[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6355-6358]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes today to 
speak about the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act and the President's 
recent veto of this legislation.
  Throughout the past 5 years, I have repeatedly come to the Senate 
floor to discuss this important issue and its impact on my home State 
of Minnesota. I have, on countless occasions, laid out for Members of 
the Senate the history of the nuclear energy program and the promises 
made by the Federal Government. Every time I sit down to discuss this 
matter with stakeholders, I am reminded that the Federal Government not 
only allowed, but strongly encouraged, the construction of nuclear 
power plants across the country.
  This point needs to be clearly understood by the Members of this 
body. Our Nation's nuclear utilities did not go out and invest in 
nuclear power in spite of Federal Government warnings of future 
difficulties. Instead, they were encouraged by the Federal Government 
to turn to nuclear power to

[[Page 6356]]

meet increasing energy demands. Utilities and states were told to move 
forward with investments in nuclear technologies because it is a sound 
source of energy production.
  It is important to note that the Federal Government's support for 
nuclear power was based on some very sound considerations. First, and I 
believe most important, nuclear power is environmentally friendly. 
Nothing is burned in a nuclear reactor so there are no emissions 
released into the atmosphere. In fact, nuclear energy is responsible 
for over 90% of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that have 
come out of the energy industry since 1973. Between 1973 and 1996, 
nuclear power accounted for emissions reductions of 34.6 million tons 
of nitrogen oxide and 80.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide.
  Second, nuclear power is a reliable base-load source of power. 
Families, farmers, businesses, and individuals who are served by 
nuclear power are served by one of the most reliable sources of 
electricity. In Minnesota, nuclear power accounts for roughly 30% of 
our base-load generation.
  Third, nuclear energy is a home-grown technology and the United 
States led the way in its development. We have long been the world 
leader in nuclear technology and continue to be the world's largest 
nuclear producing country. Using nuclear power increases our energy 
security.
  Finally, much of the world recognizes those same values and promotes 
the use of nuclear power because of its reliability, its environmental 
benefits, and its value to energy independence.
  Because of those reasons, the Federal Government threw one more bone 
to our Nation's utilities. It said if you build nuclear power, we will 
take care of your nuclear waste. We will build a repository and take it 
out of your States. In response to those promises, over 30 States took 
the Federal Government at its word and allowed civilian nuclear energy 
production to move forward.
  Ratepayers agreed to share some of the responsibilities, but were 
promised some things in return. They agreed to pay a fee attached to 
their energy bill to pay for the proper handling of the spent nuclear 
fuel in exchange for an assurance that the Federal Government meet its 
responsibility to manage any waste storage challenges. Because of these 
promises and measures taken by the Federal Government, ratepayers have 
now paid over $15 billion, including interest, into the Nuclear Waste 
Fund. Today, these payments continue, exceeding $600 million annually, 
or $70,000 for every hour of every day of the year. In Minnesota alone, 
ratepayers have paid over $300 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
  In summary, the Federal Government promoted nuclear power, utilities 
agreed to invest in nuclear power, states agreed to host nuclear power 
plants, and ratepayers assumed the responsibility of investing in the 
long-term storage of nuclear waste. And still, nuclear waste is 
stranded on the banks of the Mississippi River in Minnesota and on 
countless other sites across the country because the Department of 
Energy has a very short-term memory and this administration has 
virtually no sense of responsibility.
  We can argue all day long in this Chamber on the merits of nuclear 
power. But we cannot deny that the Federal Government promoted nuclear 
power and promised to take care of nuclear waste.
