Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish the Senate a good morning and a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank those who have worked so hard on this piece of legislation, Karen and Gary and several others, as well as my colleagues on the other side, professional staff, and the two Senators from Nevada. It has been a good debate, and I think we send a message to the administration relative to the reality of whether we are going to leave the waste on 80 sites in 41 States or do something about it. So we will look forward to the House action. Again, I thank all my colleagues who participated. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent the yeas and nays be vitiated on the substitute amendment. I understand the underlying Domenici amendment is acceptable.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I now ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of Senate bill 104.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me very briefly address the Bingaman amendment which I feel introduces some serious loopholes in S. 104's ironclad process toward a safe, central interim storage facility. The loopholes will be used, as they have in the past, to keep the nuclear waste where it is at 80 sites in 41 States, near schools and residential neighborhoods--right where it is today. The history of the nuclear waste issue has taught us some simple lessons we must heed: Any decision regarding nuclear waste that can be delayed will be delayed; any decision that can be ignored will be ignored. That is why we have spent $6 billion over 15 years, and the Federal Government is still unable to meet its legal and moral obligation to take the waste in 1998. I implore my colleagues: Let us not be fooled again. S. 104 is designed to make sure there are no trap doors. The chart that I explained to my colleagues yesterday attempts to make a decision, force a decision now, not leave us with a way out or a copout. I suggest to you that the Bingaman amendment as it is structured opens a loophole. It opens the process to political pressure. It invites indecision. It continues the legacy of failure that the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program is noted for. It would be my intention, Mr. President, to move to table the Bingaman amendment. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to table the Bingaman amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senate is not in order, Mr. President.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I did not hear the vote count, and I wonder if my other colleagues did. I wonder if the President will repeat it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to protect the taxpayer by making it clear that nuclear waste user fees cannot exceed 1 mill per kilowatt hour without specified congressional authorization. The spent fuel disposal program is paid for with a fee that is currently set to 1 mill per kilowatt hour. My amendment simply protects the ratepayer by making it clear that the user fee cannot exceed 1 mill without congressional authorization. DOE's own budget projections show that a 1 mill fee is sufficient. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the question before the body now is whether we want to leave the waste where it is, 41 States in 80 sites, or do something about the waste. Do we want the waste to move out again because of an inability to reach a decision? Where would it move? Nobody wants it in any of the 50 States. It would move out to the Pacific. God knows where it would move. Today we must make an important environmental decision which will lead to a safer future for all Americans. Currently, Mr. President, as I have noted, we have the waste stored in 80 sites in 41 States. This is in addition to waste stored at DOE facilities, and it is in our backyards across the land. Do we want that waste to stay there, or do we want to move it? That is the question. Every year that goes by our ability to continue to store nuclear waste at each of these sites in a safe and environmentally responsible way diminishes. Our temporary storage facilities were designed for just that--temporary storage. We have struggled with this nuclear waste issue for more than a decade. We have collected $13 billion from the taxpayers, but some are unprepared to meet the Government's promise to take the waste by 1998, next year. The administration's position would suggest that we are undermining the permanent repository program. They have not read the bill. The reality is that it is the only way to save the permanent repository program.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me remind you that the U.S. court of appeals has ruled that the Department of Energy has an obligation to take possession of the nuclear waste in 1998, whether or not a repository is ready. Damages for the Department of Energy's failure to perform are going to cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars. Now, the administration says that S. 104 would effectively establish Nevada as a site for an interim storage facility before the viability assessment of Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository is completed. Well, they have not read the bill, Mr. President. S. 104 does not choose a site for interim storage before the viability assessment of Yucca Mountain is completed. If the viability assessment is positive, the bill provides that the interim storage facility will be constructed at the Nevada test site. If the viability assessment is negative, the bill provides that the President has 18 months and Congress has 2 years to choose another interim storage site. This bill, Senate 104, protects the public health, environment, and extends the schedule for siting and licensing. It requires environmental impact statements. It provides the interim facility will be licensed. It shortens the license term of the interim facility to 40 years; it balance State and Federal laws, preempting only those State laws that are inconsistent with the act; it provides that the Environmental Protection Agency will set standards for a permanent repository, based upon the National Academy of Science recommendation. So we have reached a crossroad, Mr. President. The job of fixing this program is ours. The