[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 831-833]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Barrasso, 
        Mr. Bond, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 2551. A bill to provide for the safe development of a repository 
at the Yucca Mountain site in the State of Nevada, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008.
  I have said many times on this Senate floor that we do have a crisis 
in energy and that we need all of the following: We need nuclear 
energy, but we also need clean coal technology, we need oil and gas, we 
need renewables. We need all of the above. I feel very strongly about 
this, and I know there is a disagreement on that issue, even within our 
committee. But I am concerned about the continued delays in opening our 
Nation's repository at Yucca Mountain, that it would hinder the 
resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States. It seems as though 
right now we are making a major breakthrough. People who were objecting 
to nuclear energy just a few years ago are now realizing that it is 
clean, it is safe, it is abundant. Not that I use France as our model 
very often, but in this case, they are between 80 and 90 percent 
nuclear, and they have done the right thing.
  A bit of history on this. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 
established a program to locate and develop a repository for nuclear 
waste, including both Defense waste, a legacy from the Cold War, and 
civilian spent fuel. In 2002, after 20 years of research, the President 
recommended to the Congress that Yucca Mountain should be developed as 
the repository. The State of Nevada objected. I wasn't surprised to see 
that happen, and it did. It certainly is their right to do so under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. However, Congress passed a joint resolution 
affirming or reaffirming the administration's recommendation of Yucca 
Mountain with strong bipartisan majorities in both Houses.
  The location has been decided. The debate is no longer in existence 
of whether a repository should be built at Yucca Mountain. That 
decision was made in 2002. The task that remains is to develop a 
repository that protects public health and safety and the environment, 
a permanent solution for our Nation's nuclear waste. It is high time we 
accomplish these tasks now. This is very serious. We passed laws and 
resolutions to do it. We have collected over $27 billion--that is with 
a ``b''--$27 billion for electricity from consumers to pay for it. The 
courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that we have the obligation--not 
the legal right to do it, the legal obligation.
  Now, I am frustrated that the Department of Energy is 20 years behind 
schedule. However, I am pleased that DOE appears to have made 
significant progress in the past few years and will hopefully file a 
license application this year, despite the persistent assault on 
program funding.
  I understand that opposition to Yucca Mountain remains, advocating 
that we abandon it in favor of interim storage. There have been many 
proposals on interim storage, and I expect there will be more in the 
future, but we have interim storage right now at 121 locations in 39 
States. Make no mistake, interim storage is a temporary fix. It forces 
future generations to solve a problem that we ought to be resolving 
today. It is time to move forward with a permanent solution at Yucca 
Mountain.
  I have visited the site. I have a question for those who would want 
to abandon Yucca Mountain: If you can't build a repository in the 
middle of a mountain in the middle of a desert, where should it be?
  Let's think about this for a minute. The logical first step to 
finding a new repository site is to begin by reevaluating sites that 
have been considered before. I have a map--which is not here, but it 
will be here before I finish talking--showing the 37 States that DOE 
and its predecessor, the Energy Research Development Administration, 
have evaluated in the past based on the presence of favorable geologic 
formations. Those States are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, and it goes on and on, including my State of 
Oklahoma--37 of the 50 States. Now, 37 States have been considered as 
possible candidates for developing a repository. Does it really make 
sense to abandon a site where we have already invested 25 years and $8 
billion before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission even considers it, 
only to turn around and start from scratch, reevaluating sites in 37 
States? I don't think so.
  As the generation that has benefited from the use of nuclear energy 
and the resulting spent fuel, I believe it is incumbent upon us to 
manage spent fuel in a manner that is fair to current generations and 
generations to come, and the bill I am introducing now will do just 
that.
  DOE has indicated there are legislative provisions they need to 
complete the licensing process and begin construction of the repository 
our electricity consumers have paid some $27 billion for already. 
Senators Domenici and Craig introduced their NU-WAY bill, S. 37, which 
includes those provisions within the jurisdiction of Environment and 
Public Works. My bill includes the remaining DOE provisions that are 
within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
My bill goes beyond that. My bill will incorporate a flexible framework 
for future generations to apply their knowledge and innovations to 
improve the repository.
  The task at hand is to develop a safe repository using state-of-the-
art technology and cutting-edge science. The trouble is technology that 
is state of the art now won't be 50 years from now, much less 100 years 
from now. When you are making decisions on how to develop a facility 
that will be safe for up to a million years, we should not limit 
ourselves to science and technology that is available today. We should 
establish a flexible framework that incorporates technological advances 
into the facility design over time, one that allows our grandchildren 
and great-grandchildren to improve on the project we have started. In 
other words, we know that even though we are using the million-year 
benchmark, things are going to happen next year and the year after and 
the year after where we can have dramatic improvements. But the one 
thing we have to do is make the decision today--

