Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may interrupt to complete my understanding, for the benefit of other Senators, we have the two Wellstone amendments pending at a time to be determined by the leadership, which is intended to be debated on Monday. Is that correct?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend for the explanation. I have no objection.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if we could get a short explanation.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. My understanding is, if the utilities agree to pay it, it seems to be in their own best interest to pay it and be relieved of the interest. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. So it is beneficial, since in most cases they have it in escrow, to simply pay it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is true, but they would have to pay the penalty of the interest.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may, I am told that was the deadline for paying the fee. But if you paid earlier, you do not have to pay the interest.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am going to call for a voice vote, but let me very briefly explain our position with regard to the action that is pending before the Senate. This provision requires the payment of a one-time fee due to be paid in fiscal year 2001. The one-time fee is the fee paid for fuel used before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted. Most have already paid this fee. The timing of the payment was optional: Immediately or when the fuel was taken. If paid when the fuel was taken, then interest must be paid by the utilities. Most utilities that have not paid the fee put it in escrow, and this simply requires that the fee be turned over to the Federal Government so it can be used as an offset to the user fee implemented by S. 104. So the amendment simply corrects a technical issue with regard to the fee provision of the substitute. We had been previously advised by CBO that the provision had no Budget Act impact and, as a consequence, this action basically makes us in conformance with the Budget Act.

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

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

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I send an amendment to the desk. It is an amendment to the Murkowski substitute beginning on page 49.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will be very brief. There are a couple of points I want to make relative to the continued debate. One is the reference to the profits of the utilities. Most utilities are heavily regulated, and as a consequence the States have a considerable influence on determining the return on investment. I am not going to argue the merits of just what that return is. I think it varies within the industry, and it varies by the producer of power, their power lot, and it has to do with incurred debt and the ability to amortize that debt. But one thing that wasn't mentioned is that these utilities have provided reliable power to the residents of the individual States since they came online-- reliable power from a source that emitted no emissions, contributed nothing to greenhouse gases, and basically the cleanest source of power that we know today on a significant magnitude to maintaining air quality. So the environmental contribution by nuclear power from the standpoint of its emissions is really beyond compare. So let's acknowledge, indeed, that the utilities have done a job. They have provided power which is reliable and clean. Without them there is no considered replacement that has been identified. The issue of containers continues to come up. If we can ship high- level waste from Europe to the United States, military waste from Europe to the United States and to Russia--we watch the British, we watch the French, we watch the Japanese move waste from Japan to France for reprocessing and back--to suggest that we are not going to build safe containers is simply unrealistic. The point has been made that we are in some of these reactors storing our waste on site in casks on the surface suggests just one thing. We are preparing to basically leave it where it is, leave it with 41 States at the 80 sites, and that is the answer that the other side has for relief. Leave it all over the place. If it is safe enough to leave at a reactor in a cask on the surface, certainly it is safe enough to leave it out in the desert in an area where we have had 50 years of nuclear explosions, where we have a work force that is trained, security force, and so forth. So I just do not buy that argument. That is just an argument for leaving it where it is, and that is just not good enough. It is not good enough for the Senator from Alaska, it is not good enough for the States that are affected. If you look at the schedule, the viability assessment is anticipated to be completed by the end of next year. I am told the odds of that being favorable are about 90 percent. This is relative to a permanent repository at Yucca being completed. So when that viability assessment is done next year, we will begin to initiate the process of developing the EIS on the temporary repository. Then the