Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand amendment No. 43 to S. 104 is pending. Mr. President, let me go into the purpose of the amendment. It is establishing a fee cap and is a second-degree amendment to protect the ratepayers. These are the ratepayers who pay into a special fund and use and generate power from nuclear reactors. It is to protect the ratepayers who are the ones who ultimately pay the nuclear waste fee by making it clear that the nuclear waste user fee cannot exceed 1 mill per kilowatt hour without specific congressional authorization. The spent fuel disposal program is paid for with a fee collected from the consumers of nuclear energy. This fee is currently set at 1 mill per kilowatt hour. While the nuclear waste program has had problems, collecting sufficient amount of money from the ratepayers certainly hasn't been one of them. After all, we collected over $13 billion and have expended only $6 billion on a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. But we have a problem created by the fact that our budgetary system forces the program to compete against other DOE programs for funding even though this fee is earmarked for nuclear waste disposal. This situation has contributed to the problem where ratepayers have spent some $13 billion in the fund but have only received excuses in return. Our budget system also creates an incentive to use nuclear waste fund receipts to disguise the size of the budget. Senate bill S. 104 addresses these problems by providing for two fees. One is a user fee that is equal to the appropriations provided to the program. The other is mandatorily created that makes up the difference between appropriations and the current level of the fee which is 1 mill per kilowatt-hour. The user fee goes directly to fund the ongoing programs. The mandatory fee goes into the nuclear waste fund to continue to bill the balance to ensure there will still be money in the fund to deal with the waste even after the reactors stop operating. With that background, let me briefly explain what my amendment does. My amendment simply makes it clear that the user fee cannot exceed 1 mill without congressional authorization. This is designed to protect ratepayers. Critics will say perhaps that this is designed to protect utilities. But it is really the ratepayers who pay the fee, don't they? Certainly not the utilities. Some may argue that a 1 mill fee is insufficient to pay for both interim storage and permanent repository. DOE's own budget projections show that this is not the case. The 1 mill fee generates $630 million per year. Because defense waste will also be placed in the permanent repository, a portion of the cost, therefore, must be appropriated from the national defense budget account to the nuclear waste fee each year. In the last few years this has been some $200 million. That is a combined total of $830 million each year. Is $830 million per year combined with the roughly $6 to $7 billion in the waste fund today sufficient to fund both the permanent repository and the interim storage facility? This is a key question. According to the Department of Energy's own budget plan, the answer is yes. It is plenty. The fact is the budgetary provisions in the Department of Energy's own program plan assume an interim storage facility is named in 1998. To quote from the DOE plan, ``Fiscal year 1999 through the year 2002 amounts for the program assume the enactment of legislation authorizing and siting an interim storage facility and providing appropriate funding arrangements.'' So there we have it. DOE's own plan reflects exactly the same schedule for siting and constructing an interim facility as that set out in Senate bill S. 104. The Department of Energy's own plan shows that the cost of both the permanent repository and interim facility will range from $535 to $698 million per year. That is well under the $830 million going in the fund from the ratepayer contributions and defense appropriations. So lack of money is not the problem. But if changed circumstances or other factors make the cost of the programming to go up, then Senate bill S. 104 provides expedited procedures to consider a change in the 1 mill cap. Under Senate bill S. 104 the Secretary determines each year whether the DOE has collected too little or too much money. The Secretary then transmits his or her recommendations to Congress, and a joint resolution to raise or lower the fee is introduced and considered on an expedited basis. This is another way to ensure that this program will be adequately funded for its entire life. But by requiring Congress to act to raise the fee we protect the ratepayers, and that is the purpose of the language of Senate bill S. 104 and the amendment before us now. We carefully balance the needs of the program while protecting the ratepayers. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe we are waiting for another Member to come down to the Chamber. We have two more amendments, is my understanding. Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that no Member of this body intended, by any means, that last year's welfare bill would place the elderly and the disabled legal immigrants out of their residence and into the streets of this country. I am sure that when our President signed the reform bill, that certainly was not his intention. Since the bill was signed into law, many State Governors have attempted to address the concerns raised by my good friend from Minnesota. Many of the State's Governors and representatives have large budget surpluses that can be used to alleviate some of the potential problems that have surfaced. That is not in all States, by any means, but in those that have that capability, I think there is an appropriate expenditure suggested. In addition, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has recently issued new guidelines that should facilitate citizenship applications by many elderly disabled immigrants. Mr. President, I am certain that Congress, working with the administration, State Governors, and other organizations, will surely come up with a solution that ensures the well-being and safety of all legal immigrants, especially the elderly and the disabled. This is not to suggest, however, that we are going to rewrite the historic welfare legislation we passed last year. As many colleagues stated on the floor last year, if and when unanticipated problems arise resulting from the welfare bill, we will address those problems in an appropriate fashion. There are some in this body who want to restore, piecemeal, the old AFDC welfare entitlement. That program has been unanimously adjudged a dismal failure. Piecemeal attempts to restore that failed system are simply not going to happen. I want to assure my friend from Minnesota that I am committed to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee, along with the help of the administration and Governors, to ensure that necessary assistance is made available to resolve this unintended problem. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield back my time and urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is the intent of this side to not prolong this discussion. Therefore, I am willing to yield back the remainder of our time on this side. It will be my intention to have a voice vote, I believe, to dispose of the amendment.

