Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 9, 2000, at 10:30 am to hold a hearing.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to my good friend from Nevada, I don't think we have been able to ascertain when. But I join him in encouraging Members to come over and speak at this time. I have been notified that Senator Craig will be coming over this afternoon. Senator Domenici will be coming over, and I believe Senator Sessions. In any event, there probably will not be a lot of time tomorrow.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. I certainly agree with my colleague from Nevada. That hour is to be split between both sides. I would like to continue for a moment, if I may. There are a couple of points that I think are necessary to highlight. They concern the issue of the Environmental Protection Agency and just what the role is as determined by the changes we made. I refer to language that is on pages 3, 4, and 5 as opposed to the statement we have from the administration on their position. I should point out, that statement was given on February 8. It is a statement of administration policy. It states that as of February 4, 2000, the manager's amendment to S. 1287--I understand this amendment will be brought to the floor--undermines EPA's existing statutory authority to set standards to protect public health and the environment from radioactive releases. As a consequence, it is unacceptable to the administration because they say it undermines EPA's existing statutory authority and is, therefore, unacceptable. They further acknowledge that the amendment allows EPA to exercise its existing authority to set appropriate radiation release standards for Yucca Mountain. It will allow another entity to block EPA's authority until June 1, 2001. Consequently, if the February 4, 2000, manager's amendment to S. 1287 is approved, and if the Senate bill with these provisions is presented to the President, the President will veto the bill. I appeal to the administration. According to the Washington Post article which I read, the White House says it opposes the bill because it would take away from the EPA the sole authority to determine radiation exposure requirements at a future permanent waste repository if it is built in Nevada. Let me read what it says. Adoption of standard: Notwithstanding the time schedule in section 801 of the Energy Policy Act, the administration shall not publish or adopt a public health and safety standard for the protection of the public from releases from radioactive materials stored or disposed of in the repository at the Yucca Mountain site except in accordance with this section before June 1st, 2001. To suggest that they don't have the sole authority is not what the legislation says. It says they shall not have the authority to publish or adopt before June 1st, 2001. Further, relative to this portion, it says: not later than April 1st, 2001, the Commission and the National Academy of Sciences shall, based on the proposed rule and the information provided by the Administrator--that is, the Administrator of EPA--under paragraph 1, shall submit a report to Congress on whether the proposed rule is consistent about section 801 of the Energy Policy Act; Or, B, provides a reasonable expectation of the public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected from the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel disposed of in the repository; And, C, it is based on the best reasonable obtainable scientific and technical information concerning the need for and consequences of the rule; And, D, imposes the least burden consistent with obtaining the regulatory objective of protecting the public health and safety and the environment. No. 3, in the event that either the Commission--that is, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--or the National Academy of Sciences finds the proposed rule does not meet one or more of the criteria issued in paragraph 2, it shall notify the Administrator--that is, the EPA Administrator--not later than April 1st, 2001, of its finding and the basis for such finding. I repeat that the Environmental Protection Agency has the final say and, under the statute, shall have the sole authority to address the levels of radiation but not before June 1st, 2001. We have not heard from the administration relative to those changes. I hope the administration will be sensitive to our effort to ensure that, indeed, the Environmental Protection Agency will have the last word. The objective is not to take away from the obligation of the EPA, which has the authority under statute. The effort is to bring forth the best science available. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that licensed and monitors the plants has more Ph.D.s in the area of nuclear science and the National Academy of Sciences can contribute something, is that not in the public interest? Again, I appeal to my colleagues to recognize our bottom line is simply to have an emission standard that is attainable and that allows Congress to address a final resting place for the waste. Senator Kerrey's office advised me he wishes to be deleted as a cosponsor of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that request be honored.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in paragraph 2, it states: No one disagrees that nuclear waste belongs in a single safe repository far removed from the population centers. Yucca Mountain, located on the Nevada Test Site, which S. 1287 designates as the site, is just such a facility. On page 2: The fact is that there has never been any human injury or environmental damage in the transportation of nuclear waste. . . . In the last paragraph: For these reasons, the Teamster Union believes S. 1287 is a well-reasoned, balanced approach to solving an on-going, continuously growing problem of nuclear waste. We urge you to support it as it moves to the Senate floor. It is signed Michael E. Mathis, Director of Government Affairs. As we wind down this debate, I again urge we all focus on the reality of whether we want to kill the nuclear industry in this country, if that is the objective, or whether we want to get on with addressing the responsibility which we have, which is to address what we are going to do with this high-level waste. Since we have been committed at the expense of some $6 billion at Yucca Mountain, since we have in this legislation addressed the appropriate role of the Environmental Protection Agency as having the final say on the determination of what the radiation standards should be, since we have addressed the transportation system by leaving it up to the States to designate how and where and under what terms and conditions, the waste will move out of the States where it presently resides. We have met the challenge we have been charged to address. As a consequence, we should recognize that it is time to finally put this matter behind us and not contribute additional expense to the American taxpayers or the ratepayers who have been paying into this fund for the last several years. I save the remainder of my remarks for the remaining time tomorrow where I understand the proponents and opponents have an hour equally divided beginning at 10 o'clock, with a vote scheduled at 11. Mr. President, I yield the floor for comments by my colleague.