President has to determine the viability. That is going to take place in 1999. If the Nevada test site is determined it will be determined at that date, approximately March 1999, and by April 1999 the license application will be presented to the NRC and we anticipate the EIS to be completed on the temporary repository by the year 2000. Construction can begin when the EIS is done. Construction would begin, we anticipate, when we get the license from the NRC, in roughly 2001, and we could accept the casks coming from the nuclear reactors into the temporary repository out in the Nevada desert no later than the year 2000. So there is the schedule relative to the timeframe under which we can begin to accept spent fuel into the Nevada desert temporary repository. The alternative to that--and that is what the other side would have you suggest--is to wait until Yucca Mountain is done, and that is the year 2015. We have a theme here that has been around for a long time and we continue, and it is here today and it is a legacy of broken promises. I think it is time that the Government start keeping its promises. It was 15 years ago that Congress passed a law that made a deal with America's electric consumers, and here was the deal. People who bought electricity from nuclear power plants would pay a small additional charge on their electric bills. In return, the Department of Energy would build storage and disposal facilities for used nuclear fuel from the nuclear power plants that supply 22 percent of our Nation's electricity--22 percent--second only to fossil fuels, coal. These facilities, as I have indicated, would be ready in 1998, at which time the Department of Energy would begin removing used fuel from the nuclear power sites. The consumers paid their money, but as it now stands the DOE is not going to hold up its end of the bargain. I think it is a travesty that we still are here today trying to get the Department of Energy to fulfill its responsibility to build a facility to manage this radioactive waste. In 15 years and nearly $13 billion in consumer funding for this program, it is pretty hard to see the progress that we have made. All consumers have in exchange for the billions of dollars so far is a legacy of broken promises from the Federal Government. Worse yet, the Energy Department says it cannot begin accepting fuel in the permanent repository until the year 2015, and that is if everything goes as planned. If you will bear with me, I would like to wander through the legacy of broken promises. Let us go back to 1984. This was a clear promise. Don Hodel, then Secretary of Energy, affirmed that the Energy Department is obligated to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants in 1998 whether or not a permanent disposal facility is ready. Nineteen eighty-seven, 3 years from 1984. Congress then designates Yucca Mountain, NV, as the only site to be evaluated--the only site to be evaluated. Congress, that is us, Mr. President. The Energy Department announces a 5-year delay in the opening date for a disposal facility, from 1998 to the year 2003. We went on from 1987 to 1989, another delay, another promise. The Department of Energy announces another major delay in the opening date for a permanent disposal facility until the year 2010 this time. Well, moving on; 1991 comes. We have mounting concerns. And the first sign of concerns appear over the Energy Department's ability to meet its obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. So the State of Minnesota tells Energy Secretary James Watkins that it is highly probable that the Department of Energy will experience significant delay in meeting its obligation to begin taking high-level radioactive waste in 1998. May 1992. What do we have? More promises. Secretary of Energy Watkins tells Minnesota that the DOE is committed to fulfill the mandates imposed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Department has sound, integrated program plans that should enable them to begin to receive spent fuel at an MRS--monitored retrievable storage--facility in 1998. December 1992, yet another promise. Energy Secretary Watkins acknowledges that attempts to find a volunteer host for an MRS facility have not succeeded. Another disappointment. He promises whatever is necessary to ensure that the Energy Department is able to start removing spent fuel from nuclear power plant sites in 1998. Well, moving on to May 1993, we get an affirmation from Secretary of Energy O'Leary that there is a moral obligation that the Department of Energy has to the electric utilities and their customers. And I quote: ``If it does not have a legal obligation, then it has a moral obligation.'' Well, I do not know whether you can make soup out of that. In May 1994, notice of inquiry. The Department of Energy publishes a notice of inquiry to address the concerns of affected parties regarding the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites beyond 1998. The energy agency says in its preliminary view it does not have the statutory obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel in 1998 in the absence of an operational repository or suitable storage facility. In May 1994, 14 utilities and 20 States sue the Department of