Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk for appropriate referral legislation dealing with the several issues of the territories of the United States and the freely associated States. This is legislation that is similar to measures reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources at the end of the last Congress and could not be considered prior to adjournment, although we had managed to work out the text with both the House and the administration. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the staff of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as the Resource Committee in the House as well. Section 1 of the legislation proposed will extend the agriculture and food programs that the United States provides for the populations on the atolls in the Marshall Islands affected by the nuclear testing program for an additional 5 years. The support program was initiated under the trusteeship and continued under the Compact of Free Association for a limited time period. Unfortunately, the atolls are not yet capable of fully supporting the populations, and an additional extension time is necessary. The amendment will also alter the program to reflect changes in population since the effective date of the compact. I visited many of these areas last year and certainly concur with the recommendations in section 1. Section 2 of the legislation would repeal a provision of law dealing with the American Memorial Park in Saipan that would permit the government of the Commonwealth to take over the park. While I think some transfer could be considered of the marina area if the Commonwealth were interested, I think that the actual war memorial and interpretive areas should remain under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service during the remainder of the lease. Section 3 of the legislation makes a series of technical amendments to permit each of the three educational institutions in the freely associated States to operate independently as land grant institutions rather than having to operate as a College of Micronesia. I visited that college and was very impressed with the dedication and the commitment of those who were responsible for education as well as the people of the area. They are very proud of that institution. I can tell you, Mr. President, there is a tremendous sacrifice being made to foster higher education in the College of Micronesia. These amendments, as we propose, reflect the new status of the representative Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands and were requested by the President of the College of Micronesia-FSM when Senator Akaka and I visited the campus last year. Section 4, hopefully, will resolve a different issue and one that is difficult for Guam relating to the disposal of real property that the Department of Defense no longer needs for military purposes. These lands were acquired by the United States for defense purposes after World War II when Guam had been liberated from occupation by Japan and while Guam was a closed defense area. We have the residents of Guam and their attitude where they have indicated that they are prepared to support the Federal Government of the United States as they are a territory, but did so with the expectation--in other words, the people of Guam expected that those lands, if no longer needed for defensive purposes, would be returned to either public or private ownership in Guam. The Department of Defense presently owns about one-third of Guam, although we have been able to return several parcels over the past few years. As part of the discussion on the Commonwealth, the administration had agreed to similar general transfer language, but when we considered this legislation last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service testified in opposition. The Fish and Wildlife Service, in testifying in opposition, said that they had a desire to acquire some portions for a wildlife refuge. I am going to talk a little bit about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' interest in acquiring this refuge because I think there is a lack of continuity that deserves some examination. I am not going to go into the curious presentation from the Service at our hearing or the question that they are unwilling to expend any of their own money on the eradication of the brown snake, which has virtually overrun the island, but only note they were able to block any agreement on land transfer previously. What I am proposing this year is a general transfer authorization for all lands except those within the proposed overlay that would be a refuge overlay that are identified on a map that is subject to transfer only by statute. That, hopefully, will release the other lands to Guam. No specific disposition is recommended for the other lands, and Congress will consider them on a parcel-by-parcel basis as they become surplus to defensive needs. This will allow both Guam and the Fish and Wildlife Service to make their case, assuming both want the lands, or anyone else. I note that Congress, not the Executive, has the plenary authority under the Constitution to deal with territories and with the disposal of Federal properties. So it is appropriate that Congress--Congress-- decide on the disposition of these lands when the time is right. And I think the time is right. The people of Guam have waited long enough. I also note that this is the only method I can think of that will guarantee the Government of Guam an opportunity to participate in the process. I hope that the administration will support the public process. One of the inconsistencies here in this land that is in dispute, approximately 2,000 acres that is held by the Department of Defense-- clearly the defensive requirements are no longer pertinent that necessitate the Department of Defense to hold this land. So it is basically surplus land. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its interest in acquiring the land, the rationale is to protect the various species on the island and maintain a natural habitat. Some of the species may be facing endangerment. The inconsistency here is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's inability to address what is eradicating many of the species that are in decline and may be in danger. That is the brown snake. The island is virtually overrun with the brown snake. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuses to initiate any action to eradicate the brown snake, which is really causing the decline in various other species that are unique to the island. So I think it is fair to say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been somewhat irresponsible in its obligation to address the perpetrator causing the decline of the various birdlife on Guam and other species because the ferociousness of the brown snake is such that it has really taken over the island. And they refuse to spend any of their own money. I had an opportunity to visit with the Governor of Guam. We had an evening at his residence. He brought several of the brown snakes in cages and gave us a little rundown of what the brown snakes were doing in overrunning Guam and the inability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to meet its obligation to address any type of control, of predator-type control, to reduce and eliminate this. So I think it is fair to say the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has had its opportunity. They cannot justify taking land and just holding it in a habitat without addressing their obligation to try to enhance the species native to Guam by eradicating the brown snake. So until they come up with some kind of realistic program, I do not have much sympathy for their claim for further land. I think this land should go to the Commonwealth of Guam and be disposed of under the legislative jurisdiction by the elected people of Guam and get on with it. I intend to pursue that with a great deal of energy to ensure that we see that land transferred over to Guam for their disposition and designation as they see fit. I think they are the most appropriate ones to address some procedure relative to the concern of the brown snake and its continued expansion over the land mass of Guam. Section 5 of the legislation--I might add further, the Fish and Wildlife Service testified last year that they had 18 listed species on Guam. I am told that three are extinct and five more no longer occur on Guam. At the rate that the Fish and Wildlife Service is dealing with the brown snake, this will be probably the only refuge dedicated to an extinct species. I think that says something about the stewardship of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to the unique species that were native to Guam, and now the brown snake has taken over and that seems to be taking care of whatever is left. But the Fish and Wildlife Service continues to, I think, neglect its responsibility. Moving on, section 5 of the legislation, Mr. President, makes a technical change in statutes dealing with drug enforcement to provide equal treatment for all the territories as we contemplated when the original act passed. Section 6 of the legislation would make two changes to the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands. The first would authorize the issuance of parity rather than priority bonds secured by the Rum fund-- an authority generally available in the States; and the second would provide that the Governor would retain his authority when absent from the territory on official business, which is often the case. Section 7 of the legislation provides for an economic study commission for the Virgin Islands. I think the idea of a study on what the future holds is important and timely. I want to emphasize that I want this commission to focus directly and quickly on realistic economic alternatives that are helpful to the Virgin Islands and the Congress and not produce a theoretical tome to gather dust on a shelf. Section 8 clarifies the availability of assistance from the Public Health Service in the radiation related medical surveillance and treatment programs provided under section 177(b) of the Compact of Free Association in the Republic of the Marshall Islands to persons directly exposed as a result of the nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands. We observed those areas when we were over there last year, as well as meeting with the people. I think this is an appropriate action. Section 9 would clarify that residents of the freely associated States who are lawfully admitted to the United States under the Compact of Free Association are eligible for assistance under certain programs. This assistance had been provided before the effective date of the Compact under the Trusteeship and subsequently until a particularly strained and convoluted interpretation by attorneys who demonstrated a questionable familiarity with English created a problem. As usual, the answer was that the interpretation didn't make a lot of sense and was contrary to past practice, but if Congress disagreed, it could clarify the law. Well I disagree and this language should clarify the law. One problem that was raised is that under current law, aliens are given a preference over United States citizens and that creates inequities in small areas like Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The answer, of course, is to treat residents of the freely associated States like United States citizens, not to fabricate a legal opinion to deny them benefits altogether. Section 9 would provide equal but not preferential treatment, and I think that is fully in line with our intent under the Compact in encouraging