Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005

Mr. President, today, Senator Cochran, Senator Carper, Senator Hutchison, and I are introducing the American Center for CURES Act of 2005, which would establish the American Center for Cures, within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of the Center would be to bring promising and novel diagnostics, therapies, drugs, and tools to treat disease faster to the public.

We continue to face significant health challenges. In the US today, chronic diseases account for 7 out of 10 deaths, with the major killers being heart attack, cancer and stroke. Seventy percent of the $1.7 trillion dollars we spend on healthcare each year goes to chronic disease care. Around the world, HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria kill 4, 3, and 2 million people a year. On the horizon are emerging manmade and natural threats such as SARS, flu and bioterrorism. There are other diseases that we need better treatments and cures for, but that we do not devote enough attention to. Diseases of social stigma, such as depression, which is the most frequent reason people visit their physician, and seizure disorder, which is the primary neurological disorder in children, are often neglected. We have bacteria growing and spreading in our hospitals that do not respond to our antibiotic supply. These are the health challenges facing us in the 21st century.

Fortunately, the United States has no equal in the biomedical sciences. This is due in large part to our nation's premier biomedical research investment the--NIH, which receives $28 billion per year after a doubling of their budget of $14 billion from 1998 to 2003. The NIH is comprised of 27 major institutes and centers, leading the way for the world in cancer, cardiovascular, infectious disease and allergy advancements for health promotion and relief from the burdens of disease. US biomedical advances are also due to our dynamic biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors.

In our search for answers to our pressing health problems, the NIH has grown in the number of Institutes and Centers and in funding. At the same time, Congress and others have wanted to ensure that we are building on NIH's strengths to respond to complex health problems requiring interdisciplinary and collaborative work. Therefore, Congress commissioned the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report, ``Enhancing the Vitality of the National Institutes of Health: Organizational Change to Meet New Challenges'', that examined whether and how we could optimize the NIH's organizational structure to meet our next set of health challenges.

The report stated that ``no organization as important as NIH should remain frozen in organization space''. At the same time, the report cautioned that any changes in organizational structure to achieve greater progress in chronic and emerging diseases were not without some difficulty and risk. The NAS report made a number of recommendations and our CURES legislation addresses the six major points.

First, CURES seeks to strengthen the clinical research process by streamlining the clinical trials process by creating Centralized Internal Review Boards (CIRB). CIRB's would focus on simplifying the human subjects review processes for multi-institutional clinical trials. CURES also significantly augments current NIH investments to train the clinical research workforce of the future, and provides additional funding for multidisciplinary teams of researchers examining issues of quality and design of clinical trials. We need to continue to bring safe and effective diagnostics and therapeutics, but more efficiently.

Secondly, our proposal enhances and increases trans-NIH strategic planning and funding. Currently, the NIH's 27 Centers and Institutes each have their own directors and budgets and thus, operate independently. The resulting structural and organizational stovepipes are limited in their ability to capitalize on the NIH's collective research capacity to address complex problems using the expertise of multiple fields. For example, the problem of diabetic retinopathy could be tackled by researchers in the Institutes of the Eye, Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney disease, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and Allergy Immunology and Infectious disease. However, there are few mechanisms for such trans-Institute initiatives that could lead to a cure or treatment. To address this problem, CURES has created multiple funding mechanisms for trans-Institute research and cross-fertilization of ideas. Strategic planning and prioritizing disease research is also integral to achieving progress more quickly. Therefore, the American Center for CURES Act would establish a CURES council, comprised of key health stakeholders to produce a translational research agenda for the Center based on research breakthroughs and areas of health need.

Thirdly, the American Center for CURES Act of 2005 strengthens the Office of the NIH Director. Our legislation emphasizes the need for greater budgetary support and flexibility in the area of translational research. This follows much of the NIH Director's current efforts with the NIH Roadmap. Our legislation further supports the spirit of the NIH Roadmap with organizational and funding commitments that bring translational research investment to a necessary and appropriate scale, which has not been the case to date. The NIH Director, with the CURES Advisory Council, would play a key role in these efforts by recommending appointees for the Director of the American Center for CURES to the President. The NIH Director will also be a co-chair of the Center's Council and have a leading role in setting the research and funding priorities for translational research projects at the NIH. The NIH Director will also head other initiatives outlined in the legislation, such as launching a publicly accessible electronic database for all published NIH funded research.