Energy. A coalition of 14 utilities and public agencies in 20 States file separate but similar lawsuits seeking clarification of the Department of Energy's responsibility to accept spent nuclear fuel beginning in 1998. April 1995. Here we go. Here is the Government's first acknowledgement of their policy. In April 1995, after starting this in 1984, 11 years, it comes out and says they have no obligation to take the fuel. Talk about a copout. They state that the Federal Government has no legal obligation to begin accepting high-level waste in 1998 if a repository is not open--according to the Department of Energy's interpretation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and its contracts with utilities. Fortunately, the court took another view. In July 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Energy is obliged to take fuel in 1998, and it is a legal as well as a moral obligation. So we finally got some action. That came out in July. In December 1996, the Department of Energy decides not to challenge the court ruling and admits failure and admits liability. The DOE acknowledges that it will not be able to meet its commitment to take waste in 1998. January 1997, the DOE's liability. Well, 46 State regulatory agencies and 33 electric utilities file new action for escrow of nuclear waste fees. That means they did not want them to go into the general fund anymore. They want this to go into an escrow fund so they will be available for the Federal Government to meet its obligation and order the DOE to take spent fuel in 1998. In March 1997 the court rejects the Department of Energy motion to dismiss before it is filed. The court tells the Department of Energy that a motion to dismiss would be inappropriate in this case and sets the case for damages and hearing of the merits. The Energy Department must have clear direction to develop an integrated system that will fulfill its obligation to manage the Nation's commercial and defense nuclear waste. S. 104 provides that by requiring construction of a central storage facility for used nuclear fuel and continued scientific investigation of a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The legislation also includes appropriate safeguards for the public and the environment at every step and provides consumers with a solution for the billions of dollars they have already paid into the program. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this comprehensive solution to one of the Nation's most pressing environmental issues and end the string of broken promises. Amendment No. 36 to Amendment No. 26

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the course of resolving the status of Senate bill 104 and recognizing that we have just concluded a vote and the vote was 72 to 24, and it was a tabling motion which would have, had it passed, invited every State Governor to prohibit the transfer and transportation of nuclear waste through those States, I will discuss a few States at random, Mr. President. I hope the Members in their offices will reflect on these charts because there are just a few States where the problem exists today. The point of this examination is to simply state that the alternative is to leave the waste in these States or provide an alternative. Now, again, I want to refer to the major chart which shows where the waste lay currently. There are 80 sites in 41 States. The commercial reactors, shut down reactors, spent fuel on site, commercial spent fuel, nuclear storage facilities, it is non-DOE reactors, it is Navy reactor fuel, it is Department of Energy--all in spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. That is where it is, Mr. President. The question is, Do we want to leave it there or do we want to move it? Now, the next chart again will attempt to show our experience in moving waste through the country because we have done it for an extended period of time. We have had 2,400 movements all over the country. As soon as the chart comes, it will show that it has moved through all States with the exception of South Dakota and Florida. Now, again the choice that we have relative to an alternative is leave it where it is. We have here the chart which shows the transportation routes of the waste moving across the United States, and it has not been a big deal. The reason is because there have not been any incidents. It has moved safely. It has been moving in containers subject to State and Federal law from 1979 to 1995. So to suggest that it cannot be moved safely or to suggest that we are suddenly thrust upon some kind of a crisis because we are about to move the waste to a temporary repository in Nevada--facts dictate otherwise. It is moved by rail, indicated by the red, it is moved by highway, as indicated by the blue network. Every State but Florida and South Dakota have escaped. That is the reality. As we look at the argument here, to a large degree, the transportation argument has little validity. This would be the same type of waste that we would be moving from our reactors. Where do we propose to move it? From all the sites I showed on the previous chart, to one site out in the Nevada test site used for over 50 years for more than 800 nuclear weapons tests. I have yet