Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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. 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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 2 p.m. for a hearing on the National Intelligence Estimate on the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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, I just listened to the statement of my good friend from Nevada. I thought perhaps I could contribute something meaningful to our consideration by trying to explain some of the procedure that we have run into and the rationale behind the process. As the Senator from Nevada indicated, last Friday we were able to supply the amendment which was acknowledged by the minority. In my numerous conversations with the minority and the ranking member of the committee, it became necessary to consider making changes. We have been in constant consultation with the ranking member and professional staff to try to see if we could reach an accommodation on the suggested changes that have been primarily communicated to us by the Senator from New Mexico. It was not the intention to do an end run, by any means, on my good friends from Nevada. But it was an effort to try to advance, if you will, the continuing negotiations. That situation has been changing. In my opinion, the goalposts have been moved a little bit, but I am not going to argue the merits of that. We have been talking about various aspects. I think it is a fair characterization by my friend from Nevada to say that if you do not know who you are fighting, it is pretty hard to know what the rules are--or words to that effect. We have to file the amendments prior to 6 o'clock. There obviously is going to be one more chapter and verse to this. I assume the two Senators from Nevada are conversing with the minority and are a part of this process. But, in any event, that is the best explanation I can offer as to why this thing has not remained somewhat stationary but has been moving, as we have tried to accommodate certain concerns that have been brought up, many of which have been quite germane and appropriate. One of the things that I think we should identify is something that I had been under the impression the Secretary of Energy was addressing; that was the concern of a number of Governors. I will read the names of those Governors. They include Governor Jeb Bush of Florida; Governor Howard Dean of Vermont; Governor Angus King, an independent, from Maine; Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon; Governor Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire; Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota; and Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa. Let me share with my friends what those Governors have said: We Governors from states hosting commercial nuclear power plants and from affected states express our opposition to the plan proposed by Energy Secretary Richardson in his February 1999 testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee. Secretary Richardson proposes that the Department of Energy take title, assume management responsibility, and pay costs at nuclear plant sites for used nuclear fuel it was legally and contractually obliged to begin removing in January 1998. This proposed plan would create semipermanent, federally controlled, used nuclear fuel facilities in each of our States. I think it is rather ironic that the whole argument we previously had the last time we took up this legislation was whether or not to site a temporary repository in Nevada. The fear of the Nevadans is, if we started to move this waste out there, Nevada would be the proclaimed site for the waste because it had already moved out there, even though the process of licensing was to continue. Here we have the States expressing the same concern Nevada had when the Nevadans argued against putting a temporary repository in their State and shipping the fuel out before Yucca Mountain was licensed. Here are the Governors saying: This proposed plan would create semi-permanent, federally controlled, used nuclear fuel facilities in each of our States. They have the same fear. The fear is that if the Government takes title, the waste will sit there in their States. Now, there is some rationale in that fear because the Government certainly hasn't been upfront in addressing its responsibility, in contractual terms, to take the waste in 1998. It seems as if the Government is prepared to leave the waste wherever it might be rather than accept it. That is the only conclusion you can come to, as evidenced by the reluctance to take it in 1998, the reluctance to support previous legislation that would put that waste in a temporary repository at Yucca Mountain until Yucca Mountain was determined to be licensed. So now the fear is that these States are going to be stuck with that waste because the Federal Government is going to take control of it in their State, and it will sit there. Let me cite the specific reasons for the opposition of these Governors. Again, they are Jeb Bush, Republican from Florida; Howard Dean, Democrat from Vermont; Angus King, Independent from Maine; John Kitzhaber, Democrat from Oregon; Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat from New Hampshire; Jesse Ventura, the Reform Governor from Minnesota; Tom Vilsack, Democrat from Iowa. That is a pretty broad bipartisan group. In the letter, it says: Specific reasons for our opposition are: The plan proposes to use our electric consumer monies which were paid to the Federal Government for creating a final disposal repository for used nuclear fuel. Such funds cannot [in their opinion] legally be used for any other purpose than a Federal repository. Well, if that is correct, then that is correct, they can't be used to store the fuel in those States next to the reactors. Further, it states: This plan abridges States' rights. . . . I think we need to hear a little bit more about States' rights around here. [I]t constitutes Federal takings and establishes new nuclear waste facilities outside of State authority and control. Yet within their very States. These new Federal nuclear waste facilities would be on river fronts, lakes and seashores [where the plants are] which would never be chosen for permanent disposal of used nuclear fuel and in a site selection process. The plan constitutes a major Federal action-- I think it does-- which has not gone through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. So the administration is circumventing NEPA. Further: The new waste facilities would likely become de facto permanent [waste] disposal sites. This is the crux of it, Mr. President. They say: Federal action over the last 50 years has not been able to solve the political problems associated with developing disposal for used nuclear fuel. Establishing these Federal sites will remove the political motivation to complete a final disposal site. The letter to the President concludes with: We urge you to retract Secretary Richardson's proposed plan and instead support establishing centralized interim storage at an appropriate site. This concept has strong, bipartisan support and results in the environmentally preferable, least- cost solution to the used nuclear fuel dilemma.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the students of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, School of Management, Student Investment Fund, who have invested an original stake of $100,000 into stocks and CDs and now have a portfolio valued at over half a million dollars. With the money earned while learning, the students participating in the Fund have donated $8,000 in scholarships to UAF students. They have created two scholarship funds, the Michael L. Rice Scholarship and the Vanna K. Husby Scholarship, which are awarded to students who are in the School of Management and are enrolled in the Student Investment Fund for the following academic year. They have also donated $4,000 to the UAF National Merit Scholarship to encourage talented students to attend the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. The class began in 1991, when then Chancellor O'Rourke transferred $100,000 of University endowment money into the Student Investment Fund at Dean Witter. The account has been wholly managed by the students since its inception. Only during the first year of the fund did it fall below a value of $100,000. It has grown every year since and has a return of 71 percent. This class and its philanthropy are wonderful examples of how higher education can benefit not only students, but the entire community.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public a change in the agenda of the hearing previously scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Thursday, February 10 at 10 a.m. Instead of S. 1192 (a bill to designate national forest land managed by the Forest Service in the Lake Tahoe Basin as the ``Lake Tahoe National Scenic Forest and Recreation Area,'' and to promote environmental restoration around the Lake Tahoe Basin), the committee will receive testimony on S. 1925 (a bill to promote environmental restoration around the Lake Tahoe basin). committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a field hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Monday, February 14 at 2 p.m. at the Albuquerque Convention Center, West Building, Cochiti/Taos Rooms, 401 Second St., NW, Albuquerque, NM. The title of this hearing is Industry-Laboratory Partnerships, and the role of S. 1756, a bill to enhance the ability of the National Laboratories to meet Department of Energy missions and for other purposes. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should contact the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Howard Useem, senior professional staff member, at (202) 224-6567. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. On behalf of the leader, I ask consent there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend. I hope in a bipartisan spirit we can come to grips with our obligation to resolve this issue to benefit the American taxpayer as a renewed sanctity of the contractual commitment the Federal Government has made. I pledge to work with the Senator and my colleagues from Nevada in that spirit in hopes we can reach a satisfactory resolution and not be buried in an impossible situation that simply detracts from our objective. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is the intention to break at 12:30 and we come back in at 2:15 and we have a cloture vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That occurs beginning at 2 o'clock.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to resolve a problem that has been occurring ever since the first nuclear plant came online in this country. That date was 1960. The question was: While we now have this new source of power, clean generation, what are we going to do with the waste? Today we have an opportunity to resolve what we are going to do with that waste. It is an obligation that goes across party lines. It is an obligation, it is a responsibility, it is a commitment, to resolve this once and for all. How long have we been at this? One can go back 17 years when it was addressed at great length in an energy package that was debated at great length, but the portion on what to do with high-level nuclear waste was not resolved. Over a period of time, it was agreed that the Federal Government would enter into a contractual commitment to take the waste in the year 1998. That went by and, as a consequence, we find ourselves in the situation where the ratepayers in this country who have the benefit of nuclear clean power have paid in some $15 billion to the Federal Government. Where did that go? It did not go into an escrow account. It went into the general fund. But those ratepayers and those power-generating companies, utilities, went into that contractual agreement with the Federal Government in good faith, believing that the contract would be honored by the Federal Government, believing that, indeed, the Federal Government was under an obligation under the sanctity of contract principle to honor the contractual commitment. The Federal Government has not honored that commitment and, as a consequence, we are dealing with an exposure to the American taxpayer of some $40 billion to $80 billion in damages associated with the inability of the Government to come to terms with the contractual commitment it made with the utilities. Each day we delay resolving how we are going to take that waste subjects the American taxpayer to additional liability. We did a little calculation, and the additional liability to each and every American family is somewhere between $1,300 and $1,400. That is the liability that extends to the American family. That is why, in spite of the differences as to how we resolve this problem, the commitment should be to resolve this problem with the legislation we have or the amendments that will be forthcoming. There is a tradeoff. We have had clean power from these nuclear plants. These are not isolated sources of power. These plants contribute approximately 20 percent of the domestic energy produced in this country. What is the tradeoff? The tradeoff is what we are going to do with the waste. We made a commitment to put that waste at Yucca Mountain. We have expended in excess of $6 billion on Yucca Mountain. There is a procedure to go through before Yucca Mountain can be licensed. But I remind my colleagues and staff and those who are following this debate, we simply must deal with it. The Senator from Alaska does not have a constituency in his State relative to nuclear power. We had a small plant at a military base at one time, but it is long since gone. But as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have a responsibility to address this. I have a responsibility to the taxpayers. I have a responsibility to every Member of this body. That is what the professional staffs of both sides, Senator Bingaman, as the ranking member, and myself, have been working towards. We simply cannot address this debate in the theory of: If we don't like this aspect or we don't like that aspect, if we can't come to terms on one point or another, we are going to simply throw the baby out. That is absolutely irresponsible. It is mandatory that we come together now and resolve this issue because we have that responsibility to the taxpayers of this country. What is the administration's position on it? I can probably honestly say it is split. That may mean they are for certain aspects we have come to terms with but are opposed to certain other aspects. But I implore the administration to recognize that they have an obligation to come to grips with the contractual commitment that was made. The Department of Energy, as the lead agency, has to address how it is going to come about. I have had numerous conversations with Secretary Richardson. I think we have made progress. But the reality is, if we are going to pick this legislation apart and lose sight of our objective, I am wasting my time and, Mr. President, you are wasting your time listening to me because we are not going to get anywhere. We have to come into this debate committed to working this out and resolving this so we can address the problems associated with what we are going to do with that waste. I am not here to lament on what others are doing with high-level waste. We know what the French are doing. They are reprocessing their waste. They recover the plutonium. They put it back in the reactors. They vitrify the waste which has less life and is disposed of. We do not have that policy in this country. We may have it someday, but we are committed to a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. You are going to hear a lot from my Nevada colleagues, as you should, because the difficulty with this issue is nobody wants the waste. You cannot throw it up in the air because it has to come down somewhere. That is all there is to it. When you have a situation where nobody wants it, you have a real problem because those that come from the area where it is proposed to go are going to do everything they can to stop it. That is the situation with regard to my colleagues from Nevada. Let's be honest with one another. They have a vested interest. They don't want it in their State. But we have to put it somewhere. Let me refer to a couple of charts here because I think it represents reality and where we are today. The chosen site for the waste is Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Everybody, I assume, knows where Nevada is. It is next to California and Arizona. But what we also have on this chart is where the waste currently is. You have it all over the East Coast. You have it in the Chicago, IL, area. You have it along the West Coast, and in south Texas, and so forth. What we are looking at here, shown in brown on the chart, are the commercial reactors. These are the power-generating reactors in the various States that generate power to light the homes, light the sidewalks, light the highways, heat the homes, heat the hot water tanks. This represents 20 percent of the energy in this country. The storage facilities where this waste is were designed to hold a specific volume of waste. That volume was basically controlled by the various States. Many of these facilities are full or about to be full. These States are either going to allow the increase of that storage in their State or in the reactor pool or those reactors are going to have to be shut down. If you shut down the reactors, where are you going to pick up the power? The critics of nuclear energy don't care about that because they do not want to see nuclear energy expanded to any extent. They are not interested in where you are going to get the power from another source. But you only have so many alternatives. You can put in more coal-fire plants. That does not do anything for air quality. Some suggest we just hook up to gas, that gas is cheap. But the National Petroleum Council came out with a report the other day that suggests that if those people think they are going to be able to plug into gas, they have another thing coming. The infrastructure isn't there for the volume demand. We are using about 20 trillion cubic feet of gas currently in this country. It is anticipated in the next 10 