[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11499-11502]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             YUCCA MOUNTAIN

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am going to talk a little this 
morning on procedures under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for the 
pending consideration of the joint resolution on Yucca Mountain. 
Yesterday, we had some discussion. Following the procedures laid out in 
the nuclear Waste Act is contrary to some, who criticize that this is a 
break with Senate tradition or somehow it would set a precedent.
  What we are doing is following the law that was established for the 
disposition of this particular matter, giving the State of Nevada an 
opportunity

[[Page 11500]]

for a veto, and also providing procedures for overriding that process 
by action of both the House and the Senate. As I have indicated, the 
House has acted.
  The expedited procedures under discussion are set forth in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. One of the elements of the procedures 
is a specific provision that states once a resolution is on the Senate 
calendar, it shall be in order for any Member of the Senate to move to 
proceed to the consideration of the resolution.
  We have heard the majority leader and others suggesting the provision 
is outside the Senate rules and turns the rules on their head. That is 
simply not true. It is the law. We are following the law.
  I grant that the provision is unusual, but it is neither unique nor 
contrary to Senate rules. As a matter of fact, it is part of the Senate 
rules. The entire expedited procedure was adopted as part of the rules, 
and the Senate reserved its right to change the procedure. I want to 
quote from the statute because I think it is important every Member 
understand we are not setting precedent.
  The provision enacted is:

       A, as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, 
     and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of the 
     Senate, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to 
     be followed in the Senate in the case of resolutions of 
     repository siting approval, and such provisions supersede 
     other rules of the Senate only to the extent that they are 
     inconsistent with other rules.

  I grant you, it sounds as if it was written by a Philadelphia lawyer, 
and it probably was:

       B, with full recognition of the constitutional right of the 
     Senate to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of the Senate) at any time, in the same manner and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the 
     Senate.

  What that means is, obviously, the Senate can change its own rules. 
It is that simple. I do not know why they did not say it that way. 
Nevertheless, we have to live with what we have.
  So let's be clear. What we are doing on procedure is following the 
rules of the Senate that were agreed to in 1982 and that have been in 
place under both Republican and Democratic control of this body since 
that time. These were not last-minute additions, something that just 
came up, that was slipped into the legislative conference in the wee 
hours of the morning. The expedited procedures included, one, the 
provision for any Member to move to the consideration of the resolution 
and, two, the provision that the procedures were adopted as an exercise 
of rulemaking in the Senate, and both were contained in the underlying 
legislation in 1982.
  The provisions were not necessarily novel. In fact, they were almost 
identical to those considered in the previous Congress and that passed 
the Senate as part of S. 2189.
  For historical information, S. 2189 passed the Senate in the 96th 
Congress in 1980 under Democrat leadership and was sponsored primarily 
by Senators Johnston of Louisiana and Jackson of Washington.
  When the Senate changed hands in the 97th Congress, the identical 
provision was included in S. 1662 when it was introduced by the new 
chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator McClure of Idaho.
  That measure was jointly referred to both the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 
Both Committees reported the legislation favorably with substitute 
amendments and both substitutes contained the same expedited procedures 
as a rulemaking of the Senate.
  This was not a surprise. The Senate was well aware of the provisions. 
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was debated at length in the Senate in 
1982 and no one objected to the expedited procedures on the language 
providing that ``any Member'' could make the motion to proceed.
  So for those who are reflecting on the generalization somehow this 
was an arbitrary action and not thought out, I again refer to the 
history of this matter as it has been presented in this body. Let's put 
that behind us.
  It is fair everyone understood that the language was essential to any 
concept of a State objection, whether the State had the obligation to 
carry the argument and obtain an affirmative vote as the authorization 
committees wanted or if the administration had the burden to obtain a 
Joint Resolution of approval as proposed by Congressman Moakley--
chairman of the House Rules Committee at that time--and eventually 
contained in the floor legislation.
  The language was before the Senate during debate leading to the 
initial passage in April of 1982, and again a final agreement was 
reached in December of 1982. All Members understood the heart of the 
process was that each House would have to vote--the House already 
voted; now it is our obligation--and further says: and the only way to 
guarantee that was an expedited process where any Senator could make 
the motion to proceed.
  We will have any Senator make that motion on the 9th or thereabouts 
but we still have not determined who that is.
  Previously, the Senate understood the majority leader or the chairman 
might make that motion or they may not want to carry out the mandate of 
the statute, so it provided explicitly in the event the majority leader 
or the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction did not do so, and any 
Senator could bring this issue before the Senate. That is obviously 
what will happen.
  We did it, however, with full knowledge of the Senate rules, and the 
Senate adopted it as an exercise in rulemaking.
  Finally, the process is not the usual way, but it is part of the 
rule. Second, it is not a precedent and by its terms is limited only to 
this resolution. Senator George Mitchell characterized in 1982 when it 
was adopted, it was designed to eliminate any ``dilatory or 
obstructionist'' provisions.
  Therefore, I hope we can end the rhetoric on this that somehow we are 
not following the Senate rules, that this is some novel provision of 
which the Senate was not aware. I hope we can focus on the substance of 
the joint resolution and move to its consideration as the Senate 
provided in 1982.
  The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which I have been a 
member, former chairman, and now ranking member, has favorably reported 
the resolution, and we have a good report that I suggest my colleagues 
read. The report filed by our chairman, Senator Bingaman, disposes of 
every objection raised by the State of Nevada and reflects the 
committee's considered recommendation. Our committee has discharged its 
responsibility. Now it is time for the full Senate to discharge its 
obligation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the need to move 
forward with a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 
NV. Doing so is in the best interest of America's national security, 
economy, energy policy, public safety, and environment.
  Special interest groups and activists have capitalized on this 
issue--using scare tactics and doomsday scenarios to alarm the public. 
But as a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I have listened to both 
sides, reviewed the information presented by the experts, and attended 
the hearings. It makes sense to store our Nation's high-level nuclear 
waste in a single, scientifically and environmentally sound, secure, 
and remote location.
  Twenty years have passed since Congress called for the creation of an 
underground repository for the Nation's spent nuclear fuel--under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Senator Murkowski has referred to the 
history of that act. During that time, about $7 billion from U.S. 
electric consumers have been invested in finding the most suitable 
location for this project.
  More than 45,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is currently stored at 
131 sites in 39 States--including my State of Nebraska, with 650 metric 
tons of waste stored at its two nuclear power plants.