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

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield to the Senator from Oregon. Unanimous-Consent Request

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to the Wellstone amendment, which I understand may be acceptable. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to offer the second-degree amendment at this time on behalf of Senator Lott. The only change it would make to the Wellstone amendment would be to add the words ``the President'' on line 2--* * * that the President, Congress, the States, and faith-based and other organizations * * *'' et cetera. I send this second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is correct. The intent of the committee in adopting the third committee amendment was to prevent the President from designating the Hanford Nuclear Reservation as the site of the nationwide interim storage facility for all civilian and spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. commercial reactors. This amendment is not intended to preclude steps that an individual utility, such as the supply system, might need to take to manage the storage of its own spent nuclear fuel.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield our time.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think there is a misunderstanding. I am prepared to accept the amendment with the commitment that I will try to get the Senator's revision which we talked about--adding the word ``preliminary''--adopted in conference.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if it would satisfy the Senator from Minnesota if I gave him a commitment that we would accept his amendment, at least I would attempt to accept his amendment, in conference, because, obviously, I will be on the conference committee. I would accept the underlying amendment now with the provision that I would give him my commitment to do my very best in conference to adopt his amendment, but I am willing to accept the underlying amendment now.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I very much appreciate the amendment from my friend from Minnesota, and I know of his interest in this matter because there is substantial amounts of spent nuclear fuel from reactors in Minnesota. I am sure the Senator from Minnesota is aware of the transportation route where high- level nuclear waste has been transferred across the United States, some 2,400 shipments, and I have a map here that shows the manner in which these shipments have occurred from 1979 to 1995. I think the Senator was out in his State Friday when we were talking about this. This chart shows that shipments of nuclear waste have been made over an extended period of time, all over the Nation. And during those 2,400 shipments there have been seven accidents. Most of those accident were minor ones. In the most serious accident, the tractor trailer swerved off the road to avoid another car that was out of control, turned over and the cask rolled off. But there was no leakage of radioactivity. The cask did not break. It was not perforated in any manner or form. As the Senator from Minnesota knows, this type of nuclear waste, while it is highly radioactive, does not go up in the air and vaporize or move with the wind currents or whatever. It has a tendency, because of its weight and denseness, to stay wherever it occurs. And these are high-level waste rods from the reactors. I think the intent of the Senator from Minnesota is parallel with my own intent. We want to safeguard, in every possible way, the transportation of this material. Here is an example of the type of truck and the cask. You can see the cask up on top. These have been designed to withstand any foreseeable accident of any kind that would be determined to be possible on a highway. In testing, they have been dropped. They have been hit by trains. They have been incinerated and so forth. I go into this detail, not to suggest there could not be some type of accident that would cause a penetration but, clearly, the best scientists, the best engineers we have have concluded that these casks have been designed in such a way as to survive real-world accidents and ensure the public safety. The concern the Senator from Alaska has, relative to the amendment offered by my friend from Minnesota, is how to determine just what is adequate, relative to training? I think, if you look at the safeguards we have attempted to put in S. 104, we have put in funding for technical assistance for emergency responders along the routes to be used to transport the fuel. The Wyden language, which we adopted, provided more detail. Rigorous provisions regarding route selection and training for emergency responders were included. We had left it to the Department of Transportation to choose the preferred routes. Again, considerations