 
     health and safety of all Americans and should be signed.
       As time passes, the problem of finding a means for the safe 
     disposal of nuclear waste grows more complicated. Your 
     support is needed on this critical issue of national 
     importance, and I respectfully request that you sign S. 1287 
     so the process of shipping radioactive waste out of New York 
     and other states into a safe, permanent Federal facility can 
     finally begin.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 George E. Pataki.

     The Honorable William J. Clinton,
     President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will read briefly from the letter.

                                                   April 21, 2000.
       Dear Mr. President: Now before you is the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Amendments Act of 2000 (S. 1287). On behalf of the 
     citizens of New York State who have been forced to 
     temporarily store more than 2,000 tons of radioactive nuclear 
     waste, I urge you to sign this bill into law.
       Because the Federal government has failed in its statutory 
     obligation to build a permanent and safe nuclear disposal 
     site by 1998, our State and others are faced with continued 
     on-site management of high-level radioactive waste. With S. 
     1287 Congress has developed a sensible plan that will, if 
     signed by you, begin a process leading to this facility 
     finally being built.
       This bill has passed both the U.S. Senate and House of 
     Representatives by large majorities and would allow New York 
     State to transport the radioactive waste we have been storing 
     on an interim basis. Disposal of this waste is one of the 
     most important environmental concerns facing New York and 
     other states with nuclear facilities.

  This is an appeal by the Governor of New York, to this body, to 
override the President's veto.
  Another point. Some of the affected States that would have high-level 
waste have been storing this waste at interim sites, sites that were 
not designed for a permanent storage.
  Ratepayers from the State of New York paid in over $1 billion in 
their electric bill for the Federal Government to take that waste. 
There are seven sites in New York, about 2,167 metric tons of waste. As 
a consequence, the State dependence on nuclear energy is about 26 
percent. They had one shutdown of one plant, Indian Point, in 1974. The 
point is to show in New York the significance of what it means and why 
we have this letter from the Governor of New York addressing this body 
asking to move this bill and override the President's veto.
  Another State with a significant amount of waste is Colorado. Federal 
payments of about $6.3 million have been paid by the ratepayers in 
Colorado. There is one unit that is closed, Fort St. Vrain, and about 
15 metric tons of waste. There is a significant amount of Department of 
Energy defense waste. The alternative is to leave the waste in Colorado 
or move it out.
  Illinois is another State where there is a significant amount of 
waste as a consequence of the fact that 39 percent of Illinois' power 
generation comes from nuclear energy. In Illinois, the ratepayers have 
paid $2 billion to the Federal Government to take the waste. They have 
11 units and approximately 5,215 metric tons of waste. Is that waste 
going to stay in those numerous sites where the 11 units are, or are we 
going to move it out to one central location in Nevada?
  In North Carolina, in 1998, the ratepayers have paid over $706 
million to the Federal Government to take the waste. As I have 
indicated, the Federal Government is in violation of the contract. 
Thirty-one percent of the State of North Carolina is dependent on 
nuclear energy. As a consequence, they are looking at 1,400 metric 
tons.
  Do we want to leave that waste in temporary storage, or do we want to 
move it now when we have an opportunity?
  The State of Oregon has a significant amount of waste stored at 
Hanford. Hanford is in Washington, but the site certainly affects 
Oregon as well. The ratepayers have paid $108 million. The Trojan plant 
in Oregon has been closed for decommissioning. Do we want to leave it 
closed, or do we want to move the high-level waste out of there to one 
central site? There are 424 metric tons in Oregon.
  Whether one is talking about Massachusetts, Connecticut, Arkansas, 
Wisconsin, Georgia, Louisiana, Washington State, Maine, Pennsylvania, 
or Vermont, these are all States which have a significant amount of 
waste that has been generated by the utilities under the assumption 
that the Federal Government would take that waste in 1998. The Federal 
Government has failed to take that waste and, as a consequence, the 
litigation goes on.
  I am amused because we have a statement by the Vice President on this 
question of the veto override. Looking at his statement, I see a rather 
curious

[[Page 6342]]

phraseology. I ask unanimous consent that statement be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Statement by the Vice President on Yucca Mountain Veto

       Today's veto of the nuclear waste bill is an important step 
     to protect health, safety and the environment. This 
     legislation was rejected because it does nothing to assist in 
     conducting the best scientific research into the propriety of 
     the Yucca Mountain site, as a long-term geologic repository 
     for high level nuclear waste. Rather, the legislation limits 
     the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to set 
     appropriate radiation emissions standards for the site. I 
     believe that we need to find a permanent solution for the 
     disposal of high-level nuclear waste, but one that is based 
     on the best available science, in order to protect public 
     health and the environment. I wish to commend Senator Reid, 
     Senator Bryan and Representative Berkley for their tireless 
     work to help us defeat the ill-advised approach in this bill.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. He states:

       Today's veto of the nuclear waste bill is an important step 
     to protect the health, safety, and the environment.

  He is saying the President's veto is in the interest of protecting 
health, safety, and the environment. He is saying leave it at those 
sites in the 40 States. That must be what he is saying.
  He says:

       This legislation was rejected because it does nothing to 
     assist in conducting the best scientific research into the . 
     . . Yucca Mountain site. . . .

  What are the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the National 
Academy of Sciences? That is the best science we have, and yet he says 
there is no science involved in this process.
  He says:

       . . . the legislation limits the ability of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to set appropriate radiation 
     . . . standards.

  That is contrary to reality. It does not. We do give that authority 
to the EPA.
  He further says:

       I believe we need to find a permanent solution for the 
     disposal--

  We all agree we need a permanent solution, but the Vice President 
does not suggest any permanent solution. He says we ought to have one.
  We have spent almost $7 billion digging a hole out of Yucca Mountain 
and, in 1998, the ratepayers have paid $16 billion to the Federal 
Government to take the waste. Now the taxpayers, as a consequence of 
the inability of the Federal Government to live under the terms of that 
contract, are looking at a liability exposure of $40 billion to $80 
billion.
  When the Vice President makes that kind of a statement, I wonder what 
he is talking about--we need to find a permanent solution. This is a 
permanent solution for disposal of the high-level nuclear waste and is 
one based on the best science available to protect public health and 
the environment.
  This is just another issue of politics. Obviously, there is a certain 
sensitivity about overriding any President's veto, but there is a 
recognition of and an obligation to do what is in the interest of the 
taxpayers and of protecting those 80 sites in 40 States where this 
waste is stored and getting on with the obligation.
  What concerns me more than anything is the reality that at some point 
in time we may find ourselves in a position where we simply are unable 
to come to grips with this matter. I am going to quote one of my 
friends from Nevada who, in a February 9 press release, indicated a key 
victory on the nuclear waste bill. It is entitled, ``Senators Secure 
Votes Needed to Sustain Presidential Veto.''
  The interesting paragraph reads, under a criticism of S. 1287:

       The Environmental Protection Agency will have full 
     authority to set radiation standards for Yucca Mountain which 
     many experts say will ultimately prevent--

  Ultimately prevent--

     the site from ever being licensed as a nuclear waste dump.

  Make no mistake about this, there is a conscientious effort by many 
people who are antinuclear to simply stop the nuclear industry in its 
tracks by making sure there is no permanent repository for that waste. 
The sequence of what will happen is these reactor sites are licensed 
for a certain capacity. When that capacity fills up, those plants have 
to shut down, and we can bid goodbye to the nuclear industry. The 
problem is the administration and those who oppose it have not 
suggested an alternative as to where we are going to pick up the power.
  It is fair to say the ultimate objective of some people is to ensure 
that Yucca Mountain is never used, others never want to see a permanent 
repository built, regardless of where it is. In deference to my good 
friends from Nevada, clearly they do not want it in their State under 
any terms and circumstances.
  That is the posture of where we are, but we do have an opportunity 
today to bring this matter to a head by overriding the President's veto 
and getting on with the business at hand.
  I have used a good deal of time this morning. I yield the floor to 
the other side. First, how much time have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator has used 35\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is all that has been used on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask 
unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the pending ESEA 
legislation this afternoon, debate only be in order for the remainder 
of the session today.
  Mr. REID. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time was used by Senator Bingaman 
this morning on behalf of the people wishing to sustain the 
Presidential veto?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve minutes.
  Mr. REID. And the remaining time, after the morning formalities took 
place, is evenly divided between the two respective parties?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Alaska talked about a little 
history this morning, or words to that effect. ``Heard a little 
history'' is not very accurate. For example, the chart they just took 
down shows the Nevada Test Site. Yucca Mountain is not the Nevada Test 
Site. It is a mountain in Nye County. It is separate and apart from the 
Nevada Test Site.
  What my friends from Alaska should do is pull out new notes, not the 
old ones. That is what they were trying to do previously with interim 
storage: take it to the Nevada Test Site. This is a new bill. They are 
back at Yucca Mountain, which is not the Nevada Test Site. Of course, 
the Nevada Test Site had a lot of aboveground tests and some 
underground tests. That whole area is contaminated, and it is going to 
cost billions and billions of dollars to clean up that area.
  Nevada has sacrificed a great deal. We have done it for national 
security.
  I, as a young boy, watched the tests go off above ground. We did not 
know this would kill people. The dust clouds did not blow toward where 
I was watching, thank goodness, at least to my perspective. It blew the 
other way, causing the highest rate of cancer in America. People in 
southern Utah and parts of Nevada suffered and still today suffer from 
the effects of those aboveground tests.
  As to the underground tests, the Department of Energy and this 
administration recently included Nevada Test Site workers for the 
ability to be compensated for exposure to radiation-type injuries and 
illnesses as a result of working on the underground tests. So Nevada 
has given a great deal. But, I repeat, the Nevada Test Site is not 
Yucca Mountain. History--but the wrong history.
  I also say, there is some intimation here, by my friend, for whom I 
have the greatest respect, the chairman of the Energy Committee, who is 
attempting to override the President's veto, talking about radiation 
standards. He talks about the manager's amendment. No one should be 
fooled. This bill the President vetoed is the same one--the identical 
one--that Members of the Senate voted on just a few months ago.