Fourth, our legislation creates a Director's Special Projects Program, called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA). The NAS committee recommended the creation of a program to support high-risk, high-potential payoff research. The Department of Defense has had significant success with its Defense Advanced Research Program Agency (DARPA), where a group of expert portfolio managers invest in and oversee innovative, multidisciplinary, collaborative projects to advance specific fields or to develop needed technologies. DARPA has lead to the creation of stealth technology, satellite surveillance, lasers, internet, and e-mail. Based on this model, HARPA would be housed within the Center and would help lead breakthrough advances using a translational ``challenge model'' in biomedical research. Breakthroughs could include a vaccine or other treatment against HIV or genetic probes pivotal to the elucidation of disease producing genes. HARPA would also be the key funding mechanism for trans-Institute research to prioritize and foster collaborative and trans-Institute research initiatives.

Fifth, the NAS report recommended that the NIH intramural research program be more unique, innovative, and risk-taking. In response, CURES creates an Office of Intramural Risk Mapping, within the Office of Technology Transfer, which will oversee NIH's intramural research programs to help assure they are complementary to extramural and private sector research. The Office will also ensure that intramural research is also innovative and risk-taking to produce more novel and promising biomedical breakthroughs. The office will also make funds available to trans-Institute and center initiatives that focus on health risk analysis and corresponding scientific risk opportunity.

Sixth, our legislation addresses the NAS report recommendation to standardize data and information management systems. The report was clear that the NIH must increase its capacity for data gathering and reporting to meet its obligations ``. . . for effective management, accountability, and transparency.'' Cures seek to improve the sharing of information by providing funding to the National Library of Medicine to create and maintain a publicly accessible database of all publications resulting from NIH-funded research and by establishing a national electronic registry and results database to increase enrollment in public and private clinical trials and to share

efficacy and safety outcomes emanating from NIH-funded clinical research endeavors. Cures focuses on the need to expand the NLM facilities according to the demands of new scientific discoveries and fields, especially within the areas of genomics and proteinomics.

In addition to the NAS report recommendations, other changes in the biomedical research landscape demand more targeted investments in promising and novel treatments. Our current response to research on important health problems is arguably dichotomous. We invest public money into the NIH or we hope the private market will produce essential drugs and tools. However, there needs to be greater collaboration between the private and public sectors. Private sector investment in biomedical research has grown to approximately $46 billion per year-- far more than our public sector investment in NIH. For new and effective therapies to become available, we need to build better public and private partnerships. Cures includes key provisions to accomplish this. Cures promotes the innovative efforts of small to medium sized biotechnology and bioengineering firms who require additional support in key traditionally under-funded stages of product development--the so called R&D ``Valley of Death.'' It expands the NIH's current small business support and rapid access to interventional development programs to move basic science through the product development pipeline faster. These programs would facilitate NIH partnerships with private industry in the preclinical stage of the R&D process so as to formulate a plan for health research translation and commercialization from the outset. Additionally, our legislation would move the NIH's Office of Technology Transfer into the American Center for Cures, where it would survey research being conducted in the private and public sectors to avoid duplication, target promising research investments, and broker more flexible and productive agreements for licensing and patents between the public and private sectors. The HARPA entity within the center is also designed to promote public-private joint R&D efforts.

Today, we are proposing the establishment of the American Center for Cures, whose mission would be to promote more rapid translation of public and private research into therapies, diagnostics and tools, which can effectively treat and possibly cure diseases of critical importance to domestic and global health. With more targeted investment in translating our basic science research into diagnostics and therapeutics, we hope to bring more tangible health benefits to Americans and people all over the world.

