William Tauzin: “the objections to this bill are, in fact, process and schedule. The objections are that perhaps a better bill could have…”

“the objections to this bill are, in fact, process and schedule. The objections are that perhaps a better bill could have been written and, in fact, the Committee on Commerce I think has produced on occasion better language. The objections to the bill are that we do not treat in this bill short-term or temporary storage but it is the administration that is opposed to us doing so. We are trying to get a bill passed, trying to get it signed. We have been at this business for 15 years, and in the course of the 15 years of debate high level nuclear waste is now stored at 80 different sites in America in 40 different States. That is in addition to the DOE waste that is now stored at DOE's weapons facilities and, as a consequence, we have collected during this 15-year period nearly $16 billion from consumers, who we have promised we would take care of this mess; and yet we have failed to keep our commitments. The Court of Appeals has ruled that DOE has an obligation to take possession of nuclear waste in 1998, whether a repository is ready or not. 1998 has come and gone and yet now we stand in that court that the costs and the expenses of contractual damages could exceed $40 billion to $80 billion. This is taxpayer and ratepayer expenses we ought to be avoiding. So what is our only solution? Our solution is to pass this bill, and get it as quickly as we can into law. It does not do everything, but it does a lot.”