[[Page 832]]

or keep the decision that has already been made.
  Several international bodies, including the National Academy of 
Sciences and the International Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, have advocated repository 
development in stages that will incorporate technological advances over 
time--just what we are talking about. The reformed licensing process in 
this bill integrates that concept into the current licensing process. 
My bill reforms the licensing process for authorizing construction, 
operation, and closure of the repository.
  I have to say we have come a long way already on this. When I became 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air within this committee, we had 
not had an oversight committee hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for 12 years. I don't care what the bureaucracy is, you have 
to have oversight. Well, we have come a long way.
  The threshold for approval of construction of a repository is based 
on a determination that the facility could be safely operated for 300 
years. During this time, a long-term science and technology program 
will be established to monitor and analyze the repository's performance 
and to conduct research into technologies that would improve the 
facility. The repository license will be amended every 50 years at a 
minimum to incorporate these improvements. During this phase, waste 
would remain retrievable so that future generations may recover 
valuable material or upgrade disposal systems, for example.
  When the DOE applies to permanently close the repository, it must 
then demonstrate compliance with EPA's radiation standard before 
ceasing operations at the site. Until then, the facility will be 
subject to the strict NRC regulation and oversight as an operating 
facility.
  Today, this program has been litigated into a corner. After several 
lawsuits, the EPA has responded by drafting a radiation standard for 1 
million years. That is right, based on what we know today, DOE must 
prove a reasonable expectation that Yucca Mountain will be safe for 1 
million years before DOE can even begin building a repository. This is 
a ridiculous and arrogant requirement that assumes we know right now 
all that will ever be known about the management of spent nuclear fuel 
and its impact on public health and safety. That compliance decision 
only makes sense when DOE decides to close the repository and cease 
operations. Until that time, repository enhancements reflecting 300 
years of scientific innovation will improve its protection of public 
health and safety and, I might add, the environment.
  Now, my approach is not about kicking the can down the road and 
forcing future generations to solve the problem. That is what concerns 
me about a lot of the things we do around here. My wife and I have 20 
kids and grandkids, and they are the ones who are going to be doing a 
lot of the things we should be doing today. My approach is about 
meeting a legal and moral obligation to build the best facility we can 
now, laying a solid foundation for future generations to improve it 
based on what they learn.
  I am confident we can build a repository that will protect public 
health and safety and the environment, but I am equally confident that 
50 years from now our grandchildren could build a better one. Fifty 
years from now, they will have learned a lot about the actual 
performance of repositories; something we can only predict right now, 
they will know by that time. Fifty years from now, the waste placed in 
the repository may require isolation for a few hundred years instead of 
a million.
  Lastly, my bill includes provisions necessary to support new nuclear 
plant construction. Before receiving a license, nuclear plants must 
meet two requirements. The first is that companies must sign a contract 
with DOE to provide for the disposal of spent fuel. My bill modifies 
those provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to make them current. 
The second is known as waste confidence. Nuclear plants must 
demonstrate there is confidence that the spent fuel will be managed and 
disposed of in a manner that protects health and safety. My bill 
clarifies that the repository program meets this requirement for 
disposal.
  So when a society takes on the task of building a complex, first-of-
a-kind facility envisioned to remain robust for a million years, it 
immediately raises questions about generational equity. As Senators, we 
must balance fairness to the future generations that haven't been born 
yet with fairness to the generations we currently represent. Finding 
that balance must be based on several principles, including protecting 
the health and safety of current generations; protecting the health and 
safety of future generations; minimizing the impact on the environment; 
meeting the need for reliable, cost-effective energy; meeting legal 
obligations; minimizing taxpayer liability; and the costs are covered 
by those who benefit from the waste. My bill adheres to these 
principles and strikes that balance.
  Rumors of Yucca Mountain's demise have been highly exaggerated. It is 
time we focus on developing the safest state-of-the-art repository we 
can, one step at a time. We owe it to our generation and to the 
generations that follow.
  I have to say, regarding all of the emphasis recently on the concern 
we have for the environment, nothing is cleaner, nothing has been shown 
better for the environment than this type of energy, which we have to 
have in our mix.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mrs. Clinton,  Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Obama, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Cardin, and Mr. Brown):
  S. 2554. A bill to restore, reaffirm, and reconcile legal rights and 
remedies under civil rights statutes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues 
Senators Leahy, Dodd, Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Mikulski, Akaka, Boxer, 
Feingold, Murray, Durbin, Schumer, Cantwell, Clinton, Lautenberg, 
Obama, Menendez, Cardin, and Brown in introducing the Civil Rights Act 
of 2008. This legislation is vital to realizing the full promise of our 
civil rights laws and labor laws to protect all of America's people.
  Civil rights is still the unfinished business of America. Prejudice, 
discrimination, and outright bigotry continue to limit the lives of 
large numbers of our people. Unfortunately, in recent years, the 
Supreme Court has rolled back some of the core statutory protections 
for civil rights and workers' rights. The Civil Rights Act of 2008 will 
strengthen existing civil rights protections and restore the bedrock 
principle that individuals may challenge all forms of discrimination in 
public services.
  It has long been clear that effective enforcement of civil rights and 
fair labor practices is possible only if individuals themselves are 
able to seek relief in court. Our legislation will strengthen existing 
protections in cases where the courts have let us down by narrowing 
individuals' right to demand accountability for discrimination.
  Key elements of our proposals will make it easier for working women 
to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. Our bill enhances 
protections against discrimination in federally funded services, and 
enacts needed safeguards for students who are harassed because of their 
national origin, gender, race, or disability.
  We make sure that victims of discrimination and unfair labor 
practices can receive meaningful damages where appropriate. Our 
legislation will also enable members of our Armed Forces to enforce 
their Federal right to be free from discrimination by States because of 
their military status.
  In addition, our legislation will ensure that older workers who 
suffer age discrimination are not denied the chance to seek relief 
because they