I ask unanimous consent that explanatory materials on the legislation including, ``Short Summary of the American Center for CURES Act of 2005,'' ``Explanation of How the American Center for CURES Act of 2005 Addresses the Findings of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences Report: `Enhancing the Vitality of the National Institutes of Health: Organizational Change to Meet New Challenges','' ``Section by Section Summary of the American Center for CURES Act of 2005,'' the full text of the legislation, and ``Quotes in Support of the American Center for CURES Act of 2005'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about a bill I will be introducing that rights a wrong and corrects a terrible injustice. I am introducing legislation called the Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act of 2005. This is legislation was inspired by a young man from the State of Maryland, who was in the Army, had a green card, was serving this country, though not a citizen, and was killed while serving in Iraq. He was killed by a roadside bomb on his way to be fingerprinted, on his way to become a U.S. citizen. He died on his way to become a U.S. citizen because of the failed and flawed information he was given by our immigration system.

He was a terrific young man, who came to this country when he was fifteen from Trinidad. He joined his mother here in the U.S. and wanted so much to be part of this country. He wanted to serve this country and so he joined the ROTC when he was in high school. In fact, Randallstown High School has one of the best high school ROTCs programs that Maryland has. After graduation, he then joined the Army and off he went to train to serve this country.

He was killed by the botched bureaucracy of the U.S. Government, by their incompetence, by their indifference, by their ineptitude; and this is absolutely inexcusable. Every military death in Iraq is a tragedy, but this one did not need to happen. I am going to tell you a little bit about him and then tell you what happened.

As I said, he graduated from high school and he decided to join the Army with hopes that he would go back to school. In the Army he was a generator mechanic assigned to a heavy combat battalion. His job was to keep that battalion running. All he wanted was to do a good job, help his buddies stay alive, stay alive himself, defend what we were doing in Iraq and, along the way, become an American citizen and come back home and resume his life. He had been trying to become an American citizen for a while. He started working on it when he joined the Army.

Mr. President, because I know of your keen interest in national security, I understand that you know when you join the Army you are fingerprinted and a background check is run. We just don't let anybody join the United States Army. You can't get in if you are a drug dealer, if you have an extensive criminal record or if you would be a threat to the security of the United States. You can't get in if there is even a hint that you might be connected to a terrorist organization. So Kendell Frederick was accepted into the Army after all these security checks were run and his background was vetted. Then he sent in his citizenship application but, guess what, he checked the wrong box. What did that mean? Here he was, training for war, packing up to go to Iraq, saying goodbye to his mom, his brother and two sisters and in the middle of this he checked the wrong box saying that he was not in the military. So his application was derailed, not once but three different times.

The first time was after his mother checked the correct box saying that Kendell was in the military. Immigration sent the application to the wrong office, not the one that handles military applications that is on a fast track but the general one where all the applications are all stacked up. Second, Immigration rejected the fingerprints that were sent from the military. There was no explanation. His mother did not know why the fingerprints had been rejected. He had sent in the paperwork from Iraq. As I said, Kendell had already been fingerprinted, had already had his background vetted when he joined the military. So here was a guy who had been fingerprinted and cleared to join the military. The Army had said, you are OK, Kendell. He had an FBI background check run. The FBI said you are OK, Kendell. The Army wants somebody like you. But when he tried to get through Immigration, they said no, the fingerprints he had taken when he joined the military and even the fingerprints he sent into immigration were not enough.

Finally, when his mother called this 1-800 Immigration number--you try to call that number--she got no help. It is like trying to make a call from the Superdome in the middle of Katrina. You are not going to get help going to get the right answer. His mother called that number. They told his mother that he had to return from Baghdad and go to Baltimore to get his fingerprints. His mother got on the phone again, because he can't call from Baghdad--he is being shot at, he is trying to defend himself and the troops of the United States of America--so he was a little busy, couldn't afford to get a busy signal from Immigration.

When his mother called and said, ``My boy is in Baghdad,'' Immigration at the 800 number told her, there was nothing they could do. They didn't even know their own rules. They didn't know their own system. They didn't know their own laws. Immigration was wrong. They gave his mother the wrong information.

So here is Kendell, still keeping in touch, still trying to do his job, trying to get his fingerprints taken to become a U.S. citizen. Finally, there was an arrangement made. His staff sergeant came to his rescue and made arrangements for him to be fingerprinted at a nearby air base so he could complete this application. On October 19, with the help of his staff sergeant, he was traveling in a convoy to get his fingerprints. He didn't usually go in convoys, but that day he was on that convoy to get his fingerprints to become an American citizen--to compensate for the botched mistakes of Immigration--and on his way a roadside bomb killed him.

