Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend. Let me begin again. The administration's position states that S. 104 would ``effectively replace EPA's authority to set acceptable release standards.'' Our amendment, as I have stated earlier, places the EPA in a key role developing risk-based standards for the repository consistent with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. The administration position states that S. 104 would create loopholes in the application of the National Environmental Policy Act. We have answered that. A full EIS is required prior to placement of any waste in temporary storage or the repository, and our amendment requires the evaluation of transportation which S. 104 excluded. The administration also stated that S. 104 would ``weaken existing environmental standards by preempting all Federal, State and local laws inconsistent with the environmental requirements of this bill and the Atomic Energy Act.'' Our amendment completely changes section 501 of the bill. There will be full application of health and safety laws except where the local jurisdiction attempts to unreasonably stand in the way of the Federal mandate. The administration's position further states that S. 104 ``would undermine the ongoing work at the permanent disposal site by siphoning away resources.'' That is simply not true. Our amendment establishes a user fee which was specifically added to provide sufficient funds for the construction and operation of a central storage facility and continued work at Yucca Mountain. Finally, the administration's position states that ``it would undermine the credibility of the Nation's nuclear waste disposal program by designating a site for an interim storage facility before viability has been assessed.'' As I have said earlier, that is simply not true. Our bill specifically conditions the use of the Nevada test site as a site for a temporary storage until completion, until completion of a viability assessment for the repository at Yucca Mountain. We have attempted to mirror the administration's position on this issue, and I think we have. Mr. President, we have worked very hard to satisfy legitimate concerns of the administration and all Senators. We continue to remain open to suggestions. Our willingness to consider new approaches will not stop with the Senate passage of this bill. There will be consideration in the House, and there will be a conference. This is not the last word. We will continue our quest for compromise that is not only acceptable to a bipartisan majority of Congress but hopefully the President as well. Finally, Mr. President, I want to again advise my colleagues of my thanks to Senator Bingaman for the efforts made to accommodate his amendments. I think we were able to accommodate seven of the eight. I would like to conclude by simply explaining the one that we could not resolve. As the Chair is aware, Senator Bingaman opposes our provision, and that specific provision is if the Yucca Mountain site fails as a permanent disposal site, if it fails in the sense of the licensing viability or suitability test, why, then the President must pick an alternative temporary site. Our position is that if we should get to this point, and it is very unlikely that it could occur, that Yucca would fail as a permanent disposal site, it would be the President's obligation to pick a temporary site. It would also bind Congress in approving the President's site. However, if Congress does not approve, or if the President fails to pick a site in 2\1/2\ years, then we go back to the Nevada test site more or less as the default position. Senator Bingaman's position is a little different. He says if Yucca fails and the President picks a site, and, of course, Congress must approve, but if the Yucca site is not approved and the President does not pick, or Congress does not approve, then the waste would stay where it is, at 80 sites in 41 States, and it would stay there, well, until we developed a new nuclear waste program for the country. It could stay there basically, in his contention, for an extended period of time. We found that irreconcilable. We feel that in order to bring this to a conclusion, we have to structure the amendments in such a way as to determine, indeed, that if Yucca Mountain is not deemed to be an adequate site and if the President finds it necessary as a consequence of Yucca not being deemed an adequate site, the responsibility is the President's, with the approval of Congress, but if all proposed to duck responsibility, then clearly it comes back to the Nevada test site in default. And the rationale for that is obvious. Without closing the loop, we have left a loophole, and we would not see a satisfactory determination by the parties who must bear the responsibility. And the Congress and the Senate certainly share in that. So with that concluding remark, I yield and encourage the Chair to grant an equal amount of time to my good friends from Nevada. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens and myself, I am reintroducing the Fishing Industry Bargaining Act, a bill to allow antitrust immunity for certain cooperative activities involving domestic fishermen and processors. This bill will allow collective agreement between fishermen and processors. It is patterned after legislation adopted by the Alaska State Legislature, but which requires congressional action to fully take effect. Under existing law, fishermen are able to form associations for the purpose of collective bargaining with individual processors. This bill will allow them to work with similar associations of processors to establish first-wholesale purchase prices--that is, the prices paid to the processors for fish products, and ex-vessel prices paid to the fishermen. This is intended to counter the fact that prices currently are all too often set by first-wholesale buyers rather than producers. As a result, processors forced to accept a price set by their buyers are in turn forced to set ex-vessel prices based on the buyers' offer, rather than prices that respond fully to other market forces. I want to make it clear that this bill in no way would allow processors to associate solely amongst themselves to set either ex- vessel or wholesale prices. That is the kind of activity our current antitrust law is primarily designed to prevent, and this bill will leave that unchanged. Processors would continue to be prohibited from agreeing on prices unless fishermen participated in and were party to any agreement. What the bill will accomplish is to strengthen the position of the United States seafood industry generally--fishermen and processors together. In this, it would apply to fishermen and fish processors in all parts of the country, not just in Alaska. We look forward to a hearing which will air the views of the Alaska fishing industry and the fishing industry in other parts of the country, and urge prompt action by this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens and myself, I am reintroducing the Fishing Industry Bargaining Act, a bill to allow antitrust immunity for certain cooperative activities involving domestic fishermen