Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Also, I must say it is regrettable that the objection was heard on the earlier unanimous-consent request for a sense-of-the- Senate resolution in this area. I had hoped the Senate would be able to adopt the resolution in a timely manner, considering this is April 15, tax day, the day that most Americans have the worst feeling about in the entire year. This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and as a matter of fact I would assume that we could probably come together on language that would make it clear we feel that working Americans should have and deserve some tax relief and we need to do it today, not May 9, which is how long the American people have to work to pay their taxes for the year. Until May the 9th we all work for the Government, and then after that we get to keep the money we have been earning because we have paid off the tax burden that the American people are saddled with. I know of examples of young Americans who are working making $30,000 a year and their tax burden, when you add it all up, is probably 40 percent. Others, like my own young son who is a young entrepreneur, creating jobs, trying to help people get a job, keep a job, make a living, get some basic training, move on, are paying over 50 percent. We now have probably the highest tax burden on working Americans in history. It is very high. It is oppressive. With regard to the budget itself, as a matter of fact, Congress has only met the April 15 deadline for budget resolutions once in 15 years. That is not to say we should not do it. I had hoped we would meet that deadline this year, and I will work toward that goal in the future. One of the reasons we have not is because we have been working in good faith with the administration to see if we could come together on agreement of a package that would take us to balance by the year 2002 with tax relief for working Americans. I remind Senators, as a matter of fact, that there has been bipartisan support for tax relief for working Americans. Senator Breaux and Senator Lieberman have supported capital gains tax rate cuts. I think maybe the Senator from North Dakota was referring to that a moment ago. Senator Torricelli joined Senators Breaux, Nickles, Craig, and I in saying the estate tax, the death tax, clearly is one of the worst things we have in the Tax Code because it undermines the American dream of working and saving up something, producing something and leaving something to your children but now the tax law takes 44 percent, minimum, of a life's work above certain levels, once you get above the exemption, and up to 55 percent under certain conditions. We should raise that exemption for individuals, for small businesses, farmers, and ranchers, in the Senator's State, in the North Dakota area, in my State and all across America. So we should come up with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution today, April 15, that makes a commitment to reducing the burden. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why we need to do it, the Senator will recall we had the largest tax increase in history that was passed in the first year of the Clinton administration, 1993. We need to give back a little bit of that to families with children, and to the capital gains area where a lot of people are not selling or not being able to get the benefit of their lands or stocks or what they own because they do not want to have to pay the excessive capital gains tax rate. But without saying OK, you did it, we did it, they did it, what I am advocating this afternoon is we get a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in a bipartisan way in which we agree that the American people deserve some relief. And that is what the title says here--declare the need for tax relief for the American people and condemn the abuses of power and authority committed by the Internal Revenue Service. We have already done that today. We have already said that their snooping around through files is wrong, and we put some penalties in the law for that. We worked together on that one. So it seems that while there has been objection heard on both sides I guess so far this afternoon, I think we ought to see if we cannot come to an agreement on something where the American people can say, yes, look, they really are committed to doing their job in controlling the rate of growth in the Federal Government and giving some tax relief to the American people. So I would be constrained at this point to object to that unanimous-consent request.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes following the weekly party luncheons that there be a period for the transaction of morning business during which Senators will address the significance of April 15, 1997, Tax Day.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that, after the ordered stacked votes tomorrow morning, there then be a period of morning business until the hour of 12:30 with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each with Senator Daschle, or his designee, under the control of the time from 10:30 until 11:30 with 10 minutes of that time set aside for Senator Conrad and Senator Thomas, or his designee, in control of time from 11:30 to 12:30. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 15. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate immediately resume consideration of S. 104, the Nuclear Policy Act as under previous order.