Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the benefit of all Senators, I should advise them it is our intention to try to work toward a time agreement with some finality relative to the pending amendments. It is my understanding that there are two Wellstone amendments that are left, one Bingaman amendment----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be happy to. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30, En Bloc

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sure we would accept that. And then there is the disposition of the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. On the two amendments?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That would also take place Monday.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was distracted. Did the Senator from Nevada say Senator Bumpers?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Thurmond has an amendment that is pending at this time, and that he would like to dispose of that amendment? Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 wonder if the clerk would read the amendment, the substitution, to clarify where we are here.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Let me refer to a reality, and that reality is behind me in the chart, because all of us should recognize what is happening in the United States now. This is where nuclear fuel is moving. It is moving through all of the 48 States with the exception of Florida and South Dakota. Now, that is just a harsh reality. In this timeframe from 1979 to 1995, there have been 2,400 movements of nuclear material. They moved safely; they moved over the transportation system of our highways, as well as our railroads, as indicated in the red. This is a very dangerous amendment that would basically ensure that potentially no nuclear waste anywhere would move to any storage or disposal. Let me highlight what it does in the next chart, because in the next chart we have the locations of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste in the United States. And in it is, Mr. President, 81 sites in 40 States. Is it safer to leave that waste in 80 sites in 40 States or move it? This is what this amendment is all about. This is a desperate tactic on the part of my good friends from Nevada who simply do not want the waste put in their State. That is the bottom line, make no mistake about it. But we have an obligation here. We have a problem here. We are either going to solve it by defeating the second-degree or we are going to be left with this situation that has been created over the last couple of decades. That is the harsh reality of where we are. This amendment grants to the Governor of a State the power to preclude any specific shipments of spent fuel or nuclear waste through that State to the temporary proposed shipment site in Nevada out in the desert. Let me show you where we propose to put this. We propose to put the temporary repository out in Nevada where we have had a series of tests for some two decades. I have the chart coming in. It is important that we grasp the significance of just what this amendment would do if they are successful in passing it. On the face of it, it may have some appeal, particularly to Senators like myself who have always been staunch supporters of States' authority to determine matters which are within their State borders. Now here, Mr. President, is where we propose to put the temporary repository. This is an area in Nevada used previously for more than 800 nuclear weapon tests over an extended period of time. The other option, Mr. President, again, if you look at the other chart, is leave it where it is. If we take action today to support the second degree amendment, we are killing any effort to address a problem that we have put off far too long. When I say ``far too long,'' Mr. President, we have contracted to move this waste next year from the reactors where it has been stored as it is exhausted from the nuclear powerplants, and the liability associated with this is going to be substantial. It is estimated to be somewhere between $40 and $80 billion. The appeal, as I said, that is perhaps of some significance, regulation of transportation of any type of hazardous materials across State lines, has long been one of the primary examples of appropriate exercise of Federal jurisdiction. I question the constitutionality of prohibiting the movement on highways, but that is neither here nor there. The principles of federalism on which this country was founded recognize that the States' authority to govern matters within their borders, must give way to Federal authority when an issue is one of national scope reaching beyond any particular State borders. Interstate shipments of hazardous waste such as spent fuel and other forms of nuclear waste clearly require a uniform framework of requirements that ensure safety but also insure that the shipments can reach their destination. Transportation of these materials is currently regulated under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, known as HAZ-MAT. That law is an intricate system for controlling hazardous materials and shipments across the United States. The HAZ-MAT system was adopted to uniformly regulate all materials regardless of type, and in each case regulation of these materials allows the States limited authority to conduct certain inspections and other activities related to the shipment. Never do the HAZ-MAT regulations, however, allow a Governor to veto the shipments altogether. That is what this second-degree amendment would propose to do. If each State were allowed to impose its own set of safety requirements, it would very likely prove impossible to move any hazardous material from one place to another. So the alternative is to leave it where it is. This amendment is even more restrictive than that. It would allow virtually a veto over any Federal shipments of nuclear spent fuel or other nuclear waste through any State whose Governor chooses to exercise the authority, even if all safety requirements are met. Again, Mr. President, I implore those that have questions