[[Page 6343]]

Nothing has changed. For my friend to intimate that the managers 
suddenly changed things from the national Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
back at the EPA--that was in the bill to begin with.
  My friend, interestingly, pointed out and showed pictures of States 
where Senators had the courage to vote for the right principle. Every 
State he talked about--Colorado, New York, Oregon, North Carolina, 
Massachusetts--is a State where Senators had the courage to vote, and 
they will vote to sustain the Presidential veto. And why? Because 
every--I am not talking about 90 percent or 98 percent; I am talking 
about every--environmental group in America supports the sustainment of 
the Presidential veto--every environmental group.
  My friend says, I do not understand what Vice President Gore is 
saying when he says this veto is protecting the environment. Of course 
it is protecting the environment.
  My colleague also brings up something that took place--a resolution--
25 years ago in the Nevada State Legislature. That was 25 years ago. 
We, in Nevada, in 1982, suddenly began to learn very quickly that there 
were 70,000 tons of nuclear waste stored around the country. Nevadans--
everyone in this country--have a different perspective than they did 
before.
  I show my colleagues a chart. This is a chart that is comparable to 
the one my friend from Alaska showed. What this chart shows is that 
there are nuclear-generating facilities all over America. In fact, 
there are 100-some-odd sites where nuclear power is generated in 
America today.
  He showed his chart. He said: Wouldn't it be wonderful? And the 
nuclear power industry runs ads around the country costing hundreds of 
thousands of dollars--full-page ads, newspaper ads. What they do in 
these adds is say: Instead of having all these sites, wouldn't it be 
wonderful to wind up having just one? That is a sleight of hand, if 
there ever was one.
  I will show you another chart.
  What will happen is, we will not wind up with simply one site, we 
will wind up with one more site. These other places will still be 
generating nuclear waste. There will be nuclear waste stored in those 
sites. Even those sites that are closed down will still have nuclear 
waste. They will be nuclear waste sites for many years to come.
  Why do we want to establish a new repository at Yucca Mountain?
  Let me show you what this chart shows. This chart illustrates a 
nuclear nightmare. It does not show the highways. We could show 
highways here, too. But we just wanted to make this relatively simple 
for illustrative purposes. This chart shows the railroads in America 
where nuclear waste will be carried to this one site. If this does not 
send a chill down your spine, nothing will. Why? Because accidents 
happen on the railways all the time.
  The chart shows an accident that happened very recently. It happened 
on March 21, 2000. This is a picture of an accident that happened in 
Oregon. The part of Oregon where this accident took place has dense 
farmland, lots of water. In this instance, there was a track slightly 
out of line. There was no notice for the accident. Train cars went 
tumbling over each other.
  Let's see what the newspaper reported about this accident.
  On this chart, you can see an article from this newspaper, the 
LaGrande Observer, of March 21, 2000. We thought we would get a fairly 
recently one. But you can pick any time of the year. These accidents 
happen all the time.
  But this article shown on the chart is about the same accident that 
is depicted in the previous picture. In the picture, you can see one 
locomotive, and down here you can see another locomotive in yellow. 
They are tumbled--turned all over. You can see that it crumpled 
everything in its path. You can see railcars with stuff pouring out of 
them. This is what they are going to haul nuclear waste in.
  One problem: They have not figured out any way to safely store 
nuclear waste for transportation purposes. They have come up with some 
dry cask storage containers. These dry cask storage containers, they 
say, are fine--unless you have an accident and are going more than 30 
miles per hour. If you go more than 30 miles per hour, it will breach 
the container.
  They also say these containers they have developed are really safe in 
a fire--unless it is fueled by diesel and burns for more than 30 
minutes. We have one train in recent months that burned for 4 days.
  Also, the point is always raised, what are we going to do with 
nuclear waste? In 1982, that was probably a pretty good question. But 
as the years roll on, that is not a very good question because there is 
an easy answer. You do just as they do out at Calvert Cliffs in 
Southern Maryland--a nuclear-power-generating facility--you store it 
onsite.
  Dry cask storage--it is pretty safe if you leave it onsite because 
you are not going to be traveling 30 miles per hour; it is going to be 
stationary. And, likely, there will not be a diesel fire. Diesel burns 
very hot. So the odds are very good that if you store it onsite, it 
will be safe. That is what they are doing at Calvert Cliffs and other 
places around the country. We do not need to transport all this stuff 
across America.
  I show my colleagues again the chart with the train tracks. We do not 
need to have this nuclear nightmare. Remember, this chart I am showing 
you now does not have the highways on it. This is only the railroads. 
We do not need to establish this very dangerous precedent of hauling 
nuclear waste all over America.
  The situation is beyond my ability to comprehend except, when I think 
about it, it is easier to understand because the very powerful, greedy 
nuclear power industry knows it will be safer to leave it where it is. 
They helped defeat a provision that said the United States of America 
will take title to this waste. They would not allow that to take place 
in one of the previous bills.
  They want an issue because they do not want any responsibility for 
the poison they have created. They want to be able to wash their hands 
of it and send it someplace else. But they cannot do that, even though 
they might try, because there are always going to be the nuclear waste 
sites where the nuclear-generating facilities exist.
  We know there are all kinds of problems--problems that relate to 
transportation. Transportation problems are replete with danger. We 
know terrorist threats are significant. We know that no matter how hard 
you try, you cannot keep the trainloads or the truckloads of nuclear 
waste secret. For example--this is in the Congressional Record from 
previous debates--one organization wanted to see if they could follow 
things nuclear on the highways and railways in this country. Yes, they 
could.
  Ground water protection. Not only in Nevada, but all along the routes 
where 50-plus million people are within a slingshot of these trains and 
highways, they are all going to be exposed.
  The risk to children is significant. Radiation standards are not only 
serious in Nevada but wherever these trains and trucks travel.
  The other question the American public should ask is, Why are we 
having this debate? We have voted on nuclear waste time after time. 
Every vote we have taken has shown we have enough votes to sustain a 
Presidential veto. In fact, it shows there is ground being lost by the 
nuclear power industry. For the first time since 1982, in the House of 
Representatives there was a vote taken that had 51 votes more than 
necessary to sustain a Presidential veto. That was the first time they 
have had enough votes to sustain a Presidential veto, and they did it 
by more than 50 votes in the House.
  One reason we are on this path is to take up time. The Senate should 
be doing other things, but we are here debating whether or not the 
Presidential veto will be sustained.
  We should be talking about the juvenile justice bill. Why should we 
be talking about juvenile justice? Let's see the chart. One of my staff 
went on a short vacation to New Orleans. In the paper they had a number 
of cartoons, and one he brought home to me was from the Dayton Daily 
News. This is

[[Page 6344]]

one reason we should be debating things other than nuclear waste on the 
Senate floor today. The number of Americans who died from all our wars 
since 1775: 650,858. That is the number of Americans who died in all 
our wars since 1775. The number of Americans who died from guns in the 
last 20 years tops that: 700,000. All the wars since 1775 compared to 
700,000. I say maybe we should be doing some work here on the Senate 
floor dealing with guns.
  I am from a Western State. I have been a police officer. I have been 
a prosecutor. I have been involved in things relating to guns all my 
life. As I have said on the floor before, when I was 12 years old I was 
given a 12-gauge shotgun for my birthday. I still have that gun. I am 
very proud of it. I have a rifle my brothers had when they were 
younger, and I now have that, and I have all kinds of pistols. I have 
guns. I believe in the second amendment. But I also believe we have to 
stop certain things.
  For example, I think we have to stop crazy people, people with 
emotional problems, and people who are felons, from purchasing guns. 
That is something we need to debate because there are gun loopholes 
that allow people to buy guns who should not be able to buy guns. You 
can go to a gun show in Las Vegas or Denver or Hartford and there are 
no restrictions; anybody can sell to anybody. We should close that 
loophole. Pawn shops--there are loopholes there.
  We need to constructively determine why in America, in the last 20 
years, 700,000 people have been killed by guns--700,000. But no, after 
the Columbine killings, we passed a juvenile justice bill and nothing 
has happened. The House passed something. We passed something. We have 
waited more than a year for a conference to be appointed to deal with 
that issue. No, we are here debating nuclear waste.
  There are a lot of other issues we should talk about, such as 
Medicare. For 35 years Medicare has been in existence. When Medicare 
came into being, there was no need for a prescription drug benefit 
because doctors didn't use them to keep people well --they didn't 
exist. In the 35 years since Medicare came into being, there are many 
prescription drugs that save lives and make for people having very good 
years in those so-called golden years. We should do something to change 
Medicare. The average senior citizen now has 18 prescriptions filled 
every year.
  We need to debate this issue. We need to spend some time on this 
floor determining why senior citizens on Medicare do not have a 
prescription drug benefit. But no, this is an issue we are not going to 
get to right away. Perhaps we won't get to it this year. We are going 
to spend our time talking about nuclear waste and other issues that are 
simply fillers of time.
  Paying down the debt? I think it would be good if we had a little 
discussion on paying down the debt. There is always a constant 
harangue. George W. Bush, his answer to every problem in the world is 
lower taxes. International problems? Lower the taxes. What to do about 
the surplus? Lower the taxes. That is his one-liner: Lower the taxes. I 
guess he learned it from his dad who said ``Read my lips.'' But the 
fact of the matter is, paying down the debt is something we should talk 
about here because before lowering taxes we should talk about the $5.7 
trillion debt we have and figure out a way to reduce that 
significantly.
  Patients' Bill of Rights? We had a hearing, and Senator Dorgan and I 
are going to come to the floor this week, or the first chance we get, 
to talk about that hearing we had in Las Vegas. At the hearing we had 
in Las Vegas, I guarantee everyone in this room, had they heard these 
stories, tears would come to their eyes and some would break down and 
cry, as they did in that room.
  One man had two broken legs. He was covered by the managed care 
industry. They won't get him a wheelchair. He crawled to the orthopedic 
surgeon, and the surgeon said: I can't help you, go to the HMO. 
Somebody drove him there. He crawled in on his hands and knees and then 
finally got a wheelchair. He said he has been so denigrated, his spirit 
has been so broken at how he has been treated by his managed care 
provider, he felt what he wanted to do was buy a quart of gasoline, 
douse himself with gasoline, and set himself afire.
  Another woman who had cancer--she was a nurse--she told of the 
hurdles she had to jump to receive minimal treatment.
  We had a doctor come in and talk about the impossibility patients 
have in trying to get care. He is one of the physicians who 
acknowledged that he has lied to insurance companies in an effort to 
get treatment that patients badly need.
  That is what the Patients' Bill of Rights is all about, and that is 
what we should be talking about on the Senate floor today, doing 
something to protect people who are sick and need help. They may need 
to go to an emergency room. A woman may need to go to a gynecologist. 
They are prevented from doing so because of managed care entities that 
have a lock on this country.
  What about saving Social Security? Why are we not talking about 
Social Security? Social Security is not in the danger that people say 
it is in, but it is something we need to take a look at and debate 
here. How we are going to prolong Social Security past the year 2040 so 
people can draw 100 percent of their benefits, not 75 to 80 percent?
  Public schools? It seems everything the majority does regarding 
schools is something to tear down public schools. We need to talk about 
our need for more teachers. We need to give school districts help in 
school construction. This great Nation is the only superpower left in 
the world. Doesn't it seem this Nation could spend more than one-half 
of 1 percent of its budget on education? We spend one-half of 1 percent 
of the Federal budget on education. We can do better than that. This 
has nothing to do with taking away from the power of local schools, 
from school districts, to control their schools. There are national 
problems in which the Federal Government must be involved.
  There are lots of things we should be working on, but wasting a day 
of time in sustaining a Presidential veto is not one of them. As I said 
before, the people who have the courage to vote to sustain the 
Presidential veto are doing the right thing. They are doing the right 
thing for their States. They are doing the right thing for the country. 
They are doing the right thing in the process for the environment. So 
when Vice President Gore said, following the veto by the President, 
that this is a proenvironmental stand the President took--he said it. I 
do not think there is anyone in this body who can question the Vice 
President's credentials on the environment.
  We have a lot more to say. The fact of the matter is this is an 
important issue. It is important to the country.
  I look forward to the President's veto being sustained. I acknowledge 
and congratulate and applaud the President for doing this. It would 
have been easy for him to go with the States with all the power and the 
money, but he decided to do what he thought was right for the 
environment. I think he has done a very courageous thing. I will always 
remember the President's stand on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the 20 minutes remaining to our 
good friend from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I proceed, let me yield 2 minutes to 
my good friend from Washington for a comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for nearly 60 years, the citizens of the 
Tri-Cities in Washington state, Richland, Kennewick and Pasco, have 
worked to guarantee our nation's nuclear defense. Now it's time for the 
federal government to guarantee these citizens--and the rest of the 
Northwest--that the nuclear waste produced at Hanford will be moved to 
an adequate storage facility for permanent disposal.
  The Hanford site contains 177 underground tanks full of radioactive 
and chemical byproduct waste. These aren't small tanks--some are as 
large