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I assure my colleagues, Senator Bingaman, and the administration of our willingness to use the remaining time to try to be responsive to their concerns. I will summarize the situation. We have been at this a long time. We all agree we have an obligation as elected representatives to resolve this problem. The failure of the Government--certainly not under this Secretary of Energy--to take the waste in January of 1998 is what we are living with today. The ratepayers have paid $15 billion in electric rates on their bills with the assumption the Federal Government would take that waste; the damages and the claims go on and on and on as a consequence of time passing as that waste remains at the sites of our nuclear plants. The nearest estimate we have is $40 billion to $80 billion. The longer we wait, the greater the burden of the taxpayer. I think the public looks to Congress to address this with resolve. Some have suggested this administration simply does not want to resolve this matter on its watch. That may be the basic position of the administration. That may be justified in their minds. There is another group out there that sees the passage of this legislation to resolve what we will do with our nuclear waste as some kind of a significant benefit to the nuclear industry. If they can defeat this and bring the industry to its knees by causing it to choke on its own waste, nuclear power as we know in this country will die. It will reach a slow process of strangling on that waste, the nuclear power industry will go away, and we will simply generate power from some other source. The difficulty I have with that is the inability to identify what that other source will be and what it will do to our air quality. To me there is a tradeoff in the process. If we lose the nuclear power generating capacity, which is about 20 percent in this Nation, what will we replace it with? We have to solve the waste problem. If this administration does not want it to occur on its watch, we are still going to have to solve it under another administration, whether it be Republican or Democratic, or we are simply going to add this obligation of the damages to the American taxpayer. I think we are all in agreement that we simply must deal with it. We have an equal responsibility. I gave an interview a few minutes ago. The first question was: Senator, why can't you resolve this? I am sure all my colleagues know why we can't resolve it. Nobody wants the waste. Unfortunately for our good friend from Nevada, a decision was made to proceed with Yucca as a permanent repository some time ago. We have spent over $6 billion. The tunnel is drilled. We are awaiting licensing. That is where we are. I am also told the administration is split on this. Some would like to see it resolved. Some don't want it resolved at all. I guess it rests with each Member to recognize his or her responsibility as elected representatives to bring this to a resolve responsibly. If somebody else has a better idea of how to resolve it responsibly, they can certainly have this dais, the microphone, and whatever else goes with it. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Let me take this opportunity to again thank my colleagues from Nevada for their understanding of this difficult issue and the effect, of course, it has on their State. I encourage other Members who are seeking recognition and who might want to speak on this issue, this would be a good time to do it because we probably have an hour or two left today. Time being what it is in the morning, we have yet to hear from leadership as to what time the Senate will convene tomorrow. Might I inquire of the Chair, is there any indication of that?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. He has highlighted some points that certainly needed to be identified. In reality, the issue is twofold. No. 1, are we going to have a future in this country for the nuclear power generating capability associated with our power industry? Is that in the future of this country? Or are we hell-bent to kill it? Further, do we want this high-level waste stored at 80-some-odd sites in 40 States for an extended period of time or do we want to get on with the job of collecting it and putting it in one permanent repository? Listening to the debate, I am sensitive to the difficulties associated with the decision that was made at a time when we had a Democratic chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my good friend, Senator Bennett Johnston. This has been a tough vote for my colleagues from Nevada. I recall a Republican Senator who probably lost the election in his State. He fought valiantly against putting the waste there. But, as I have identified time and time again, nobody wants the waste. That is the first premise with which you enter into this discussion. But you have to put it somewhere because it will not stay up in the air. As a consequence, we find ourselves still debating the issue. At the hearing we had in the Energy Committee some time ago, the statement was made by our colleagues that regardless of the science, they would have to oppose the selection of a site in Nevada. Let's face it; that is a tough set of circumstances. But we have a job to do because we have to put it somewhere. I do not want to oversimplify it. My friend said the bill is a lemon; it is ugly. I do not dispute that. But Nevada has been selected for the permanent repository, assuming it can be licensed. That is the hard fact. It might not be pretty. I guess I would say that we have, really, no other alternative because it is critical that we maintain a nuclear power industry in this country. We have had a conversation about removing the take title. It has been removed. I know that disturbs my good friend and ranking member from the State of New Mexico. Secretary Richardson, the Secretary of Energy, raised this issue. I have held it in the legislation until the very end. But it became obvious that the administration could not deliver on their promises, that they could reassure the States that this was not just another ruse or another broken promise. And the broken promises obviously go back to 1998 when the Federal Government did not deliver on its contractual commitments to take the waste. The administration simply could not assure the States that they would not become some 40 repositories, which is what they are now. I know the Secretary of Energy did the best he could, but it simply could not be done. So it is quite natural these States would say: Wait a minute, the Federal Government has not performed on its contractual commitment. Now it wants to take title in our State, without giving us the assurance it is going to be moved. As a consequence, as my colleagues know, those States were represented in the letter I introduced into the Record from six States claiming they would urge their representatives in the Senate not to support legislation unless the take title was removed. I do not fault the Secretary of Energy. But I think it is fair to say the administration has not had its act together for one reason or another. Maybe it is to accommodate my friends from