years that will be up over 31 trillion cubic feet of gas. We have a problem with access in the areas on public lands, where we could initiate exploration for gas, because this administration simply will not open up public lands or offshore areas, for the most part. Where are you going to find the new gas necessary to meet the anticipated demand, even without the exposure associated with the issue at hand; that is, what to do with the high-level waste? The other issue with the gas, as I have indicated, is the infrastructure isn't there yet. To suggest it is going to be cheap, you have another thing coming. It is not going to be cheap. The price is going to increase. It is estimated the demand for gas, at the end of the next 10-year period of time, is going to amount to about 14 million new users. It is going to require an investment of about $1.5 trillion. So for those people who suggest we just go get gas, that is not realistic. Some people say: Let's go to solar. It gets dark at night, in case some have not noticed. In my State of Alaska, in the wintertime it is a long night. Wind. Sometimes the wind does not blow. So for a long time we are going to be looking to our conventional fossil fuel sources. We should be looking to the role of nuclear. But my point is, this chart highlights where the nuclear waste is. It is in 40 States. If we don't do something about this now, with this legislation, it is going to stay in those 40 States. There are 80 sites where various reactors are located in the 40 States. There is another contributing consideration to which every Member ought to be very sensitive. We have shut down reactors with spent fuel. We have them in California. We have them over here on the East Coast. We have several throughout the country--in Oregon. What are we going to do with that waste in those shut down reactors? The alternative is to leave it there. Do you want to leave it there? Nobody wants to leave it there. They want to move it. We have commercial spent nuclear fuel storage facilities where we have waste in a number of States. That is shown on the chart in black. As a consequence, that will stay. We have non-Department of Energy research reactors in States which are shown in green on the chart. What do we do with that? Leave it? We have naval reactor fuel in Idaho and the State of Washington which are shown in yellow on the chart. There is DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste strung around the country at various places. To those who say this isn't a crisis, that we don't really have a responsibility here, I say that logic is simply ducking the responsibility. We have to address a resolve of this issue at this time. We have to address what to do with the waste. We have to get it out of the areas where it currently resides. Those areas were not designed to hold and maintain that waste indefinitely. They were designed to hold the waste up to their licensed capacity. So that is the problem we have now. I want to go through and try to regionalize and personalize how significant this crisis is by a series of charts, the first of which will show you where we propose to put this waste in Nevada, in the desert. We have a chart that shows the area out at Yucca Mountain as it exists today. This is the proposed location for the permanent repository at the Nevada site. I am sensitive to the reality that this is the soil of the State of Nevada. But I am also a realist and recognize that, for 50 years, we have been using this area for nuclear testing. It is hot, Mr. President. We have had over 800 nuclear weapons tests in this area. If you believe in the theory that an area, at some point in time, becomes pretty heavily polluted--if I can use the word--does it make sense, then, to try to recognize a site for what it is and ask, well, if the geological area is sufficient, is this a good site for a permanent nuclear repository underground? That selection was made a long time ago, so that is not the issue today. The issue is how we are going to proceed with an understanding of how we can go forth, begin to move the waste, when this site is licensed by the various agencies and we can proceed in placing the waste in that permanent repository where we have spent $6 billion. I have been there. I have been through the tunnel. The tunneling is basically done. If we don't put it there, where are we going to put it? Some say, leave it at the site. Some others say, put it in casks above ground and store it. Well, then what do you do with it--put it off? Remember, all this time, we are in violation of our contractual commitment to take the waste in 1998. So the clock ticks. There is a full employment act for lawyers who are filing damage suits. They love this delay. The American taxpayer doesn't know what is hitting him because the damages click on. That is why we have an obligation as Members of this body to address and resolve this now. Let's go through some of the 40 States that are affected. I hope that the staffs of each of the States watch this. If you disagree with me, that is fine. Get ahold of the staff and we will try to proceed. Arkansas. A few of our prominent people come from Arkansas. Arkansas residents paid over $365 million into that waste fund in their utility bills. There are two units, Nuclear Unit 1 and 2. The waste stored is 690 metric tons. Their waste--under their permit, unit 1 runs out in 1996 and unit 2, in 1997. Those dates have passed. The State of Arkansas gets 33 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy. These charts were made up some time ago. So the waste stored now is more. The question of whether Arkansas is going to increase its licensing is up to the folks from Arkansas. But the point is, that is one State. We have 40 States. I am going to go through a few of them. Connecticut. Residents paid in $655 million. They have two units, Millstone 2 and 3. Waste stored is 1,445 metric tons, DOE/defense waste. Millstone 2 runs out in 2 years; Millstone 3, in 2003. That State is 43-percent dependent on nuclear energy. That is the hard cold fact. Massachusetts. Their waste fund is $156 million. One unit, Pilgrim 1. Waste stored is 495 metric tons. There is a vacancy if they install new racks. The State's electricity is 12-percent dependent. Oregon. The waste fund is $108 million. One unit, Trojan. Waste stored is 424 metric tons. Hanford site, waste stored is 2,133 metric tons. Trojan closed for decommissioning. Think about that. Do you know what that means? That means that waste isn't going to go anywhere other than to stay in Oregon, unless we pass some legislation that proceeds in a process so we can move this waste out of these sites. Moving south, Louisiana. Residents paid $339 million. Two units, Riverbend 1 and Waterford 3. There are 567 metric tons stored. Waterford runs out in 2002; Riverbend, 2007. Louisiana is 22-percent dependent on nuclear energy. Illinois. The waste fund is $2 billion. The residents of the State of Illinois have paid $2 billion in their electric bills. The reason they paid that is so the Federal Government would honor its contract and take the waste in 1998. They have 11 units: Braidwood 1 and 2; Bryon 1 and 2; Clinton; Dresden 2 and 3; La Salle 1 and 2; Quad Cities 1 and 2. DOE research reactor full, stored 40 metric tons. Dresden 3 expires in 2000. Dresden 2 expires in 2002. Clinton expires in 2003. Quad Cities expires in 2006. Zion expires in 2006. La Salle expires in 2013. Bryon expires in 2005. Braidwood expires in 2019. The State is 39-percent dependent. From where is this power going to come? Not from thin air. Somebody has to produce it. Do you want a brownout? These plants are in violation after that date. There is a necessity of us resolving this in a bipartisan manner. We have that obligation. We should make a commitment on this floor to proceed with the objective of solving this. Michigan. Their waste fund is $696 million. There are four units: Cook 1 and 2; Fermi 2; Palisades. Waste stored is 1,493 metric tons. DOE research reactor. Palisades expires in 1992; Fermi, in 2001; Cook, in 2014. The State is 24-percent nuclear dependent. Wisconsin. I remind my fellow colleagues from these States that if we don't do anything, it is going to stay right in your State. Is that what you want to have happen? In Wisconsin, the waste fund is $344 million. They have three units, Kewaunee and Point Beach. Waste stored is 967 metric tons. Point Beach expires in 1995. Kewaunee expires in 2001. They are 8-percent dependent. Maybe they are waiting on the assumption that we are going to address this problem once and for all. Georgia, in the South. Their waste fund is $529 million. They have four units: Hatch 1 and 2, Vogtle 1 and 2. The waste stored is 1,182 metric tons. The Savannah River site waste stored is 206 metric tons. Hatch 1 and 2 were out in 1999. The State is 30-percent dependent. Washington State. The waste fund is $344 million. One unit, WNP 2. Waste stored is 292 metric tons. They are up this year. State's electricity is 6 percent. To a large degree, they depend on hydro, but they still have a problem. Maine. Their waste fund is $233 million. One unit shut down, Maine Yankee. Waste stored