[[Page 11501]]

  This nuclear waste is stored above ground in facilities built for 
temporary storage only. Many of these storage sites are near major 
cities and waterways.
  Yucca Mountain represents two decades of the most comprehensive 
environmental and technical assessments ever conducted anywhere on the 
planet. The mountain is located in one of the most isolated and arid 
locations in the United States. Only 30 miles to the west lies Death 
Valley; to the north is the Department of Energy's nuclear test site 
where some 900 nuclear weapons have been tested.
  The repository itself would be located about 1,000 feet underground 
in sold rock to keep its contents safe from significant impacts, 
including major earthquakes. The mountain's natural geological 
attributes would be reinforced with man-made barriers.
  Some opponents of the repository have centered this debate on the 
transportation issue. They point out that there are risks involved. Of 
course there are risks involved--we do not live in a risk-free society. 
There is risk with everything we do. What is important is that the risk 
is acceptable in order to accomplish the objective. In this case, the 
risk is absolutely acceptable--because it is a risk we can control, we 
can manage, we can deal with.
  Shipments of nuclear material have been taking place in the United 
States for the past three decades and will continue, with or without 
Yucca Mountain.
  About 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have occurred since 
1965--covering 1.7 million miles--with no injuries, no fatalities, and 
no environmental damage due to radioactive release. In that time, not 
one spent fuel container has ever been breached.
  Spent nuclear fuel, which is nonexplosive and nonflammable, is 
shipped in specially designed and tested multilayered steel casks. 
These casks have been designed to withstand extreme heat, prolonged 
submersion in water, and severe impacts--such as being broadsided by a 
120-ton locomotive traveling at 80 miles per hour. If the Yucca 
Mountain repository becomes a reality, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission must survey and approve all routes, and all shipments would 
be monitored 24 hours a day through a satellite tracking system--with 
the coordinated effort of local, State, and federal law enforcement 
agencies.
  A ``no'' vote on Yucca would be devastating for the future of nuclear 
power in this country. While that is the objective of the activists, we 
cannot afford such a catastrophic loss.
  Nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of the Nation's electric power. 
It powers 40 percent of our Navy's combat vessels. Experts in the fuel 
cell industry say that nuclear power plants are the only way to produce 
enough hydrogen if America is to ever become a country powered by fuel 
cells, instead of fossil fuels. This is all directly connected to Yucca 
Mountain.
  We should not forget that there will be a large financial burden if 
this project is rejected. The Federal Government will be in default of 
its obligations, and would owe utilities and contract holders as much 
as $100 billion. This is on top of the billions of dollars already 
invested in the project. Then we would be forced to begin a new process 
of looking at other options for a repository. If not Yucca, where? 
Hanford, WA, is often mentioned as a viable alternative. The fact is, 
or we must deal with, 45,000 metric tons of nuclear waste--and more on 
the way.
  The bottom line is that this problem is not going to disappear, and 
the world will not become any safer by deferring this problem. We 
either deal with this problem today--or we pass it onto future 
generations. That is not an acceptable option. We do have an 
acceptable, safe and responsible option.
  We must move forward with the Yucca Mountain repository. It is the 
right and responsible thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, we will save rebutting the comments of 
our colleague from Nevada for another time. We do want to talk about 
the Yucca Mountain project this morning, but I want to talk about the 
procedure in the Senate on which people have been focusing.
  In the modern history of the Senate, nobody other than the majority 
leader or his designee has successfully offered a motion to proceed. 
That being said, supporters of Yucca Mountain claim that breaking 
tradition would be alright because the process outlined in the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act is supposedly unique.
  The procedure in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is not unique, nor is 
it required--it is merely permitted. There are many statutes containing 
expedited procedures. When the Congress has determined that it is 
appropriate to override the traditional power of the majority leader to 
schedule the floor, it has drafted legislation like the War Powers Act 
which does so.
  The War Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1544 et seq.) states:

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

  Unlike this War Powers provision, there is no requirement in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act that Congress take any action with regard to 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act resolution. Congress in the past has used 
a variety of techniques to expedite privileged business, and in the 
case of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act did not choose to use some of the 
more time-sensitive techniques. Indeed, the 1982 act anticipates that a 
vote on the Yucca Mountain resolution might not occur--that it might be 
blocked. If the deadline passes, then the statute giving the State of 
Nevada a veto will have been carried out. That was part of the 1982 
compromise.
  It is true that an expedited procedure was put into law, pursuant to 
the rulemaking power of the Congress, as Congress has put in law many 
expedited procedures. But no one other than the majority leader or his 
designee has ever moved successfully to go to any resolution, or bill, 
which has expedited procedures written into law. Any successful attempt 
to do that now would change forever the way that the Senate sets its 
agenda.
  The junior Senator from Alaska stated that he does ``not know that it 
really matters very much'' who makes the motion to proceed to the Yucca 
Mountain resolution.
  I say that it does matter. It matters very much. It is the Senate 
rules that allow any Senator to move to proceed to a matter, or to 
force a vote on the motion to proceed, but it is now a well-established 
practice that the Senate will only proceed to a matter the majority 
leader wishes to call up, and that the Senate has not proceeded to any 
matter that the majority leader has declined to call up for decades 
past. It is the proposed change in this practice that is a direct 
challenge to the role of any majority leader.
  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not make the resolution the pending 
business of the Senate, even though some laws--such as the War Powers 
Resolution--do take away the prerogative of the majority leader by 
making a resolution the pending business without any motion to proceed 
being required. Had the Senate wished to do that in this case, it could 
have followed the language of the War Powers Resolution.
  If a Senator other than the majority leader feels he or she has the 
right to call up privileged matters without deferring to the majority 
leader, then the Senate will have undergone a dramatic sea change in 
the way it operates.
  The procedures in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act were put in place 
pursuant to the rulemaking power of the Senate, and they have no higher 
standing because they are written into law. There is no more 
fundamental prerogative that attaches to the majority leader than the 
right to set the Senate agenda.
  I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will think long and 
hard before they challenge the historic role of the majority leader. 
The traditions of this institution deserve to be protected.

[[Page 11502]]