  The Clinton administration, however, would have you believe that they 
do not have a responsibility to deal with nuclear power. I have been 
working with Senator Murkowski and many other Members over the roughly 
5 years that I have been in the Senate to establish an interim 
repository for nuclear waste and move forward with the development of a 
permanent repository. We have brought a bill to the floor that 
accomplishes those objectives in each of the past two Congresses. Each 
time, we passed the bill in both the House and the Senate with 
overwhelming, bipartisan support. Just over 2 years ago, we passed a 
bill that would have removed nuclear waste from States by a vote of 65-
34 and the House passed the bill with 307 supporters--a veto-proof 
majority. We have had extensive debate with the opportunity for anyone 
to offer amendments. We have thoroughly addressed most issues related 
to nuclear waste storage, including the transportation of waste across 
the United States. Yet every time we have passed a bill that fulfills 
the Federal Government's commitments, President Clinton has issued his 
veto threat and stopped our efforts in their tracks.
  Here we are again. The President has vetoed the legislation before us 
today and apparently taken great pride in doing so. Time and again, 
when confronted with making the tough decisions about the future of our 
Nation's energy supply, this President has ``punted,'' and refused to 
take any responsibility for the energy needs of our growing economy.
  If it were not such a serious matter, I would have to say that the 
President's approach to energy policy is comical. When was the last 
time anyone here heard the President speak in any great detail about 
energy issues? He does not. I do not think he cares or at least his 
policies reflect a great degree of indifference to the energy needs of 
our Nation's consumers.
  He has turned over the reins of the Energy Department not just to 
Secretary Richardson, but to Al Gore, and Bruce Babbitt, and Carol 
Browner, and anyone else who has an agenda with an aspect of the energy 
industry.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have been a strong critic of the 
Department of Energy since coming to Congress in 1992. I have long 
argued that the Department has failed miserably on its most basic 
mission of increasing our Nation's energy independence. The Department 
was created in the late 1970's in response to that decade's energy 
crisis. Since that time, our reliance on foreign oil has increased from 
35% to almost 60% today. In the 1970s, we were looking to increase our 
use of nuclear energy, today we are looking at closing down plants 
before their licenses have expired. In the 1970s, much like today, 
hydro power was a very popular form of electricity generation among the 
American public. Even still, this Administration wants to rip apart 
hydro dams in the Northwest and, I guess, replace them with fossil 
fuels.
  Therein lies the great irony of the Clinton administration's approach 
to energy and the environment. This administration had the vision to 
agree to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while 
at the same time failing to take even the most basic steps to protect 
emissions free nuclear power plants from shutting down. I asked the 
administration's chief Kyoto negotiator, Stuart Eizenstat, about 
nuclear energy during a Foreign Relations Committee hearing and he said 
that we absolutely needed nuclear energy to meet the demands of the 
Treaty. In fact, he said that he believed his own administration ought 
to have done more and ought to be doing more to promote nuclear power. 
Mr. Eizenstat, the President's signature on this bill would have been a 
great first step. Instead, this President has taken an action which I 
argue is harmful to the environment and contradicts his statements and 
actions that he wants to improve air quality in our country.
  Nuclear energy, however, is not the only example of this 
administration's hypocrisy on energy and the environment. Hydro power, 
as well, is an emissions free form of electricity generation. Yet this 
administration is engaged in at least two separate activities that 
undermine the future of hydro power and its environmental benefits. As 
I mentioned earlier, this administration wants to rip open hydro dams 
in the northwest and, I guess, replace that electricity with fossil 
fuels. Second, this administration, in its electricity restructuring 
proposals, wants to require a certain usage of renewable energy but 
refuses to include hydro power as a renewable energy source. These are 
all perfect examples of how this administration isn't truly interested 
in results oriented clean air goals. Instead, they want to deeply 
involve themselves in the process of achieving environmental goals, 
regulate like crazy, and predetermine winners and losers. 
Unfortunately, the

[[Page 6357]]

only real losers in the Clinton energy circus are the American 
consumers.