is 536 metric tons. Does Maine want that waste to sit there? Do the elected Representatives of the State of Maine want this waste to sit there or move it to one central location that was designed to take the waste? I see my colleague from Pennsylvania on the floor. In his State, the ratepayers have paid $1.338 million for the waste fund. They paid $245 million in their electric bills. They have nine units: Beaver Valley, Limerick, Peach Bottom, Susquehanna, Three Mile Island, and 3,327 metric tons. Beaver Valley is out in 2015, Limerick is out in 2005, Peach Bottom is out in 1999, and Susquehanna is out in 1998. Pennsylvania has a generating capacity of 34 percent which is dependent on nuclear energy. Finally, Vermont. I am not going to go through all States. But I want to make the point that $186 million has been paid by the ratepayers with one unit. Vermont Yankee: Waste stored, 429 metric tons. Vermont Yankee runs out in 2005. In this State, generating capacity is 73 percent nuclear energy. I think that highlights my point that there are very few States that are exempt. Out of the 50 States, there are about 10 that have no nuclear waste in their States. Again, the locations of the spent fuel and radioactive waste designed for geologic disposal are all of these colors. From all of these places it is going to go to the proposed one site at Yucca Mountain. How can we work with Nevada to reach some kind of an accord? That is tough because Nevada doesn't want it as a principle, but it creates jobs. But, by the same token, they are very sensitive to this. I can appreciate that sensitivity. I again appeal to reason. We have to put it somewhere. We identified this as the appropriate place. We are proceeding with the process of licensing. We have an obligation as elected Representatives to resolve the problem. It is not a partisan issue. I defer the thought process to the obligation we are putting on the taxpayers as we put off, whether it be the Senate, the House, or the administration, reaching a decision on how to proceed with this because it is costing the taxpayers more money. One of these days the taxpayers are going to wake up to the fact that each family in this country is carrying a proportionate share of between $1,300 and $1,400 for the damages that are anticipated associated with the inability of the Government to take that waste in 1998 as it agreed to do under a contractual commitment, let alone overlooking the fact that the ratepayers have paid $15 billion to the Federal Government to take the waste. It is beyond me as to why the current administration has not been more aggressive in saying, yes, it is our responsibility to get it resolved. We have had a number of objections from the administration over the years in the process of trying to proceed with this. These objections cover a series of legitimate concerns. But I think in some sense they have lost sight of what our objective had to be, and that is to recognize we have the obligation to resolve the problem. I met with the Secretary of Energy early last year. At that time, we were hung up on how to proceed and what to do about the extended litigation that was occurring as a consequence of the Government's inability to honor the contractual commitment. The issue was, well, how can we find a compromise? We agreed to meet the administration's proposal that the Department of Energy may take title to spent fuel and may pay some of the costs of that storage. That was a significant good- faith effort to try to reach an accord. The other alternative would have been the utility simply suing the Federal Government. But this was the suggestion of the Secretary. We concurred and agreed with it. The other issue was the concern of previous bills which would allow interim storage to occur at Yucca Mountain until Yucca Mountain was licensed. This is important because we need relief. The most immediate way to get relief is to begin moving this waste to Yucca for temporary storage in casks on the surface until such time as Yucca Mountain is licensed and the waste can be put in a permanent repository. The administration opposed that. Nevada opposed that because they looked at it as the last straw and with certainty that the waste was definitely going to Nevada. We were trying to find a way to remove the crucial time element where some of these plants had to shut down, move the waste out under some plan, and put it in casks on the surface until such time as Yucca Mountain opened. We dropped that at the insistence of the administration. We eliminated the ability to temporarily move that waste until Yucca could be licensed. That was a very significant effort to come to grips with the concerns of the administration. But clearly the administration was concerned about elections in Nevada. I can understand that and appreciate that. We didn't move the waste into temporary storage. Now the question that seems to be crucial is how we are going to get a radiation standard that is attainable. It is a legitimate question. We are proposing to get the best science available. What is the best science? There is a lot of science out there. We want a radiation standard that will be attainable which will allow us at such time as Yucca is licensed to be able to move the waste there. If we have a standard that is unattainable, this whole thing is for naught. We will have expanded dramatically the obligation of the American taxpayer not only in damages where we failed to adhere to the sanctity of the contract but damages associated with further delay. We have proposed in general terms to bring with the best science, which is pretty hard to do in this kind of climate. That science consists of those who are very familiar with items of this nature. One of them is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licensed the plants and which has probably more Ph.D.s associated with the nuclear industry and nuclear issues than any other agency--to bring that agency together with the National Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency to work towards a solution on a radiation standard in a positive sense so that we have good, sound science. We have a problem with that to some extent. I hope we can come to grips and recognize in the spirit of good faith the objective is to get the best science, from whatever sources. The EPA has the final obligation for rulemaking. However, we are proposing that not occur until after June of the year 2001. In the meantime, we want them to come together to achieve an attainable level of a radiation standard with which we can live. The radiation standards are all over the ballpark. They are in the eyes of the beholder. In this debate, we will have an opportunity to explain at greater length the concern we have that, after completing this process, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgates a rule on radiation standards that is simply unattainable. If everything were equal in evaluating this, I would not have that concern. However, there are some in this country, including environmental groups--and I am sure the National Academy of Science as well as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission perhaps to a lesser extent, but certainly within the Environmental Protection Agency--who would like to see no solution. What is their motivation? There is a fear that somehow we will expand nuclear energy or the role of nuclear energy. Some suggest if we overcome what to do with the waste, it will stimulate the construction of new plants. I am not here as an advocate of nuclear energy, but I am here as a realist to recognize we cannot have it both ways. We are concerned about air quality. We are concerned about global climate change. We are concerned about Kyoto. We should be. Is there a role for nuclear energy? There should be. From the administration, the Vice President, no mention is made of the role of nuclear energy in any proposals on climate change. One can only assume that the environmental groups that oppose the nuclear industry prevail in the mindset associated within the administration. If they do, that is fine; let's be open. But we should recognize we have an obligation to come up with an alternative. To suggest the solution is simply to let this industry choke on its own waste is unrealistic and irresponsible. That is why we must work in a bipartisan manner for a solution and not lose sight of our objective, which occurs around here, by getting hung up on various aspects of detail and legalistic language. We are either going to move this waste or we are not. If we move it, we are going to save the American taxpayer money. We will adhere to the sanctity of the contractual agreement to take that waste in 1998. That is where we are. Mr. President, I know my colleagues want to be heard and we have not entered into any time agreement. Ordinarily, we break for the policy luncheon. I believe we have a cloture vote scheduled at 2:15. Without losing my right to the floor, how can we accommodate our colleagues, recognizing we have a limited time?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Arkansas is going to request unanimous consent there be a few minutes in morning business so he can introduce a bill. I will be happy to accommodate him if there is no objection.