They told his mother that immigration would give Kendell U.S. citizenship. They granted his citizenship a week after he died. He was buried at Arlington, as he should have been. He was trying to do the right thing, yet he was given the wrong information.

As I said, his staff sergeant tried to help him, his mother tried to help him, but the system, the immigration system, failed him time and time again.

When I called his mother--and I try to call all the families of our military from Maryland who die; some I reach, some I do not--I spoke to his mother. She said to me that she did not want another mother to go through what she went through, to go through what her son went through. Service members and their moms and dads should not be worrying about what box to check, where the fingerprints are, et cetera. She said Immigration should know their own rules. When we explained to her the rules of Immigration, that he should have been fast tracked, that these fingerprints should have been OK, that he did not have to pay a $400 fee, she said, ``Nobody told me that.'' Every time I called, I got different information.

I am introducing legislation today to prevent this from happening again. His mother asked me to introduce legislation, and she asked me to call it the

Kendell Frederick law. I am doing that today, and over in the House Congressman Elijah Cummings is doing the same thing. We made this promise when we stood in the church, a small, humble church in an African-American community in Baltimore. We made this pledge to his mother that we would do this for her and we are here today to do just that.

The legislation I am introducing today makes it easier for military servicemembers to become citizens. The provisions cut through the redtape. It requires Immigration to use the fingerprints the military takes when the person enlists in the military.

It requires the creation of a military citizen advocate to inform the servicemembers about the citizenship process and help with the application.

It also means they won't leave boot camp unless they are absolutely apprised of all of the rules and all of the regulations about how to apply to become a U.S. citizen.

The very process they have to go through to join the military, fingerprinting and FBI background check, should be good enough. Because you see, deep down inside, we believe that if you are good enough to fight for this country, you are good enough to become a citizen of this country.

There is a pileup of 3,000 people with green cards fighting in our military today who have applied to become American citizens. You should not have to be standing in that kind of line. We are not saying let anyone become a U.S. citizen, but these are men and women who joined the military and fighting for this country. They have a green card, they have been fingerprinted, and they have passed an FBI check. Why do they have to go through it all over again?

We are passing a law that would stop this needless bureaucracy, and we are establishing a special 800 number for our military and their families.

We talk a lot about standing up for our troops, and we certainly should stand up for our troops. This means we should stand up for them and enable them to follow their dreams. They are certainly standing up for us.

Today, we introduced the Kendell Frederick bill to make sure that anyone in the military who wants to be a U.S. citizen, who has a green card, and who passed the fingerprint checks will be able to do so quickly and easily. If they are willing to fight for America and die for America, they should be able to become an American citizen.

I will be circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' to my colleagues to join it. I hope we can pass this legislation on a bipartisan basis so that as men and women such as Kendell Frederick fight for freedom, we ensure that their memory is not in vain.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today for Senator Ensign, Senator Bennett and myself to introduce a bill to increase the safety and security of our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure, The Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005.

I am convinced that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump will never be built because of the myriad of scientific, safety and technical problems in which it is mired. It simply is neither safe nor secure, as illustrated by several significant scientific, legal, and budgetary setbacks this past year.

Here are some of the highlights: On July 9, 2004, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the people of Nevada in a lawsuit to stop the proposed Yucca Mountain project. The court decided that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's radiation standard for the site was not stringent enough to protect the public from the significant risks associated with nuclear waste and failed to follow the recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences.

On August 31, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain document database, saying it had failed to make public many of the documents that it had in its possession. The Board said, ``Given the 15 years that DOE had to gather, review, and produce its documents and the fact that the date of production, and the incompleteness of its privilege review, it is clear to us that DOE did not meet its obligation, in good faith, to make all reasonable efforts to make all documentary materials available.''

On October 4, 2004, the DOE Inspector General found that DOE has given away more than $500,000 worth of Yucca Mountain construction equipment in 2003. Half a million dollars is a tremendous amount of the people's money to waste.

On November 22, 2004, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board said DOE does not have a plan for safely transporting nuclear waste to the proposed repository.

On February 7, 2005, Dr. Margaret Chu, most recently the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said the project would be delayed until 2012 and that DOE's license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would not be filed until December 2005, delayed a year. To date, the license application still has not been filed.