to have anybody come to the floor and suggest there is a better place. I recognize the reality that nobody wants it but we will look how this dilemma affects a few States. Take Connecticut, for example--and it is significant in Connecticut because nuclear energy makes up 70 percent of the energy that is produced in Connecticut--those ratepayers have paid $521 million over the last 12 years, or thereabouts, into a fund which the Federal Government has taken and put into a general fund for the specific purpose of taking Connecticut's waste. That was a contractual commitment. It is due next year. Connecticut should, under a contractual agreement, be relieved of its waste. The ratepayers have paid, as I said, $521 million. In Connecticut, there are four units, the Connecticut Yankee and the Millstone 1, 2 and 3. Those reactors have stored 1,505 metric tons of waste. It is stored in Connecticut. If this bill does not pass, it will stay in Connecticut. A portion of it is Department of Energy defense waste. Now, the significant thing here, Mr. President, is that Millstone 1 would be full by 1998. Now what does that mean? It means their storage, the pools adjacent to the reactors, will be full. What will they do? Either build more storage and get new permits, because the Federal Government is not going to be able to take it, or the other alternative is to shut down the reactor. Millstone 2 and 3 will be filled up by the year 2000. What will they do then? Shut down the reactor? Haddam Neck will be filled up in the year 2001. These are factual circumstances surrounding the state of the industry in Connecticut. Now, if I was representing Connecticut, I would want to get the waste out of there, because two things will happen. One is if this bill passes, the waste will get out. If it does not, the waste is not going to get out, and when these reactors shut down because storage is at capacity the waste is still going to be there. It will be sitting there until somebody does something with it. And to do something with it, you have to move it. Otherwise, it will stay there. Again, we have a location. I am sure my friend is getting tired of me showing the desert of Nevada where for 50 years we have had testing. Now, looking to another State, moving south a little bit, the State of Georgia. Now, Georgia is dependent 30 percent on nuclear power. The residents of Georgia paid $304 million into the waste fund. They paid that basically to the Government to take the waste. The Government cannot do it. We have four units, Hatch 1 and 2 and Vogtle 1 and 2. The waste stored in Georgia is 1,182 metric tons at the Savannah River site. The waste stored is 206 metric tons over on the South Carolina- Georgia border. Hatch 1 and 2 reactors will be filled by 1999, and Vogtle 1 and 2 will be filled by the year 2008. Again, we have a case where State ratepayers have paid it, and what have they gotten from the Federal Government? Nothing, other than a chance to continue to store their waste. How long? It is indefinite if this bill does not pass, because nobody can agree on where to put it. The alternative is to leave it where it is, and it will stay there after the reactors have shut down because we do not have anyplace to put it. Moving on, Mr. President, to Illinois. This is even a bigger set of realities. The State of Illinois is 54 percent dependent on nuclear power. You say ``dependent''--what does that mean? It means 54 percent of the energy comes from nuclear power. There are alternatives, sure, coal-fired, oil-fired plants. They all cost money, all take permitting time. Illinois has paid into the waste fund, the residents have paid $1.36 billion, paid to the Federal Government to take the waste next year. The Federal Government will not do it, and they have 13 units in Illinois: Braidwood 1 and 2, Byron 1 and 2, Clinton, Dresden 2 and 3, LaSalle 1 and 2, Quad Cities 1 and 2, and Zion 1 and 2. They have 5,215 metric tons of waste in Illinois. A DOE research reactor is fueled there, with an additional 40 metric tons. A State that is 54 percent dependent. Looking at their reactors when they have to shut down, because the storage pools are filled: Dresden 3, the year 2000. Dresden 2, the year 2002. Clinton, the year 2003. Quad Cities 1 and 2, the year 2006. Zion 1 and 2, 2006. LaSalle, 1 and 2, 2013. Byron 1 and 2, 2015. Braidwood 1 and 2, 2019. That is a reality. What will Illinois do? Perhaps they will try and buy energy from other States, but that will deplete, if you will, the availability of supply. This is a crisis. This is the reality, that somebody else before this body had another plan to relieve, if you will, these States of the storage that is licensed. They cannot just store beyond their capacity. They store to their designing capacity. They are prepared to do that but they exceed that capacity in those years. And their ability to increase, that is going to be very, very difficult because for one thing the environmental community is opposed to any nuclear power generation and is going to object. They do not give any credit for the contribution that nuclear energy brings to air quality, including lessening emissions and reducing the greenhouse effect. It is one thing to criticize, but the