residents of the freely associated States to come to the United States for work and study. Section 10 would provide the consent of the United States to two amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act as required by the Admissions Act for the State of Hawaii. This language was requested by the administration and is supported by the Hawaii delegation and I'm pleased to say by my colleagues, Senators Inouye and Akaka. Section 11 would provide for an economic study commission for American Samoa similar to that provided for the Virgin Islands. Like the Virgin Islands Commission, the Secretary of the Interior will be a voting member ex officio in recognition of his responsibilities. Given the unique cultural situation in American Samoa and the importance of land tenure and Matai rights, three of the seven members of the commission will come from nominations by the Governor. Unlike the Virgin Islands, American Samoa still relies on annual appropriations for both operations and infrastructure, and the commission is directed to focus on the needs in those areas over the next decade and look to ways to minimize that dependence. As part of its report, the commission is directed to provide an historical overview of the relationship between American Samoa and the United States and include copies of relevant documents in an appendix to the report. I want to emphasize that this is an overview and I do not want the commission to depart from its focus on what economic opportunities exist to replicate scholarly studies. There are certain constraints on economic development in American Samoa as a result of its status outside the customs territory of the United States, for example, and that needs to be noted. Mr. President, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources plans to hold a hearing on this legislation on February 6. I hope to be able to report the measure and have it considered by the Senate prior to the February recess. I hope that the administration will support this measure, although I know they dislike commissions and studies. I am not a great fan of them either, but from time to time a fresh look at a problem can be useful. I do not want these commissions to go beyond their limited life and I want them to produce something useful. I hope the administration will agree with the unique circumstances surrounding these provisions and the need for them. and recognize the obligation that we have to these areas under the Organic Act of Guam and the revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands and the Compact of Free Association Act that mandates an oversight and continued responsibility by the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 9, which was received from the House.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be deemed agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 4, submitted earlier today by Senators Conrad, Dorgan, Dodd, Biden, Moseley-Braun and Daschle.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 22, which is at the desk and was introduced earlier today by the majority leader and the Democratic leader.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 11 o'clock, Thursday, January 23, further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business with each Senator allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last summer the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a ruling that confirmed something that many of us already understood. The Federal Government has an obligation to provide a safe, centralized storage place for our Nation's spent fuel and nuclear waste, beginning less than 1 year from today. This is a commitment that Congress and the Department of Energy made 15 years ago. We have collected $12 billion from the American ratepayers for this purpose. But, after spending some $6 billion, the Federal Government is still not prepared to deliver on its promise to take and safely dispose of our Nation's nuclear waste by 1998. Hardworking Americans have paid for this as part of their monthly electric bill. They simply have not gotten any results. So a lawsuit was filed and the court confirmed that there is, indeed, a legal obligation as well as a moral one. We have reached a crossroads. The job of fixing this program and this injustice is ours. The time for fixing the program is now. Today in this country, high-level nuclear waste and highly radioactive used nuclear fuel is accumulating at over 80 sites in 41 States, including waste stored at the Department of Energy's weapon facilities. It is stored in populated areas near our neighbors, near our neighborhoods, near our schools, on the shores of our lakes and rivers, in the backyards of constituents young and old across this land. Used nuclear fuel is being stored near the east and west coasts where most Americans live, maybe in your town and near your neighborhood. Used fuel is being stored in pools that were not designated for long-term storage. Some of this fuel is already over 30 years old. Each year that goes by, our ability to continue storage of this used fuel at each of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. It is irresponsible to let this situation continue. It is unsafe to let this dangerous radioactive material continue to accumulate in more than 80 sites all across the country, in 41 States. It is unwise to block the safe storage of this used fuel in a remote area away from high populations. It is a national problem that requires a coordinated national solution. Yesterday, on behalf of myself and 19 other cosponsors, I introduced the exact text of S. 1936 from the 104th Congress as S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This legislation was passed by the Senate last summer by a vote of 63 to 37. It sets forth a program that will allow the Department of Energy