[[Page 6345]]

as a four story apartment building, and, in toto, they hold 54 million 
gallons of waste: two-thirds of the nation's defense-related nuclear 
waste. This waste resulted from nearly 45 years of plutonium production 
at Hanford. Unfortunately, at least 66 of these tanks have exceeded 
their design life by thirty years and have leaked radioactive waste 
into the soil near the Columbia River. This problem is not going away.
  We need a safe, permanent repository for this waste. We need the 
federal government to be focused on opening the repository. We need 
this nuclear waste legislation to become law.
  Many of the opponents of this legislation are acting as if they do 
not want a solution to this problem at all. They would rather have 
commercial waste stored at reactors all around the country and defense 
waste stored in temporary structures, including the leaking underground 
tanks at Hanford. Delaying work on the repository is not the answer.
  Continuing with the present situation is irresponsible. I urge an 
override of the President's veto of this nuclear waste legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thought it was important for my 
colleague, the senior Senator from the State of Washington, to make 
those statements because, as we are here today on the floor talking 
about nuclear waste, I must tell my colleague from the State of Nevada 
it is an important issue. I am sorry he and his colleagues haven't 
gained traction on the issue of guns, but America is wise to that. Try 
as you may, second amendment rights prevail in our country.
  What we are here to talk about today is the absence of this 
administration's energy policy. Now, brownouts and blackouts and 
escalating fuel prices seem to take second or third place on the list 
of priorities about which the Senator from Nevada would like to talk. I 
think the American consumer and that elderly person whose air-
conditioning may go out this summer at the peak of a heat spell would 
say this issue is a mighty important issue for this Senate to be 
considering.
  So as it relates to priorities, while I am going to say that some of 
what the Senator from Nevada suggested is important for the Senate to 
address, but this issue is among them in priority. But, of course, my 
colleagues on the other side have been running for cover for months 
because they know that Bill Clinton has no energy strategy, never has 
had one, and doesn't propose one. He simply runs around Nevada sticking 
his head in the sand and talking about the politics of the issue 
instead of the substance of the issue.
  Well, the veto we are here to attempt to override today is the 
fundamental difference between politics and substance. You heard the 
Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, in great detail talking about the 
practicality of needing a national nuclear waste policy implemented in 
this country to be able to sustain our nuclear energy as we now have 
it, but, most importantly, to move forward into the future.
  For a few moments today, let me talk about where we get our 
electricity. Somehow, it just comes when you throw on a switch. The 
bulbs light up, the heater turns on, the air-conditioner turns on, and 
we don't stop to think about the long-term strategy and policy that 
this country has been engaged in for decades to assure that the light 
does come on, that the air-conditioner does turn on, and that we have 
abundant energy.
  Sixty percent of our electricity comes from coal. Given the concern 
of the other side about climate change, we aren't building new coal 
plants, we are not pushing forward on the technology of clean coal--the 
kind of technology that we ought to be pushing and giving priority to. 
The Clinton-Gore administration wants to make this situation 
dramatically worse by tying our hands and tying U.S. power companies to 
a Kyoto treaty, while allowing our economic competitors in developing 
nations to pollute at will.
  Shame on you, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, for that kind of silly 
environmental policy. Climate change is a serious issue, but it isn't 
addressed in a helpful manner when you walk away from the negotiating 
table with an agreement that lets China and India and other major 
developing nations pollute at will, penalizing our economy, and doing 
so by trying to develop an anti-fossil-fuel bias in this country, along 
with the anti-nuclear-energy bias on which the President based his 
veto.
  We get 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear power. That is why 
we are having this debate today. We have to sustain at least 20 percent 
of our energy base coming from nuclear if we are ever going to have 
clean air and gain the standards in the nonattainment areas that we 
want to set. Any right-thinking scientist and right-thinking politician 
today knows that fact. They can't argue otherwise. We won't get to the 
clean air levels this country wants without at least a 20-percent blend 
in our energy base coming from nuclear.
  We have about 10 percent of our electricity coming from hydropower, 
and the Presiding Officer and I know how silly this has become in the 
Pacific Northwest. We have a President, a Vice President, and a 
Secretary of the Interior who want to take dams down--all in the name 
of what? Environmental radicals who want to roll back to a history of a 
century ago and try to reestablish ourselves without the kind of very 
clean power that our hydro base provides for us. It is not a large 
base; it is 10 percent of our base, though. Again, it is part of that 
10 percent, 60 percent, 20 percent that has built the stability of an 
integrated power system for our country over the years that has brought 
us the best electrical service of any nation in the history of the 
world.
  What we are talking about today is sustaining that capability. We are 
not talking about tearing dams down. We are talking about finding a 
safe repository for nuclear waste so we can complete the cycle of 
nuclear energy and allow it to go forward.
  We get a small percentage of our electricity from solar and wind and 
biomass. Let me be perfectly clear about my support for these 
technologies because I do support them and I am willing to continue to 
allow taxpayer dollars to go into the investment of the technology as 
it relates to solar and wind and biomass. I am also willing to invest 
in fuel cells and fusion energy and other kinds of new technology that 
may someday supplant the kind of technology about which we are talking.
  But let's have a reality check because if the Senator from Nevada is 
going to talk about the importance, or the lack thereof, of what we 
debate today, let's talk about this President and this administration's 
energy budget and where they want to spend money. They want to spend a 
lot of money on wind. They have even said that it is their goal to have 
5 percent of our electricity generated by wind by the year 2020. It 
just so happens that the States of Nevada and Idaho have a little wind. 
It doesn't all come from politicians. It is kind of natural, and it 
flows through the Rocky Mountains out of Canada. It is the way Mother 
Nature created the natural environment which creates a wind opportunity 
out there.
  But let me talk to you for a moment about a recent report in 
analyzing the 5 percent wind blend by the year 2020 that this President 
wants.
  If you calculate what is needed to meet the goal of 5 percent of our 
electricity coming from wind energy that would require 133,000 
windmills. The current wind turbines generate about 750 kilowatts of 
electricity each. Some of these 750 kilowatt wind turbines have been 
installed in Iowa. They are impressive and huge in size. They are on 
towers 213 feet tall. In addition to that, they have blades with a 
sweep of 164 feet in diameter. What is something comparable in height? 
Well, that is about the height of the Capitol dome in the building in 
which we are standing today.
  Can't you just see all of those spread across the State of Nevada and 
Idaho? What are the environmentalists going to say again about vistas, 
visions, and horizons? You know and I know what they are going to say--
``no windmills.'' But that is what this administration

[[Page 6346]]

wants to talk about because they have this illusion that somehow that 
is environmentally sensitive.
  Have you ever caught an eagle in a 164-foot blade? It is referred to 
as ``avian mortality''--eagles, condors, flying into the turbines and 
being killed. Yes. Those machines aren't very environmentally 
sensitive, and they make a great sound across the countryside. They are 
probably the loudest producer of electricity of any technology we have 
today.
  One-hundred and thirty-plus thousand windmills is the answer to no 
nuclear waste policy? I don't think so. I don't think America thinks 
so. When they are faced with those realities, I think they will turn on 
this administration and say, Why aren't you being responsible? Why 
create a problem when you can solve a problem with a single location in 
a permanent, deep, geologic repository that is environmentally safe and 
sound for all under the most stringent of laws and the best technology 
available?
  That is what we are talking about. That is a right and responsible 
choice for the American people to contemplate and for this Senate to 
debate.
  There is going to be debate on guns. There is going to be debate on 
health care. There is going to be debate on prescription drugs. But, in 
my opinion, a well founded, well orchestrated energy policy for this 
country is every bit as valuable and important for us to be involved in 
as any one of those issues.
  A veto override that this President offered and gave, in my opinion, 
is not an environmental vote. Voting for a sound and sane policy for 
nuclear waste is the No. 1 environmental vote all of us will be making. 
Let's not try to hide it and walk away from it. Let's deal with it up 
front and in a way that is right and responsible to recognize.
  As I thought about what I would say here today that might convince my 
colleagues to vote for a Presidential override, because for some it is 
a tough vote and it is a partisan vote, tragically enough, good 
national energy policy has in this instance become an issue of 
politics.
  There is a letter from J.V. Parrish of Energy Northwest based in 
Richland, WA. He writes about the importance of this legislation. I 
found his words compelling. I want to read them to you. He says:

       Because the Federal Government has not had an effective 
     program to receive spent fuel from this country's commercial 
     power reactors, most of these reactors will have to spend 
     several millions of dollars of ratepayer dollars to provide 
     temporary storage. My own company will spend in excess of $25 
     million. This is money that could be better spent by the 
     households and businesses in the region on things that would 
     improve their futures.