and processors. This bill will allow collective agreement between fishermen and processors. It is patterned after legislation adopted by the Alaska State Legislature, but which requires congressional action to fully take effect. Under existing law, fishermen are able to form associations for the purpose of collective bargaining with individual processors. This bill will allow them to work with similar associations of processors to establish first-wholesale purchase prices--that is, the prices paid to the processors for fish products, and ex-vessel prices paid to the fishermen. This is intended to counter the fact that prices currently are all too often set by first-wholesale buyers rather than producers. As a result, processors forced to accept a price set by their buyers are in turn forced to set ex-vessel prices based on the buyers' offer, rather than prices that respond fully to other market forces. I want to make it clear that this bill in no way would allow processors to associate solely amongst themselves to set either ex- vessel or wholesale prices. That is the kind of activity our current antitrust law is primarily designed to prevent, and this bill will leave that unchanged. Processors would continue to be prohibited from agreeing on prices unless fishermen participated in and were party to any agreement. What the bill will accomplish is to strengthen the position of the United States seafood industry generally--fishermen and processors together. In this, it would apply to fishermen and fish processors in all parts of the country, not just in Alaska. We look forward to a hearing which will air the views of the Alaska fishing industry and the fishing industry in other parts of the country, and urge prompt action by this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Tuesday, April 29, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony from the General Accounting Office on their evaluation of the development of the draft Tongass land management plan. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate bill 468, which was introduced on March 18, be jointly referred to the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 7 p.m. for the introduction of bills and statements.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request on behalf of Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under rule XIV, I understand Senate bill 522, which was introduced today by Senator Coverdell, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct an oversight hearing on juvenile justice issues in Indian country.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, at 10 a.m. and at 3:30 p.m. to hold hearings.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 2 minutes in order to allow the Senate to greet a French parliamentary delegation that is visiting us.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. There has been a lot of criticism of the nuclear industry out there. What has the nuclear industry done? They provided a reliable source of power. They are the second largest supplier of power generation next to coal, 22 percent of our Nation's power. They are a dedicated group, highly technical people for the most part, dedicated to providing a reliable, safe source of energy for this country, for 22 percent of our dependents. They entered into a contractual agreement back in 1982. And where have we been since 1982? We have been here. We have been talking about it. We have been discussing, Yes, we have an obligation, but it is not due. It is due now, Mr. President. It is due next year. And we are not ready. So what are they supposed to do? The other side would suggest, do not do anything now. Put it off. Wait until some time in the future when we have a permanent repository. How much time do we have to wait? Where is the future? The Secretary of Energy says this repository is not going to be ready, a permanent one at Yucca Mountain, until the year 2015. What, do we have to wait another 18 years? That is what the other side would have you believe. What are the damages associated with the inability of the Government to fulfill its contractual commitment? There is full exposure, full employment for the lawyers. What we have around here is too much speculation. What we need are some facts. And the facts are that we have this stuff all over the country. The chart here shows where it is. We have the stuff spread in 41 States at 80 sites. We are proposing to address it and put it in one safe site. Where is that site? It is where we have held nuclear tests, out in the desert, for 50 years. So, when they say it is unneeded, I have to dispute that. First of all, it is needed because we are in violation of a contractual commitment that the Federal Government entered into in good faith. What did the court say about it? The court said the Government is liable. They said that last year. The Federal Government is liable to take that waste. If we do not take it, there are going to be damages. How much are the damages? Full employment for the lawyers, it is estimated at $59 billion. Nevada is where we propose to put it. We are going to put it in temporary casks, on the surface, until such time as Yucca Mountain's permanent repository is done. We are going to remove it from all these sites around the country and put it in one place. If that is irresponsible, and America's environmental community is opposed to it, then they must be for this. The other side makes an issue that no environmental group supports this legislation. What do they support? You and I know what they support. They support doing away with the nuclear industry in this country. That is their objective. And what do they propose, to make up that 21, 22 percent of our power generation? They do not want to address that. They say, ``Wind power.'' Fine, I am for wind power. Solar? Fine, I am for solar. You just cannot generate sufficient amounts with the technology we have. How about hydrogen? Let us go that route? Great. But you have to be in the real world. They want air conditioning, they want the lights to go on. And the nuclear power industry is contributing to this, almost 25 percent of our total energy. So, when they say it is unneeded, they are absolutely wrong. Do we want to shut down those nuclear plants because they are running out of storage space? They were licensed for so much space. You have seen pictures of those pools. You have seen the spent rods being stored there. That was not permanent storage. It was not designed for permanent storage. Everybody knows that. It was temporary, until such time as the Government could fulfill its contract. Did the environmental community and the folks who are down at the White House who are opposed to this legislation, who, I might add, have no position on this issue, do they want us to have blackouts on hot summer days? What do they propose in the future, if we do not address this problem of adequate storage on hand when our storage is filled in those pools? Do we want to default on our Federal obligation? I have already talked about that. And, remember, the courts have upheld the obligation of the Federal Government. What kind of precedent are we