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following third reading of S. 104, there be 10 minutes for debate with 5 minutes under the control of Senator Murkowski and the remaining 5 minutes divided between Senators Reid and Bryan, and, immediately following that 10 minutes, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of S. 104, as amended.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, in 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and tasked the Federal Government with the handling of spent nuclear waste from commercial powerplants and military usages. Despite the clear congressional intent of the act, the Department of Energy has avoided and delayed positive action regarding temporary and permanent storage of nuclear waste. The 1982 act called for a permanent waste repository to be built by 1998. But DOE now says the earliest a repository will be ready is 2010. Given 15 years of relative inaction, this delay and avoidance history does not engender faith that the current administration will address this issue in a timely manner absent congressional action. Regrettably, the country that harnessed energy of the atom can't seem to accomplish the basic task of storing and disposing of waste. The Federal Government promised nuclear energy consumers that it would develop a plan to dispose of the waste. Congress obligated the Federal Government to begin the waste collection program in 1998. A Federal court of appeals ruled in 1996 that this is a binding legal obligation. The Federal Government, therefore, has a binding, legal obligation to pick up the nuclear waste scattered throughout the Nation's coastal communities, farm lands and industrial centers. It must remove used nuclear fuel from 34 States that now store used fuel at nuclear powerplants that were never intended to hold the waste until the end of time. Due to the foresight of 15 Senators who reported the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and in particularly its architects, Senators Frank Murkowski and Larry Craig, we are here today to put this program back on the road to recovering used fuel from commercial powerplants and DOE facilities that store high-level radioactive waste from defense-related projects. In 30 years of operation, that waste has amounted to a relatively small sum, given that nuclear electricity powers 65 million homes at any given time in the United States. All of the used fuel produced from nuclear electricity during its history, if stacked end to end, would span a football field to a depth of almost 4 yards. While a permanent repository is the ultimate requirement, no one can legitimately deny that an interim storage facility is an absolute necessity. Let's talk for a minute about the cost to the public. America's electricity consumers have relied upon the availability of nuclear energy. But such consumption did not occur in a vacuum and without cost. These energy users have already committed nearly $13 billion to pay for the Federal waste disposal program--a staggering figure considering there's nothing to show for such costs to date except for a few feasibility studies. The bill continues to climb, even as the Department of Energy says it will be unable to start taking used fuel by the 1998 deadline. Some States are so frustrated by the Federal Government's failure on this program that they are considering withholding their share of the more than $600 million a year that flows from electricity customers to the U.S. Treasury. How can we blame them? The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, would put an end to bureaucratic delays and spiraling program costs by integrating three components: First, a Federal storage facility for centralized management of used fuel until a permanent disposal facility is ready; Second, a continued scientific study on a permanent disposal site at Yucca Mountain, NV; and, Third, a transportation network to move used fuel safely from nuclear powerplants, research reactors and DOE sites to storage and disposal facilities. It has been argued by some that we cannot safely transport spent or used nuclear fuel waste from nuclear powerplants to a central storage facility. Certainly the naysayers recognize that we do not intend to throw used nuclear fuel on a truckbed or in a boxcar. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rigid standards about the types of containers it permits nuclear waste to be transported in. All such containers must receive their stamp of approval. Before such approval, containers must undergo an onslaught of tests without breaking open and allowing radiation to escape. They must successively withstand a 30- foot drop onto a flat, unyielding surface; a drop of 40 inches onto a steel spike; and a fully engulfing fire burning at 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit. For proof of the canisters' performance, look at the safety record of the 2,400-plus shipments of used nuclear fuel that have taken place in the United States during the past three decades. Not one used fuel container has ever ruptured during those trips. Radioactive fuel has never been released, harmed the environment, or caused any injury or public safety threat. By shipping to a single storage spot, we are reducing the level of risk. A remote, desert location would provide an added margin of safety. Logically, used fuel can be managed more efficiently and effectively at an individual site than it can at multiple sites. S. 104 goes further to alleviate safety concerns by ensuring that Federal funds and resources are channeled to State and tribal officials for public safety training to handle and manage used fuel long before the first