  What is he talking about? He is talking about utility companies 
having to charge their ratepayers more because this administration 
failed to be responsible in their energy policy.
  I think as time goes on we will find a lot of other things in which 
our President failed to be responsible, and history will record him 
differently. I hope the absence of a nuclear waste policy is one of 
them because that is the way it deserves to be remembered.
  All I would say to President Clinton is: In vetoing this bill, you 
have failed, once again, to do the right thing for the country but my 
colleagues and I don't have to be a party to your failure.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote to override the President's mistake 
and override this veto.
  Mr. President, I yield my time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining from the 20 
minutes that was allotted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Three and one-half minutes are 
still remaining.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I want to point out a couple of things. I saw my 
friend from California on the floor a few moments ago. I guess she 
intends to speak.
  Let me point out something that I think is paramount as we address 
this matter. That is the reality of where this waste is and where this 
waste is coming in.
  I think it is important to note that San Francisco is obviously key 
because just up from the area of Sacramento and the Sacramento River is 
Concord, CA. Concord, CA, is unique inasmuch as it has been designated 
by the Clinton administration as one of the major west coast ports for 
receiving high-level nuclear waste under the Foreign Research Reactor 
Program.
  It is kind of interesting because over a 13-year period some portion 
of 20 tons of spent nuclear fuel from 41 countries will be shipped to 
the United States for storage, and a good portion of that will come 
into Concord, CA. Once it gets into Concord, CA, it will be shipped 
from the Concord Naval Weapons Station in California, and it will 
follow a route up to Idaho. That shipment will either go by rail or 
truck.
  I think it is significant to recognize the reality that we move 
waste. The waste moves in areas that are prone to earthquakes. 
California certainly is. California has four nuclear reactors 
currently: San Onofre, Rancho Seco--and one which is shut down. Here is 
another opportunity for the waste to simply stay at the shutdown 
reactor, or move almost 20 percent of California's electricity which 
comes from nuclear energy.
  I might add that the residents of California have paid $762 million 
into a nuclear waste fund. That is three-quarters of a billion dollars.
  In 1998, nuclear reactors avoided about 5.35 million metric tons of 
CO2 emissions. Have they helped with the greenhouse gases? Since 1983, 
the total avoided greenhouse emissions are 83 million metric tons. 
These are to be avoided as a consequence of the contribution of nuclear 
power in California. During 1998, nuclear power avoided 878 tons of 
sulfur dioxide in California.
  If indeed my friend from California intends to speak on this issue, I 
would certainly encourage her to address the concerns of California 
being chosen as the West Coast recipient for the transfer of waste from 
the 41 countries and some 20 tons of spent fuel.
  On the east coast, the Charleston Naval Weapons Station in South 
Carolina will be the recipient of waste moving by rail and truck.
  This is pertinent to the discussion at hand. We have heard in detail 
the question of the important agenda before the Senate, whether we are 
talking about juvenile justice, protecting Medicare or Patients' Bill 
of Rights. These are all important issues, but so is this. It is 
important we get this issue behind us. It is costing the taxpayers a 
good deal every day it goes unresolved--$40 to $80 billion in 
liability. That continues to increase as a consequence of the Nation's 
inability to honor the sanctity of the contracts.
  I urge my colleagues to reflect on the importance of this bill, the 
importance of this legislation, and not be misled. It is meaningful to 
the taxpayers of this country that we vote today to override the 
President's veto.
  How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining is 27\1/2\ minutes out of 
the original 90.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. And we have more this afternoon, is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour equally divided.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself 20 minutes.
  The proponents of this legislation, who would have us override the 
Presidential veto, proclaim this is an environmental savior. In point 
of fact, this legislation is an unenvironmental travesty. It represents 
the most cynical assault to date on the environment.
  I will respond to a general criticism frequently made. That is, that 
the deadline for the opening of a permanent repository in 1998 as 
contemplated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, enacted in 1982, has been 
breached. There is no permanent repository that will be opened for any 
time within the foreseeable future, in my judgment. The reason is that 
politics, not science, has been involved in this process, including 
proponents of nuclear power and, more specifically, the nuclear 
industry itself, and its advocates who appear on the floor.

[[Page 6347]]

  Let me briefly, as I have on many occasions over the past 12 years of 
my Senate tenure, give a little bit of history. In 1982, the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act was enacted by the Congress. It sought to search the 
entire country for three sites to be studied. Those would be sent to 
the President of the United States, and the President himself would 
select one of those sites as the repository location. It was 
contemplated there would be regional equity in balance, and indeed, 
some of the promising geologic formations in upper New England, the 
formations of granite, would be examined. We would look at the salt 
dome locations in the southeastern part of our States, and, yes, the 
geology of Nevada would be considered, as well, what was referred to as 
welded tuff.
  That was a fair and balanced approach. Let science look throughout 
the country for the best sites. Those sites would be recommended. That 
did not occur. It did not occur because politics, not science, dictated 
the conclusion. No sooner had the act been signed into law in January 
of 1983 by then-President Reagan than the Department of Energy made a 
unilateral decision it would not look at the granite formations because 
the people in that part of the country would strongly resist the 
location of a permanent repository in their State. Is that science? Of 
course not. It was politics.
  Then in the 1984 Presidential campaign, President Reagan assured 
those in the Southeast that the salt dome formations would not be 
considered. Was that science? Of course not. It was politics.
  Then finally in 1987, legislation, which is infamously known in my 
State as the ``Screw Nevada'' bill, the whole concept of the original 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to search the country and truly try to come up 
with the right science and the right location, all of that was cast 
into the ash bin because politics, not science, dictated only one site 
would be studied.
  When I hear the lamentations about the delays and all the money that 
has been spent, it is politics that has caused that, and politics that 
interfered with the science of the process.
  Today we have the most recent cynical political attempt to manipulate 
the process. In that 1982 legislation, the Environmental Protection 
Agency was selected as the agency to establish health and safety 
standards. Who better than the Environmental Protection Agency? For 
more than a decade, that was not questioned.
  Then in 1992, there was, in the Energy Act of that year, an attempt 
to inject another aspect of the equation. The National Academy of 
Sciences was asked to review the process and come up with a range of 
recommendations. Make no mistake, the distinguished predecessor 
chairman to the distinguished Senator from Alaska has been debating as 
a great advocate of nuclear power and was advocating a position sought 
for the nuclear power industry. It was his hope and expectation that 
the National Academy of Sciences would somehow cast an aspersion and 
question the credibility of the Environmental Protection Agency's 
proposed regulations when they were issued.
  We have the regulations now. Let me describe them briefly. This chart 
expresses the recommendations or the regulations proposed by the EPA in 
terms of the millirems of radioactive exposure per year per person. 
That is one of the standards involved. The EPA has proposed a standard 
of millirems. That is 15 millirems and is the only reason we are on 
floor today debating the veto override of the President. That is the 
EPA's proposed standard.
  Now what does National Academy of Sciences say the appropriate 
standard should be? Remember, they expressed that in a range. NAS 
refers to the National Academy of Science. They are saying the range 
should be between 2 and 20 millirems; 15, by any standard, is in that 
mid-range. S. 1287 in its original iteration--not the bill before the 
Senate, but in the original iteration--proposed a standard that was 
nearly twice the rate of exposure per person per year, a 30 millirem 
standard. That is what the nuclear industry desires, the 30 millirem 
standard. The NRC has come up with a standard of 25 millirems. WIPP, a 
waste isolation facility in the State of New Mexico which currently 
houses transuranic nuclear waste, the standard set by EPA not objected 
to, 15 millirem.
  Why the difference? Why are we debating this? Because the nuclear 
power industry does not want a 15 millirem standard; they prefer a 30 
millirem standard. The legislation ultimately submitted by the 
President interferes with the Environmental Protection Agency in moving 
forward with that and seeks to delay the final rule of 15 millirems.
  My friend from Alaska has pointed out his responsibilities as the 
chairman of this committee. I understand that. I respect that and I 
respect him. But let's talk about what we are trying to do. We are 
trying to jury-rig, to skew this standard so that under every 
circumstance Yucca Mountain will meet the scientific criteria. The only 
way they can do that is to move the goalposts, and that is what the 
Senator from Alaska has indicated is his primary purpose. What he wants 
is to ``make sure that the measuring,'' referring to radioactivity, 
``is under a regulation that allows waste to go to Yucca Mountain.''
  That says nothing about safety--safety for millions of Americans, 
safety for several hundreds of thousands of people who would live 
within the affected vicinity, the 2 million people who live in Nevada. 
That is what we are talking about, health and safety. We are not 
talking about whether nuclear power is good or bad. That debate can be 
had another day. We are talking about health and safety. That is why 
many of us have become energized.
  It is fair to say there are different ways in which these accidents 
have occurred, but I wish to illustrate the magnitude of the problem. 
With radioactivity, we are talking about something that is lethal, 
deadly, not for generations, but thousands of years--not only a few 
generations, but thousands of generations. We are not talking about a 
mistake we could make today and correct in the next Congress or the 
next decade or even in the next century; and we are talking about 
something that is lethal.
  Our friends advocating on behalf of this legislation do not like us 
to point this out, but let's talk a little bit about the history, since 
history has been mentioned. In the dawn of the nuclear age, between 
1945 and 1968, some 23 years, there were a series of accidents 
involving nuclear reactors and nuclear power. Some six people were 
killed as a consequence. I am not suggesting the circumstances are 
identical to what would be involved with the storage of high-level 
radioactivity, but I point out this is not just an academic discussion. 
We are talking about things that cause people to die--not get sick and 
then get well, but die. That is a very final medical judgment: Death.
  In the Soviet Union, in 1957, a container of nuclear waste exploded 
and nearly 11,000 people were evacuated. We don't know how many people 
may have died as a consequence of that. Theirs is a society, unlike our 
own, that is closed. We don't get as much information as we would like.
  In 1961, at Idaho Falls, ID, an explosion occurred within a reactor 
vessel that resulted in the individuals who were at the reactor site 
being impaled with a spent fuel rod. Two men were killed. To give you 
some indication of how lethal, how deadly this is, the remains of those 
two men who were tragically killed in that accident, by virtue of their 
contact with the spent fuel rod--and that is what we are talking about 
with the civilian reactor waste--by virtue of their contact, their 
bodies themselves had become high-level nuclear waste. It is a rather 
unpleasant thought but it is true. So in making the arrangements the 
relatives had to make, they were not only talking about selecting 
something that might be at the local undertaker's home; they had to 
design a facility that protected against high-level nuclear waste 
because the victims themselves had become high-level nuclear waste. 
That is why health and safety is such a critical concern for us.

[[Page 6348]]

  We could go on and on. We had the Three Mile Island tragedy. 
Fortunately, that situation did not result in any loss of life.
  Let me comment on Chernobyl for a moment, because, yes, I have 
referred to this legislation as the ``mobile Chernobyl.'' I do so 
because it involves some very serious issues. Last week, in the 
Washington Post--and I will yield in a moment to my colleague from 
California who has rejoined us on the floor, but let me finish this 
thought, if I may--the United Nations released an assessment of the 
Chernobyl nuclear meltdown that occurred 14 years ago, saying the worst 
health consequences for 7.1 million people may be yet to come. Then, in 
making the contrast my colleague from Nevada and I tried to make on so 
many occasions, in explaining in Chernobyl, at least 100 times as much 
radiation was released by this accident as by the two atomic bombs we 
dropped in World War II on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then this article 
goes on to say:

       The number of those likely to develop serious medical 
     conditions because of delayed reactions to radiation exposure 
     will not be known until 2016 at the earliest.