setting in this country for those who observe the way Government does business, to ignore the commitment to the ratepayers who have contributed with the expectation that the waste would be taken? The comment was made by the other side that interim storage in Nevada was unneeded and unsafe. Is it safe to continue to store this waste in the pools that were designed to hold that waste for a temporary timeframe? One of the Senators from Nevada says that the 100 millirem standard is unsafe. Let us talk about that, because those kinds of speculative arguments excite a lot of people. Again, it is speculation. The current EPA radiation protection guidance is 500 millirem, 500. EPA is considering making it 100 millirem, to even be more protective. So, the current EPA radiation protection guidance says 500, but we have it at 100 in our bill. Additionally, we provide EPA with the authority to proscribe a stricter standard if needed. As a consequence, to suggest our bill is unsafe defies reality. We are promoting the public health and safety with a higher standard, if indeed it is needed. We have heard it said that transportation is unsafe. We have shown that nuclear fuel was safely transported across the country every single day of the year, year in and year out, 2,400 shipments for 16 years, from 1979 to 1995, through every State in the Nation except South Dakota and Florida. It has been moving. Why has it been moving? It has been moving from all these different sites. It has been moving from universities that have test reactors, research reactors. It has been moving from military sites, from Navy sites. It has been moving, moving, moving, and we have not had any accidents. We talk about what kind of container is going to be involved. Obviously, it is going to be a safe container, the same kind that has moved this material in 2,400 shipments. So that is a bogus argument, to say it is unsafe. We have shown that casks cannot be breached with real world accidents. We have shown there has never been an accident involving the release of radiation. Of course, in Europe, in Asia, they move this stuff all over, all over the world. So, if you want to buy fear tactics, this is probably a good environment to buy them in because there are lots of them around here. A further statement was made relative to our bill being unwise. I have trouble with that. If it was wise enough, sometime ago, for us to decide that it made sense to develop a permanent repository in Nevada, at a cost of some $30 billion, which is not a sure thing, then why is it unwise to spend between $1.5 to $2 billion to build an interim that can handle the problem until the permanent is ready. If Yucca is not determined to be suitable, then we will have a place for the waste until another site is selected if we pass this bill. Either way, we will need an interim site. So this is a very wise, thoughtful approach. Much has been made in this debate about the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and what they have said. What the board has told us is that central storage is needed if Yucca comes on line, and that central storage is needed if it does not come on line. There may be disagreements about timing, but the end result is the same. We need interim storage, regardless of what happens with Yucca Mountain. We need it either way, Mr. President. Is it unwise to leave waste? Where are we going to leave the waste, with the status quo? That is what the other side proposes. Is it wise to leave waste at 80 sites in 41 States in pools that were not designed for long-term storage and to leave it there? How long? Until Yucca's done, 2015 or longer. One State, Connecticut, has guards and fences around the pools of nuclear waste in one of our Senator's neighborhoods, a Senator in this body. So when they say it is unneeded, unwise, unsafe, I suggest they look at reality and recognize there is, indeed, every reason to believe that it is safe to take it out of 80 sites in 41 States that we have safely transported across this country for over 16 years, and it is certainly needed because the pools are full and many of these reactors will not be able to be relicensed for additional storage, because they do not have any. They will have to shut down. So I encourage the administration and the environmental community, if you do not like this bill, then come up with an answer. I encourage the environmental community to recognize that as they address the legitimate concerns we all have over greenhouse gases, increased carbon emissions, where do we look for relief? We just had a significant portion of the French Parliament here. They were acknowledged. We had a 2-minute recess. They told me in the back they wished us well with our effort to bury our waste. In France, they do not allow you to bury your waste because it is valuable, because they have embarked on a technology called reprocessing where, through a MAX fuel process, they recover the waste associated with those rods that are stored in the pools and they recover the energy in a plutonium form and put it back in the reactor with enriched uranium. Who is addressing the proliferation threat? They are burning theirs. We are proposing to put ours underground. In the meantime we are like ostriches running around saying, ``We can't do this, we can't do that.'' What are the Japanese doing? The Japanese have taken the French technology which, incidentally, we developed initially when we had proposed to reprocess. We cannot reprocess because we have a policy against reprocessing. But the Japanese have expanded on an effort to be totally independent of imported energy in Japan. What does that do to their industrial economy? It makes it pretty secure. They are going to depend on nuclear energy. If there is any country that has had an experience with nuclear energy that is more sensitive, I do not know what it could be other than Japan. The Japanese are committed to a $20 billion to $24 billion project. I was up there last December. They are building a refueling, reprocessing, state-of-the-art facility. Do you know what they are doing now? They are sending their waste from their nuclear reactors over to France, the French are reprocessing, and the waste goes back vitrified. But they are going to do it themselves in Japan. They are going to recover the plutonium, put it back in the reactors and reduce the proliferation threat, because plutonium has value. I am not here arguing the case for that. I am simply stating what is happening in the real world with state of the art. France is 70 percent dependent on nuclear power. We cannot even figure out what to do with our waste. The last nuclear plant was built in this country in 1979, 1980. That is where we are. Nobody in his right mind would try and build one today, because the permitting process would simply make it unfeasible, if there is such a word, certainly noneconomic from the standpoint of generating a return. I can stand here on the floor of the Senate and predict that within 10 years, we will be going to Japan and we will be going to France for the advanced technology associated with disposal of high-level waste. What this administration has