about this to recognize that these Governors want to get this waste out of their State. That is what Senate bill 104 is all about, providing a place to put the waste. Now, my friends from Nevada, if they were able to prevail, we simply could not move the waste. Is that what the States want? Is that what the Governors of these States want? No, they do not want it left in their State. They want it to be moved to a safe place that has been proposed, which is, obviously, the desert out in Nevada. Now, this amendment would allow any single State to thwart a solution to a national problem, the very situation that was intended to be precluded by the Framers of the Constitution. Even though the original Senate bill 104 included adequate measures to guarantee safe transportation of nuclear spent fuel, we have accepted additional provisions in the substitution regarding safety and training, to assure safe shipments. It seems obvious that safety is not the real issue here. The real interest here and the real issue here is simply Nevadans, the Nevada Senators, do not want it in their State. I am sympathetic to that. But it has to go somewhere. This is the best place, out here in the desert, where, again, we have had more than 800 nuclear weapon tests over the last 50 years. That is the best place we have found in the United States. If we want to move it outside the United States, that is another matter. But who will take it? We do not have a place in the Atlantic to put it. People in the Pacific certainly do not want it. Scientists have said you can put it in the sea bed, perhaps, but that is not going to be a possibility. This is the possibility. This is all we are talking about. This is the crux of it. We either put it there or we leave it where it is. That is something in this debate that my friends from Nevada have really not addressed. We have a permanent repository out here under construction. That repository is not going to be ready until the year 2015. Our pools are filling up. We face a crisis relative to the ability of our nuclear industry to continue to generate the 21 to 22 percent of power that is generated by nuclear energy in this country, when their pools are filling up with the high level of waste that the Government committed 15 years ago to take and has to start taking next year. The reality is that some of those reactors probably will have to shut down because they are out of space. Somebody says, ``Well, make more space.'' The States have control of the licensing, and rightly so. Those pools where the high-level waste is stored were not designed for permanent storage. They were designed for temporary storage, until such time as the Federal Government would take the waste. You might say, why is the Federal Government so generous in just taking the waste? I remind the President that $13 billion has been paid to the Federal Government by the ratepayer, collected by the nuclear power companies, paid to the Federal Government by the ratepayers, and now the Federal Government is in breach of its contract. Some people around here say, ``Well, that is no big deal. If you are going to contract with the Government, that is just an incidental.'' I think that is a terrible precedent to take. The Government is in breach of the contract beginning next year. There are going to be damages. The taxpayer will pick it up. How big? I do not know. Mr. President, $59 billion was the last estimate for damages. We have to get on with this. The national interest of providing safe central storage of disposal of nuclear spent fuel could never, ever, be achieved if this amendment is adopted. I submit that this is the only purpose for which its proponents have offered it. Again, I refer to the chart. If you look where it is, it is all over. There are 80 sites in 41 States. If you don't want to leave it there, you have to move it. This second-degree amendment would prohibit you from moving it. It would keep it where it is. So, I implore all Senators representing the States that are affected here to recognize what this amendment would mean. This amendment really does not pass the straight-face test, if we are serious about resolving the nuclear waste issue. As a consequence, I think it speaks for itself. I am going to read for the Record an editorial that appeared April 8 in the Chicago Tribune. The headline is, ``Honoring a Pledge on Nuclear Waste.'' From the start of commercial nuclear power, Washington decided to make the storage of high-level radioactive waste a Federal responsibility. They are right. We did. We made it a Federal responsibility. We voted on it. We passed it. Fourteen years ago, Congress ordered the Federal Government to begin taking control of nuclear waste in 1998 and storing it at a permanent storage site in Nevada. Where? In Nevada, right there, out in the desert. Despite spending billions and extending deadlines, Washington won't be ready to accept any waste for another 10 years or so. As a matter of fact, it is the year 2015, according to the previous Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary. Meantime, the stuff keeps piling up at nuclear power plants in Illinois and around the Nation. The Senate this week can begin to correct this unconscionable malfeasance. It will consider a bill to build a temporary waste storage facility in the Nevada desert, about 100 miles from Las Vegas. It passed similar legislation last year, but not by enough votes to override a threatened veto by President Clinton, who agreed to oppose it if Nevada's Democratic Governor and two Senators supported his reelection. This is a quote from the Chicago Tribune, Mr. President. Well, it further states: The election is over, but Clinton again is promising a veto. Nuclear waste, he argues, shouldn't be shipped to a temporary facility until it's known for certain whether a permanent site can be built at nearby Yucca Mountain. Temporary storage, he contends, will drain funds from Yucca and make it likely the underground facility will never be completed. The Senate should end this political gamesmanship by passing the bill by a veto-proof margin. For national security