to meet its obligations as soon as humanly possible. S. 104 provides for an integrated system to manage used fuel for commercial nuclear powerplants and high-level radioactive waste from the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons facilities. The integrated system includes construction and operation of a temporary storage center, a safe transportation network to transfer these byproducts, and continuing scientific studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine if it is a suitable repository site. During the floor consideration of the bill last year, we received many constructive suggestions for improving that bill. The final version passed by the Senate incorporated most of these changes. The most important provisions of the bill include: First, the role of the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill provides that the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue standards for the protection of the public from releases of radioactive materials from a permanent nuclear waste repository. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required to base its licensing determination on whether the repository can be operated in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's radiation protection standards. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA--the bill complies fully with NEPA by requiring two full environmental impact statements, one in advance of operation of the temporary storage facility and one in advance of repository licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The bill provides that, where Congress has statutorily determined need, location, and size of the facilities, these issues need not be reconsidered. There is simply no rationale for requiring that. Another concern is transportation routing. The bill provides that, in order to ensure that spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste is transported safely, the Secretary of Energy will use transportation routes that minimize, to the maximum practical extent, transportation through populated and sensitive environmental areas. The language also requires that the Secretary develop, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, a comprehensive management plan that ensures the safe transportation of these materials. Under transportation requirements, the bill contains language clarifying transportation of spent fuel under this act shall be governed by the requirements imposed by all Federal, State and local governments and Indian tribes, to the same extent as any other person transporting hazardous materials in interstate commerce. With regard to the interim storage facility, in order to ensure that the size and scope of the interim storage facility is manageable, yet adequate to address the Nation's immediate spent fuel storage needs, the bill would limit the size of phase I of the interim storage facility to 15,000 metric tons of spent fuel and the size of phase II of the facility to 40,000 metric tons. Phase II of the facility would be expanded to 60,000 metric tons if the Secretary fails to meet his projected goal with regard to the licensing of the permanent depository site. With respect to the preemption of other laws, a provision of the bill would provide that if any law does not conflict with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, that law will govern. Further State and local laws are preempted only if those laws are inconsistent with or duplicative of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or the Atomic Energy Act. The language is consistent with the preemption authority found in the existing Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Finally, the bill contains bipartisan language that was drafted to address this administration's objections to the siting of an interim facility at the Nevada test site before the viability assessment of the Yucca Mountain permanent repository site was available. The language provides construction shall not begin on an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain before December 31, 1998. The bill provides for the delivery of an assessment of the viability of the Yucca Mountain site to the President and Congress, by the Secretary, 6 months before construction can begin on the interim facility. If, based on the information before him, the President should determine in his discretion that the Yucca Mountain site is not suitable for development as a repository, then the Secretary shall cease work on both the interim and permanent repository programs at the Yucca Mountain site. The bill further provides if the President makes such a determination, he shall in 18 months designate an interim storage site. If the President should fail to designate a site or if a site he has designated has not been approved by the Congress within 2 years of his determination, the Secretary is instructed to construct an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site. This ensures the construction of an interim storage facility will not occur before the President and Congress have had ample opportunity to review the technical assessments of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a permanent repository and to designate an alternate site for interim storage. However, this provision will also ensure that ultimately an interim storage facility site will be chosen. Without this assurance, Mr. President, we leave open the possibility that we will find in 1998, just a year away, that we have, one, no interim storage; two, no permanent repository program; and three, after more than 15 years and the expenditure of $6 billion, we are back right where we started in 1982 when we passed the first version of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. During the debate that will unfold, we will undoubtedly have our