done is to allow in nuclear waste from other countries, but it will not address its obligation to the nuclear power industry to take its waste that it has collected the money for the last 16 years, $13 billion. So I hope some of the folks down at the White House reflect a little bit on the obligations that we have made commitments and the reality that we have not performed. It is easy to criticize the nuclear industry with regard to nuclear waste, but let's be realistic and let's recognize, again, that they have performed their obligation. Now they are asking the Federal Government to perform theirs. I want to conclude my debate today with a little reference on a portion of the statement that was made regarding the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the points made in that debate on the other side. My distinguished friends and colleagues from Nevada have in their statements, I think, misinterpreted or perhaps misunderstood some of the conclusions associated with the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. There has been an assertion that the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board--which, as has been stated, is a panel of scientists appointed to review the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program-- opposes the construction of an interim storage facility. The suggestion is they oppose it. This simply is not true, Mr. President. Following a February hearing on S. 104, I asked the chairman of the board the following question, and this is from the record: Those who oppose S. 104 have used the board's report as evidence that ``technical and scientific experts'' believe that a centralized temporary storage facility will not be needed. Is this the conclusion the board intended people to draw? The chairman responded: On the contrary, the board believes that a centralized storage facility will be needed---- Will be needed, Mr. President---- and the generic planning should begin immediately. Significant advantages can be derived from siting a storage facility adjacent to a repository. OK, adjacent to Yucca Mountain is what S. 104 proposes. The board did state, however: However, there are no compelling technical or safety reasons to move spent fuel to a centralized facility for the next few years. I think we have here some questions of timing. ``The next few years,'' the last time I checked, few meant two. In order to be able to move spent fuel in a few years--well, we started this process, and we have been, what, 16 to 17 years now trying to move this process along. We entered into a contract with the nuclear power industry to take it 16 years ago. Here we are today, 1 year away from a mandatory obligation to perform under a contract in 1998, and when is this one going to be ready? 2015. So we have 17, 18 years. The other side said we should not start now, or they interpret the board's interpretation to mean there is no compelling or safety reason to move spent fuel to a centralized storage facility in the next few years. If we started today in this process, which is what I hope we will do as soon as the Senate supports passage of this bill, we will not be able to start on this facility until we are into the year 2000. We all know that. So it is a question of timing. It is only natural that the board begin this process. This is a technical body. They probably have no concept of the lead time legislation must have before it can become law and can result in planned action. Again, 17 years on this process already. So as we move to the bill, I am willing to offer an amendment that would provide a new schedule for siting construction of the interim facility, recognizing 2 years is not going to do it. This is to take into account the passage of time since introduction of the original legislation. Mr. President, even before this amendment, in response to written questions, the chairman stated something else: The difference in timing between the board's recommendations and the approach set forth in S. 104 are not substantial. I think it is fair to say that my friends from Nevada have placed a good deal of faith in the board's judgment, but I would like to point out some of the board's statements that they won't tell you about. At the February hearing, Chairman Cohon stated that: The board believes that the risks associated with transporting spent fuel are very low-- Very low---- and are likely to remain very low even when the number of shipments increases. I hope that satisfies my friends from Nevada. While my colleagues have asserted that nuclear waste can stay just where it is, and that is the position they have taken, the board has stated: The board believes that one or more centralized spent fuel storage facilities will be needed somewhere if Yucca Mountain proves to be unsuitable for development as a repository. Where is somewhere, Mr. President? Somewhere is out here at the Nevada site that was used previously for more than 800 nuclear weapons tests over 50 years. That is somewhere. It has to go somewhere. Nobody wants it. This is someplace, contrary to the claims we heard today that the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board does believe that temporarily centralized storage of nuclear waste is needed and transportation of spent fuel is safe. The last issue I would like to refute is a question of, well, why not wait until 1998? The administration says it objects to siting a temporary storage facility before 1998 when the viability assessment for Yucca Mountain will be completed. There have been those who asked, ``Why can't we just wait for 1998 and pass the legislation then?'' I think I have addressed that, but to anybody who has watched this process, the obvious answer is, it is going to take a few years, more than a few years. It has taken over 2 years since the first introduction of this legislation, and we are still debating on the Senate floor. S. 104 takes into account the viability assessment. It provides a procedure for choosing an alternative site if it is negative, and S. 104 gives the Department of Energy the authority it needs to begin the year or so of nonsite-specific work necessary to build an interim storage facility. Anyone who believes that the viability assessment will make passing legislation easier is out of touch with reality. The reality is that no one wants nuclear waste stored in their State, whether it be Arkansas or Alaska or Nevada. But we have to put it somewhere. And this was good enough for 800 nuclear weapons tests over 50 years out in the Nevada desert where they have an experienced work force. They have security. They have the know-how. And it was selected as the best site for a permanent repository. We have expended $6 billion in a process that ultimately is going to take an expenditure probably of $30 billion to finish it. At the committee hearing on Senate bill 104 in February, all four members of the Nevada delegation stated that no level of scientific proof would basically lessen their opposition to this project. I commend them for that; they are doing what they have to do for their State. If it was not Nevada, it would be some other State here. But we have an