and environmental safety, it makes more sense to have the waste stored in a well-protected central location than at scattered sites near major cities or bodies of water like Lake Michigan, which are filling up rapidly. It will also keep electricity users from shelling out twice for the waste storage. If Washington continues to slough off its obligation, it will be forced to build additional above-ground storage facilities at their nuclear plants and try to pass the cost on to the consumers. For more than a decade, ratepayers have chipped in billions to a private fund created by Congress to help pay for permanent storage facility, some of which has already been spent on research and study at Yucca. ``A Federal appeals court''--this is important, Mr. President, because it is right on--``A Federal appeals court has ruled the Energy Department is contractually obligated to begin accepting the spent fuel next year. That deadline is unrealistic, but a temporary storage site should be designated so that the Government can begin receiving waste expeditiously. Someone in Washington must honor past promises and quit putting different decisions off on future generations, and the Senate can begin this week.'' I think that is right on target. Now, I understand that there are those who have concerns about transportation of spent fuel to a central facility. That is why this bill has 12 pages of language providing transportation, training, and notification provisions. Let me read from selected portions of the bill, section (2): . . . not later than 24 months after the Secretary submits a licensed application under section 205 for an interim storage facility shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and affected States and tribes, and after an opportunity for public comment, develop and implement a comprehensive management plan that ensures safe transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from the sites designated by the contract holders to the interim storage facility site. Further, requirements: A shipping campaign transportation plan shall-- (A) be fully integrated with State and tribal government notification, inspection, and emergency response plans along the preferred shipping route or State-designated alternative route identified under subsection (d) . . . Further, under ``Transportation requirements.'' (b) State Notification.--The Secretary shall abide by regulations of the Commission regarding advance notification of State and tribal governments prior to transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste under this Act. (2) No shipments if no training.--(A) There will be no shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through the jurisdiction of any State or the reservation lands of any Indian Tribe eligible for grants under paragraph (3)(B) unless technical assistance and funds to implement procedures for the safe routine transportation and for dealing with emergency response situations under paragraph (1)(A) have been available to a State or Indian Tribe for at least 3 years prior to any shipment. In conclusion, Mr. President, this is a dangerous amendment. This is an amendment that freezes nuclear waste where it currently is, in those 41 States, 80 sites. Some of them are near neighborhoods, some are near schools. Just reflect on the significance if this second-degree passes--this stuff won't move. Of course, as I said before, my friends from Nevada simply don't want it to move to their State. That is really what this debate is all about. Nobody wants the stuff. You have to put it somewhere. Every State should accept the responsibility. In Connecticut, we build nuclear submarines, and that, I am sure, from the standpoint of the delegation from Connecticut, is very attractive from the economics associated with shipbuilding. But do they have a responsibility as a State? They generate the prosperity, but they don't have to put up with the actual disposal of the submarines when they are cut up and the reactors that are sent to Hanford in the State of Washington and go up the Columbia River. I think every State has an interest in this. Colorado has waste out in their State. Do they want to keep that military waste there, or do they want to move it out? This second-degree amendment will ensure that it will stay in Colorado. I don't think the Governor or the Colorado delegation want that to happen. They want to move it out. The reality is, Mr. President, that nobody wants it. I don't know whether the Nevada delegation would consider some kind of a creation of this area out there in Nevada, dispense it from the State and put it under some kind of an original Federal enclave that is no longer part of the State. For all practical purposes, its structure is it's Federal land out in a State. But, clearly, the Federal Government does not have the disposition because it is still in a State. But the reality is, rather than go down that rabbit trail too long, no one of the 50 States wants to be named as either a permanent or temporary repository for the waste. In conclusion, Mr. President, at an appropriate time, I will move to table this amendment. It is my understanding that there are other Members who intend to speak in opposition of the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe that the Senator from South Carolina wishes to offer an amendment at this time. 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. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committee amendments as presented be agreed to en bloc.