  I want to touch on one last Clinton administration energy and 
environment contradiction. As my colleagues know, this administration 
has been opposed to new oil and gas development on public land. In 
fact, Vice President Gore recently stated that he would do everything 
in his power to stop offshore oil and gas leasing. Both President 
Clinton and Vice President Gore tout these stances against oil and gas 
development as part of their legacy of environmental protection. I ask 
my colleagues, do you think other nations on whom we rely for our oil 
supplies are employing the environmental protections and reviews that 
we require? Do you think Iran, Libya, or Iraq are going the extra mile 
to protect the environment? Do you think the OPEC nations are holding 
themselves to the stringent environmental standards to which we hold 
companies on U.S. soil? We all know the answer is an emphatic no. Yet 
this administration is opposing virtually any exploration of oil and 
gas reserves on public land for environmental reasons, while at the 
same time, it employs its ``tin cup diplomacy'' that relies upon 
countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya and others to increase their 
production for us. I ask my colleagues, if you look at the global 
impacts of the Clinton administration's actions, who are the real 
environmentalists? Certainly not the Clinton administration. It is 
clear to me that this administration's policy against exploration and 
development, when compared against its policy of begging for increased 
oil production abroad, is a net loss for American jobs, family 
checkbooks, domestic energy security, and the environment.
  I am getting a little off track, but I believe this point needs to be 
clearly understood when we are talking about a long- term plan to 
remove, transport, and store nuclear waste. This administration is not 
concerned about results, nor is it really concerned about the 
environment. Instead, this administration is concerned solely with its 
political agenda and keeping the nuclear industry on the ropes.
  We can, as a nation, move forward now and deal with our nuclear 
waste. There is simply no scientific nor technological reasons why we 
cannot move waste from civilian reactors to a central repository. In 
fact, we ship waste across our Nation right now--including the waste we 
have accepted from 41 other nations under the Atoms for Peace program. 
Our Nation's fleet of nuclear powered vessels go from international 
port to port. They protect the world and our Nation's interests in a 
way that is only allowed them through the use of nuclear power. There 
is overwhelming proof that we can transport nuclear waste on ships, 
roads, and rail without a threat to either the environment or human 
beings.
  I am going to support the legislation before us, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same. If the President is not going to have an 
energy policy, then we in Congress had better step forward and forge 
one of our own. When the brownouts begin increasing in frequency and 
energy rates rise, President Clinton will be long gone and we will be 
left to explain to our constituents why their family lost its power, 
their business lost a days work, or their farm was unable to milk its 
cows.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grams for his 
statement, particularly for highlighting the risk we face in not 
acting, inasmuch as some of our plants that anticipated having Yucca 
Mountain available for permanent storage, indeed, are in danger.
  Maryland, for example, has two reactors at Calvert Cliffs producing 
over 13,000 kilowatts a year. They provide 26 percent of the clean 
electricity for the State of Maryland. The consumers in Maryland have 
paid $337 million into the nuclear waste fund since 1982. There are 741 
metric tons stored there, and it is short term. It is temporary 
because, when they built that plant, they were looking at Yucca 
Mountain as a permanent storage. Indeed, there is genuine concern about 
the ability to maintain this very clean source of energy if, indeed, we 
do not act in this body and override the President's veto.
  Before we break, I wish to take my colleagues through a brief summary 
of the inconsistencies of this administration with regard to 
transportation.
  In 1996, the Clinton administration agreed to participate in the 
Foreign Research Reactor Program where, over a 13-year period, some 20 
tons of spent nuclear fuel from 41 countries will be shipped to the 
United States for storage. It goes into Concord, CA, and up to Idaho on 
railroads and highways. It goes into Savannah River and is moved there 
through the rail system, as well as highways.
  At the Savannah River site in South Carolina, as well as the Idaho 
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, this waste is moved, 
depending on whether it comes from the west coast or east coast--
shipment comes in on freighters through the Charleston Naval Weapons 
Station in South Carolina and the Concord Naval Weapons Station in 
California--the spent fuel is transported from the ship to a final 
designation by either rail or truck. Shall we leave it in California? 
Shall we leave it in South Carolina?
  The President mentions the importance of nonproliferation goals that 
a central repository will meet and that the nonproliferation for these 
shipments of foreign spent fuel is a good one. We do not want 
terrorists or rogue governments coming into possession of these 
weapons, but let's look at reality.