  Yes, this is about health and safety; and do I get mad? You bet I do, 
because we are talking about the health and safety, not only of 
millions of Americans, but 2 million people who live in my own State. 
Do we want science and not politics to be the way in which these 
standards are set? The answer is you bet we do. I am greatly offended 
and outraged the suggestion would be made on the floor of the Senate 
that we should let politics dictate this health and safety issue 
because we want to make sure that, whatever the cost, we have to make 
sure Yucca Mountain qualifies. That was not the concept and spirit of 
the 1982 legislation, and it should not be the spirit that activates us 
today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from 
California be recognized and, upon the completion of her remarks, I 
might again be recognized to take the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, Mr. 
Bryan, and Senator Reid, the assistant Democratic leader, for their 
incredible leadership, and I might say sometimes lonely leadership, on 
this issue of nuclear waste safety.
  I strongly oppose S. 1287. I believe the bill is bad policy. 
President Clinton has rejected it, and I urge my colleagues in the 
Senate to join him. I think it is a dangerous bill. I think it is 
important to note that this Senate has stopped this bill in its tracks 
five times at least. I believe today we will stop it again. So the 
question is, Why do we keep turning to this bill over and over and over 
again when so many people, including the President of the United States 
and the Vice President, have so many concerns that, in fact, it would 
be quite dangerous for our people? Why do we turn to it?
  I think Senator Reid was quite eloquent when he made the point, it is 
not as if we do not have other things to do. It is not as if there are 
not issues that are crying out to be debated and discussed on this 
Senate floor. He mentioned a few of those. I thought it would be good 
to simply summarize what I think about what he said.
  Clearly, we need to take up education. We are going to an education 
bill. However, we are now taking time away from that education debate 
when people want us to make it the No. 1 issue: smaller class sizes, 
afterschool--we know the things people want--school renovation, teacher 
training. We are now taking precious time of the Senate away from that 
when we could be starting that debate.
  A good Patients' Bill of Rights bill passed out of the House of 
Representatives. I thought the bill that passed out of the Senate was 
not as good. It was really a sham. I thought it was an HMO Bill of 
Rights for the HMOs. But that is in the conference committee. We ought 
to work on that.
  Sensible gun control--we passed five sensible gun control measures in 
the juvenile justice bill.
  Every day 12 children die of gun violence. In my State of California, 
it is the No. 1 cause of death among children. Senator Reid had an 
incredible cartoon that ran showing the amazing number of deaths. 
During the Vietnam war, there were 58,000 deaths over an 11-year 
period. In the last 11 years, we have lost 300,000 Americans to gun 
violence. Why are we taking up a bill that is dangerous--and I will get 
into why it is dangerous--when we could be making our lives less 
dangerous? It does not make sense.
  Then Senator Craig from Idaho says this administration has no energy 
policy. Maybe that is because the Republican side keeps reducing the 
amount the President wants to spend on energy efficiency, which is so 
important. It is the cheapest way to get more energy.
  Campaign finance reform is an issue Senator McCain and Senator 
Feingold bring continually before us. It passed in the House, but it is 
getting the death knell in the Senate. This is just a handful of 
issues. If protecting the health of our citizens is our highest 
priority--and indeed it should be--then we should not be taking up a 
bill that will expose our people to illness and danger. This is not a 
bill that makes life better for our people. It is a bill that is going 
to make life worse for our people.
  It has been described as a compromise bill, but, in my view, it is 
still an attempt to bypass and preempt science and legislate the 
scientific suitability of Yucca Mountain, NV, as a high-level nuclear 
waste dump. It is not based on reality or on fact. Instead of finding a 
repository that meets the health and safety standards we have 
established in law, this legislation attempts to weaken our health and 
safety standards to make Yucca Mountain fit because some people 
committed themselves to Yucca Mountain, and it does not seem to matter 
what the facts are; they just keep on going down that path. I cannot, 
and I will not, support such action.
  For many years, we have debated the suitability of a high-level 
radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain, and for years I have been on 
the Senate floor with my colleagues from Nevada fighting to protect the 
health and safety of the citizens of Nevada.
  I want my colleagues to know that today I am fighting not only for 
their citizens but for the citizens of the State of California. In 
fact, because of recent studies, we know that if we go forward with 
Yucca Mountain, it will seriously impact the people I represent.
  Yucca Mountain is only 17 miles from the California border and from 
Death Valley National Park. I have a map to show how close we are. We 
can see where the Yucca Mountain repository site is and how close Death 
Valley National Park is to Yucca Mountain. There is Yucca Mountain, 
Death Valley National Park in Inyo County, and then San Bernardino 
County.
  I want to show my colleagues the beauty of Death Valley National 
Park. This is one magnificent view of Death Valley National Park. It 
amazes me when we make these incredibly important investments in our 
environment and in the beauty of our Nation to protect and preserve it, 
with the next vote, we vote for a nuclear waste dump that can adversely 
impact on this national treasure. I will explain that.
  The development of Yucca Mountain has the potential to contaminate 
California's ground water. It poses a threat to the health and safety 
of Californians from possible transportation accidents related to the 
shipping of high-level nuclear waste through Inyo, San Bernardino, and 
neighboring California counties.
  Since its inception as a national monument in 1933, the Federal 
Government has invested more than $600 million in Death Valley National 
Park. The park receives over 1.4 million visitors each and every year.
  The communities surrounding the park are economically dependent on 
tourism. The income generated by the presence of the park exceeds $125 
million per year. The park has been the most significant element in the 
sustainable growth of the tourist industry in the Mojave Desert. This 
chart is a blown-up photo of how close the national park is to Yucca 
Mountain and why these two counties have concerns.

[[Page 6349]]

  Scientific studies show that a significant part of the regional 
ground water aquifer surrounding Yucca Mountain discharges in Death 
Valley because the valley is downgradient of areas to the east. If the 
ground water at Death Valley is contaminated from nuclear waste stored 
at Yucca Mountain, it will be the demise of the park and the 
surrounding communities.
  The long-term viability of fish, wildlife, and human population in 
these areas are largely dependent on water from this aquifer. The vast 
majority of the park's visitors rely on services and facilities at the 
park headquarters near Furnace Creek. These facilities are all 
dependent upon the ground water aquifer that flows under or near Yucca 
Mountain. Unfortunately, there is no alternative water source that can 
support these visitor facilities and wildlife resources. So I cannot 
understand why, on the one hand, we create a magnificent park--we spent 
$600 million on it; we get tourist dollars from it--and on the other 
hand in another vote we endanger this magnificent monument and the 
people who live in the surrounding areas.
  Water is life in the desert. Water quality must be preserved for the 
viability of Death Valley National Park, the dependent tourism 
industry, and the surrounding communities.
  We do not have the science that tells us that Yucca Mountain is safe, 
and the potential loss is far too great. It has been hard to get the 
Energy Department to accept California's connection to the site. Every 
time they talk about the site, they talk about Nevada. Finally, they 
recognize that Inyo County, CA, as an effective unit of local 
government under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, actually qualifies. 
There had to be, unfortunately, a lawsuit by the county that resulted 
in DOE granting affected unit status in 1991.
  It is very important my colleagues understand that my concern comes 
from the local people.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the 
board of supervisors of the county of Inyo.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Independence, CA, February 1, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer, I am writing to express concern with S. 
     1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999. S. 
     1287 proposes to abandon current specific DOE guidelines for 
     determining the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada (for 
     siting of a nuclear waste repository) in lieu of less-
     demanding, generalized criteria. S. 1287 also removes the 
     role of the Environmental Protection Agency from determining 
     the human health standard to which repository design and 
     operations should be held.
       S. 1287, as it currently stands, would replace DOE's 
     current and specific site suitability criteria (10 CFR 960--
     adopted in 1986 after considerable public input) with a 
     generalized ``total system performance assessment'' approach 
     (proposed in 10 CFR 963) which does not require the site to 
     meet specific criteria with regard to site geology and 
     hydrology or waste package performance. Replacement of the 
     current site suitability criteria by 10 CFR 963 would reduce 
     the likelihood that the repository would be designed and 
     constructed using the best available technology. Individual 
     components of the repository system could be less than 
     optimal in design and performance if computer modeling of the 
     design showed it capable of meeting NRC's less-demanding 
     standard. Given the significant long-term risk that 
     development of the repository places on California 
     populations and resources, any compromises on repository 
     design, operations or materials cannot be tolerated.
       S. 1287 allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set a 
     standard for protection of the public from radiological 
     exposure associated with development of the repository. The 
     power to set a standard for the Yucca Mountain project 
     rightfully belongs with the EPA in its traditional role of 
     setting health standards for Federal projects. In our recent 
     response to EPA's proposed radiological health standard for 
     the repository, Inyo County stated its strong support for EPA 
     authority over the project and for use of a standard which 
     focuses on maintaining the safety of groundwater in the Yucca 
     Mountain-Amargosa Valley-Death Valley region.
       Based on these considerations, S. 1287 will not provide 
     adequate protection for Inyo County resources or citizens. We 
     hope that the provisions in the bill for setting repository 
     standards and for changing the site suitability guidelines 
     will be deleted.
       We appreciate your continued support of Inyo County's 
     efforts to safeguard the health and safety of its citizens.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Michael Dorame,
                        Supervisor, Fifth District County of Inyo.

  Mrs. BOXER. I shall not read the entire letter. The Board of 
Supervisors, County of Inyo--and these are the local government 
officials to whom my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
constantly saying we have to pay attention--let us pay attention to 
them. They are saying:

       [We] are writing to express concern with S. 1287, the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999.

  They go on to say why it is flawed. They say there is a ``significant 
long-term risk that development of the repository places on 
California''--that it places California in an untenable position. In 
very strong language they ask that we not approve this. They say it 
does not ``provide adequate protection for Inyo County resources or 
citizens'' and that they are very concerned about it.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
from the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Board of Supervisors,


                                     County of San Bernardino,

                             San Bernardino, CA, January 12, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: The Board of Supervisors unanimously 
     approved the attached resolution at our meeting yesterday. It 
     expresses our substantial concern over the lack of 
     notification from the Department of Energy with regard to 
     their plans to transport thousands of shipments of high-level 
     radioactive waste through the major cities of our County.
       The only hearing held in this State took place in a remote 
     area hundreds of miles from our major population centers. In 
     addition we were not provided with any official notification 
     of the Issuance of the Environmental Impact Statement nor 
     were we provided a copy of same.
       While we understand that transportation and storage/
     disposal of this material is essential for operation of 
     various facilities, it is only appropriate that the 
     jurisdictions which will be recipient of the majority of 
     these shipments be given notice and response opportunities.
       We ask for your strong support for our request to the 
     Department of Energy for full disclosure, additional time for 
     response and review, and for a public hearing to be held in 
     our area. The hearing should be held somewhere near the 
     population centers which will be subject to these shipments 
     and the potential dangers imposed thereby.
       We appreciate your serious consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jerry Eaves,
                                       Supervisor, Fifth District.