obligation to put it somewhere. And that is the bottom line of this whole debate. When we go round and round and round, nobody wants it. We will not reprocess it like Japan, like France, and take advantage of advanced technology to counter proliferation threats. We cannot get the environmental community to responsively address reprocessing. So we are hell-bent to bury it--as long as we do not bury it anywhere. The ultimate reality is that the Federal Government has an obligation to start taking this waste next year. The obligation is to move nuclear waste, not to start thinking about how you might take waste in the future. So, again, I would urge my colleagues to recognize that we have reached a crossroads. The job of fixing this program is ours. The time for fixing it is now. We have it at 80 sites in 41 States, and no one can convince me that is the best procedure to just leave it there. We have made progress at Yucca. The 5-mile exploratory tunnel is soon going to be complete. And we can build on this progress. This bill continues the site characterization activities for that permanent repository. And do not believe anything else. But we cannot put all our eggs in the Yucca basket. We need this storage facility, this temporary facility now. Otherwise, Mr. President, what we are going to be doing-- make no mistake about it; I want every Member to so note--we are going to be leaving it right where it is: in your State. If you are one of the 41 States, leave it right where it is for another generation to come along and debate it, talk about it. In the meantime, we are leaving it in storage that was not designed for long-term storage. We can choose whether the Nation needs 80 interim storage sites or just one at the Nevada site where we exploded nuclear bombs during the cold war. It is safe. It is remote. It is monitored. If Yucca is licensed, which I think it will be, it will be an easy task to move the material to the repository. And if Yucca is not licensed or found to be unsuitable, we will need a centralized interim site anyway. So we will be ahead of the game regardless of what happens at Yucca. Mr. President, this is a step we should take. The time is now. And any attempt to escape this obligation would be unwise. It would be unsafe to fail to address the problem. And what is unneeded is further delay. Mr. President, I thank you for the courtesy of recognizing me and wish you a good day and yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as I understand it, we will be on the bill beginning at 1 o'clock tomorrow. So I assume any Member can come over and speak on this or as if in morning business. With that interpretation, I am going to proceed for a few minutes more. Then that will be my conclusion, at least for today, relative to the topic at hand. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have reached an agreement to proceed to the bill, and, as a consequence, starting tomorrow at 1 o'clock, we will have to continue our debate. Many Members on our side have indicated an interest in coming over and being heard. There are a couple of points I want to make at this time that I think bear a little examination. The other side has indicated that his legislation, S. 104, is unneeded, that it is unwise, that it is unsafe. I just cannot accept that. First of all, to suggest it is unneeded disregards the obligation we have in a contractual commitment to take this waste in 1998. What good is a Government contract, for Heaven's sakes, if there is no intention, no desire to fulfill that contract? Mr. President, 16 years have passed. It is clear that the waste will not be taken in 1998 as promised. Yet, the Federal Government has taken from the ratepayers some $13 billion. And who has it been paid to? It has been paid to the Federal Government. And what has the Federal Government done with it? They have not held it in escrow. They have not held it in abeyance out there, ready to meet their obligation to take the waste in 1998. They put it in the general fund. Under the crazy bookkeeping procedures we have around here, it is going to take a significant appropriation to address this obligation. So, when the other side suggests that it is unneeded, I think we have to look a little bit deeper at the significance of a contractual commitment. (Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the chair.)

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the cloture vote scheduled for 5:15 this afternoon, subject to the clearance from the ranking member of the Energy Committee, be contemplated to be vitiated, and further Senate action begin on Senate bill 104 for consideration at 1 o'clock on Wednesday, April 9. I ask the Chair to withhold because I am just advised that there is one clarification needed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to withdraw, if there is no objection, the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with respect to disposal of high-level nuclear waste, this Nation is today at a crossroads. The job and the responsibility of addressing the disposal of spent nuclear fuel from our Nation's powerplants--is an obligation of this body. The time for fixing the problem is now. There has been a lot of progress made. We have selected a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. That is already done. It is underway. We have expended about $6 billion, and that 5-mile exploratory tunnel will soon be completed. This is a positive commitment by the Congress to proceed with a permanent repository. We can build on this process. This bill, Senate bill 104, continues the site characterization activities for a permanent repository. Make no mistake about it. But this is an ongoing process. In the meantime, we have an obligation to take this waste next year, in 1998. Well, this Senator from Alaska and the majority of my committee are of the opinion that a contract is a binding commitment. The Federal Government, 16 years ago, entered into a contract with the nuclear industry to take this waste in 1998. We have no place to put this waste because Yucca Mountain isn't completed. We face penalties; we face litigation. It is estimated that the damages associated with the inability to fulfill the contractual commitment will run somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion. That is an additional load on the taxpayers of this country. We need a temporary storage facility or we will continue to be storing this waste across the Nation for decades to come. Where is the waste? Well, let's look at this chart. We have commercial reactors represented on the chart. We have shut down reactors with spent fuel on sites represented on the chart. We have 110 of the commercial reactors, 110 reactors in about 41 States. We have 10 shut down reactors, represented on the chart. We have one existing site for spent commercial nuclear fuel storage on the chart, is in the State of Illinois. Non-DOE research reactors--we have 38 shown on the chart. We have naval reactor fuel up in Idaho, up in Washington, and in Georgia. There are 10 of those sites. Department of Energy-owned spent nuclear fuel sites, about 12, are indicated on the chart. So there is