On February 8, 2005, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have called for hearings to review concerns over the corrosion of the titanium drip shields that are intended to keep water from leaking into casks inside Yucca Mountain.

On February 28, 2005, a DOE official said the proposed Yucca Mountain repository may not open until 2015.

On March 16, 2005, DOE revealed that documents and models about water infiltration at Yucca Mountain, a key issue, had been falsified.

On July 18, 2005, DOE announced that it will use dedicated train service for its rail transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to Yucca Mountain, a shift from two decades of administration policy that ignores the fact that about one-third of reactor sites are not capable of shipping fuel by rail.

On August 22, 2005, EPA published its revised radiation standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste dump. These standards are wholly inadequate, do not meet the law's requirements and do not protect public health and safety.

On October 13, 2005, DOE began a series of actions to overhaul the Yucca Mountain project. We are going back to the drawing board, frequently revisiting proposals discarded decades ago as unsafe or unworkable.

On October 25, 2005, DOE announced that it would be redesigning the spent fuel storage process, both the containers and facilities.

On November 16, 2005, the DOE Inspector General announced that DOE has ignored numerous admitted instances of falsification of technical and scientific date on the project, showing that years of quality assurance problems continue.

On November 17, 2005, DOE sent a detailed letter to its contractor specifying some of the desired changes in the site proposal.

At the December 7, 2005, at the NRC-DOE quarterly meeting on Yucca Mountain, DOE announced that it expects to re-baseline the project mid- 2006, requiring many of the technical and scientific analyses to be redone.

On November 19, 2005, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill became law, cutting the Yucca Mountain budget to $577 million, half of what DOE said it would need to keep the project on track.

In numerous media reports, DOE has confirmed that it is preparing a legislative package that addresses Yucca Mountain. Clearly, DOE cannot meet the current public health, safety and technical requirements.

It should be clear to anyone that the proposed Yucca Mountain project is scientifically unsound and that it cannot meet the requirements of law. It is not going anywhere. Delay after delay costs the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars for a project that the courts have ruled does not meet sufficient safety or public health standards. I do not believe that Yucca Mountain will ever open, and Nevada and the country will be safer for our successful efforts to stop the project.

Yet, we must safely store spent nuclear fuel.

A 1979 study by the Sandia National Laboratory determined that, if all the water were to drain from a spent fuel pool, dense-packed spent fuel would likely heat up to the point where it would burst and then catch fire, releasing massive quantities of volatile radioactive fission products into the air. Both the short-term and the long-term contamination impacts of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl. The consequences would be so severe and would affect such a large area that all precautions must be taken to preclude them. This is the type of serious, avoidable risk against which all the Nation's nuclear sites can and should be protected to counter terrorist threats.

It is time to look at other nuclear waste alternatives. Fortunately, the technology to realize a viable, safe and secure alternative is readily available and can be fully implemented within 6 years if we act now. That technology is dry cask storage.

The technology for long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry storage casks has improved dramatically in the past 20 years. Seventeen cask designs have. been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which says that spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored using dry cask storage on-site at the nuclear power plants for at least 100 years. Already, dry casks safely store spent nuclear fuel at 34 sites throughout the country, many of them near communities, water ways and transportation routes. The Nuclear Energy Institute has projected 83 of the 103 active reactors will have dry storage by 2050.

Compared to water-filled pools, dry storage casks are significantly less vulnerable to natural and human-induced disasters, including floods, tornadoes, temperature extremes, sabotage, and missile attacks. In addition, dry storage casks are not subject to drainage risks, whether intentional or accidental.

On March 28, 2005, the Washington Post revealed that a classified National Academy of Sciences report concluded that the government does not fully understand the risks a terrorist attack

could pose to spent nuclear fuel pools and that it ought to expedite the removal of the fuel to dry storage casks that are more resilient to attack.

Our bill requires commercial nuclear utilities to safely transfer spent nuclear fuel from temporary storage in water-filled pools to secure storage in licensed, on-site dry cask storage facilities. After transferal, the Secretary of Energy will take title and full responsibility for the possession, stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring of all spent fuel thus safely stored. Finally, our bill establishes a grant program to compensate utilities for expenses associated with transferring the waste. The costs of transferring the waste and providing the grants will be offset by withdrawals from the utility-funded Nuclear Waste Fund.