                         Resolution No. 2000-10

       Whereas, the United States Department of Energy, has 
     prepared an Environmental Impact Statement for the Yucca 
     Mountain High Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, and
       Whereas, the COUNTY of SAN BERNARDINO has learned through 
     non-official sources that the United States Government plans 
     to construct and operate a disposal site for high level 
     radioactive waste which will include spent nuclear fuel rods, 
     and
       Whereas, no less than a year ago, the COUNTY of SAN 
     BERNARDINO was provided inadequate notification on another 
     Department of Energy Radioactive Waste project and formally 
     expressed its objections to the lack of proper notification, 
     and
       Whereas, almost all of the shipment will pass through major 
     population centers in San Bernardino County on Interstate 
     Highways 10, 15 and 40, State Route 247 and rail lines in San 
     Bernardino County, and
       Whereas, the project presents obvious potential hazards 
     from transportation accidents, which place an unnecessary 
     additional burden on emergency response resources; and
       Whereas, had it not been for the news media; the public 
     would not have known that the project was underway because no 
     public hearing has been scheduled or held in San Bernardino 
     County or anywhere else in Southern California, and
       Whereas, there has been no opportunity for our citizens to 
     review or comment on this project in a formal setting, and
       Whereas, the citizens of the COUNTY of SAN BERNARDINO have 
     a right to be informed of and have an opportunity to comment 
     on a project of this magnitude that poses a potential 
     significant threat to their

[[Page 6350]]

     health, property, air and water quality and other natural 
     resources, and
       Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Board of 
     Supervisors of the COUNTY of SAN BERNARDINO, petition the 
     United States Department of Energy to extend the comment 
     period on the Yucca Mountain Project, and
       Further be it Resolved that public hearings be held by the 
     Department of Energy in San Bernardino County so as to 
     provide our citizens a reasonable opportunity to comment on 
     this project, and
       Further be it Resolved that this resolution be forwarded 
     without delay to United States Senators Boxer and Feinstein 
     and Congressmen Lewis, Baca and Miller.

  Mrs. BOXER. This letter expresses substantial concern over this 
project. They are asking us to be very careful with shipments and with 
the entire project.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a letter from the County of Ventura.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            County of Ventura,

                                 Washington, DC, February 1, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to reiterate the Ventura 
     County Board of Supervisors' opposition to S. 1287, the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 1999, which, as currently 
     written, would allow spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste 
     to be transported through Ventura County.
       The Board of Supervisors endorses the development of a 
     national policy for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel. 
     However, the Board opposes transporting these materials 
     through Ventura County. County officials and residents are 
     concerned about the proximity of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear 
     Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County and the vulnerability 
     to potential disasters related to the transportation of 
     hazardous materials through the community, which poses 
     serious health and safety risks to County residents.
       Please vote against S. 1287 unless it is amended to 
     prohibit the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and 
     radioactive waste through Ventura County and other heavily 
     populated areas.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Thomas P. Walters,
                                        Washington Representative.

  Mrs. BOXER. In this letter they reiterate their opposition to this 
bill. They say it would be very dangerous for their residents because 
the waste could be transported through Ventura County.
  On this map I show my colleagues, even the counties next to Inyo and 
San Bernardino are very upset that waste will come all through 
California. Ventura County is taking a stand. They say:

       Please vote against S. 1287. . . .

  I have a letter from the California Energy Commission. I ask 
unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 California Energy Commission,

                                 Sacramento, CA, February 7, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: We have reviewed S. 1287 (Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Amendments Act of 2000) (NWPA) and offer the following 
     comments.
       The State of California, including thirteen California 
     agencies, has reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) Draft 
     Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Yucca 
     Mountain High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. This review, 
     coordinated by the California Energy Commission, identified 
     major areas of deficiencies and scientific uncertainties in 
     the DEIS regarding potential transportation and groundwater 
     impacts in California from the repository. In light of these 
     deficiencies and uncertainties, there are serious questions 
     whether a decision should/can be made on the Yucca Mt. site's 
     suitability in time for shipments to begin in 2007, as 
     required by S. 1287.
       These deficiencies and uncertainties include the need for 
     better data and more realistic models to evaluate groundwater 
     flow and potential radionuclide migration toward regional 
     groundwater supplies in eastern California. In addition, 
     there are major scientific uncertainties regarding key 
     variables affecting how well geologic and engineered barriers 
     at the repository can isolate the wastes from the 
     environment. For example, there is considerable uncertainty 
     regarding waste package corrosion rates, potential water 
     seepage through the walls of the repository, groundwater 
     levels and flow beneath the repository, and the potential 
     impact on California aquifers from the potential impact on 
     California aquifers from the potential migration of 
     radionuclides from the repository. California is concerned 
     about these uncertainties and deficiencies in studies of the 
     Yucca Mt. project and the serious lack of progress in DOE's 
     developing transportation plans for shipments to the 
     repository.
       Potential major impacts in California from the proposed 
     repository include: (1) transportation impacts, (2) potential 
     radionuclide contamination of groundwater in the Death Valley 
     region, and (3) impacts on wildlife, natural habitat and 
     public parks along shipment corridors and from groundwater 
     contamination. Transportation is the single area of the 
     proposed Yucca Mt. project that will affect the most people 
     across the United States, since the shipments will be 
     traveling cross-country on the nation's highways and 
     railways. California is a major generator of spent nuclear 
     fuel and currently stores this waste at four operating 
     commercial nuclear power reactors, three commercial reactors 
     being decommissioned, and at five research reactor locations 
     throughout the State. Under current plans, spent nuclear fuel 
     shipments from California reactors will begin the first year 
     of shipments to a repository or storage facility.
       In addition to the spent fuel generated in California, a 
     major portion of the shipments from other states to the Yucca 
     Mountain site could be routed through California. This 
     concern was elevated recently when DOE decided, over the 
     objections of California and Inyo and San Bernardino 
     Counties, to reroute through southeastern California, along 
     California Route 127, thousands of low-level waste shipments 
     from eastern states to the Nevada Test Site, in order to 
     avoid nuclear waste shipments through Las Vegas and over 
     Hoover Dam. We objected to DOE's rerouting these shipments 
     over California Route 127 because this roadway was not 
     engineered for such large volumes of heavy truck traffic, 
     lacks timely emergency response capability, is heavily 
     traveled by tourists, and is subject to periodic flash 
     flooding. We are concerned that S. 1287, by requiring that 
     shipments minimize transport through heavily populated areas, 
     could force NWPA shipments onto roadways in California, such 
     as State Route 127, that are not suitable for such shipments.
       The massive scale of these shipments to the repository or 
     interim storage site will be unprecedented. Nevada's 
     preliminary estimates of potential legal-weight truck 
     shipments to Yucca Mountain show that an estimated 74,000 
     truck shipments, about three-fourths of the total, could 
     traverse southern California under DOE's ``mostly truck'' 
     scenario. Shipments could average five truck shipments daily 
     through California during the 39-year time period of waste 
     emplacement. Under a mixed truck and rail scenario, 
     California could receive an average of two truck shipments 
     per day and 4-5 rail shipments per week for 39 years. Under a 
     ``best case'' scenario that assumes the use of large rail 
     shipping containers, Nevada estimates there could be more 
     than 26,000 truck shipments and 9,800 shipments through 
     California to the repository.
       We are concerned that S. 1287 would require NWPA shipments 
     begin prematurely before the necessary studies determining 
     the site's suitability have been completed and before the 
     transportation impacts of this decision have been fully 
     evaluated. S. 1287 accelerates the schedule for the 
     repository by requiring shipments to begin at the earliest 
     practicable date and no later than January 31, 2007. In 
     contrast, DOE has been planning for shipments to begin in 
     2010, a date considered by many to be overly optimistic. 
     Shipping waste to a site before the necessary scientific 
     evaluations of the site have been completed and before route-
     specific transportation impacts have been fully evaluated 
     could have costly results. The DOE nuclear weapons complex 
     has many examples of inappropriate sites where expediency has 
     created a legacy of very costly waste clean-up, e.g., 
     Hanford, Washington. The use of methods that were not fully 
     tested for the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes has 
     resulted in contaminants from these wastes leaking into the 
     environment. Transporting waste to a site, as mandated by S. 
     1287, before the appropriate analyses are completed could 
     create a ``de facto'' high-level waste repository in 
     perpetuity with unknown and potentially serious long-term 
     public and environmental consequences.
       Attached is information that might be useful in formulating 
     your position on S. 1287. It includes (1) our specific 
     comments on S. 1287, (2) an overview of our comments on the 
     Yucca Mountain Draft EIS, and (3) Resolution 99-014 passed by 
     the Western Governor's Association on Spent Nuclear Fuel 
     Shipments. If you have any questions regarding these 
     materials, please phone me at (916) 654-4001 or Barbara Byron 
     at (916) 654-4976.
           Sincerely,

                                             Robert A. Laurie,

                            Commissioner and State Liaison Officer
                             to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

  Mrs. BOXER. This letter is quite long and goes into all the 
objections, with detailed comments, and the concerns they have about 
Yucca Mountain.
  I think the important point here is, this is not just a Nevada issue. 
Even when in my mind it was, I would never subject the people of Nevada 
to this

[[Page 6351]]