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intention to continue the debate on the manager's amendment to S. 1287, the Nuclear Policy Act Amendments of 1999. It is appropriate to highlight a couple more charts before I explain what this manager's substitute does. I will reiterate the purpose of addressing the responsibility we have as the Senate to resolve what we are going to do to dispose of this high-level waste in conformance with the contractual commitment that the Department of Energy and the Federal Government entered into to take the waste beginning in January of 1998. As I indicated earlier today, the Federal Government is derelict in not meeting its fiduciary responsibility. It is appropriate to point out that the ratepayers in this country have paid $15 billion to the Federal Government to take that waste beginning in 1998. Damages for nonperformance to the contractual commitment by the power industry in this country against the Federal Government suggests the liability is somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion. The longer this body delays in addressing its responsibility of disposal of this waste, the greater the obligation to the American taxpayer, which currently is estimated to be about $1,400 per family. As a consequence, we have the responsibility, in a bipartisan manner, to come together and resolve the obligation we were elected to address, and that is to meet contractual commitments, honor the sanctity of the contract, and resolve the waste problem and not allow the nuclear industry to, basically, choke on its own waste. There are a couple of charts with which I want to proceed. First of all, I want to identify, again, the locations of the waste for those who may have missed it earlier. Around this country, there are approximately 80 sites. One can see the sites on the map: the commercial reactors, the shut down reactors with spent fuel onsite; and they will not be removed unless we proceed with this legislation to address one site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada for a permanent repository. It also includes the commercial spent nuclear fuel storage, the non-DOE research reactor, the naval reactors, and the DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel. My point is simply to show we have 80 sites in 40 States. It is an obligation we have to universally address this with appropriate resolve. The next chart shows radiation exposure. This is very important and very germane to the debate because we are all concerned about the manner in which the radiation exposure will be addressed and by what agency. I am not here to promulgate who has the best science, but I think it is fair to say this issue deserves the very best science. Traditionally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission addresses licensing, examination, and conformance of nuclear plants. They are pretty good at it. They probably have more Ph.D.s than any other agency dealing with nuclear radiation. However, the National Academy of Sciences also has a great deal of expertise, and we are suggesting that their scientific contribution be part of a determination on setting a radiation level that will conform to, as well as achieve, our objective, and that is to put the waste in a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. There is a lot of concern about radiation. I think it has to be put in some perspective that is understandable. For those working in this Capitol, they get 80 millirems of exposure each year. If one is living in a brick house, they get 70 millirems per year. The exposure from cosmic radiation to residents in Denver is 53 millirems. The average annual radiation exposure from the ground is 26 millirems. Diagnostic x-rays are 20 millirems. Dental x-rays are 14 millirems. If one flies from New York to Los Angeles, they get 6 millirems. Exposure for half an hour from a transport container on a truck 6 feet away--let's assume they are moving this in a prescribed cask, transporting it by rail or by highway with an escort--the exposure is 5 millirems. These are accurate measurements. The EPA's proposed radiation exposure level is 4 millirems, and that is a ground water standard. I am not going to argue the merits of EPA other than to say that their exposure level, from the standpoint of its relationship with these other exposure levels, seems a little out of line. We will let it go at that because I want to move on. I want to make the point, as we look at radiation exposure levels, it is important to keep in perspective what we are exposed to already. Let's look at transportation because that is going to be debated extensively. We have been transporting used fuel from 1964 through 1997, as this chart shows. These are the routes used for 2,913 shipments. Obviously, they have been going through all the States. They have been going by railroad through Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, a portion of Nebraska, I believe Missouri, and a couple of other States, as indicated in red. We are and have been moving these shipments. The significance of this is that the public health has never been exposed to radiation from spent fuel cargo. We have never had an exposure. That does not mean it cannot happen; it means we have taken practical safeguards to ensure the exposure is at a minimum. I learned a long time ago in my State of Alaska when we had the Exxon Valdez accident that these accidents can occur. That ship went aground in a 10.5-mile-wide channel simply because of the incompetence of those on the bridge. You can have accidents, and you can prevent them. We have a pretty good record here. Between 1971 and 1989, the Department of Transportation tells us there have been seven minor accidents that have occurred involving nuclear waste, but no radioactivity was released at any of the accident sites simply because of the containment of the vehicles that enclose the waste. Those, of course, are the canisters which are built to withstand exposure. Some time ago when we were talking about moving nuclear waste by aircraft, there was the assurance that we have the technology to build a canister that would survive a free-fall from an aircraft at 30,000 feet. As evidence of the thousands of safe used-fuel shipments since 1964, this is the type of cask that is used, and the waste is stored in that. These are required to survive a 30-foot drop onto a flat, unyielding surface, a drop of 40 inches on a steel plate, being engulfed in a 1,475-degree fire for 30 minutes, submersion under 3 feet of water for 8 hours, and on and on. We have taken safeguards to construct these casks in such a way as to ensure there is a minimum of risk associated with transportation. I have been to Great Britain, Sweden, and I have seen in France the manner in which they move high-level waste. They move it by ship, by rail, by road, and they take safeguards to ensure that it is properly contained. We have transportation safety concerns. We have provisions in this bill to deal with them. It involves the Department of Energy developing comprehensive shipping and transportation plans under the same guidelines as we currently move the WIPP. That is the waste isolation project in New Mexico. These are the same guidelines we are going to be using to move this waste. We have been moving waste to New Mexico. That is basically low-level waste. I have been there and been in the salt caverns and observed the process down there. There is great care taken to ensure there is no exposure that cannot be rectified through adequate engineering technology. The used fuel is going to have to travel as designated by the States, they having a determination of what the most appropriate route is. Clearly, the material has to move; otherwise, you cannot get it out of the States--280 sites and 40 States--and you cannot move it to one area that we have predesignated, which is Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Then we are going to have training which would meet Department of Transportation standards so that we have people who are adequately trained to move this waste and cover whatever emergency response readiness is necessary before the shipments begin. So what we have done--perhaps we can do more and perhaps we should and I certainly am open to that--is taken every precaution to try to ensure the exposure is taken out of the process. Let me show you a couple other charts that I think are relevant. For those of you who missed it, this is the location out in the Nevada Test Site that has been chosen to be the permanent repository. This site has been already pretty well bombarded as a consequence of over 50 years and 800 nuclear weapons tests. If you buy the theory that you kind of desecrated one area so maybe that is the best area for a permanent repository, this site should certainly fit. Let me show you one other chart that shows another aspect. As I have indicated earlier, about 20 percent of our energy comes from nuclear power. You see on the chart, shown in red, nuclear power accounts for 18 percent of our energy use in the country. In any event, this