Nuclear facilities currently provide 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, but in light of the events of September 11, they also present a security risk that we simply must address. There cannot be any weak links in the chain of security of our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. There is absolutely no justification for endangering the public by densely packing nuclear waste in vulnerable spent fuel pools when it can be stored safely and securely in dry casks. This bill guarantees all Americans that our Nation's nuclear waste will be stored in the safest way possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today for Senator Ensign, Senator Bennett and myself to introduce a bill to increase the safety and security of our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure, The Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005.

I am convinced that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump will never be built because of the myriad of scientific, safety and technical problems in which it is mired. It simply is neither safe nor secure, as illustrated by several significant scientific, legal, and budgetary setbacks this past year.

Here are some of the highlights: On July 9, 2004, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the people of Nevada in a lawsuit to stop the proposed Yucca Mountain project. The court decided that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's radiation standard for the site was not stringent enough to protect the public from the significant risks associated with nuclear waste and failed to follow the recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences.

On August 31, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain document database, saying it had failed to make public many of the documents that it had in its possession. The Board said, ``Given the 15 years that DOE had to gather, review, and produce its documents and the fact that the date of production, and the incompleteness of its privilege review, it is clear to us that DOE did not meet its obligation, in good faith, to make all reasonable efforts to make all documentary materials available.''

On October 4, 2004, the DOE Inspector General found that DOE has given away more than $500,000 worth of Yucca Mountain construction equipment in 2003. Half a million dollars is a tremendous amount of the people's money to waste.

On November 22, 2004, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board said DOE does not have a plan for safely transporting nuclear waste to the proposed repository.

On February 7, 2005, Dr. Margaret Chu, most recently the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said the project would be delayed until 2012 and that DOE's license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would not be filed until December 2005, delayed a year. To date, the license application still has not been filed.

On February 8, 2005, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have called for hearings to review concerns over the corrosion of the titanium drip shields that are intended to keep water from leaking into casks inside Yucca Mountain.

On February 28, 2005, a DOE official said the proposed Yucca Mountain repository may not open until 2015.

On March 16, 2005, DOE revealed that documents and models about water infiltration at Yucca Mountain, a key issue, had been falsified.

On July 18, 2005, DOE announced that it will use dedicated train service for its rail transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to Yucca Mountain, a shift from two decades of administration policy that ignores the fact that about one-third of reactor sites are not capable of shipping fuel by rail.

On August 22, 2005, EPA published its revised radiation standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste dump. These standards are wholly inadequate, do not meet the law's requirements and do not protect public health and safety.

On October 13, 2005, DOE began a series of actions to overhaul the Yucca Mountain project. We are going back to the drawing board, frequently revisiting proposals discarded decades ago as unsafe or unworkable.

On October 25, 2005, DOE announced that it would be redesigning the spent fuel storage process, both the containers and facilities.

On November 16, 2005, the DOE Inspector General announced that DOE has ignored numerous admitted instances of falsification of technical and scientific date on the project, showing that years of quality assurance problems continue.

On November 17, 2005, DOE sent a detailed letter to its contractor specifying some of the desired changes in the site proposal.

At the December 7, 2005, at the NRC-DOE quarterly meeting on Yucca Mountain, DOE announced that it expects to re-baseline the project mid- 2006, requiring many of the technical and scientific analyses to be redone.

On November 19, 2005, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill became law, cutting the Yucca Mountain budget to $577 million, half of what DOE said it would need to keep the project on track.

In numerous media reports, DOE has confirmed that it is preparing a legislative package that addresses Yucca Mountain. Clearly, DOE cannot meet the current public health, safety and technical requirements.

It should be clear to anyone that the proposed Yucca Mountain project is scientifically unsound and that it cannot meet the requirements of law. It is not going anywhere. Delay after delay costs the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars for a project that the courts have ruled does not meet sufficient safety or public health standards. I do not believe that Yucca Mountain will ever open, and Nevada and the country will be safer for our successful efforts to stop the project.

Yet, we must safely store spent nuclear fuel.