environmental community has an obligation to come up with alternative and, their alternative is ``no nuclear.'' They like alternative energies, which I do, too, except they are not ready and they are not economic and are not here. In the meantime, the residents of Illinois are entitled to and will demand energy. What will happen in Illinois is they will have to shut reactors and maybe they will not have air conditioning. Maybe they will have brownouts. This is an obligation that we have in this body to address now because if you do not move it out of there it will stay, the reactors are shut down, and they are stuck with storing high-level energy that is not producing anything, not producing power anymore, and the dilemma is, well, that is a problem for Illinois. We have an opportunity to correct that today. That is what Senate bill 104 is all about--taking that waste. Remember, when you talk about transportation, to take it, you have to move it. We have moved it safely, and we can. Now, in the State of Louisiana, my good friend, Senator Bennett Johnston, whom I worked with so closely over the years on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--and I might add Senator Johnston supported this legislation the last time around because he is a realist and he recognizes we have a crisis. We have to address it. We cannot simply ignore it. The difficulty is we have to put it somewhere. That somewhere, unfortunately, is the desert in Nevada. In the case of Louisiana, the ratepayers have paid $135 million over 12 to 13 years. There are two units, River Bend 1 and Waterford 3. How much waste? Mr. President, 567 metric tons. When do they run out of capacity? Waterford 3, in the year 2002. River Bend 1, the year 2007. The State is 24 percent dependent on nuclear energy. You can say, well, why the hurry? Remember, we have been 15 years in this process now. Yucca Mountain, when completed, will not be ready until the year 2015, so if we do not address this today, there is no answer. We are just putting it off. Now, looking at Michigan, Mr. President. Ratepayers in Michigan have paid $510 million into the fund. There are five units: Big Rock Point, Cook 1 and 2, Fermi; 1,500 metric tons of high-level waste are stored there. This State, 26 percent, a quarter of the power, is generated from nuclear energy. Palisades goes down in 1992; Big Rock Point in 1997; Fermi 2 in 2001; Cook 1 and 2 in 2014. If I was from Michigan, I would be very concerned about the reality of two points. One, continuing to have a source of power within my State, which means my reactors have to continue to operate, which means I have to relieve my storage capacity. I would be very concerned. I would be very concerned about losing that power base and what I am going to do without it. I would be even more concerned if I didn't get some relief and I could not move it and it just sat there after my reactors shut down. That is what is going to happen in Michigan, and in every other State that is in a crisis relative to storage. As I have indicated, there are several. Let's look at New Jersey. The ratepayers in New Jersey have paid $382 million into the waste fund. What have they gotten for it? Absolutely nothing. The Federal Government promised in 15 years to have a sufficient repository ready by next year to take the waste. The citizens of New Jersey have acted in good faith. They paid the price. The Federal Government has not honored its commitment. They paid $382 million. They have four units: Hope Creek, Oyster Creek and Salem 1 and 2. They have 1,369 metric tons of waste sitting in New Jersey. Their only hope to get it out is to have a designated repository, designated in time to address reality. Reality is that Oyster Creek is in crisis now. That is full now. What are they going to do? Hope Creek will be full in the year 2007, Salem 1 in the year 2013, Salem 2 in 2018. New Jersey is 62 percent dependent on nuclear power. If I was from New Jersey, I would be pretty concerned about that. I would be pretty concerned about reality, pretty concerned about the Federal Government committing to its contractual agreement so that I could relieve my dependence before I have to shut down, and pretty concerned that, if I don't get it, I am going to be stuck with the waste in my reactor pools with no relief in sight and no generating capacity. I would say New Jersey is in a crisis. Well, let's go out West, to Oregon. It is a little less out there. Ratepayers in Oregon have paid $76 million. They have one unit, Trojan. Waste stored is 424 metric tons. Across the Columbia River from Oregon, which divides the two States, we have the Hanford site. Waste stored there is 2,133 metric tons. Trojan is closed for decommissioning. What does that mean? It means the waste is still there. I don't know whether the delegation from Oregon is satisfied to just leave it there. But unless we have a place to put it, it is going to stay there. We have proved that we can transport it throughout the country. I am sure that the State of Washington would not be anxious to take it. Hanford already has over 2,000 metric tons. So here, again, is a case of another State that acted in good faith. The ratepayers have paid in. The reactor is closed for decommissioning. There is no place, Mr. President, to take the waste. The last exhibit--and I could go on and on, but this gives you an idea of the crisis proportion we are in--the State of Wisconsin, the dairy State. Nearly a quarter dependent on nuclear power--22 percent to be exact. The residents paid $219 million into the waste fund. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. The Federal Government, when it takes this money, doesn't put it in escrow to have it ready to meet its obligation. It goes into the general fund. So what we would have to do now is appropriate funds to meet our obligation. Nevertheless, it has been paid in. There are three units: Kewaunee and Point Beach 1 and 2. About 967 metric tons are stored in Wisconsin. The status of the Point Beach 1 and 2 plants, I gather, is that they are full now. They have a crisis there right now. Kewaunee will be full in the year 2001. I don't know what the residents of Wisconsin know or whether they understand or whether they care. But Point Beach 1 and 2 is at capacity. They had to initiate some relief by dry cask storage adjacent to the reactors. This is something new and innovative that takes licensing. Well, you could say, ``let's leave it there.'' If you want it left in Wisconsin, then don't vote for S. 104. Kewaunee, in the year 2001. If I were from Wisconsin, I would want to move this stuff out. I would want the Federal Government to respond to the $219 million from the ratepayers. I would not want to run the risk of leaving it there. Now we are taking it out of the pools and putting it in areas adjacent to the reactor, dry cask storage. The State's electricity relative to its dependence is 22 percent. So, there you have it, Mr. President. Those are a few reasons why it is critical that we act now, a few reasons why it is critical that these States and the Members of this body from those States recognize that this offers relief from leaving it where it is and putting it out in the desert where we have a trained work force, we have security, we have the very real likelihood that the permanent repository is going to be determined to be there. But it is not going to be ready until the year 2015. So this provides the relief that is needed now, and it provides a responsible consideration relative to the necessity of a decision being made now. I think it is fair to say, finally, Mr. President, that to not act on this matter now is to not only disregard the responsibility we have here to minimize the risk to the taxpayers relative to the liability that is going to pile up next year when we can't take the waste, but I think it is also very important to recognize that we are doing a disservice to these States by not providing them with an alternative other than leaving the waste where it is, in 41 States at 80 locations. I wish there were some other way that we could put it in some other area that would not raise opposition. But I can tell you, Mr. President--and you have observed the debate--the reality is that whatever State we put it in, we are going to get a similar reaction--an extended objection from representatives of that State. Let's recognize the problem for what it is. Where, of all the places, is the best place to site a temporary repository? I will conclude by referring again to the area that has been polluted for 50 years with 800 nuclear weapons tests, an area that meets as many of the geological applications that are preferred relative to storage, both permanent and interim, of any that have been identified. So let's not wait any longer, Mr. President. I know there are a few more amendments that are pending on this legislation. I will conclude my remarks by thanking the Chair, and I will indicate that it is my intention to proceed through the remaining amendments with the cooperation of my good friends from Nevada. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business until the hour of 1:30, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe both sides are ready to accept the amendment by voice vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to table the Reid-Bryan second-degree amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Sure.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me point out to the Senator from Idaho, this is a typical cask that has been used since 1964 for shipping by truck transport. These are designed according to a very, very technical and highly engineered requirement that would associate itself with whatever the exposure is of a wreck, dropping from a high level. They have tested these. They have tested them with a railroad car at 60 to 70 miles an hour, dropping them from various levels. So the technology is here. These are the facts, as we look at this chart of where the waste is currently, and the position our friends from Nevada have taken, which is ``Do not put it in Nevada, leave it where it is.'' To highlight, again, the transportation chart, the one that shows the network, you just cannot reflect reality, and that is reality, 2,400 shipments. It has been safe. We have never had an accident that resulted in any exposure of any kind. We had a couple of minor trucking accidents, but clearly the cask withstood whatever the exposure