time for fixing the program is now. Much progress has been made at Yucca Mountain. The 5-mile exploratory tunnel will soon be complete. If Yucca is found on unsuitable or is not licensed, it will be vital that we have a centralized interim site. I have a simple bottom line. We must chart a safe, predictable, and sure course to interim and permanent waste storage. There can be no trapdoors, Mr. President. I don't want to have to stand here next year or the year after doing this again. We have to ask ourselves, do we want to move the waste or simply leave it where it is? We can choose now whether the Nation needs 80 interim storage sites, or just one. The arid, remote Nevada test site, where we have exploded scores of nuclear bombs during the cold war, is a safe and remote location for a monitored interim site. The time is now. I think S. 104 is the answer. So ask yourself, do you want to leave the waste where it is, in 40 States at 80 sites? Or do you want to move the waste from your State to one location, and that is the Nevada test site? I reserve the remainder of my time for the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. On behalf of the leader, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. 104, the Nuclear Policy Act. Under the order, following 3 minutes for debate, there will be a series of rollcall votes on or in relationship to the pending amendments. The last vote in that series will be final passage of the Nuclear Policy Act. Following disposition of S. 104, there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m. The Senate will recess at 12:30 p.m. until the hour of 2:15 to allow for the weekly policy conferences to meet. When the Senate reconvenes after the luncheons, it is hoped that we will be able to begin discussions on legislation regarding the IRS's unauthorized access to tax records. Therefore, Senators can expect additional votes today following the policy luncheons.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I would like to announce for the benefit of Members and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing to receive testimony on S. 430, the New Mexico Statehood and Enabling Act Amendments of 1997. The hearing will take place on Monday, May 5, 1995, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to testify or submit written statements for the record should contact James Beirne, senior counsel to the committee at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant, at (202) 224-0765 or write the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public, the workshops which have been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to exchange ideas and information on the issue of competitive change in the electric power industry. The first workshop will take place on Thursday, May 8, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The topic of discussion will be the effects of competition on fuel use and types of generation. The second workshop will take place on Thursday, May 22, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Building. The topic of discussion will be the financial implications of restructuring. The third workshop will take place on Thursday, June 12, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The topic of discussion will be the benefits and risks of restructuring to consumers and communities. Participation is by invitation. For further information please write to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510, attn: Shawn Taylor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I also be added as a cosponsor to the resolution.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is not the manager's intention that section 101(g) limit the rights or remedies available under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 or the contracts executed thereunder. If a failure by DOE to comply with any deadline established in the amendment also constituted a failure to comply with a deadline established by the 1982 act or a contract under that act, it is not the manager's intent that section 101(g) modify the right of any contract holder to see any and all remedies otherwise available for the violation of the 1982 act or for breach of the contract. It is the manager's intention that section 101(f) preserve all of those rights, regardless of whether the same or a similar obligation is expressed in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. It is not the manager's intent that the language of section 101(g) proscribe the court of appeals or any other court from awarding monetary relief or other financial remedies to those who have paid fees to the Government under the 1982 act and the contracts, or those who will incur additional expense on account of the DOE's failure to comply with any right conferred by 1982 act or the contracts.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is not the manager's intention that section 101(g) limit in any way the rights of contract holders, their ratepayers, or those agencies of the State governments that represent ratepayers, from enforcing any right they might have, including the right to hold the Federal Government liable financially, under the 1982 act and the contracts executed pursuant thereto. Section 101(g) is expressly subject to section 101(f), which makes clear that rights conferred by section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 or by the contracts executed thereunder are not affected by this bill, including section 101(g). To the extent that act or the contracts established a 1998 deadline and the DOE fails to meet that deadline, it is not the manager's intent that the substitute amendment in any way restrict the relief available to those damaged by the failure to meet the deadline.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand that this consent order contains provisions relating to transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, and high- level waste. Could you please describe the requirements that specifically relate to commercial spent nuclear fuel?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we set aside the Bingaman amendment and go back to the pending Domenici amendment, which has been brought before the Senate previously.

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