where we are. We have this stuff scattered all over the United States. We can choose now whether the Nation needs these 80 sites, or just 1--1 in the arid remote Nevada test site, where we exploded a series of nuclear bombs during the cold war, a site that has been determined to be safe. It is a remote location. It has been well monitored by an experienced work force and a security force as well. Now, if Yucca is licensed for a permanent repository, it will simply be a very easy task to move the spent fuel to the permanent repository from the interim facility this bill would authorize. Now, the problem is that Yucca isn't going to be ready until the year 2015. Some suggest, well, what happens if Yucca is not licensed or is found to be unsuitable? Will we need a centralized interim site anyway so that we will be way ahead of the game? The answer is, yes, regardless of what happens at Yucca, this is a step we should take and take now. Critics have claimed that we can't store waste safely, that we don't have the technology. Nature itself suggests that a geologic repository, which this bill supports, is the best long-term answer. Let me refer again to a natural geological nuclear waste repository that has been in existence for a long time. Such a repository is in Gabon, in Africa. There, approximately 1.8 billion years ago, at a place called Oklo, scientists have proven that naturally occurring, highly enriched uranium began a spontaneous nuclear reaction producing almost a ton of plutonium, as well as all of the other fission byproducts that occur in spent fuel from modern nuclear power plants. That is the history. That is a fact. It actually happened, under the watch of Mother Nature. Now, Mr. President, when it happened, it happened just a few feet beneath the surface. No geologists studied the site before the waste was ``stored'' there. There was no engineering barriers around the so- called spent fuel. However, scientists have proven that the plutonium and the other fission products did not migrate away from that site. There is nothing unique, Mr. President, about the geology of Oklo. This ``experiment'' shows that radioactive waste can be successfully contained within a geologic repository. Mother Nature did it 1.8 billion years ago. Now we are talking about the science, the technology, and the application of mankind in the process. Well, it certainly seems to be taking equally as long. When I said that we had designated Yucca as a permanent repository and that we spent some $6 billion in the process, and will probably expend as much as $30 billion, it is important to recognize what comes next. First, it has to be deemed viable. That means the scientific information gathered by 1998 will show that nothing is there that would disqualify Yucca Mountain for a permanent repository. That is done next year, in 1998. What are the odds on that? They tell us about 90 percent. The second factor is the suitability. Yucca Mountain must be suitable. It must be a suitable site for a permanent repository under the guidelines issued by the Department of Energy. When is that supposed to be completed? In the year 2001. What are the odds on that? They tell us about 80 percent. Then, of course, it has to be licensed, licensed by the NRC, who issues the license for a permanent repository. Well, for the date of that we can only rely on the former Secretary of Energy O'Leary, who indicated that would be about the year 2015. Talking about this waste brings us to the reality that we are going to have to transport it. You simply can't leave it at these sites. So let's talk a little bit about the transportation issue, because this is on the minds of many Members. This map accurately shows, from 1979 to 1995, the movement and transportation routes of 2,400 individual shipments of waste around the country. The interesting thing, Mr. President, is that they go through every single State of the 48, with the exception of South Dakota and Florida. All the States are represented here. That is the harsh reality. We have been moving this waste for 16 years. Why hasn't it been on the front pages of the papers? Because it has been a nonevent. It has moved safely. It has moved from reactors. It has moved from Navy facilities and from Army facilities, and it has been on railroads and on highways, and it has been under the auspices of the Department of Energy, and it has been safe. We have heard in this debate, primarily from my good friends from Nevada, that somehow this waste is a new threat that America has never faced before. That is just poppycock. Emotional statements have been made time and time again, suggesting that somehow the health and safety of 50 million Americans will be threatened. And there have been references to the unfortunate Chernobyl accident. That accident, as everybody knows, involved a graphite reactor without a containment building. Electricians were in there doing an operation they weren't supposed to be doing. They didn't have the training. They bypassed the safety procedures, took the reactor critical, and the results were very unfortunate. But it was human error, Mr. President. The graphite reactors are not the type that we have in the United States. Yet, this effort to try to address an obligation to our Nation's waste has been referred to as a ``mobile Chernobyl.'' Here is what we have been moving, Mr. President. Again, do we want to move it to one site in the Nevada desert now, as we wait for the development of our permanent repository? Or do we want to leave it for another 15, 16, or 17 years, actually, in the 80 sites in 41 States? No fatality, injury, or environmental damage has ever occurred in the United States because of radioactive cargo movement. That is just a fact. We have taken steps to ensure that the risk is as negligible as possible. Some of our friends would imply that if this bill doesn't pass, then nuclear waste won't be shipped on our Nation's roads. Well, that is simply not true, Mr. President. Let's take a look at the routes used-- the routes used for 15 years, again, for the thousands of fuel shipments. Some say they didn't know the fuel shipments took place. Again, as I have said, that is because they are uneventful. Trucks carrying the casks have been in accidents, but the casks that contain the nuclear material have performed as designed. They have not broken open. The nuclear disasters that the Senators from Nevada have referred to, Mr. President, simply haven't happened. Now, we have heard claims that the number of shipments that would occur under Senate bill 104 is an unprecedented amount. Well, that is simply not true. We have our storage in our reactors in the cells adjacent to the reactors and the pools, and those are filling up. We need to relieve that congestion, and that is the whole purpose of the interim retrievable storage. We currently have about 30,000 metric tons of spent fuel in this country. But the French alone have shipped that amount of spent fuel all over Europe--for that matter, all over the world. This is not just history. It is happening today. It is happening all over the world. The Department of Energy, as a matter of fact, is