  Madam President, in the coming days leading up to the vote, we will 
be laying out some of the things my colleague from Nebraska has asked. 
What do we do if we do not build Yucca Mountain? There are many 
alternatives, and we will get into detail, why the alternatives to 
building Yucca Mountain are better for the United States of America. 
They are cheaper, they are safer, and they are better for national 
security. We will lay out in detail, as we have in the past, exactly 
why our colleagues, we believe, should vote against proceeding with the 
Yucca Mountain project.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I was unable to listen to the full 
statements of the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Alaska, 
but I have been told by my staff some of the things they said.
  I have to say basically the same thing I have been saying for a long 
time. The American public has come to the realization that what the 
proponents of Yucca Mountain are saying is absolutely without 
foundation. For example, one of the issues they talk about is moving 
the nuclear waste out of the many sites where it sits now and putting 
it into one site. Isn't that the best thing to do?
  Of course, but we have had articles in papers all across America 
showing that it is a sham because you can never get rid of the waste 
where it is being generated. They will have to move 3,000 tons a year. 
They have 46,000 tons stored now. They generate 2,000 tons. When you 
take a spent fuel rod out of a nuclear generator, you have to put it in 
a cooling pond for 5 years because it is so hot and so radioactive. 
They only use 5 percent of the power and radioactivity in one of those 
rods. After 5 percent is used, they have to take it out and cool it. 
They can't move it for 5 years. For anyone to suggest there is going to 
be one place where all the waste will be; someplace in the western part 
of the United States is foolishness.
  This is not the Senator from Nevada talking. It is in newspapers and 
scientific journals all over America.
  For the first 18 or 20 years, the nuclear waste issue centered on the 
science of Yucca Mountain. I could lay out a picture to the Chair for 
the people of Michigan or any other State showing how science at Yucca 
Mountain is very bad. But that doesn't matter anymore because that is 
not the question. The question is, How are we going to get the waste to 
Yucca Mountain? You can do it three ways: highways, railroad, and 
barges on the water. That is all you can do. Nuclear waste will travel 
through 43 or 45 different States.
  There is a Web site that has been developed, Mapscience.com. Pull it 
up, and it shows any address in America and how near the nuclear waste 
will travel to your home, or to your school, or to the playground, or 
to your business. This site has alerted many people to the dangers of 
the transportation of nuclear waste. Since that site was put up 2 weeks 
ago, there have been over 200,000 hits. People want to find out from 
where the waste will go. What they find out is not good, so these 
people have been sending letters to their Senators and talking to their 
neighbors.
  The transportation of nuclear waste is wrong. My friend from Nebraska 
said the risk is acceptable. Acceptable to whom? The Chairman of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when asked last week about what would 
happen if Yucca Mountain didn't go through right now, said ``nothing.'' 
There is room to store waste onsite at every reactor in America. There 
are power generators now that are storing nuclear waste onsite in dry-
cask storage canisters. That is what a large segment of the scientific 
community said we should do. It is safer than trying to move it.
  To transport this is unacceptable. We are talking about 100,000 
truckloads of nuclear waste, 20,000 trainloads, and thousands of barges 
full of nuclear waste.
  Recently, there were editorials in the Denver Post and in the St. 
Petersburg Times, the largest newspaper in Florida and the largest 
newspaper in Colorado, criticizing the program--and in places all over 
the country; places where the nuclear power industry has spent tens of 
millions of dollars in campaign contributions; there are articles 
describing the trips sponsored by the nuclear power industry. They take 
people to Las Vegas and wine and dine them so they can show them Yucca 
Mountain. They spend 2 hours at Yucca Mountain and several days in one 
of the fine hotels in Las Vegas. Congressional staff have been taken 
back out there on numerous occasions. Lobbying activities are intense.
  For example, for the first time in the State of Nevada, Governor 
Guinn said we should hire somebody to help lobby back here. You have no 
idea how hard it is to find somebody to help us because the nuclear 
power industry has bought Washington, DC.
  So I appreciate the power of the Nuclear Energy Institute. It is 
powerful, and I understand that. But I also understand the American 
people, and they now--since September 11--realize every truckload, 
every trainload, every barge is a target of opportunity for terrorists.
  No matter what the problems may be where these nuclear generators are 
located, the problems are amplified by trying to move nuclear waste. We 
would have, around the country, the potential not for ``a'' ``dirty'' 
bomb, but hundreds and thousands of ``dirty'' bombs. How are you going 
to transport nuclear waste safely? You cannot. We know a shoulder-fired 
weapon will pierce one of these containers. We know that if you leave 
them on site and cover them with cement, it will be very safe.
  So, Madam President, I try to be as quiet and nonresponsive as I can 
be when these statements are made. But today I had to respond because I 
think it just simply was out of line for someone to say the risk is 
acceptable. It is not acceptable. It is not acceptable at all.
  We are going to have, probably, sometime shortly after the Fourth of 
July recess, an opportunity to vote on the procedure, which violates 
what we do around here. The majority leader does not want this to come 
forward. We are going to see how people will vote on that because my 
friends in the minority have to understand someday they will be in the 
majority, I am sorry to say, and when they are in the majority, the 
same rules will apply to them.
  You have to be very careful who brings matters to the floor. I have 
the greatest respect for the junior Senator from Alaska. He is my 
friend. I have worked with him on many different issues. On this, we 
have a basic disagreement in philosophy.
  My friend, the senior Senator from Nebraska, is a fine man, certainly 
an American patriot. But for him to come to the floor and say the risk 
is acceptable is something I cannot let go without a response. It 
simply is wrong, and I want him to know I believe he is wrong.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, how much time remains in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes remain.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me take that 4 minutes because I know 
my colleagues want to move forward with DOD authorization.

                          ____________________