shipment enters their area. Many of my colleagues know what it's like to have nuclear waste sitting in their backyards. Pennsylvania, for instance, currently stores 2,920 metric tons of uranium at nine nuclear powerplant sites next door to dairy farms and the fourth largest apple producing region in the country. Failure to adopt S. 104 would be irresponsible in the face of current storage arrangements and limitations. By passing S. 104, my colleagues can prove our resolve to end the Nation's nuclear waste dilemma. Nuclear waste disposal must not become mired in petty politics. There is no better time to act on nuclear waste disposal than now. It's the only prudent and economic course. The greater delay, the greater the costs to taxpayers and electricity consumers. A new user fee mechanism proposed in S. 104 would continue funding nuclear waste disposal on a self-financing basis and adapt the nuclear waste fund to recent changes in the Federal budget process. Funds originally intended to cover the cost of the nuclear waste disposal program have been diverted elsewhere to offset deficit spending. Detouring waste fund payments may help counteract the deficit, but it does little to further the Federal Government's obligation to managed used nuclear fuel. In reality, even though consumers have committed more than $13 billion to the nuclear waste fund, the Energy Department has spent only about $6 billion. That's about 30 cents on the dollar being spent on the waste program. In America, we live under the premise that you ought to get what you pay for. Our constituents aren't getting what they paid for. Inaction on the part of Congress in ordering the Energy Department to act could force other complications, including whether State utility regulators will permit additional on-site storage. In Minnesota, the State legislature was forced to settle the issue and established new, high-priced requirements for the utility to meet before securing more waste containers. That costly burden may force utilities to consider shutting down nuclear plants prematurely. Is nuclear electricity to become a casualty of misguided DOE planning or continue, through this legislation, to be a reliable, clean energy source. Don't forget that this legislation isn't just about finding a suitable spot for commercial nuclear waste. States like Idaho must worry about permanent storage for high-level radioactive waste from defense-related activities and used fuel from research reactors. Idaho is host to a wide range of defense facility wastes at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Cleanup of INEL is likely to take decades. But how does the Federal Government plan to clean up this site if it has no place to dispose of the high-level waste? Leaving it in the vicinity of the Snake River and Sun Valley hardly qualifies as proper action on the part of the Federal Government. That's why S. 104 calls for DOE to factor those types of used fuel into its capacity at an interim storage facility and ultimately at a permanent underground repository. This amount of waste from defense activities, naval reactors, universities, and foreign research reactors, at a minimum, must be no less than 5 percent of total acceptance during a given year. At Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, the Department of Energy collects fuel from naval and research reactor projects like Connecticut, and Illinois' Argonne National Laboratory, New Mexico, Maryland, Colorado, and California's Aerotest and General Atomics sites. DOE is also sending used nuclear fuel to Idaho from foreign research reactors. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory will accept used fuel assemblies from the Pacific rim this year, even though the Federal Government will not commit to taking used fuel from commercial reactors as it is obligated to next year. And while our taxpaying, electricity consuming constituents are shouldering the entire burden to develop a national waste disposal plan, the Department of Energy and the Clinton administration are willing to have our constituents assume the full cost of transporting and managing the spent nuclear fuel from foreign countries with research reactors that can't afford to pay for the service. Why should we be debating this storage issue with Clinton administration opposition when the Department of Energy's position is to help foreign countries with their nuclear waste storage problems before that Department is willing to address our country's own storage problems in a meaningful way? Most importantly, perhaps, let me say that this legislation is without question the most environmentally sound bill this Congress has the opportunity to approve. S. 104 fully complies with the National Environmental Policy Act. It calls for environmental impact statements for an interim central storage facility and a permanent, underground repository. Judicial review of both impact statements ensures acceptable health and safety standards. It is designed to choose transportation routes that minimize impact on the environment and population centers--by avoiding densely populated areas and shipping only along specified rail and highway routes. States can also participate in the route selection. By finding a suitable place to store nuclear waste, it ensures that Americans will continue to enjoy clean, cost-effective nuclear electricity that is part of the U.S. diverse blend of energy sources. Since 1973, our Nation's nuclear powerplants have reduce the cumulative amount of emissions from carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by 