friends from Nevada oppose the bill with all the arguments they can muster. That is understandable. They are merely doing what Nevadans have requested them to do. But the difficulty we have with this issue, Mr. President, is nobody wants nuclear waste stored in their State. But you can't make it disappear. It has to be stored somewhere. What better site than the Nevada test site, the area in the Nevada desert where we tested nuclear devices for nearly 50 years. Has any better site been identified by the scientists who have searched throughout the United States and even areas outside the United States? The answer is that there has not been any better site suggested. So I implore those who criticize how we propose to dispose of this obligation to consider that they, too, have an obligation to come up with an alternative. The reality is, there have been a number of years to come up with those alternatives. Nobody has come up with one. In the meantime, an industry that generates nearly 22 percent of the total energy produced in this country is finding its storage sites filled to the maximum. The industry ability to store spent fuel at the reactor sites is limited by the legal requirements of the individual States, and some of the antinuclear groups see this as a way to terminate the nuclear industry, as we know it in the United States today. In my opinion, those who have this objective are irresponsible, because they fail to tell us how we are going to generate the power that is currently provided by the nuclear industry in this country. Are we going to have more power generated by burning coal? Is it going to be more oil production? Is it going to be more hydroelectric production? There is a give-and-take associated with this, and as we address the issues of global warming and greenhouse gases, it must be recognized that the nuclear industry makes a positive contribution to energy generation in this country, as those concerns are not matters of significance relative to nuclear power generation. Again, the reality is nobody wants nuclear waste in their State, but it has to go somewhere. I have the utmost respect for my colleagues, my friends from Nevada. We have talked about this issue at length, and we have a simple difference of opinion. But, again, although they criticize storing it in their State, at the area where we have tested nuclear weapons for some 50 years, they really don't have a viable alternative either. Some suggest we simply leave it where it is. Leave it at the sites in the 41 States. Well, we can't do that, Mr. President. There is other technology being developed by the French and Japanese that reprocesses nuclear waste, recovers the plutonium, and reinjects it into the reactors, and reduces the proliferation threat. That is not a policy that is supported by this administration. Nor is it a policy that is supported by the Department of Energy although someday, I am afraid, we are going to have to look at that as a relief if we are unable to open a geologic repository for the spent fuel. But in the meantime, this material is piling up at various sites around the United States, and a temporary central repository that stores spent fuel on the surface, in special casks that are approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is the appropriate action to be taken at this time. As U.S. Senators, we have an obligation to take a nationwide perspective on a problem. We must do what is best for the country as a whole, and this is certainly a case in point. No one can continue to pretend that there is an unlimited amount of time to deal with this problem. The Federal Government has entered into a contract with the ratepayers. They collected the funds. Now they must act and must act to ensure there is a safe, secure and responsible place to put the radioactive waste, and it is an obligation that we have committed to fulfill. The court did not address the issue of remedies. The court was very clear that the Department of Energy has an obligation to take spent nuclear fuel in 1998, whether a repository is ready or not. The reality is a repository cannot be ready by that date. So I assume there are going to be a series of lawsuits filed against the Federal Government. That is another full employment act for the lawyers, Mr. President. But so far, the Department of Energy's only response to the court decision has been to send out a letter asking for suggestions on how it can meet its obligation to take spent fuel in 1998. It is clear that we all agree on the question. Now is the time for answers. We have a clear and simple choice. We can choose to have one remote, safe and secure temporary nuclear waste storage facility, or through inaction, through delay, we can face an uncertain judicial remedy which will almost certainly be costly, and which is unlikely to actually move waste out of America's backyards. It is not morally right to shirk our responsibility to the environment and the future of our children and grandchildren. This is a situation we have created, and it is an obligation we must fulfill. We cannot wait until 1998 to decide where the Department of Energy will store this nuclear waste. We have received letters from 23 Governors and attorneys general, including Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, specifically urging this Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a bill that will provide for interim storage at the Nevada test site. Congress must speak now and provide the means to build one safe monitored, temporary storage facility at the Nevada test site, a unique site so remote that the Government has used it to explode nuclear weapons for over 50 years, or, if that is not sufficient, another site designated by the President and Congress. The jury is in on this issue. The time is now. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 is the answer, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this legislation and support the passage of S. 104 in the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in session tomorrow for morning business to allow Members to introduce legislation and make statements. No rollcall votes will occur during Thursday's session of the Senate. When the Senate completes its business on Thursday, it will stand in adjournment until Monday, January 27, for a pro forma session only. No business will be transacted on Monday, and the Senate will then adjourn until Tuesday. The majority leader has announced that rollcall votes are possible on Tuesday on any nominations that may become available for consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If there is no further business, Mr. President, to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order in accordance with the provisions of Senate Resolution 22.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a ruling that confirmed something that many of us already understood: the Federal Government has an obligation to provide a safe, centralized storage place for our Nation's spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, beginning less than 1 year from today. This is a commitment that Congress, and the Department of Energy, made 15 years ago. We've collected $12 billion from America's ratepayers for this purpose. But after spending 6 billion of those dollars, the Federal Government is still not prepared to deliver on its promise to take and safely dispose of our Nation's nuclear waste by 1998. Hardworking Americans have paid for this as part of their monthly electric bill. But they haven't gotten results. So a lawsuit was filed, and the court confirmed that there is a legal obligation, as well as a moral one. We have reached a crossroads. The job of fixing this program is ours. The time for fixing the program is now. Today, high-level nuclear waste and highly radioactive used nuclear fuel is accumulating at over 80 sites in 41 States, including waste stored at DOE weapons facilities. It is stored in populated areas, near our neighborhoods and schools, on the shores of our lakes and rivers, in the backyard of constituents young and old all across this land. Used nuclear fuel is being stored near the east and west coasts, where most Americans live. It may be in your town. Near your neighborhood. Unfortunately, used fuel is being stored in pools that were not designed for long-term storage. Some of this fuel is already over 30 years old. Each year that goes by, our ability to continue storage of this used fuel at each of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. It is irresponsible to let this situation continue. It is unsafe to let this dangerous radioactive material continue to accumulate at more than 80 sites all across the country. It is unwise to block the safe storage of this used fuel in a remote area, away from high populations. This is a national problem that requires a coordinated, national solution. Today, on behalf of myself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Helms, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Mack, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Warner, Mr. Bond, Mr. Robert Smith, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Jeffords, I introduce the text of S. 1936, from the 104th Congress, as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This legislation, which was passed by the Senate last summer by a 63-to-37 vote, sets forth a program that will allow the Department of Energy to meet its obligation as soon as possible. The bill provides for an integrated system to manage used fuel from commercial nuclear powerplants and high-level radioactive waste from DOE's nuclear weapons facilities. The integrated system includes construction and operation of a temporary storage center, a safe transportation network to transfer these byproducts, and continuing scientific studies at Yucca Mountain, NV, to determine if it is a suitable repository site. During floor consideration of S. 1936 last year, we received many constructive suggestions for improving the bill. The final version of S. 1936 passed by the Senate incorporated many of these changes. The most important provisions of the bill include: Role for EPA.--The bill provides that the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue standards for the protection of the public from releases of radioactive materials from a permanent nuclear waste repository. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required to base its licensing determination on whether the repository can be operated in accordance with EPA's radiation protection standards. National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA].--The bill complies fully with NEPA by requiring two full environmental impact statements, one in advance of operation of the temporary storage facility and one in advance of repository licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The bill provides that where Congress has statutorily determined need, location, and size of the facilities, these issues need not be reconsidered. Transportation routing.--The bill includes language of an amendment offered by Senator Moseley-Braun, which provides that, in order to ensure that spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste is transported safely, the Secretary of Energy will use transportation routes that minimize, to the maximum practicable extent, transportation through populated and sensitive environmental areas. The language also requires that the Secretary develop, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, a comprehensive management plan that ensures the safe transportation of these materials. Transportation requirements.