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this begins our third day of debate on S. 104, the nuclear waste repository legislation, which has been introduced by myself and Senator Craig and a number of other cosponsors. This may not be a very exciting topic, Mr. President, but it is an important issue and it is an important responsibility for this body. What we have is a situation where, as the charts will show, at some 80 sites in 41 States this waste has been accumulating. The Federal Government agreed in 1982 to accept this waste by 1998. Well, 1998 is next year. Now, the site that has been suggested as being the best for the waste is out in the Nevada desert at the Nevada test site. Again, to refresh the memories of my colleagues, this is what the site looks like. It was used for over 50 years for more than 800 nuclear weapons tests. It is probably one of the more remote areas in the United States, but it is unique inasmuch as it has been a selected test site. Now, why this site? That is a legitimate question, and I know my colleagues from Nevada are very concerned about it being designated in their State. I am sympathetic to that. But the reality is that it has to be put somewhere, Mr. President. In the debate yesterday, my colleagues from Nevada claimed that during the development of our nuclear program, it was necessary to do our patriotic duty to designate an area out in the Nevada desert, and you might say their State was used for that purpose as a contribution to the effort to fight and win the cold war. I think it is fair to say, and the statement was made yesterday, that Congress chose that area to be studied for nuclear waste disposal for political reasons. Well, I don't know whether that is correct or not. It had to be somewhere. But Nevada is where we conducted nuclear tests, and where there is radioactivity from those tests. But in the debate yesterday, the Senators from Nevada indicated there was no rational, technical, or scientific reason for placing a spent fuel storage facility in Nevada. Well, I don't know any other place in the country where we tested 800 nuclear bombs. Now, it's also important to note that the Department of Energy spent over a billion dollars studying other potential sites before narrowing the list to three sites, including Yucca Mountain. Congress settled on Yucca Mountain in 1987. It indicated that it had a unique geology, and it tied in the reality that the Nevada test site had been used to explode nuclear weapons for 50 years. In other words, it said that from a geological point of view, it meets our expectations. Secondly, it is an area that has been used, and, therefore, it should be sufficient for this type of permanent repository. As we look at this test site, we should recognize that the last weapon was exploded underground there in 1991. Underground tests are still being performed with nuclear materials being exploded with conventional explosives, as I understand it, from time to time--all with the wholehearted support, I might add, of the Nevada delegation. In fact, not too long ago, one of the Nevada Senators supported storing spent fuel at the site. I have a copy of a resolution that reappeared, from the Nevada assembly; it's joint resolution No. 15. That is a copy of the resolution, Mr. President, dated February 26, 1975. I am not going to read the whole resolution, but I think it is important to recognize this: Whereas, the people of southern Nevada have confidence in the safety record of the Nevada test site and in the ability of the staff to site and to maintain safety in handling of nuclear materials. And, also: Whereas, nuclear waste disposal can be carried out at the Nevada test site with minimal capital investment relative to other locations. That is from the copy of the resolution that we have on the chart behind me. Therefore, be it resolved by the assembly and the State of Nevada jointly that the legislature of the State of Nevada strongly urges the Energy Research and Development Administration to choose the Nevada test site for the disposal of nuclear waste. Now, Mr. President, that was indicative of the attitude prevailing on February 26, 1975. The resolution was passed. It passed the Nevada Senate by a 12-6 vote, aided by the vote of one of our colleagues here in the Senate from Nevada, and it was signed by the Governor of Nevada, Mike O'Callaghan. Well, I ask, Mr. President, what has changed? That test site hasn't changed. It is still there. It still has a trained work force, still has an infrastructure for dealing with nuclear materials. The geology of the site certainly hasn't changed. Obviously, at least one of the Nevada Senators thought it was the best place to store nuclear waste in 1975, or he would not have supported this resolution. In my opinion, when you are all through with going through the areas in the rest of the States, it is still the best place. Where are we today? Well, we are still on our way--business as usual around the Senate, putting off decisions. We began this debate in the 104th Congress with the consideration of S. 1271. The Nevada Senators objected saying that the bill would gut environmental laws, allow unsafe transportation, and endanger the health and safety of Americans. We had objections from the administration saying that we were choosing Nevada as the site prior to the determination that the Yucca Mountain site would be viable as a permanent repository. 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 ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes, followed by Senator Reid and Senator Bryan for up to 10 minutes each, and further, that debate only be in order at this time. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It wasn't my intent necessarily to eliminate debate from any other Senator who may come down. I have no objection if that is the proposal from the other side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Then I would agree. If we may withhold that for a moment, let me check with the Cloakroom. I want to make sure we don't have anyone else. 