[[Page 833]]

work for a State government. It will also prevent employers from 
requiring workers to sign away their right to bring discrimination 
claims and fair labor claims in court, in order to obtain a job or keep 
a job.
  This bill is a needed step in restoring the effective remedies that 
our civil rights laws and fair labor laws must have in order to ensure 
accountability for discrimination. America will never be America until 
we do.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our great Nation was founded on the 
fundamental principle that all persons are created equal. We have long 
committed, and recommitted, ourselves to ensuring that all persons have 
the right to prosper through hard work and ingenuity. However, for many 
Americans, those rights still remain illusory. Today, we introduce a 
comprehensive bill to vindicate our founding principles and make the 
promise of equal opportunity in the workplace a reality for all 
Americans.
  I am proud to cosponsor the Civil Rights Act of 2008, and I thank 
Senator Ted Kennedy for his leadership in the Senate on this issue, and 
Representative John Lewis for his leadership in the House. I have been 
a long-time supporter of efforts to rid the workplace of unlawful 
discrimination, and I believe the Civil Rights Act of 2008 is critical 
to achieving that important goal. We must continue to fight to end all 
workplace discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual 
orientation.
  This legislation we are introducing today responds to several 
disappointing decisions by conservative courts. These court rulings 
have misconstrued congressional intent, and have had the effect of 
limiting important civil rights protections provided by Congress.
  A 2000 decision from the Supreme Court of the United States greatly 
restricted the capacity of workers who suffer age discrimination to sue 
for full relief. In Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, the Supreme 
Court ruled that, contrary to Congress's original intent, State 
employers do not have to provide back pay or other monetary damages 
when workers are discriminated against based on age. As a result, 
millions of State workers who are 40 or over lost the right to back 
pay. This bill would restore Congress's original intent that State 
employers give workers full relief for age discrimination, including 
back pay.
  The bill would clarify the standard for challenging employment 
practices that have an unjustified discriminatory impact on older 
workers. It would make clear that the standard of proof in cases 
alleging a disparate impact based on age is the same as in cases 
alleging a disparate impact based on race, color, gender, national 
origin, or religion.
  The bill would also restore the rights of victims of discrimination--
in the workplace or otherwise--to challenge practices that have a 
disparate impact on certain communities based on race, national origin, 
sex, age, or disability. Since the Supreme Court's decision 7 years ago 
in Alexander v. Sandoval, individuals can no longer challenge 
discrimination by entities that receive Federal funding without facing 
the high burden of proving purposeful discrimination.
  Currently, only the Federal Government has the right to challenge 
sophisticated forms of discrimination--by federally funded entities--
that fall disproportionately on certain minority groups. So if a State 
decided to administer a driver's license exam only in English, rather 
than administering the exam in multiple languages, a non-English 
speaker would be denied his or her right to have their day in court. 
This measure returns the Federal law to our original intentions by 
allowing individuals a right to challenge such practices:
  These added protections provide a significant step forward in the 
fulfillment of our goal to eliminate the footprint of unlawful 
discrimination from the workplace and broader society. Civil rights 
legislation over the last 44 years--including antidiscrimination in the 
workplace laws--represents some of Congress's greatest achievements. 
With the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, the Age 
Discrimination Act of 1975, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
Congress gave victims of discrimination a way to address the wrongs 
that they have suffered and put teeth into the sanctions faced by those 
who unlawfully discriminate against their victims.
  Despite these gains, efforts to eliminate bias from the workplace and 
larger society have been largely eroded by decisions from conservative 
jurists on the Supreme Court and other Federal courts. Year after year, 
conservative courts have rolled back rights by denying certain types of 
relief and taking certain tools--designed to fight intentional and 
sophisticated forms of workplace discrimination--from individual 
workers. This bill would reverse that rollback, and restore the rights 
of victims to have their day in court and to have meaningful remedies 
when those rights are violated.
  Discrimination on the basis of certain personal characteristics has 
no place in any workplace or in any State in America. It is long 
overdue for Congress to reinforce Americans' protections against bias 
in the workplace and eradicate barriers to full and equal participation 
in our society.
  The time for this bill is now. It is particularly important that, on 
the week our Nation observes and honors the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr., Congress has introduced this bill. We must remain vigilant 
in ensuring our precious civil rights, which generations of Americans 
fought and bled to protect, remain available for our children and 
grandchildren.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 2556. A bill to extend the provisions of the Protect America Act 
of 2007 for an additional 30 days; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2556

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007.

         Subsection (c) of section 6 of the Protect America Act of 
     2007 (Public Law 110-55; 121 Stat. 557; 50 U.S.C. 1803 note) 
     is amended by striking ``180'' and inserting ``210''.

                          ____________________