chart shows the mix: Coal is 53 percent; nuclear is 18 to 20 percent; natural gas is 14 percent; hydroelectric is 10 percent; other is 2.7 percent; oil is 2 percent; wind is .08 percent; and solar is .02 percent. It is obvious we are going to be dependent on these sources for some time. If we do not address the nuclear waste issue, we are going to pick up 20 percent of our power generation some other way. I think those who are critical of the effort to address our responsibility are a bit irresponsible in not suggesting where we are going to pick up this differential. On this next chart we look at air quality. If we look at our concern over global warming, if we look at our concern over Kyoto, we have to recognize that there is significant avoidance of emissions by the contribution of nuclear power. You can see shown on this chart the regions that were subject to caps from 1990 to 1995 and the emissions avoided by having nuclear generation and where these States would be without it. It is a pretty tough set of facts. The reality is, a good portion of the Northeast corridor would no longer meet its mandate for emission reductions if, indeed, we had to sacrifice the nuclear power industry. Approximately 80 of the 103 currently operating nuclear energy plants are located in or adjacent to areas that are unable to meet the Clean Air Act standards for ozone. Any use of emitting generation in these areas in place of the existing nuclear capacity moves the region further away from attainment of these standards. So I encourage my colleagues from these States to recognize that the nuclear power industry makes a significant contribution, and without it you are going to be looking to some other unidentifiable means to offset the loss of power from the nuclear industry. Let me turn to the substitute that is before us and briefly reflect on where we have been. We have passed bills in this body by a broad bipartisan margin. The last time the vote was 65 to 34--pretty close to overcoming a veto but not quite. I think these bills mark a historic pattern of trying to meet the objectives of the administration through compromise, through changes, and through accommodations. Those bills were a complete substitute for the existing Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that gave authority to build an interim storage facility for nuclear waste, a temporary above- ground storage pad adjacent to the Yucca Mountain site. It contained extensive provisions on licensing for Yucca Mountain and the interim storage facility, including NEPA radiation protection standards and transportation safety. But the administration was not satisfied. They saw fit to veto the legislation because it opposed the interim storage before the viability assessment was made about the permanent repository. We still think we were doing the responsible thing by trying to address the difficulty of those plants that were about out of license time and would either have to shut down or seek additional relief under State licensing by allowing them to move their waste and store it at Yucca Mountain until such time as a permanent repository was completed. Obviously, there was a fear from Nevada that if that were adopted, the waste would end up in Nevada. Of course, today we are faced with the concerns of various Governors that if we adopt the take-title issue, and title is indeed taken, the waste will go into canisters and be stored onsite in those States, the Government would have title and the waste would still be in the States, that it would not move. The point is that we are either committed as a body to resolve this problem and get on with addressing the transportation of that waste to a permanent repository, or we are going to be faced with the reality that we will simply put it off for another day, put it off for another administration. If we do that, I think we are acting irresponsibly. What we have attempted to do in this bill is a different approach in the manager's amendment. It is not a complete substitute for the old act. It is a minimalist approach. It does not contain an interim storage provision. So we responded to the administration. We responded to the minority. We left that out. We said: It doesn't move until it is licensed. We propose to do two major things. We propose to give the Department of Energy the tools it needs to meet its commitment to move the spent fuel by opening a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. Secondly, we think it provides fair treatment by permitting utilities to enter into voluntary settlements with those who have fulfilled their end of the bargain by paying over some $15 billion which the ratepayers have paid over the contract. What has the Department of Energy done? It left them holding the bag because the Department of Energy and the administration have not seen fit to lift the terms of the contractual agreement to take the waste. So the manager's amendment to S. 1287 clarifies the existing unconstitutional White House veto for raising the fee and states that Congress can vote to raise the existing 1 million per kilowatt fee, if necessary, to pay the expenses of the program. It allows plaintiffs in the lawsuits and the DOE to reach voluntary settlements of the Department of Energy's liability for failing to take the waste in 1998. I still have to refer to the example the Federal Government sets when it doesn't honor the sanctity of a contractual commitment. They simply ignore it. They simply ignore the liability of the taxpayer, which, as I have indicated, is something in the area of $40 billion to $80 billion in damages. We, as elected representatives, have an obligation to address and correct that. That is what we are attempting to do in this legislation. Further, it permits the EPA to continue with its rulemaking--and it is the appropriate agency--on radiation standards as long as we have the best science. Where is the best science? As I have indicated, it is in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences. That is the best science we have in this country. If that isn't good enough to set a radiation standard, I don't know what is. Obviously, that standard will protect the public health and safety and the environment, but it has to be attainable. If the EPA has a policy of nonattainment that we come up with ultimately, we will waste a lot of time and money, and it will cost the taxpayers a lot of dollars. It will allow fuel to be accepted when the NRC authorizes construction of the permanent repository in the year 2007. Further, it allows the Department of Energy to begin moving fuel as soon as possible after Yucca Mountain is licensed. Transportation provisions are based on those used for the waste isolation plan, as I have indicated. Furthermore, we have moved that fuel in the United States around the world. So S. 1287 builds on existing safe systems by adding money for education, emergency response, local communities, transportation personnel, and provisions for allowing the State to determine the routes and rules for population areas. Who is better qualified than the States? Also, there is advance notification for local government. As I have indicated, we have attempted to compromise, and we continue to try to meet the concerns of the administration and the minority. But in order to do that, we have to agree on our objective, and that is to meet our obligation to address, once and for all, some finality to the nuclear waste storage dilemma. We have eliminated the source of the administration's opposition to our previous bills on interim storage. EPA, secondly, may proceed with its rulemaking. All they have to do-- all we want them to do--is be reasonable in the sense of using sound science and participating in peer review with both NRC and the National Academy of Sciences. And in this existing proposal, we have allowed the utilities to enter into a voluntary settlement with the DOE. This was the idea of Secretary Richardson. The manager's amendment to S. 1287 gives us an opportunity, I think, for a triumph of substance over process, safety of people over politics. As I have indicated, the Senate has twice passed this legislation by large, bipartisan margins. Where does the administration stand on this? Well, I have a letter from the administration called ``statement of policy.'' I think it should be ``statement of administrative mixed policy.'' It states that the administration has reviewed the February 4 manager's amendment and they find it unacceptable. Although the amendment appears to allow the EPA to exercise its existing authority, they still believe it would allow another entity to block EPA's authority. I don't know whether they have read the bill or not, but that isn't what the bill says. Consequently, one can only assume the administration is opposed to it because it always has been, regardless of what we have attempted to compromise. Furthermore, I think it is appropriate to recognize that. Again, the administration seems to be working to create a problem that really we can address. The rationale is, I assume, only that they could object to the legislation. That really isn't an adequate excuse. I encourage my friends who have the