transporting spent nuclear fuel all over the country and all over the world as we speak. Here it is in the country. Let's take a look at a chart of the world. Here we have it, Mr. President. There seems to be a double standard here when the Department of Energy claims that it cannot possibly fulfill its obligation to the U.S. electric ratepayers to take spent fuel. Why is it doing so in foreign countries? Well, here they are. In Europe, there is Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Australia, throughout South America, and Peru and Canada. We are taking this now under agreements that have been made. Where is it going? It is going to the Savannah River in South Carolina. This chart shows the actual times of delivery from 1996 to 2009. These are the countries to which we have committed taking their waste. So it is a double standard, Mr. President. Why are we doing it for foreign countries? We are not doing it for our own nuclear industry. You may ask why the taxpayers are paying for the Department of Energy to transport and store nuclear waste in foreign countries while American ratepayers are left out. All the countries in color on this chart ship fuel to the United States for storage at the Department of Energy facilities. It doesn't seem to be a mystery to some. But it is a mystery to me. Another mystery is why many of the same groups that most actively oppose resolving our domestic fuel storage problems were most supportive of taking nuclear waste from foreign countries. Think about it. We are taking waste from Russia--military waste--because we deem that lessens the proliferation threat. If they support taking nuclear waste from overseas, can the safety of transportation be an issue? One wonders why it is now. How can it be safe for the Department of Energy to ship spent fuel halfway across the world but not across a few States? They don't explain that very well, do they? Actually, if you look closer, you see that the Department of Energy transports nuclear waste across the United States. Let's take a look at a map of the United States. It goes into Hanford. It goes into Savannah; Hanford in the State of Washington. This shows the American research reactors at our universities. They ship fuel for storage at DOE facilities. They are scattered all across the country. The various universities are Ohio State, MIT, the University of Virginia, and Oak Ridge. We could go on and on. They are all across the country. That is why I contend that we have a double standard. Why does the Department of Energy pay to transport and store nuclear waste from foreign countries but won't do its own duty to the U.S. power reactors that have paid for the service? They have paid for the service. The ratepayers that depend on nuclear energy paid $13 billion to the Federal Government. Where is the money? It has gone into the general fund. It is not an escrow account. But there is a contract signed for next year. The Department of Energy will say that they take foreign fuel to help with the nonproliferation. That is all well and good. But spent nuclear fuel is spent nuclear fuel regardless of where it is. If transportation and storage is safe for some, why isn't it safe for all? I think this just proves the point that the obstacles to moving our Nation's spent fuel are political. They are not technical. We have moved it. We move it from our research reactors all over the country. We move it from other countries in the world and bring it to the United States to Savannah, and have been doing it for some time. My bill, and the committee bill, S. 104 of Senator Craig and others, provides the authority to coordinate a systematic safe transportation network to move spent fuel to a storage facility under Senate bill 104. The Department of Energy is required to use--``required''; it is not optional--to use NRC-certified transportation containers to transport fuel along special routes chosen by DOT radioactivity transport regulations and considerations set out in the bill. Let's take a look at how that is shipped because I think it is important to recognize the care that goes into this. This is a truck that is moving over the highways of the Nation probably today; moving some kind of fuel in a cask probably to the Savannah River site in South Carolina. It is moving safely. It is moving in a special container. These are probably spent fuel rods. They are radioactive. But by the same token, care and engineering technology has gone into this. I find it surprising to note that--and the comment was made in the debate that the environmental groups don't support this legislation. I find it further perplexing that these groups on the one hand are opposed as we all are to the increase in greenhouse gases yet the only current technology available to reduce it dramatically is nuclear energy. Our use of nuclear energy reduces more than 140 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year, not to mention sulfur dioxide and various other pollutants. This is the contribution that nuclear energy contributes to air quality in this country. Some suggest that the opposition by the environmental groups is simply to shut down the reactors because they do not believe in or don't approve of nuclear energy or nuclear power. But they don't want to recognize that about 22 percent of our Nation's power is generated by nuclear reactors, and, if you reduce or eliminate the nuclear power industry in this country, you will have to replace it with something. It will probably be replaced with carbon fuels. And there is an emission concern there. So I say to those that are opposed to this legislation that they have an obligation to come up with something that answers the question of what we do with our spent fuel. I think that is what this bill does. Further safeguards have been taken in this legislation to provide that transportation cannot occur until the Department of Energy has provided specific technical assistance and funding to States affected by the transportation route, Indian tribes, and for emergency response planning along the transportation routes. That isn't what is done now. But that is what is required in the bill to make it that much safer. The language builds on what is an already safe system for transporting spent fuel in this country. As I have said before, the public has never been exposed to radiation from spent fuel cargo even in accidents. Between 1971 and 1989 the Department of Transportation tells us that there were seven minor accidents involving trucks carrying waste: Flat tires, and various other things. But no radioactivity was released in any of the accidents. That is because transportation canisters are designed to maintain their integrity during severe accidents. They have been used for thousands of safe shipments over the years. As a matter of fact, they were designing casks at one time when they contemplated flying the fuel. It was suggested that the technology existed for casks to be designed for a 30,000-foot free fall. And I am told that they could design it. Nevertheless, the canisters that are depicted here in the picture, the design approved by the NRC for spent fuel transport have