A 1979 study by the Sandia National Laboratory determined that, if all the water were to drain from a spent fuel pool, dense-packed spent fuel would likely heat up to the point where it would burst and then catch fire, releasing massive quantities of volatile radioactive fission products into the air. Both the short-term and the long-term contamination impacts of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl. The consequences would be so severe and would affect such a large area that all precautions must be taken to preclude them. This is the type of serious, avoidable risk against which all the Nation's nuclear sites can and should be protected to counter terrorist threats.

It is time to look at other nuclear waste alternatives. Fortunately, the technology to realize a viable, safe and secure alternative is readily available and can be fully implemented within 6 years if we act now. That technology is dry cask storage.

The technology for long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry storage casks has improved dramatically in the past 20 years. Seventeen cask designs have. been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which says that spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored using dry cask storage on-site at the nuclear power plants for at least 100 years. Already, dry casks safely store spent nuclear fuel at 34 sites throughout the country, many of them near communities, water ways and transportation routes. The Nuclear Energy Institute has projected 83 of the 103 active reactors will have dry storage by 2050.

Compared to water-filled pools, dry storage casks are significantly less vulnerable to natural and human-induced disasters, including floods, tornadoes, temperature extremes, sabotage, and missile attacks. In addition, dry storage casks are not subject to drainage risks, whether intentional or accidental.

On March 28, 2005, the Washington Post revealed that a classified National Academy of Sciences report concluded that the government does not fully understand the risks a terrorist attack

could pose to spent nuclear fuel pools and that it ought to expedite the removal of the fuel to dry storage casks that are more resilient to attack.

Our bill requires commercial nuclear utilities to safely transfer spent nuclear fuel from temporary storage in water-filled pools to secure storage in licensed, on-site dry cask storage facilities. After transferal, the Secretary of Energy will take title and full responsibility for the possession, stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring of all spent fuel thus safely stored. Finally, our bill establishes a grant program to compensate utilities for expenses associated with transferring the waste. The costs of transferring the waste and providing the grants will be offset by withdrawals from the utility-funded Nuclear Waste Fund.

Nuclear facilities currently provide 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, but in light of the events of September 11, they also present a security risk that we simply must address. There cannot be any weak links in the chain of security of our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. There is absolutely no justification for endangering the public by densely packing nuclear waste in vulnerable spent fuel pools when it can be stored safely and securely in dry casks. This bill guarantees all Americans that our Nation's nuclear waste will be stored in the safest way possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing the Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005. Last July, the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Long-Term Growth and Debt Reduction, on which Senator Smith is chairman and I am ranking member, held a hearing on updating our depreciation system. During the hearing, we heard that the current depreciation system is out of date and that changes should be made.

Our tax system allows, as a current expense, a depreciation deduction that represents a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used, or of property held for the production of income. Since 1981, the

depreciation deduction for most tangible property has been under rules specified in section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, or MACRS, specified under section 168 applies to most new investment in tangible property. MACRS depreciation allowances are computed by determining a recovery period called a class life and an applicable recovery method for each asset.

The current depreciation system has not kept pace with technological advances. Several industries were not even contemplated when class lives were assigned in 1981, and some class lives even date back to 1962.

In the 1980s it would have been difficult to imagine what our reliance on computer and wireless technology would be today. At that time, for example, the wireless industry was in its infancy, and there was no specifically assigned life for wireless equipment. As a result, today's depreciation system is like playing ``audit roulette.'' There is no certainty in how these assets should be depreciated.

All this matters because it impacts investment, innovation, competitiveness, and ultimately the quality and quantity of jobs in America. My home State of Massachusetts is a leader in the high tech industry. Massachusetts employs hundreds of thousands of skilled workers in key technology sectors, including computer hardware, life sciences, software, medical products, semiconductor, defense technology and telecommunications. We have learned in Massachusetts that a strategic tax policy can have a positive effect on economic competitiveness.

For these reasons, we are introducing the Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005. This legislation makes four important changes to the current depreciation system.

First, the legislation creates a process that provides the Department of Treasury with the authority to modernize class lives. The Secretary of the Treasury will prescribe regulations to provide a new class life for certain eligible property. Eligible property does not include residential rental property, nonresidential real property, or property for which Congress has specifically legislated the recovery period.