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 advise my colleagues from Nevada that I agree to their alteration to the agreement which would limit debate to 20 minutes on this side and 10 minutes each, with the understanding that there be no further debate at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we began this debate with the consideration of Senate bill 1271. The Senators from Nevada, of course, objected, saying the bill would gut environmental laws, saying it would allow unsafe transportation and endanger the health and safety of Americans. We had objections from the administration. They opposed choosing Nevada as the interim site prior to a determination that Yucca Mountain would be viable as a permanent repository. To address these concerns and others, we have attempted to adjust our bill. We began with Senate bill 1271, then a new bill, Senate bill 1936, and again with an amendment in the form of a committee substitute to Senate bill 1936. With each new version of the bill, we attempted to strengthen the public health and environmental safeguards as well as meet the criteria of Members who were concerned about these items. First, in an effort to address the administration's concerns, we made it clear that no construction of an interim facility would take place at the Nevada test site until Yucca Mountain was determined to be technically viable as a permanent repository. So let me make that clear. No construction would be initiated without the viability being determined. We have extended the time period in order to accommodate the reality that nothing moves very fast when you are addressing nuclear waste. With respect to concerns over radiation protection standards, we began with a 100-millirem standard which could not be reviewed by any Federal agency. The bill before us today allows the EPA to issue a stricter standard if it determines one is necessary. So we have tightened up on the radiation standards. With respect to the NEPA requirements, our latest version requires the Department of Energy and the NRC to fulfill the requirements of NEPA in conjunction with the operation of both an interim storage facility and a repository. Our first bill did not contain that requirement. So, again, we tightened it up with regard to NEPA requirements. With respect to concern about transportation safety, we have accepted transportation language offered by Senator Moseley-Braun of Illinois, Senator Wyden, and others. With respect to the preemption of other laws, we proposed language consistent with the preemption authority found in the existing Hazardous Material Transportation Act. Indeed, I think we have made substantial changes in the bill. What is before us today is far different than what we originally introduced as Senate bill 1271 in the 104th Congress. Despite all of the changes we have made, the opponents of this bill continue to object to the bill as if no changes were made. We have heard it referred to as ``Mobile Chernobyl,'' ``emasculating NEPA laws'' and ``running roughshod over all environmental laws.'' The emotional rhetoric that has been used fails to recognize the changes we have made in this bill and the charges that we have refuted. The suggestion has been made that the transportation is unsafe. We have shown how we have safely been moving fuel around for many years. I have some charts behind me to show that. Not only have we moved fuel, but fuel has been moved overseas. Here is a chart showing specifically fuel what is coming to the United States from other countries: Australia; it is coming from Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and Canada. How does it get here? It moves. It is transported. And it is transported safely. The French, the Japanese, and the Swedes are moving spent nuclear fuel. Spent nuclear fuel is coming from Japan, going to France for reprocessing, being taken back to Japan, and being put back in the reactors. They have what they call reprocessing. They don't bury their waste. They put it back in the reactors and burn it. It combats proliferation. I am not here to argue the merits of that. I am simply showing that this waste does move, and it moves in transportation casks. We have heard it argued that transportation casks are unsafe. But we have shown that the transportation casks can withstand significant exposure to crashes, and can survive fires. We have shown the casks have been tested by a locomotive hitting them at the 90 miles an hour, or crash into a brick wall at 80 miles per hour, submerged in water, and bathed in fire. These casks are safe, and they are designed to survive any type of real world accident. We have the technology to do that. I also want to show a chart relative to the movement of waste throughout the United States, which I think is significant inasmuch as it reflects on the reality that we move a tremendous amount of waste throughout the United States. But here we are. In the years 1979 to 1995, there were 2,400 shipments across the United States through every State except Florida and South Dakota. I don't know how we missed those. But there are the transportation routes. So we have moved them safely. We have shown that our national labs have certified that the casks can survive any real world crash. We have heard statements that radiation protection standards are unsafe. We have shown how our standard is more protective than the current EPA guidance that allows five times as much. We allow EPA to tighten the standards further, if need be. It has been said on the other side that the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board says there is no compelling technical or safety reasons to move fuel through a central location. We have shown that a more complete reading of the Technical Review Board's testimony--and their report--indicates there is a need for interim storage, and there is a need for Yucca if Yucca is determined to be a suitable site for the permanent repository. The other side has indicated we can delay this action until August 1998, at a time when a viability determination is made with respect to Yucca. We have shown that delay is what has gotten us into this situation in the first place. There is a court case which has already determined that the Federal Government is liable because of its delays and its inability to accept the waste. Eight months from now, when the Government is in breech of contract, then the courts are going to consider the damage that we face. We as legislators have a responsibility to protect the taxpayers. With each delay, the damage is going to mount. With each delay, the liability to the taxpayer will mount. With each delay, there will be a pressure to yield to even further delays. The call for delay is really a siren's song. It is a trap. It