same responsibility as I do to recognize that the administration has an obligation to come forward and say how we can meet this obligation collectively, the Congress and the administration. The administration, as I indicated, basically objects to a provision that requires EPA to consult with scientists before adopting a standard. What is wrong with the best science? The administration talks about good science and making decisions based on sound science. In fact, the administration's position on science is that it is good. But I wonder if it is good only when it supports a predetermined policy decision. That is kind of where I think we are. I think that is unreasonable. I think that is irresponsible. I think it deserves a greater explanation than the one offered. The only reason for the administration to object to having EPA consult with scientists at the National Academy of Sciences, or with the participation of the NRC, is that they know it is possible to adopt a reasonable standard but they simply don't want to do it. I have a hard time with that because I think that in itself is somewhat irresponsible. I have some other examples that concern me. I will not take the time now, but maybe I will later. The EPA is an extraordinary agency. They carry a big responsibility, but one questions the balance they use. I am going to cite a couple of instances with which I have had personal experience, and I invite my colleagues to share those. As we question the legitimate authority of the EPA, which is statute--that is in law-- EPA does have authority for final rulemaking; we just want them to use the best science available. In my hometown of Fairbanks, it snows. With snow, you have one of two options: You either leave it there or you move it. Several years ago, they had a heavy snowfall where the city and school buses park. This was a paved lot. They moved the snow off the lot. The buses cooperated and they put it on the back lot, which was determined by EPA to be a wetlands. Well, the EPA notified the city of a violation of the wetlands permit. Now, there was snow that came naturally on that other lot where they pushed the snow. It makes no sense. The snow was frozen water. How can wetlands be damaged by more snow? I don't know. We had a problem in Anchorage, AK. This was a storm water treatment: when it rains, the rain goes off the highway into the gutters. In the particular community of Anchorage, it was charged into Cook Inlet; this is water off the streets. Cook Inlet has some of the highest tides in the world, next to the Bay of Fundy, nearly 30 feet, almost twice a day. However, EPA Clean Water Act regulations interpreted that the city was in violation because it had to remove 30 percent of the organic matter from the untreated water. The problem was it was rain water. There was no organic matter to remove. Yet they were still in violation. But the water was too clean to begin with. The city appealed to the EPA. The EPA denied the appeal and told the city they were subject to a fine. One of the city council members suggested they go down to the fish plant and add some fish guts to the drain water so there would be some organic matter to remove and thus meet the national discharge standard. This got notoriety all over the country. It made no sense to pay to contaminate pure rain water and then pay to remove the contamination. We were finally able to convince them as a consequence of public opinion and public notoriety of the impracticality of EPA. In this instance, I have one more little item that I will share with you. In 1993, the EPA proposed to take pepper spray bear repellent off the market until its safety could be certified. The spray was at that time the only effective nonlethal repellent that Alaskans could use to protect themselves against bears. I say nonlethal. You can take a gun or you can take some pepper spray. While the EPA reconsidered the decision and allowed the pepper spray repellent to remain while it permitted a speeded up regulatory review, the preliminary decision to recall the spray was idiotic, to say the least. Alaskans or anyone who wants to can put cayenne pepper in their chili. They could legally throw the pepper at a charging bear, if they wanted to. It was insane to say that could not be placed within the spray can; namely, the chili spray. What was really insane was that EPA initially argued they couldn't speed up registration of the pepper spray until it was field tested and on, do you know what? Wild bears--a difficult and rather dangerous thing to do. It was especially odd that the bear undoubtedly would much rather be sprayed by the pepper spray than the alternative 30.06 bullet. I have recycling asthma inhalant examples, vehicle gasoline rules, ozone standards, background contamination on MTBE, battery enterprise examples, mining examples, and recycling center examples. I am not going to bore my colleagues with that other than to say what we want is the best science. We want EPA to take advantage of that science and then come down with their rulemaking. But very particularly, we don't want EPA to set an attainment standard that is unattainable for the nuclear waste to be disposed of. I know my friends want to be heard from, and there will be amendments forthcoming. But I want to conclude with a reference on what we can do. Again, I point out that it is the obligation of the Government--that includes those of us in the Congress and the administration--to solve this problem. This bill is the congressional solution, and the administration has an obligation as well. We voted out this legislation in the last two Congresses by bipartisan votes--65 to 34 in the Senate, and in the House of Representatives 307 to 120--again, not enough to override a veto. This year, we introduced the interim storage legislation, S. 608. The legislation had votes to be favorably reported. I proposed that the committee consider a new approach to accommodate the Secretary and the administration. We hoped to find a solution to the nuclear waste dilemma to gain full consensus and avoid procedural problems of the past. Senate bill 1287 was approved in the committee by a bipartisan vote of 14-6. Here are the five essential points that I believe have to be addressed if we are going to have anything meaningful when we are through. We need congressional approval before there is any increase in the nuclear waste figure. We simply cannot give the executive branch carte blanche. It has to have congressional approval; second, authorize settlement of lawsuits for DOE's failure to perform; third, the radiation protection standards, as I stated, for the repository to be set by the agencies that have the expertise--the NRC, National Academy of Sciences working with the EPA. I compromised on this point in my manager's amendment. The EPA may now go ahead with its standard-setting regulations provided that they take advantage of the best science available, and that the NRC in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA agree that the standard is attainable. Some suggest that the EPA cannot have the last word. That is not the intent. If we have to rephrase it, we will do it. The intent is authority by statute to belong to the EPA, but clearly the best science should include input from the National Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The fourth prerequisite: Operation of a repository fuel acceptance facility key to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorization for the permanent repository in the year 2007, and a transportation system based on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant model, which is WIPP. Those are the five principles that we outlined. Those are the principles that we worked on with the minority to try to achieve a consensus. I think the bill reflects significant concession by the supporters of the past legislation. I believe this new approach still gives the DOE the tools it needs. I still don't know why the administration seems so possessed, policy-wise, to oppose it. But that is what we have before us. I conclude this portion of my statement by again identifying where I think we are in the differences we have. That, again, is the radiation standard. As you heard me state time and time again, I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the appropriate determiner of that standard. But the manager's amendment now contains new language that would permit the EPA to go ahead as long as the National Academy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are consulted. Obviously, that interest is a science that will protect health, safety, and welfare. As to the objective, it is most important that we have an objective of achieving the radiation standard that is attainable. This is a reasonable approach. It provides the best science after peer review. Yet it does allow EPA to ultimately complete the rule after we have had the input of the best minds on the subject and have consulted with one another. If the EPA and the NRC cannot agree, then the EPA is not permitted, obviously, to adopt any rule until after June 1, 2001. But after June 1, 2001, the EPA may go ahead and adopt a rule pursuant to existing