kind of a dangerous policy. It now includes the people of California. 
We are very concerned about transportation routes, very concerned about 
the ability of this material to migrate into an aquifer that serves the 
counties surrounding it, and we could go on and on.
  Even the Western Governors' Association has repeatedly asked the 
Energy Department to complete an analysis of the transportation routes 
to Yucca Mountain, to no avail.
  So we have a lot of problems with this bill in my home State of 
California.
  The radiation to be allowed at Yucca Mountain would be much higher 
than is allowed under current regulations. The DOE study finds that 
maximum doses at the site would be 50 millirems per year. I am sure my 
colleagues have gone into it, but sometimes you repeat facts because 
they are very important. I would like to put the numbers into 
perspective.
  That amount of radiation would equal approximately 5,000 chest x rays 
annually. It is 2,000 times higher than what the public is currently 
permitted to receive from an operating powerplant under EPA 
regulations.
  I will say, under NRC and DOE risk estimates, it is my 
understanding--I am going to just double-check here--studies have shown 
that if these people were exposed to the maximum, virtually all of them 
would get cancer. That is how much and how high these levels are.
  In conclusion, my colleagues from Nevada have done us a great 
service. Even before I knew the extent to which they were actually 
fighting was not only for Nevada but for California, I knew they were 
doing the right thing, because if we do not stand up and protect the 
health and safety of the people we represent, what use are we? What 
good are we?
  When a physician takes his or her test to get licensed, they say: Do 
no harm. At a minimum, do no harm. This does harm. If we were, in fact, 
to allow this matter to move forward, I think the people would become 
even more cynical than they are about Government. They will ask: What 
special interests are behind this one? How on Earth can we throw out 
the health and safety regulations to push through this site? Is that 
the best we can do for this site?
  I will tell you, it makes me sick at heart. The only thing that keeps 
me going on this one is my colleagues from Nevada, who have stood up in 
the face of powerful committee chairmen. And you will hear them today. 
Oh, you will hear them today. The Senators from Nevada have stood up 
for the people of this country. I stand with them. I stand with the 
people of California, who want to protect Death Valley National Park, 
who want to protect the water supply there, who want to protect our 
Federal investment there, who want to protect the health and safety of 
the people who have to drink the water and live there.
  So let us do what we have done five times before. Let us beat back 
this ill-advised attempt to put a nuclear waste dump where it does not 
belong. Let us feel good that we have protected the people of this 
country. Let us turn to the matters to make life better for our people: 
Sensible gun laws, an HMO Patients' Bill of Rights, education, 
afterschool programs, smaller class sizes, and campaign finance reform.
  For goodness' sake, let's do something in this Chamber that helps 
people, not exposes them to risk.
  Yesterday I was at the Albert Einstein Medical School in New York. 
They are doing extraordinary things to find cures for cancer, to invest 
in ways to make our people healthier, to work with the Federal 
Government to make sure we have enough money going into research. Why 
would we do things around here that would elevate people's risk of 
getting cancer? I do not understand it. It does not add up. I listened 
to the arguments on the other side. They simply do not add up.
  So, again, I associate myself with my friends from Nevada. They are 
courageous. They are brave. They are right. They are protecting the 
people of Nevada and the people of California. I hope they will be 
successful. I will be working with them.
  As I understand it, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, will now have 
some time for further remarks.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, under a previous 
agreement, is to be allowed to continue now after the Senator from 
California. He has 5 minutes remaining on his time.
  Mr. BRYAN. I assure the Senator, I will only speak for 5 minutes 
because I understand he has a commitment at noon.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it was my understanding that after 
the Senator from Nevada spoke and after the Senator from New Mexico 
spoke, I would be able to speak.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could ask my friend from Nevada to 
yield for a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator Nevada has the floor.
  Mr. REID. So everyone understands what we would like to have happen, 
Senator Bryan will speak for 5 or 6 minutes, and then Senator Domenici 
will take time under the control of Senator Murkowski for whatever time 
he may consume, and then Senator Bryan and I would be happy to yield to 
Senator Rockefeller 10 minutes to speak on another issue. He has been 
very supportive of us on this underlying issue of nuclear waste. He 
wants to speak on something regarding his ranking membership dealing 
with veterans, introducing some legislation. We are happy to allow him 
to do that.
  I ask that in the form of a unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, for the remaining 5 or 6 minutes, let me 
just complete my thoughts on the issue of health and safety because I 
think this is the overriding issue.
  EPA has proposed a standard of 15 millirems, consistent with what was 
done in New Mexico. S. 1287, in its original form, doubled this. We are 
debating this issue today because the nuclear utilities do not want the 
15-millirem standard. That is what we are talking about.
  One can have a difference of opinion as to whether or not nuclear 
power is good or bad or whether Yucca Mountain is or is not the proper 
scientific site. I might say, parenthetically, no one has ever made a 
determination that Yucca Mountain will meet the suitability standards. 
That remains to be seen. But how in God's world can we say we ought to 
change a health and public safety standard, one that is set by 
independent agents?
  Let me point out that the history of matters nuclear has indicated 
that we have underestimated the risk and danger to public health. In 
the immediate aftermath of World War II, we exposed military veterans 
at Bikini and Eniwetok to levels of radiation exposure that today would 
be absolutely a crime. In my own youth, while growing up in Nevada, 
watching the detonations at Frenchman's Flat, where they dropped 
nuclear bombs out of B-29s, we were told it is ``absolutely safe, don't 
worry about a thing.'' Today, we know that nobody in his or her right 
mind would suggest that anyplace in the world. Indeed, the tragedy is 
that people downwind from that died of cancer and have suffered from 
other mutations.
  There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country 
who helped us in America prevail in the cold war, working in our 
nuclear weapons production facilities, in the nuclear testing program 
in Nevada, who were told the diseases that they suffered from and the 
suffering and the death that families had endured had nothing to do 
with radiation. Today, to the great credit of this administration and 
the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Richardson, we now acknowledge that it was 
wrong, that people did become ill, and people did die because of 
radiation.
  Every person in this Chamber will recall in his or her own personal 
life how, and today, when you get an x ray at your dentist, or a chest 
x ray, the amount of radioactive exposure you have is much less than it 
was earlier because we are fearful of what the consequences of this 
exposure over a period of time can mean. Many will recall

[[Page 6352]]

going to the local shoe store and getting on a fluoroscope; you could 
see the bones in your feet and your mom or your dad would look at that 
just to see whether or not you had the correct fitting. That was 
exposure to radioactivity. There is no place in the country where that 
would be tolerated today. What did we learn? We learned the risk of 
radioactivity is much greater than we had originally thought.
  To conclude this aspect of my discussion today, the whole history of 
radioactivity exposure, in terms of its impact upon us as human beings, 
has been that the standards ought to be increased in terms of safety. 
We have done that in the private sector; we have done that publicly. 
Now this legislation would suggest that we abandon that, and that in 
the name of helping out nuclear power industries--utilities 
particularly--we should reject the health and safety standard. It was 
good enough for our friends in New Mexico, and I support that, but 
never objected to. We simply say, look, what is sauce for the goose is 
sauce for the gander. Fifteen millirems is within the range of the 
National Academy of Sciences. To do anything less is a cynical and 
cavalier disregard for the public health of citizens in America 
generally, and Nevadans particularly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to support override of the 
President's veto of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. This bill, 
S. 1287, under Senator Murkowski's leadership, provided the first 
opportunity for real progress on nuclear waste issues during the term 
of the Clinton Administration.
  With nuclear energy providing 22 percent of our Nation's electrical 
power, it is simply irresponsible for the Administration to continue to 
avoid all attempts at improving our handling of spent nuclear fuel. We 
must maintain nuclear energy as a viable energy option for our nation, 
and without concrete progress on nuclear waste, we will lose this part 
of our national energy supply.
  American consumers are still facing dramatically higher prices for 
gas and oil, driven in no small part by the failure of this 
Administration to develop a coherent energy policy. We can't afford to 
place 22 percent of our electrical supply in jeopardy, and then pretend 
to be surprised when energy prices skyrocket.
  These recent oil shocks have proven again the folly of over 
dependence on a single source of energy. They should have reinforced to 
the Administration that we need, more than ever before, a coherent 
energy policy that maintains a diverse energy supply portfolio. Nuclear 
energy is an important component of that portfolio.
  As I've noted in the last few months, our response to this latest oil 
price episode was to approach the OPEC countries, tin barrel in hand, 
asking them to increase the flow of oil and lower our prices. That only 
serves to make us more dependent on their oil and increase the impact 
of the next episode of restricted oil availability.
  Senator Murkowski incorporated a very large range of concessions into 
the current bill, concessions that met every one of the 
Administration's advertised concerns. Unfortunately, as we've seen 
before, this Administration is so determined to undercut the role of 
nuclear energy, that new objections were invented faster than 
concessions were granted.
  I find it interesting that the Administration is treating the two 
major electrical producers in the nation, coal and nuclear, in somewhat 
similar ways. These two sources together account for over 70 percent of 
our electricity. Yet in both cases, the Administration is not focusing 
resources on actions that would address remaining concerns with these 
two sources. Our dependence on foreign oil would be far more serious 
with loss of either of these energy sources.
  For coal, they should be increasing resources on clean coal 
technologies. For nuclear, they should be advancing timetables for 
addressing spent nuclear fuel. Neither is happening.
  I believe that consumer concerns relating to nuclear energy are 
changing, as more information about the successes of this energy source 
becomes better known. Just yesterday, I checked on an MSNBC Internet 
poll on the 20 year anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear 
accident.
  In that poll, 80 percent of over 18,000 people responding said that 
they believe nuclear energy is safe, with 85 percent favoring licensing 
of new plants.
  I find it amazing how fear of anything in this country with 
``nuclear'' in its title, like ``nuclear waste,'' seems to paralyze our 
ability to act decisively. Nuclear issues are immediately faced with 
immense political challenges.
  There are many great examples of how nuclear technologies impact our 
daily lives. Yet few of our citizens know enough about the benefits 
we've gained from harnessing the nucleus to support actions focused on 
reducing the remaining risks.
  Just one example that should be better understood and appreciated 
involves our nuclear navy. Their experience has important lessons for 
better understanding of these technologies.
  The Nautilus, our first nuclear powered submarine, was launched in 
1954. Since then, the Navy has launched over 200 nuclear powered ships, 
and about 85 are currently in operation. Recently, the Navy was 
operating slightly over 100 reactors, about the same number as those 
operating in civilian power stations across the country.
  The Navy's safety record is exemplary. Our nuclear ships are welcomed 
into over 150 ports in over 50 countries. A 1999 review of their safety 
record was conducted by the General Accounting Office. That report 
stated:

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

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

[[Page 6353]]