1.9 billion metric tons of carbon. In fact, it many reasonably be asserted that S. 104 furthers the Clinton administration's climate change action plan, which is intended to achieve a Presidentially imposed U.S. limit to carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. That's a reduction of 108 million metric tons of carbon. Madam President, I would like to address our attempts to work with the Clinton administration and the Department of Energy to reach an agreement on how we can expeditiously proceed to resolve this problem. The plain fact of the matter is that little progress was made during the past 4 years, and the current position of the administration holds little hope for much progress during the President's current term of office. The administration and the Department of Energy continue to only pay lip service to the problem without offering any meaningful alternative to the solutions proposed in S. 104. S. 104 is the fulfillment of the promise of Congress to the American people and will begin the process of putting in place storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel. We must continue to find solutions to potential problems created in the 20th century before we begin to build bridges to the 21st century. In preparing for our future, we must clearly remained focused on the present. The fact is, simply stated, that this country has 109 nuclear powerplants operating and providing more than 20 percent of our electricity in a process that produces no harmful air emissions. We have the responsibility, in return, to ensure that the nuclear waste from those facilities and from defense-related activities is safeguarded and managed in a reasonable and reliable manner. This isn't a decision to impose upon future generations. It is a decision that is our responsibility to make now. In closing, I would like to commend Senators Murkowski, Craig, and all those who cosponsored and worked for the passage of S. 104 for their diligence in pressing forward and recognizing the importance of achieving bipartisan support to enact meaningful reform for the benefit of the American people. Finally it appears that we are going to pass the legislation which would carry out the intent of that act. If we do not, it would be another 15 years before we would get a final result and billions more dollars. We need to act on this legislation. I am assured that the House is going to act this year, and we can send this legislation to the President for his hoped-for signature or his veto, if he feels so inclined. But I think it is a very important issue. This is in my opinion the most important environmental issue that faces this country. We have nuclear waste in temporary sites in cooling ponds in States, buried in South Carolina, Vermont, in my own State of Mississippi, Idaho, Minnesota, and from the shores of the Atlantic to the shores of the Pacific. This waste is there and we need action. We need it now. This legislation has been carefully drafted. The concerns that have been raised about transportation are properly addressed here. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this very carefully crafted legislation.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 12 noon to accommodate a number of Senators who have requested time to speak. By consent, at 12 noon the Senate will resume consideration of S. 104, the Nuclear Policy Act. And by previous consent, all remaining amendments that are in order to the bill must be offered and debated today. As previously announced, no rollcall votes will occur during today's session. Any votes ordered on the amendments will be stacked, and the votes will occur at 9 a.m. on Tuesday. I emphasize that for all Senators' information. The votes will begin at 9 a.m., and there will be a minimum I guess of three votes-- probably three votes at that hour. Therefore, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 104 at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, and Senators can expect to begin voting at that time. Senators can expect rollcall votes on Tuesday morning, and then following the disposition of this bill the Senate may turn to the Alexis Herman nomination to be the head of the Department of Labor, or legislation dealing with the chemical weapons ban. Now, as it stands at this time we probably will not vote on the Alexis Herman nomination until Wednesday. We hope to get an agreement, or if we do not get an agreement our intent is to proceed, if we can, to S. 495, the Kyl-Helms and others bill, on Thursday relating to the chemical weapons issue. This is the bill. This is not the convention. And I would expect that that would take up most of the time on Thursday. As always, we will notify Senators of the schedule and when anticipated votes will occur. Again I would like to thank Senators on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the issue for their cooperation on the Nuclear Policy Act. I think we are doing the right thing by getting this legislation completed without undue delay, and voting on it so that the House can act. And I understand they do plan to act on this legislation within the next 30 days. We hope to get it to the President and hope for his signature.