is an excuse for no action. Only yesterday I heard our ranking member, Senator Bumpers, suggesting that we could wait until August 1998 to deal with this problem. Well, it might sound reasonable at first. It has been so long now. But let's give it a little more thought. Will Congress deal with the nuclear waste issue in an election year with time running out in the 105th Congress? I think not. Will my friends from Nevada forego their rights to filibuster the bill at that time? I think not. As a practical matter, delay until August 1998 will slip to 1999. And, if we are waiting until 1999, why not allow the decision to wait for the license applications in 2001 or 2002? All the while we will be in violation of our contractual commitment. We will be increasing the damages. If we delay until 2001 or 2002, then why not delay until final licensing of a permanent repository is due in the year 2015. Let me refer you to the picture of where we propose to put this. This waste would be put in a temporary repository located at the Nevada test site, which was used for more than 50 years and over 800 nuclear weapons tests have taken place in that area. That is what we propose. It would be adjacent to the continuing development of a permanent site in Yucca Mountain. We have gotten nearly 5 miles of tunnel done now. The problem is that site is not going to be ready until the year 2015. I do not expect the changes we have made in this bill, along with the others, will necessarily satisfy all my friends on the other side. All the members of the Nevada delegation have appeared before the committee, and they have said they would oppose any approach that would bring nuclear waste to Nevada, so I do not realistically expect my good friends to change their minds. They are doing what they feel they must do for their State. But I do hope my other colleagues who have not expressed support for our bill will understand just how far we have already come to make accommodations and to reject the emotional rhetoric that has been heard so often with regard to this bill. We are starting this bill with 63 votes. That is what we had last year. It is no secret that we are seeking a higher number. So we are prepared to adopt amendments today to further address the concerns of some Members who have indicated concerns to the White House as well and to generally try to tackle all reasonable concerns that still may persist about the bill. We have developed this substitute amendment. We have worked closely with Senator Bingaman, and I commend him and his staff for their hard work. Let me go over the amendments very briefly, point by point. S. 104 sets the size of the interim storage facility at 60,000 metric tons. Opponents of S. 104 have charged that the large size of this interim storage facility diverts resources away from the permanent repository at Yucca. The Senators from Nevada have also incorrectly stated that it is our intent to make the interim repository the de facto permanent repository. Clearly, that is not the case. Our amendment allows the Secretary to set the size of the facility based on the emplacement. Initial capacity would be 33,100 metric tons. This adequately addresses charges made by the critics of S. 104 that the repository is too large, and it makes it clear that the interim facility can never be a substitute for a permanent repository. As we have said all along, the work at Yucca for the permanent repository will go on; it must go on. This provision in our substitute makes it clear that it has to go on. S. 104, as reported, envisioned the initial operation of a central storage facility by December 31 in the year 2002, if Yucca Mountain is determined to be viable, and December 31, 2004, if it is determined not to be viable. Critics of S. 104 charged that this did not allow adequate time for the NEPA and the NRC licensing process to work. Our amendment addresses these concerns by shifting those dates to June 30, 2003, and June 30, 2005. S. 104 sets a 100-millirem dose standard that could be reviewed and changed to protect public health and safety. Critics of S. 104 argued that this was not good enough and that there should be a risk-based standard as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. Our amendment, therefore, mandates full EPA involvement in the setting of the risk-based radiation protection standard that is likely to result in a standard of 25 to 30 millirem. This is the approach endorsed by the Senators from Nevada I believe yesterday. S. 104 ensured that the State and local jurisdictions could not hamstring Federal intent by allowing the Atomic Energy Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act to preempt all inconsistent laws. Critics charged that this preemption authority was too broad because it allowed Federal laws to be preempted as well. Our amendment, therefore, makes it clear that our bill would preempt State and local laws only, only where State intransigence prevents Federal purposes. We have adopted a more narrow approach that attempts to I think bring in a careful balance of State and Federal law. We do not preempt Federal law. Therefore, let us be very clear about what we have attempted to do with our amendment here today. We have worked to address all the key objections of critics of S. 104 and still have a bill. The statement of administration position and the recent letters sent to the majority leader by the Secretary of Energy really are not referring to the bill that incorporates the amendments we proposed here today, so their objection, if you will, is inappropriate because it does not relate to the changes we have made, and we look forward to any comments the administration might make with regard to these adjustments. Let me go over each of the administration's criticisms and how we have addressed them. The administration's position initially stated that S. 104 would ``effectively replace EPA's authority to set acceptable release standards.'' Mr. President, I am going to need about 3 more minutes here with no objection from my colleagues from Nevada. I would ask that they be extended 3 more minutes as well.