The purpose of this provision is to provide Treasury with a mechanism to modify class lives that reasonably reflect the anticipated useful life and the anticipated decline in value over time of the property to the industry and take into account when the property becomes technologically or functionally obsolete to perform its original purpose. Treasury will also have the authority to modify class lives in order to more accurately reflect economic depreciation. For example, a personal computer has a depreciable life of 5 years, but it has an economic life of only 2 to 3 years. Even though a computer can be used for 5 years, it becomes economically obsolete after a couple of years because of the newer, faster, and more advanced computers on the market.

Our depreciation system has not been adequately updated since Congress revoked Treasury's rule making authority in 1988. When the MACRS system was enacted in 1986, Congress directed Treasury to establish an office to monitor and analyze the actual experience with class lives and to modify class lives if the new class life reasonably reflected the anticipated useful life and the anticipated decline in value over time of the property to the industry. The authority was then revoked because Congress did not agree with all of the decisions made by Treasury.

The authority provided in this legislation addresses this previous problem by requiring Treasury to consult with Congress 60 days prior to publishing any proposed regulations. In addition, the Congressional Review Act would apply to any regulation proposed by Treasury and each class life prescribed by Treasury would be considered a separate rule.

Providing Treasury with the authority to modify class lives would allow the process to move more efficiently than allowing Congress to make piecemeal changes to the current depreciation system. Congress would provide guidelines, and Treasury would have the role of administering the guidelines. Under the legislation, Treasury would monitor and analyze the actual experience of depreciable assets and report their findings to Congress. We expect Treasury to establish guidelines that will take into consideration the fact that some assets lose a significant percentage of their original value in the early part of their lives. This legislation specifically provides consultation with Congress in order for Congress to continue to have a role in this important tax policy issue.

We do not expect Treasury within the first year or two to review all classes of assets. Rather, we expect Treasury to begin with new assets that do not fit into the system, assets that have underdone technological advances, and existing assets that do not really fit into the current system. For example, the current system creates an irrational result for fiber optic lines. The class life of a fiber optic line depends upon whether if it is used for one-way or two-way communications.

Second, the legislation would eliminate the mid quarter convention. The placed-in-service conventions determine the point in time during the year that the property is considered ``placed in service'' and this determines when depreciation for an asset begins or ends. Under current law, there are the half-year, mid month, and mid quarter conventions. The mid quarter convention is a source of complexity because it requires an analysis of the depreciable basis of property placed in service during the last 3 months of any taxable year. The Joint Committee on Taxation recommended the elimination of the mid-quarter convention in its 2001 recommendations on simplifying the Federal tax system. The calculation of the mid-quarter convention is burdensome, and it requires taxpayers to wait until after the end of the taxable year to determine whether the proper placed-in-service convention was used to calculate depreciation for assets during the taxable year.

Third, the legislation would allow taxpayers to elect to use mass asset accounting for assets with a cost of less than $10,000. Generally, taxpayers calculate depreciation on an item-by-item basis. The bill would allow taxpayers to elect to use mass asset accounting for all assets with the same recovery period. This provision will help simplify the recordkeeping associated with depreciation.

Fourth, the legislation would permanently extend increased expensing for small businesses. In lieu of depreciation, a taxpayer with a small amount of annual investment may elect to deduct such costs. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 increased the amount a taxpayer may deduct from $25,000 to $100,000 and increased the total amount of investment a business can make in a year and still qualify for expensing from $200,000 to $400,000. In addition, the Act allows off-the-shelf computer software to be eligible for the provision. These changes originally were effective for 3 years. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 provided an additional 2 year extension of this provision through 2007.

The Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005 would make the $100,000 and $400,000 amounts permanent and index them for inflation. Off-the-shelf computer software would be eligible for the provision. Increased expensing for small businesses helps lower the cost of capital for small businesses and eliminates complicated recordkeeping. In addition, it should reduce administrative costs for small businesses.

The provisions in this legislation will not be the only recommendations made on how to improve our current depreciation system, but the four components of this legislation will result in updating and simplifying the current depreciation system. The Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005 will provide certainty for taxpayers and put an end to ``audit roulette.''