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, also, I want to remind Senators again that the American people are watching and waiting to see what we have to say, in fact, about what we are going to do about taxes in this country. Tomorrow is the day that we all have to pay the taxes we owe. And the feeling I had gotten when I was home is that people are very upset with the tax burden, both the size of it, how much is taken from them in taxes, the variety of ways that it is taken from them, the unfairness in what we take away from families with children that could do more for and want to do more for their children. Also it discourages savings and investments in the economy. And we even tax death. It is time for us to do something about it. And this is the week to do it. We will have a number of comments and some votes tomorrow, in fact, on abuses at the Internal Revenue Service. When you have a computer system that has had millions of bucks spent on it that does not work, you have to ask, you know, how long can this go on, because we have provided millions of dollars. And also when you see that people are being fired for snooping through taxpayers' files, that is absolutely an unacceptable practice. So we need to stop the abuses. Then we need to give some tax relief. And then we need to reform the entire system. At a very minimum, this year we should give working people of this country some tax relief. And it is my hope we will be able to do that. We are going to be working with the administration, with the White House specifically, this week to see if we can come to an agreement on the tax cuts that we will have in our budget for this year. I hope we can reach an agreement. If we cannot, we will just have to proceed to a process that would allow us to get to a vote on this important issue this year. Mr. President, I see no Senator seeking recognition at this time. I do believe that a couple Senators are on the way. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow at 9 a.m. the Senate will resume consideration of the Nuclear Policy Act. Under the order, following 3 minutes of debate prior to the rollcall vote we will proceed to a series of rollcall votes on or in relation to the pending amendments to that legislation. Senators can therefore expect approximately three rollcall votes beginning tomorrow morning shortly after 9 a.m. I believe there are 3 minutes between each vote also. It is our intention to introduce and possibly conduct a rollcall vote with respect to legislation regarding unauthorized access by the IRS to tax records. There has been a bipartisan effort to get this legislation developed. We hope to have that cleared and to get a recorded vote on it tomorrow. It is something I know the American people feel very strongly about. There has been a lot of attention given to the fact that IRS employees have been fired because of this unauthorized access to these IRS records. It also will give us an opportunity tomorrow to talk about other abuses at the IRS. So Senators can expect additional votes on Tuesday after the policy luncheons--at least one and hopefully two more votes tomorrow.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining amendments in order to the committee substitute to S. 104 be the following, and I further ask unanimous consent that the Domenici and Wellstone amendment No. 30 is limited to relevant second-degree amendments; one Domenici amendment regarding points of order, amendment No. 38; two Wellstone amendments, amendments numbered 29 and 30; and one Bingaman amendment, numbered 31. I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the above-mentioned amendments, the committee substitute be agreed to, and the bill be advanced to third reading. I further ask unanimous consent that the votes occur in a stacked sequence, beginning at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 15, with 3 minutes of debate between each vote, and all votes following the first vote be limited to 10 minutes in length. I further ask unanimous consent that all amendments must be offered and debated prior to the close of business on Monday, April 14, and limited to 1 hour each, to be equally divided in the usual form, and any second-degree amendments be limited to the same time restraints as the first-degree amendments. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments dealing with the storage of nuclear materials on Palymra Atoll, Wake Atoll or any other U.S. Pacific island be in order.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I amend that request to say that we would have 3 minutes prior to the first vote and between the successive votes, yes.

Mr. LOTT. And, further, that all votes be concluded by a specific time?

Mr. LOTT. That the vote begin.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, is this under a reservation, reserving the right to object? Before I respond to that, Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the Democratic leader, to make sure I understand again what he is saying, is that all debate will be concluded at 6:30.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. I want to pursue the details of what would be left. It is my intent that we have no more than three votes stacked on Tuesday morning. We will need to work out the final agreement. I have no objection to these two votes at 6:45.

Mr. LOTT. Then that would only leave for consideration next week two amendments on Monday, and we would have stacked votes. Are we ready to enter into this agreement?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me make sure I understand what the chairman and the Democratic leader are working on here. We have two remaining votes here, and we would stack those at 6:45. Is the recommendation both of those votes at 6:45?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd for yielding at this time and allowing me to complete these agreements. I yield the floor.