in route selection would include concerns over population, hazards, shipping time, and so forth. But I want to point out to my friend that this is nothing new. The only reason these other 2,400 shipments were not news is because nothing happened. These were in connection with moving high-level material from experimental reactors and other reactors around the country for disposition. So, to suggest that what we have had before was adequate is inconsistent, I think, with reality. The question we are looking at now is, Can we do everything possible to ensure that we have the safest possible transportation route and have made the maximum effort to protect public safety? It is also important to recognize that this plan is fully integrated with State notification, inspection, emergency response plans, as well as should it go through any tribal or native lands. It also grants at least $150,000 in State and tribal funding. I think this was something the Senator from Minnesota brought up in his debate. If there is no training, there are no shipments. That is a provision of our bill. We make it clear the Department of Energy cannot transport fuel under this act unless the technical assistance and funding required by the bill have been provided for at least 3 years prior to the shipments. As I understand the Wellstone amendment, it would add as a requirement that the Department of Energy make a formal determination that personnel along the routes have met acceptable standards of training for emergency response to accident. It does not provide additional training. And it requires the Department of Energy to make an official determination. My concern, and I am sure the concern of the Senator from Minnesota, is to get this stuff moved out of his State. That is a legitimate concern that he and others have, other States have, where this material is piled up. So we have to make sure we do not tie this process up in litigation so every State or every tribe or every local community could come in under a determination of adequacy. I am concerned here as to how I can meet the concerns of the Senator from Minnesota and still ensure that we have a viable and practical situation where this oversight does not throttle our objective here, and that is to move this material to an appropriate repository. I am concerned if this amendment is adopted as it is now, we might find ourselves tied up in litigation and it would not be that the DOE had or had not followed the Department of Transportation's regulations to the letter. I do not think it matters that the Department of Energy has followed the NRC regulations with care and precision. It might not matter the Department of Energy has integrated emergency response plans with all the State tribes. And it will not matter the DOE has provided funding for emergency responders. What will matter is we might have a lawyer along the way who has decided that a new volunteer fireman has not had acceptable level of training. The next thing you know, the Department of Energy is in court trying to prove that every individual firefighter along every single route has been trained to an acceptable level. I do not know how we are going to prove that. What is an acceptable level? That would be in the eyes of a court to determine. I just wonder if we might confer a little bit, or perhaps here on the floor, if the Senator wished, to discuss how we would address that concern of what is acceptable, because I think we both want to get there from here. I would defer to my colleague, on my own time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, has the first-degree amendment been adopted?

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In the course of deliberations on Senate bill 104, we have debated the merits of exclusions for a number of Department of Energy sites. Specifically, I am referring to exclusion from consideration for selection as the interim storage site for commercial spent nuclear fuel under the provisions of this legislation. Does the consent order we are discussing have any bearing on this question for Idaho?

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

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have conferred with the distinguished Senator from Minnesota with regard to the suggestion that has been made for a change in the wording of the amendment, by adding the word ``preliminary.'' That would be in line 2. It is my understanding the amendment would read: On page 22 of the substitute, line 5 after ``(3) (B)'' insert, ``until the Secretary has made a'' [and the additional would be ``preliminary''] ``determination. . . .'' The rest of the amendment would be the same. That is satisfactory to our side. I leave it up to the other side for discussion and analysis, but we are prepared on this side to accept the amendment in that form.