was. Let me add one more consideration relative to where the significant areas of waste are. In addition to Savannah River and Hanford, at Oak Ridge, TN, we have 1 metric ton of spent fuel in storage and what we have there are some tailings and low-level waste as well. The Senator said it was not my State of Alaska that was affected, and that is true. But I would like the Record to note that we, in Alaska, at Amchitka, had the two largest underground nuclear explosions ever initiated and we are still monitoring those areas, relative to any waste that might be depleting into the landmass. So, the point I want to make here is that everybody shares in the concern of what we do with our nuclear waste. That is what this legislation is all about, what we do with the waste. There has been some discussion about what the damages, relative to the inability of the Government to perform on its contract to take the waste in coming years, what that might be. The lawyers are going to make that determination. But let us be realistic and recognize what the court said. The court ruled the Department of Energy had an obligation to take the spent fuel in 1998. And they promptly rejected the DOE's attempt to file a motion to dismiss. As a consequence, the Federal Government is clearly liable. How much are the damages likely to be? Again, that is like giving the lawyers a license to go after damages or full employment. The cost of the storage of spent fuel is estimated to be about $20 billion. That is the cost. That is the cost to the Government, when the Government fails to perform on its contractual obligation starting next year. The return of nuclear waste fees--they have to return what they collected from the ratepayers, about $8.5 billion. The interest on that for the last several years, as a consequence to it building up to $13 billion, is going to be somewhere in the area of $15 billion to $27 billion and the consequential damages associated could amount to an estimated shutdown of 25 percent of the nuclear plants due to insufficient storage-- another $20 or $24 billion. I do not think there is any point, necessarily, to try to sharpen up the figures on what the damages are. Clearly there are going to be damages as a consequence of the Government's inability to respond to its contractual agreement. What I wanted to say, relative to the point of Nevada being the best place for this, showing the Nevada chart again, is we have had 800 nuclear weapons tests in this area for approximately 50 years. And the proposed location for the interim repository is here as well as, hopefully, the permanent repository that we spent approximately $6 billion on. We will probably spend as much as $30 billion to finally get it licensed. I have a couple of other comments relative to points that have been made, that I think need to be cleared up. I read a copy of the editorial in the Chicago Tribune of April 8. There was a reference to a possible association with regard to support for President Clinton, who agreed to oppose the legislation if Nevada's Democratic Governor and two Senators supported his reelection. That is obviously literary jargon, but, by the same token, I noted in the debate, time and time again, a reference that none of the environmental groups support this bill. Of course, I think it is fair to say the President received almost unanimous support from America's environmental groups relative to their particular policies. What we have here from the standpoint of the environmental groups is, many of them, their objective is to simply shut down the nuclear industry as we know it today. They do not accept the responsibility for picking up on where we would generate the offset of energy as a consequence of shutting down the nuclear industry. They do not give any credence to reducing greenhouse gases as a consequence of the contribution that nuclear energy can bring to lessening or eliminating emissions. No consideration is given to the reality that many of the nations that we compete with internationally are going to achieve their reductions of particulates and emissions as a consequence of moving toward nuclear power. France is already 98 percent nuclear power. Japan is actively moving into the area and they are beginning to reprocess. So I think it is fair to say as we stand still and debate on and on, endless discussions about the issue of what we are going to do with our waste, other countries are moving into advanced technology and reprocessing the waste. This particular second-degree amendment talks about States rights, and we are all sensitive to that aspect. However, the reality of States and the interest of States has to be addressed in the consideration of the major chart which shows where the waste is and the reality that we want to move this waste to one site. As a consequence of that, I think it is fair to note we have some inconsistencies relative to the statements that have been made by my good friends on the other side. There has been a reference that we all have to do a certain amount of sacrifice relative to States storing nuclear waste and nuclear waste fuel, and that certainly has been done by the State of Nevada. They were chosen for reasons unknown to me, but nevertheless chosen