authority under section 801 of the Energy Policy Act. Part of the problem with the EPA standard that was detailed in the proposed rules that came out last August was that it applied unrealistic standards to ground water. They proposed 4 millirems for ground water. This is a standard that comes from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which I support. This chart shows the levels of radiation. For those working in the Capitol, we get 80 millirems; anyone living in a brick house, 70 millirems; annual exposure from cosmic radiation, 53 millirems; annual average radiation from the ground, 26 millirems; x ray, 20 millirems; dental x ray, 14 millirems; round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles, 6 millirems; exposure from a transport container carrying high level waste 6 feet away, 5 millirems. But the EPA proposal is 4 millirems for the drinking water standard. This chart shows the proposed site: 800 nuclear weapon tests over 50 years. They are going to come down and propose a 5 millirem level; remember, 4 millirems is the level for drinking water. Is that really in the interests of proceeding with this legislation or is it to set an unattainable standard? No one will drink the ground water that comes from this site. I hope not. The Safe Drinking Water Act should not be applied to ground water. However, if the water becomes tap water, the act should apply; but not while the water is in the ground. The EPA wants to take extremely low standards that were designed to apply to drinking water out of a tap and apply to water in the ground, whether people drink it or not. Let me be very clear. This dispute has nothing to do with a level of protection for the people in Nevada. Whether or not the drinking water standard is applied to ground water has nothing to do with how much additional radiation, if any, Nevadans would be exposed to from the facility. The EPA applied similar regulations to the WIPP Transuranic Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility in New Mexico. The drinking water standard was not an issue when WIPP was licensed by EPA because WIPP is a salt mine. Obviously, there is no potable water around it. Maybe EPA thinks all nuclear waste should be disposed of in a salt cavity, but I am not sure everybody in the country or in this body would agree. The National Academy of Sciences did not recommend that the Safe Drinking Water Act be applied to ground water. Instead, they addressed ``requirements necessary to limit risks to individuals'' as required by law. In fact, the National Academy specifically said they don't make such a recommendation. Finally, the National Academy concluded that the decision regarding the acceptable level of risk for Yucca Mountain is a policy decision. What does that mean? That means a decision for Congress, not the scientists. In our legislation, we propose the best scientists come up with a recommendation to EPA and EPA be part of that process. I think it is appropriate that Congress make a decision regarding the level of risk. Finally, the ultimate myth. I think everyone would agree, this administration says it cares about clean air and preventing climate change. Here is where our electricity comes from: 53 percent comes from coal; 18 to 20 percent is nuclear; 14 percent is natural gas; 10 percent is hydroelectricity; the remaining few percent is oil, wind, and solar. DOE's Energy Information Administration says the Kyoto treaty would require a 30-percent reduction of CO2 emissions from the predicted 2010 level. How do we do this without nuclear power? We cannot get there from here. There are no nuclear emission-free sources that can economically take its place. For the moment, forget about the Kyoto treaty and think of the present. This chart shows the emissions avoided from increased nuclear generation. This is a reduction in SO2 from nuclear power generation. From 1990 to 1995, 37 percent of the sulfur dioxide reductions required by the Clean Air Act came from increased generation from existing nuclear powerplants. That is where it came from. These were sulfide reductions. Is that not ironic? They gave credit for the reductions to the nuclear plants. They don't have any emissions. That is where they get the reductions. Clever. Even with nuclear power, it is difficult and expensive to meet the new regs; without nuclear power it is impossible. As this body addresses the broad obligation of reality, we have to focus in on the difficulty we have. That is, that the nuclear industry is choking on its own waste. We have the responsibility to come up with a solution. This chart shows an overlay of nuclear plants in noncontainment areas. In fact, almost all nuclear plants are located in or near areas that have significant air quality problems. What happens when the nonemitting sources are replaced with emitting sources--the only realistic alternatives? EPA can pass all the regulations in the world, but if the President and Vice President really did care about clean air, they would get behind this bill. This contributes more to clean air than any possible thing we could do in the area of increasing dependence on hydrocarbons. The administration has a policy: Delay and more delay, for the American people who care for their safety, their environment, and their pocketbook. Let's look at the pocketbook. The litigation goes on. The $15 billion has been paid by the ratepayers. The liability associated with nonperformance to the contractual commitment, $40 to $80 billion, or $1,400 per family. Is the President concerned about clean air, about climate change or is this some kind of a cynical diplomatic/political exercise? I don't know. Previously, the administration said it objected to siting a temporary storage facility before 1998 when the viability assessment for Yucca Mountain would be completed. At that time, I said anyone who believes that the availability of the viability assessment will make passing legislation easier is out of touch with reality. I take no pleasure in the fact that I was right. The reality is no one wants nuclear waste stored in their State. I am sensitive to that. I understand the position of my Nevada friends. However, we have it in 40 States. Do we want to leave it there or put it in one area that has been determined to carry a repository for our high level waste? At the committee hearing on S. 1287 in February, all four members of the Nevada delegation stated that no level of scientific proof would lessen their objection to this project. Let me repeat that: All four members of the Nevada delegation stated that no level of scientific proof would lessen their opposition to this project. I understand that and I accept that. It doesn't make any difference what level of scientific proof is available, they are going to oppose it. A further reality is that this administration apparently will not support a solution to this problem as long as the Nevada delegation opposes it. I can understand that. Let's call the shots as they really are. The ultimate reality is that the Federal Government had an obligation to start taking the waste in 1998 and it violated the sanctity of the contract. We have reached a crossroad. The job of fixing this program is ours. Time for fixing the program is now. Much progress has been made at Yucca. Much money has been spent at Yucca. We can build on this progress. The bill contains the tools that the Department of Energy needs to make the permanent repository work. Every day we wait to move the fuel, the liability of the American taxpayer increases. We can choose whether the Nation needs 80 various storage sites in 40 States or just one: the arid, remote, Nevada Test Site where we exploded scores of nuclear bombs during the cold war. Is that not the most safe and most remote location for nuclear waste storage? Over 800 nuclear tests were conducted at this site. Mr. President, the time clearly is now. I note my colleagues from Nevada are on the floor seeking recognition. I have taken a good deal of time and look forward to their statement. I am happy to respond, I might add, to any questions they may pose. Obviously, we are going to be on this for some time. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Now I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding adjournment, Senators have until 6 o'clock p.m. today to file first- degree amendments.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Murray.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 245, which is at the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Tina Kreisher, Dave Sundwall, Kristin Phillips, Kjersten Scott, Betty Nevitt, Colleen Deegan, and Mr. Jim Beirne during the pendency of S. 1287.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, I ask consent that following morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1287, the nuclear waste disposal bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 9. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m., with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: The first 30 minutes under the control of Senator Durbin, or his designee; the second 30 minutes under the control of Senator Thomas, or his designee.