[Pages S3132-S3133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 473. A bill to establish as the nuclear energy policy of the
United States that no new civilian nuclear power reactors shall be
built until adequate waste emplacement capacity is available, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

the nuclear energy policy act of 1995

<bullet> Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I address a subject that
has received too little attention here. I'm talking about nuclear
waste. Since the Senate's last major action on this issue, 8 years have
passed, extremely little progress has been made, and more questions
have been raised than resolved. I propose an approach designed to keep
us from ending up embroiled in another nuclear waste crisis, and to
that end today I introduce the Nuclear Energy Policy Act of 1995.
The nuclear waste issue is coming to a boil throughout our country.
We all know that--and hear every day about--the Department of Energy's
difficulties in figuring out what to do with our high-level nuclear
wastes.
My own State of Minnesota has been at the forefront of this complex
issue. The legislature last year decided to allow some dry-cask storage
of high-level nuclear waste on the site of the Prairie Island nuclear
plant. During the debate, people were confused by the advertisements
and varying claims the different sides made about the permanency and
safety of such a waste dump, and about alternatives to nuclear power
electricity generation. And the Federal Government did not help
Minnesotans make that decision. In fact, while the battle was raging in
Minnesota, the Director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management was telling the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee that if Minnesota was to allow dry-casks at Prairie Island,
he could not guarantee that the waste would ever leave. And Minnesotans
were then and still are all too aware that if Yucca Mountain fails to
qualify as a permanent repository, there is no Federal policy for what
to do with the waste then.
And we also have no policy concerning future nuclear power plants. We
have no policy protecting us from a second nuclear waste crisis.
Today I introduce a bill that provides that policy. It should have
been the first law Congress passed upon entering the Atomic Age. It is
nothing short of common sense.
The bill I introduce today simply requires that we build no more
nuclear power plants until we have some place to permanently store the
waste they will generate. That's all there is to it.
There is nothing radical about this idea. It is not a partisan idea--
just look at the list of original cosponsors: two Democrats and two
Republicans. All this bill does is put the nuclear cart back behind the
horse, where it belongs.
It is true that no utility has yet stepped forward to site a new
nuclear power plant, and that is exactly why now is the time to pass
this law. Once utilities make a huge investment in siting, licensing,
and building new plants, the pressure upon Congress to provide a waste-
disposal option for them becomes immense. Unfortunately, if Congress
acts under such pressure, it might not come up with the best
resolution. Let's ensure that for future plants, we deal with the waste
issue in a deliberate way, free from pressure applied by utilities with
vested interests.
I want to make this point crystal clear: this bill would not impact
any existing plants. It would apply only to plants that would be
constructed after the date of enactment. It would, therefore, not apply
to renewal of existing licenses.
Here is the current commercial high-level nuclear waste situation in
a nutshell: we have DOE, by Congressional mandate, putting all of its
eggs in the Yucca Mountain basket. Even when Yucca Mountain is on-
line--if ever--it will be able to hold only the waste that has been and
will be generated by our current generation of reactors.
Where will the waste from a new generation of reactors be disposed
of? This bill requires that we answer this question before that second
generation is born.
This bill does not judge the deep geologic repository approach that
the DOE is currently pursuing. Nor does it make any mention of a
monitored retrievable storage facility. It only says that we ought to
always have enough permanent storage capacity to take care of the waste
that will be generated by a new nuclear power plant.
It is not enough to have a plan for adequate storage. It is also not
enough to have begun construction on a storage facility. It is not even
enough to have finished building but not yet licensed a storage
facility. The permanent storage facility must be sited, built, and
licensed for operation before construction may begin on a new plant
under this bill.
The bill is written that way because of the huge difference between
the
[[Page S3133]] planning and building of a waste facility on the one
hand, and its actually accepting waste on the other. With politically
charged issues like nuclear waste, it is wise to make absolutely
certain that there is water in the pool before jumping in, rather than
just turning on the spigot, taking a deep breath, and diving.
I urge Senators to support this important legislation. It is time to
use a little common sense.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 473

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Energy Policy Act of
1995''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) a national energy policy that allows the construction
and operation of new civilian nuclear power reactors may
serve to aggravate the problem of management of high-level
nuclear waste including spent nuclear fuel from the reactors;
(2) the creation of the nuclear waste has a direct effect
on the amount of nuclear waste transported in interstate
commerce; and
(3) it is not in the public interest, and it should not be
the policy of the United States, to allow the construction or
operation in the United States of any additional civilian
nuclear power reactor unless a facility for the permanent
emplacement of the waste exists with enough capacity for the
waste that the reactor is reasonably expected to generate in
its lifetime.

SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the United States
does not aggravate the nuclear waste problem by permitting
the creation of a new generation of civilian nuclear power
reactors without adequate capacity in a permanent waste
emplacement facility by establishing as the nuclear energy
policy of the United States that no new civilian nuclear
power reactor shall be built until adequate waste emplacement
capacity is available.

SEC. 4. NUCLEAR ENERGY POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Adequate Emplacement Facility.--No civilian nuclear
power reactor shall be built after the date of enactment of
this Act until--
(1) there is a facility licensed by the United States for
the permanent emplacement of high-level radioactive waste
(including spent nuclear fuel) from the reactor; and
(2) there is an adequate volume of capacity within the
emplacement facility to accept all of the high-level
radioactive waste (including spent nuclear fuel) that will be
generated by the reactor during the reasonably foreseeable
operational lifetime of the reactor.
(b) Generation of Spent Fuel.--At no time shall the
aggregate volume of high-level radioactive waste (including
spent nuclear fuel) that is generated, or reasonably expected
to be generated, by all civilian power reactors on which
federally authorized construction was begun after the date of
enactment of this Act exceed the total volume of capacity
available in facilities licensed by the United States for the
permanent emplacement of the high-level radioactive waste
(including spent nuclear fuel).

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.

Any affected citizen may enforce this Act by bringing a
civil action in the United States district court for the
district in which the person resides or in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.<bullet>
______

By Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. Graham):
S. 474. A bill to provide a veterans bill of rights; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.

the veterans bill of rights act of 1995

<bullet> Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today my colleague from Florida,
Senator Bob Graham, and I are introducing legislation to ensure that
all veterans have access to the same care and benefits provided by the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs regardless of race, ethnicity, sex,
religion, age, or geographic location.
Under the Veterans Bill of Rights Act, veterans in all States will
have equal access to such services as VA medical facilities, treatment,
and personnel; VA home loan guaranty assistance, job training
assistance, the administrative claims process, and equal treatment in
the handling of claims for benefits.
While equal access to these essential veterans benefits and services
is implied, in reality, it is not always the case. My home State of
Florida, for example, has the most 100 percent service-connected
disabled veterans in the United States. It is also home to the second
largest overall veterans population. Consequently, the demand for
services from the Department of Veterans Affairs is far greater than
other States. Florida's veterans population, however, has far less
access to medical care and other benefits than nearly every other
State. In fact, veterans in Florida are forced to wait months for
appointments at VA medical centers and outpatient clinics while
veterans in other States have no waiting lines. That's wrong, and it
must be changed.
Our Government made a contract with the men and women who bravely
served our country in times of need. The contract guaranteed that the
Federal Government would provide for them in return for their service.
Many who honored this contract were injured or disabled. The Federal
Government must live up to its' end of the contract by providing
equitable treatment regardless of where the veteran lives.
Veterans in many States, like those who reside and vacation in
Florida, do not receive their fair share of benefits. The Veterans Bill
of Rights corrects this inequity, and I strongly urge my colleagues to
cosponsor this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 474

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Bill of Rights
Act''.

SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall take any action
necessary to ensure that any rights and benefits provided
under title 38, United States Code, to veterans who qualify
for the rights and benefits--
(1) are made available to the veterans in any one State or
geographic location to the same extent as the rights and
benefits are made available to the veterans in any other
State or geographic location; and
(2) are not denied to any veteran on the basis of race,
ethnicity, sex, religion, age, or geographic location.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 101(20) of title 38,
United States Code.<bullet>

____________________