as the ideal site for nuclear explosions over those some 50 years. But there was a reference made that suggested that the transportation of nuclear fuel was an eminent right of a State to make a determination that it was or was not in the best interest of that State. But that concept defeats the logic of what we are attempting to achieve here, and that is to get it out of the States, to move it to one central repository. As far as the history of at least some Members of the Nevada delegation, let me again refer to action that was taken some time ago. Again, I refer to this picture of the Nevada test site, where the last underground explosion occurred in approximately 1991. Underground tests are still being performed there with nuclear materials being exploded with conventional explosives. During this time, the Nevada delegation, we assume, has not rejected that continued activity, but it is even more interesting to note that one of the Senators during his association with public service from Nevada supported storing nuclear waste at the test site. If you are going to support it, Madam President, you are going to have to get it there. So, if you support it, the realization of how you are going to move it across this network of States gets to the very crux of where we are in the second-degree amendment. Let me read a relative portion of the Nevada Assembly Joint Resolution No. 15, and this is a chart of the entire resolution dated February 26, 1975, and the appropriate portion: Whereas, the people of southern Nevada have confidence in the safety record of the Nevada test site and in the ability of the staff of the site to maintain safety in the handling of nuclear materials; Whereas, nuclear waste disposal can be carried out at the Nevada test site with minimal capital investment relative to other locations; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Assembly of the State of Nevada jointly that the legislature of the State of Nevada strongly urges the Energy Research and Development Administration to choose Nevada test site for the disposal of nuclear waste. This resolution passed the Nevada Senate by a 12-to-6 vote, aided by one of the Senators from Nevada, who is here today, and signed by the Governor of Nevada, Mike O'Callaghan. I do not know what has changed. The Nevada test site out there certainly has not changed. It is the same as it was. It still has a trained work force, and it still has an infrastructure for dealing with nuclear materials. The geology of the site certainly has not changed, and, obviously, some of the Senators thought it was the best place to store nuclear waste in 1975 or they probably would not have voted for it back then. So that is the reality relative to this issue, that nobody wants it, that it is stored in 80 sites in 41 States, and the answer is to move it to one safe site. If you do not move it, it is going to sit where it is, and that is not acceptable. As a consequence, we are at a time where it is imperative that we recognize that adoption of the second- degree amendment would simply kill the legislation, kill the bill and leave the waste where it is, and I do not think that is in the interest of the 50 States. Madam President, I propose to move to table the Reid-Bryan amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I think it is appropriate that we move on to vote as soon as possible. But I would like to make a couple of points that I think are pertinent to the debate that is at hand. First of all, I think we have to recognize the premise that nobody wants to take the waste. On the other hand, I think we also have to recognize the reality of those who have the waste. Currently, we have in the State of Washington, at Hanford, a significant abundance of spent fuel, about 2,133 metric tons over here at Hanford. I have been out there. It is right on the edge of the Columbia River. These were the first graphite reactors; and the first generation of nuclear bombs that were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were created there. The State of Washington has also, at that Hanford facility, 61 million gallons of liquid, high-level waste in 177 tanks. That is just the harsh reality. Savannah River, in South Carolina, 206 metric tons of high-level spent fuel, 33 million gallons of liquid waste. There is more that comes in every day. It comes from overseas and from our research reactors. How does it come? It comes through a transportation network, 2,400 shipments from 1979 to 1995. Every State has had shipments with the exception of Florida and South Dakota. So, when we talk about transportation, we have a transportation system. Why is it not news? Because nothing is happening. It is safe.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 10, 1997, at 2 p.m. earthquake hazard reduction.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Readiness of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 10, 1997 in open session, to receive testimony on Department of Defense Depot Maintenance privatization initiatives in review of S. 450, the National Defense Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services to meet on Thursday, April 10, at 2 p.m. for a hearing on ``Proliferation: Chinese Case Studies''.