  For example, when the program started in 1996, we were faced with 
transporting spent fuel from a reactor in Bogota, Colombia. The spent 
fuel was moved from the reactor, loaded into a shipping cask, placed 
into a semitractor trailer truck for shipment, and then what did we do? 
We went to the Russians.
  We chartered a Russian Antonov AN-124 airplane large enough to carry 
tanks and helicopters and drove the semi aboard the plane and flew the 
shipment to the seaport city of Cartagena and placed it on a freighter. 
It then joined spent fuel already loaded from Chile. It was delivered 
to the Charleston weapons center where it was loaded on railcars to 
Savannah River.
  This was the Department of Energy acting to pull out all stops, 
sparing no expense to complete this important shipment. Administration 
policy then is to take nuclear fuel from foreign nations flying, 
shipping, and trucking all over the world and storing it at military 
facilities, and even building interim storage sites in the United 
States, but this administration will not address the waste generated by 
the domestic nuclear power industry; it will not reconcile a policy to 
address this in a responsible manner. It would rather leave it at the 
40 States in 80 sites. That is what this administration proposes to do. 
It is unconscionable at a time when we are looking to the nuclear 
energy for roughly 20 percent of the power generated in the United 
States, and this administration does not accept its responsibility. 
That is why I urge all my colleagues to look at this realistically: Do 
we want the waste concentrated where it is in temporary storage, or do 
we want it in a permanent repository where we have already expended 
some $7 billion to place it?
  I believe my time has expired or is about to expire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a minute and a half left.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In a minute and a half, I note the Senator from 
California showed a beautiful picture of Death Valley. I will show you 
a beautiful picture of the proposed location of the repository out at 
Yucca Mountain.
  This is it. It is not very pretty. We have had 800 nuclear weapons 
tests in the last 50 years. That is the area we are talking about.
  Some suggest, why are we talking about this when we have other more 
important things to do? This is an obligation of this Congress. The 
House has acted. It is up to the Senate to act now and move this 
legislation over the President's veto.
  This is important. This costs the taxpayers money. We have an 
obligation.

[[Page 6358]]

Furthermore, this is the pending business of the Senate at this time 
because the House voted. It went down to the President. The President 
vetoed it. It is the standing order of business before this body. So it 
is most appropriate that we resolve this matter today.
  I encourage my colleagues this afternoon to vote to override the 
President's veto.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. In my 12 years in the Senate, I have to say this is the 
most unfocused debate we have had on this issue. We are not here today 
to debate whether or not nuclear power is good or bad for the Nation. 
We are not here today to debate whether interim storage is an 
appropriate response. We are not here to debate whether or not France 
has no pollution, as some have suggested, because they have nuclear 
reactors. I must say, parenthetically, I am not aware that France 
propels its automotive fleet through nuclear power. But perhaps we can 
discuss that at some other date.
  Very simply, what we are here to talk about is a piece of legislation 
which the President of the United States has courageously vetoed that 
would alter the health and safety standards for the Nation. That is the 
issue. Every American--regardless of his or her politics--should be 
proud of the President's position.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taunted our 
colleagues who support the position that my colleague from Nevada and I 
have been advocating, as well as the distinguished Senators from 
California and New Mexico today, saying: What are you going to tell 
your constituents when you return home? The answer that every Member 
can give, with a straight face, in responding to that question is: 
Look, I voted to uphold the health and safety standards of the Nation. 
I was not prepared for any industry, even though I might support 
nuclear power, to reduce the health and safety standards for millions 
of people in this country. I will not do it for nuclear power. I will 
not do it for anything else. I will not be beholding to a special 
interest. I am voting in the best interests of my constituents and the 
Nation in upholding public health and safety.
  That is the answer. That is the most powerful response that can be 
given.
  May I inquire how much time I have left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve seconds.
  Mr. BRYAN. Twelve seconds.
  I yield the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________