I'd much prefer that we simply moved ahead with interim storage. An 
interim storage facility can proceed on its own merits, quite 
independent of decisions surrounding a permanent repository. Such an 
interim storage facility could be operational well before the ``early 
receipt facility'' authorized in this act.
  There are absolutely no technical issues associated with interim 
storage in dry casks, other countries certainly use it. Nevertheless, 
in the interests of seeking a compromise on this issue, I supported 
this act's approach with the early receipt facility.
  I appreciate that Senator Murkowski included Title III in the new 
bill with my proposal to create a new DOE Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel 
Research. This new Office would organize a research program to explore 
new, improved national strategies for spent nuclear fuel.
  Spent fuel has immense energy potential--that we are simply tossing 
away with our focus only on a permanent repository. We could be 
recycling that spent fuel back into civilian fuel and extracting 
additional energy. We could follow the examples of France, the U.K., 
and Japan in reprocessing the fuel to not only extract more energy, but 
also to reduce the volume and toxicity of the final waste forms.
  Now I'm well aware that reprocessing is not viewed as economically 
desirable now, because of today's very low uranium prices. Furthermore, 
it must only be done with careful attention to proliferation issues. 
But I submit that the U.S. should be prepared for a future evaluation 
that may determine that we are too hasty today to treat this spent fuel 
as waste, and that instead we should have been viewing it as an energy 
resource for future generations.
  We do not have the knowledge today to make that decision. Title III 
establishes a research program to evaluate options to provide real data 
for such a future decision.
  This research program would have other benefits. We may want to 
reduce the toxicity of materials in any repository to address public 
concerns. Or we may find we need another repository in the future, and 
want to incorporate advanced technologies into the final waste products 
at that time. We could, for example, decide that we want to maximize 
the storage potential of a future repository, and that would require 
some treatment of the spent fuel before final disposition.
  Title III requires that a range of advanced approaches for spent fuel 
be studied with the new Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. As we do 
this, I'll encourage the Department to seek international cooperation. 
I know, based on personal contacts, that France, Russia, and Japan are 
eager to join with us in an international study of spent fuel options.
  Title III requires that we focus on research programs that minimize 
proliferation and health risks from the spent fuel. And it requires 
that we study the economic implications of each technology.
  With Title III, the United States will be prepared, some years in the 
future, to make the most intelligent decision regarding the future of 
nuclear energy as one of our major power sources. Maybe at that time, 
we'll have other better energy alternatives and decide that we can move 
away from nuclear power. Or we may find that we need nuclear energy to 
continue and even expand its current contribution to our nation's power 
grid. In any case, this research will provide the framework to guide 
Congress in these future decisions.
  Mr. President, I want to specifically discuss one of the compromises 
that Senator Murkowski developed. In my view, his largest compromise 
involves the choice between the Environmental Protection Agency or the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set the radiation-protection standards 
for Yucca Mountain and for the ``early release facility.''
  The NRC has the technical expertise to set these standards. 
Furthermore, the NRC is a non-political organization, in sharp contrast 
to the political nature of the EPA. We need unbiased technical 
knowledge in setting these standards, there should be no place for 
politics at all. The EPA has proposed a draft standard already, that 
has been widely criticized for its inconsistency and lack of scientific 
rigor--events that do not enhance their credibility for this role.
  I appreciate, however, the care that Senator Murkowski has 
demonstrated in providing the ultimate authority to the EPA. His new 
language requires both the NRC and the National Academy of Sciences to 
comment on the EPA's draft standard. And he provides a period of time, 
until mid-2001, for the EPA to assess concerns with their standard and 
issue a valid standard.
  These additions have the effect of providing a strong role for both 
the NRC and NAS to share their scientific knowledge with the EPA and 
help guide the EPA toward a credible standard.
  Mr. President, I want to again thank Senator Murkowski for his 
leadership in preparing this bill and in leading this over ride 
discussion. We need to overturn the President's veto, to ensure that we 
finally attain some movement in the nation's ability to deal with high 
level nuclear waste.
  Mr. President, I won't respond to the millirem argument with 
reference to New Mexico and WIPP. Frankly, I believe it is irrelevant. 
Nonetheless, I wish to talk about nuclear energy power and what is 
happening to the United States of America. I say to the Senators from 
Nevada, I compliment them. They have been able, for a number of years, 
to delay the United States of America from having an underground 
permanent repository, and today, once again, they are successful. I 
understand they are acting in what they think is the best interest of 
their State. They are, once again, going to preclude the United States 
from coming up with an interim storage facility for nuclear waste.
  Whatever the arguments have been, there is no science or engineering 
issue with reference to whether or not the United States of America can 
build, plan, and safely maintain an interim storage facility for high-
level nuclear waste. Let me repeat. Nobody can, with any credibility, 
come to the floor of the Senate and say we cannot do that. In fact, we 
are doing so many things with reference to nuclear energy, with 
reference to radiation, that are more difficult than building an 
interim storage facility, a temporary storage facility for high-level 
waste for 25 or 50 years. In fact, the idea that we must find a 
permanent repository, one that will last for 20,000 or 30,000 years, 
for the fuel rods that come out of nuclear power reactors before we can 
proceed to take care of it for 50 or 100 years, borders on lunacy. It 
borders on standing reality on its head. The only possible reason could 
be that we don't believe we will build a permanent one if we build 
interim ones. But the truth is that it is not difficult; it is very 
safe once you have established it, and the only possible argument could 
be transportation.
  We should have a debate on the floor of the Senate on whether it is 
dangerous for the American people to transport nuclear waste from fuel 
sites across the United States--and every Senator knows where they are 
in their States--to interim facilities that we don't have today. We 
told the American people that the waste would move from their states. 
Nobody should conclude that it is unsafe to move it across the United 
States. We are moving more, and risking more dangerous things on a 
regular basis, across the highways of the United States, with utter and 
total safety, than would be involved in this.
  What is the issue? It seems to me that any time you are involved with 
radiation and anything nuclear, those who oppose it rely upon scaring 
the American people or their constituents, when the truth is that the 
United States of America gets 22 percent of its electricity from 
nuclear powerplants. Let me suggest that anybody who wants to test out 
what I am going to say have at it. That 22 percent of electricity 
produced in nuclear powerplants is the safest electricity produced in 
America. If you want to talk about risk of lives, injuries, health 
conditions, anything you would like, those are the safest sites 
producing electricity for the engine of American industry and for 
Americans living every

[[Page 6354]]

day with computers built upon energy sources and electricity, and the 
like.
  I laud Senator Murkowski for his compromise legislation. Actually, I 
thought he might have even given away too much at one point, but 
looking at how things are going, he can't even get this passed. He has 
conceded a number of issues since this was originally proposed.
  What do we do? We continue our dependence upon oil, and now natural 
gas, for our electricity in the future. This administration, by vetoing 
this bill and other actions, does the following things: One, they don't 
spend money on coal technology that will clean that technology up. Two, 
they don't spend money on finding an interim facility for nuclear 
waste. And then, three, we go begging those in Saudi Arabia and in 
Central and South America to continue to provide us with reasonably 
priced oil because we have become hostage to their oil.
  Here we are, as a nation, worrying about oil supplies while the 
Democrats on that side get up and say this is not an issue; that the 
issues are Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security. Well, the issue 
about 7 weeks ago was skyrocketing oil prices, which caused 
skyrocketing gasoline prices. What if we cannot produce electricity as 
we need it in America? Think what would happen to America.
  Think what would happen in the United States if, in fact, we decided, 
as a nation, that we were not going to do anything with nuclear power, 
it is too dangerous, too scary, and we decided to shut it down. The 
United States would become a basket case soon.
  When the Democrats get up in rhythm with each of them, saying this is 
not an important issue, my friends, this is a big issue. This is one of 
the most important issues to America's future because it has been made 
the linchpin about which we discuss the future of improved nuclear 
power in the United States of America.
  I've become a strong advocate for nuclear power. I speak to it 
wherever I can. People listen. I think people believe we ought to 
continue with it. But we can't continue with it unless we decide what 
to do with the waste.
  Recently, my spirits were lifted a bit by a poll on MSNBC Internet. I 
know it is not scientific poll, but it is pretty interesting. It's 
being conducted on the 20th anniversary of Three Mile Island. People 
still hearken back to that event and say, ``Look at what happened with 
nuclear power.'' Well, actually nothing happened. There was a leak. 
Nobody got hurt, and nothing happened.
  Over 18,000 people responded on that MSNBC Internet poll, and 80 
percent believe nuclear energy is safe. Eighty-five percent favor 
licensing power plants in the future for nuclear power.
  Right now, today, the U.S. Navy has slightly over 100 nuclear 
reactors with partially spent fuel rods in the power plant. Those 100 
nuclear power plants are sailing the oceans and the seas of the world 
in the hulls of submarines, battleships, and aircraft carriers. Some 
have two power plants in them--two complete nuclear reactors with the 
fuel rods that we are down here talking about and we don't know what to 
do with. They are on ships. Those ships are welcomed in almost every 
seaport in the world, except New Zealand because it had some argument 
about it years ago.
  Imagine, all the big ports in America welcoming U.S. Navy ships into 
their waters and their harbors. What do they have in them? Nuclear 
power plants with their fuel rods. Why do they let them in? Why don't 
they say that is terrible, as we are saying here on the floor, and 
people are going to get hurt? Because they have been audited, and 
reaudited.
  The General Accounting Office has looked at it and concluded, like no 
other study, that U.S. Navy ships are totally safe, never having had an 
accident since the Nautilus was launched in 1954.
  We are here today arguing about whether we can safely take spent fuel 
rods--not in a pond of water where, if something happens, it goes 
everywhere. But we are talking about whether we can haul it down the 
road or highway and take it somewhere. It is on all the oceans of the 
world, and nobody is even talking about it.
  Then we are arguing about, once you get it there, it is just too 
scary to think of storing it there.
  France has about 80 percent of its energy in nuclear. They get the 
benefits of what I am bringing to the surface now--there is no air 
pollution to speak of in France because nuclear power does not create 
the air pollution we are worried about with reference to global 
warming.
  The United States of America runs around the world negotiating how to 
clean our air so we will not have global warming. And here we're 
talking about the principal source of electricity that would be totally 
clean. We scare our people to death about moving fuel rods down a 
highway when the oceans and seas of the world have nuclear power plants 
floating under water and on top of the water by virtue of 100 U.S. Navy 
ships at sea.
  Actually, France, which I just described, does not today have a 
permanent repository.
  You heard the argument, fellow Senators, and those listening, that we 
don't want to have interim storage until we have a permanent repository 
for certain.
  I think France is pretty concerned about the health and safety of 
their constituents, the French people. They aren't building underground 
repositories yet because they are very satisfied with having interim, 
temporary storage. Sooner perhaps than later, they will find a way to 
use that spent fuel, which is highly radiated, either to produce more 
energy, or they will break it into its components and make sure they 
can safely put it somewhere.
  There is no question in this Senator's mind, that this is a big 
issue. This is America trying to turn science, engineering, and safety 
on its head to try to make fear where there is no reality of fear, to 
try to conclude that this great Nation cannot take care of the nuclear 
waste coming out of our powerplants with the end product being no more 
nuclear power.
  What a shame, if that happened in the Nation that started it, that 
led it, that built the safest reactors in the world--safer than 20 or 
30 coal-burning, electricity-generating plants, or any kind of plant.
  What if we as a matter of fact kill nuclear power while the rest of 
the world proceeds to use it in China, Japan, Europe? We're doing that 
by not finding a way to do the easiest part of the fuel cycle, which is 
to temporarily put spent fuel somewhere in a repository of interim 
measure?
  It would appear to me that, innocently or intentionally, those who 
oppose it are failing to recognize the significance of the future of 
nuclear energy and nuclear power for America and for a world that wants 
to be clean and wants to have growth and prosperity without global 
warming.
  From my standpoint, not only do I refute the argument that this is 
not important, that there are other issues more important.
  I want to say that the President is making a very big mistake for 
America's future by vetoing this compromise bill. The Congress passed 
it in both bodies overwhelmingly. Now, because of his veto ban, we need 
66 votes in the Senate. That is probably too hard to do for an issue 
such as this. But sooner or later, a President will sign a bill. I am 
hoping it is sooner.
  Obviously, we shouldn't try it again with the current President 
because it won't fly. But I personally believe the day will come soon 
when we will have the repository, wherever it is, and we will not come 
to the floor of the Senate and hearken back to the numerous times we 
have denied the validity and credibility of the fact that it can be 
easily and safely transported and easily and safely put in 30- to 50-
year interim repositories.
  I yield the floor. I thank the Senate for listening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.




                          ____________________