Nevada, but, nevertheless, it has not been resolved. I tried my best. I am willing to revisit this in the future if the administration can follow through with some type of commitment. But I think it is unfair for the administration to criticize legislation because of their failure to follow through on their commitment. That is where we are on this. We have heard suggestions from our friends from Nevada that putting the issuance of a radiation standard off is politicizing the process. We can point fingers around here because this is a political body. But if we look at the facts, the opposite is probably true. The administration chose to abandon sound science and to inject politics into the standard-setting as part of its opposition to the use of nuclear power. Under the law, the Energy Policy Act, the EPA was to follow the guidelines set by the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy is not an appointed body. Its membership is elected, based on professional scientific background, by the other scientists. The National Academy called for ``all pathways'' as a standard. EPA chose to go outside that guideline and threatened to create a separate groundwater standard in addition to the ``all pathways.'' I guess the only reason was to frustrate the development of the repository. They ignored science and yet injected politics. If anything, I think my amendment will remove politics from the process, and that is my objective. Talking about whether or not this is environmental legislation, the Senator said environmental groups oppose this legislation and the League of Conservation Voters is watching every one of us. Think about that. Here is an environmental agency that is genuinely concerned about the safety, health, and welfare of people regarding issues it has every right to be involved in. But what is its objective? Is the objective to kill the nuclear power industry in this country? Is that the true objective? I wonder. Because maybe the League of Conservation Voters, as they indicate their opposition to this legislation, indicating they are watching, thinks having spent fuel spread around this country at 80 sites in 40 States is a good idea. I do not think so and I do not think the majority of Senators think so. Maybe they think shutting down 20 percent of our generating capacity is a good idea, when they do not come up with any alternative. What do they want us to do? Maybe they will ignore that we will have to replace that capacity with fossil fuel-fired plants. Is that what they want? They do not have to take the responsibility that you and I do, to come up with and address an alternative. It is very appropriate that they criticize, but I wonder where they are going. Are they really going to shut down the nuclear power industry? They do not say that. Maybe they do not care about the cost to the taxpayers, the elderly, the poor, when we have to replace that capacity at the taxpayers' expense--the ratepayers' expense. Maybe they do not have a better use for the $80 billion, or whatever it is, in liability we are facing as a consequence of this delay. They have a responsibility to come up with answers, and they do not accept that responsibility. As a consequence, I find fault with their logic as well as their objective. Maybe they simply do not care. Maybe they do not care about human health and safety or the environment or the cost and the impact on the taxpayers, the poor or the elderly, because they want to pursue their own agenda. Is that a political agenda? I think it is. It is a political agenda against nuclear power. This is a major environmental bill, and if you are not for the environment in moving this quantity of high-level nuclear fuel to one site, how in the world can you suggest in any manner or form that you are for the environment by leaving it at these sites? It does not belong there. The sites were not designed for it. It is contrary to the health and welfare of the public. What we have here is a progressive bill to address the problem. I say to those who receive threats or notification on the merits of the environmental aspect that this is not a good environmental bill, this is an environmental bill that addresses and solves the problem. I conclude my remarks--since we are beginning to get statements from various groups that either oppose or support the bill--by asking unanimous consent that a letter dated February 8 from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on either of the amendments and ask the Chair to put the question on the amendments.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2819 in the second degree offered by Senator Conrad.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, I can announce that there will be no further votes today and final passage of the nuclear waste bill will occur tomorrow at 11 a.m.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the Senate's consideration today the following amendments, following a brief debate, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. The amendments are the Conrad amendment No. 2819 and the Murkowski amendment No. 2813. I further ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 11 a.m. on Thursday be equally divided between the two managers, or their designees, and at 11 a.m. on Thursday the pending substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be advanced to third reading, and passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate. I further ask unanimous consent that the time between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on Thursday be under the control of Senators Murkowski and Bingaman, or their designees. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled to occur on the bill be vitiated.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, that is my understanding.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, in order to attempt to advance the process, for the benefit of everybody----

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I know a lot of people who come to Alaska and visit ``Valdeez'' think it is pronounced ``Valdez.'' But I did want to highlight the fact we have tried to respond to the request for the land conveyances. They are 76,000 acres transferred over to the two counties that would benefit the communities. That is in this bill. I offer it simply as an effort in good faith to be sensitive to concerns I think are very legitimate. That is to transfer the land from Federal agencies that do not have a need for that land to the communities so they can put them on the tax rolls and have it functionally contribute to the economy of the area and benefit the people. I think that is appropriate as well. I see a few Members here awaiting recognition. It is appropriate I yield the floor. At a later time, it will be my intention to address some of the amendments that are pending. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the benefit of Senators, subject to the approval of the majority and minority leaders, it is our intention to break for lunch until 2:15. I ask unanimous consent that we recess for lunch, that the time be counted on the bill, and we resume debate again at 2:15.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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