demonstrated a remarkable ability to withstand falls of 30-foot drops. And these are tests that were made into a national unyielding surface. There was no penetration from a drop of 40 inches onto a steel spike; no penetration being engulfed in 1,475-degree temperature fire for 30 minutes; no penetration, submerged under 3 feet of water for 8 hours; no penetration. So, despite what you may hear, engineers at the national labs tell us that the test conditions that these casks are subjected to are much more rigorous than any that they would face in real, live accidents. These casks have been tested in some more rigorous ways. Probably it would be interesting to watch because they have been run into by locomotives, and crashed into walls at 70 miles an hour. If any of the Senators or the staff want to see the video of these tests we would be happy to provide them with the tapes to view and to keep. So I suggest that we face facts. The history of the nuclear waste shipments is that they are moving almost as we speak, continue to move, and will move tomorrow but they are not going to be carrying the waste that they were contracted for. They will be carrying other wastes from other countries from research reactors from our universities. And it fails me to know why we are excluding the waste that we contracted for 16-17 years ago to take next year, and we have no provision to take that waste. That is what this bill is all about. S. 104 provides safe transportation with a perfect record, and I think it makes it even safer. So as a consequence, that tells the story of the transportation system. Let's look very briefly at what we are proposing. This is the location for the waste storage at the Nevada test sites that we have used for the previous 800 nuclear weapons tests. That is what it looks like. It is a pretty barren area. You see some roads for access, and mounds where 800 nuclear weapons tests were made. Why was this area picked? Probably there are a lot of reasons. It is remote. That is certainly one. The weather is pretty stable out there. You can observe the testing very well. They had a trained work force. To some extent I suppose there was some economic reasons. But it is not my State, and it is not appropriate that I evaluate the rationale that went into it. But that is the site. When we look at all other factors and recognize that nobody wants to store waste, the fact that we have it in 40 to 41 States, and the fact that we are going to have to move it regardless of whether it is being moved to a temporary repository or eventually to a permanent one, the transportation factor is a given. So I hope that those that are concerned about transportation recognize a couple of things: One, they may have waste in their State already. It may be military waste. It may be naval waste. It may be waste from some other activity associated with their university, or they may have nuclear power. If you want it to stay there indefinitely with no action, then that is the status quo. And that is where we have been. But if you want to move it out of your State, you have to move it someplace. The question is where do you move it? We have determined that this is the permanent site for a nuclear repository. When that was chosen, it was chosen over potential sites in the 50 States. Why was it chosen? Because it was deemed to be, of all the sites that were evaluated, the best site with the highest likelihood of this being named the permanent repository when we get through with the process now underway. That is the process of viability, suitability, and licensing. Then it goes in there permanently under our policy. But the idea of moving now to accept this area for a temporary repository until we can complete Yucca Mountain is what this legislation is all about because it suggests that it would move in those casks by transportation routes, either surface railroad or highway, in these casks out to a pad, out in the desert where it would be monitored. And those casks would be held there so we can fulfill our contractual agreement as we recognized that the storage at our nuclear power generator sites are filled up. They would be moved out to this pad and be monitored until such time as the permanent repository is completed. On the chance that the permanent repository is not licensed and it doesn't get through this viability, suitability, or licensing, this bill provides that we still have an obligation to address a resolve. That would require the President then to find another site. We have gone through all the 50 States. If this one is not suitable for a permanent repository, it requires the President to find one. If he doesn't find one, he comes back and designates that this be the site. Now, some suggest there should be some other consideration. Maybe we should do something like the base closing procedure, where we name a group of qualified people to determine a site. The problem we have with this legislation is nobody wants to face the reality of making the decision now. They want to put it off. The administration does not want to have it happen on their watch. They would just as soon have it happen on another's watch. We could easily put this off to another Congress, but we are cheating the taxpayers because the liability for nonperformance of the contract is going to face us next year. The longer we keep that waste in violation of the contractual terms, the greater the liability to the taxpayer for nonperformance, because Government simply passes that liability on to you and me, and we pay for it. As I said, we have spent $6 billion here at Yucca. We are going to be spending about $30 billion by the time it is completed. We have been transporting waste fuel around this country for 16 years. We sit, today, with 80 sites in 41 States and we are even having some Members suggest that all they want from this legislation is the assurance that it will not be put in their State. I suppose we could go back to a 6th grade mentality--and pursue a series of amendments from virtually everybody, in all the 50 States with the exception of one. I would hope that would not happen. I would hope we can recognize our obligation as parliamentarians and address this with a resolve that suggests the way to move on this thing, and move now, is as proposed under this legislation, which would provide, after the viability is determined on Yucca Mountain as being a permanent site, which is anticipated sometime next year, to then allow a temporary repository to occur in the Nevada desert at the Nevada test site. If somebody else has a better suggestion for a response to the obligation we have now, why, I am certainly willing to consider amendments to the pending legislation. Mr. President, recognizing the time element that we have, I ask how much time remains on the side of the proponents?

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I could make an inquiry relative to the time we will have on the bill this afternoon.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Nevada should proceed. I went first yesterday. I suspect we will be taking turns.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague at this time.