--The bill contains language clarifying that transportation of spent fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act shall be governed by all requirements of Federal, State, and local governments and Indian tribes to the same extent that any person engaging in transportation in interstate commerce must comply with those requirements, as provided by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. The bill also requires the Secretary to provide technical assistance and funds for training to unions with experience with safety training for transportation workers. In addition, the bill clarifies that existing employee protections in title 49 of the United States Code concerning the refusal to work in hazardous conditions apply to transportation under this act. Finally, S. 1936 provides authority for the Secretary of Transportation to establish training standards, as necessary, for workers engaged in the transportation of spent fuel and high-level waste. Interim storage facility.--In order to ensure that the size and scope of the interim storage facility is manageable in the context of the overall nuclear waste program, and yet adequate to address the Nation's immediate spent fuel storage needs, the bill would limit the size of phase I of the interim storage facility to 15,000 metric tons of spent fuel and the size of phase II of the facility to 40,000 metric tons. Phase II of the facility would be expandable to 60,000 metric tons if the Secretary fails to meet his projected goals with regard to licensing of the permanent repository site. Preemption of other laws.--The bill provides that, if any law does not conflict with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, that law will govern. State and local laws are preempted only if those laws are inconsistent with or duplicative of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or the Atomic Energy Act. This language is consistent with the preemption authority found in the existing Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Finally, the bill contains bipartisan language that was drafted to address the administration's objections to the siting of an interim facility at the Nevada test site before the viability assessment of the Yucca Mountain permanent repository site was available.--The language provides that construction shall not begin on an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain before December 31, 1998. The bill provides for the delivery of an assessment of the viability of the Yucca Mountain site to the President and Congress by the Secretary 6 months before the construction can begin on the interim facility. If, based upon the information before him, the President determines, in his discretion, that Yucca Mountain is not suitable for development as a repository, then the Secretary shall cease work on both the interim and permanent repository programs at the Yucca Mountain site. The bill further provides that, if the President makes such a determination, he shall have 18 months to designate an interim storage facility site. If the President fails to designate a site, or if a site he has designated has not be approved by Congress within 2 years of his determination, the Secretary is instructed to construct an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site. This provision ensures that the construction of an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site will not occur before the President and Congress have had an ample opportunity to review the technical assessment of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a permanent repository and to designate an alternative site for interim storage based upon that technical information. However, this provision also ensures that, ultimately, an interim storage facility site will be chosen. Without this assurance, we leave open the possibility we will find in 1998 that we have no interim storage, no permanent repository program and, after more than 15 years and $6 billion spent, that we are back to where we started in 1982 when we passed the first version of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. During the debate that will unfold, we will have the Senators from Nevada oppose the bill with all the arguments that they can muster. That's understandable. They are merely doing what Nevadans have asked them to do. Nobody wants nuclear waste in their State, but it has to go somewhere. Both Senators from Nevada are friends of mine. We've talked about this issue at length. They are doing what they feel they must do to satisfy Nevadans. But as U.S. Senators, we must sometimes take a national perspective. We must do what's best for the country as a whole. No one can continue to pretend that there is an unlimited amount of time to deal with this problem. The Federal Government must act--and act now--to ensure that there is a safe and secure place to put radioactive waste it is obligated to accept. Although the court did not address the issue of remedies, the court was very clear that DOE has an obligation to take spent nuclear fuel in 1998, whether or not a repository is ready. So far, DOE's only response to the court's decision has been to send out a letter asking for suggestions on how it can meet its obligation to take spent fuel in 1998. Finally, it is clear that we all agree on the question. Now is the time for answers. We have a clear and simple choice. We can choose to have one remote, safe, and secure nuclear waste storage facility. Or through inaction and delay, we can face an uncertain judicial remedy which will almost certainly be costly, and which is unlikely to actually move waste out of America's backyards. It is not morally right to shirk our responsibility to protect the environment and the future of our children and grandchildren. We cannot wait until 1998 to decide whether the Department of Energy will store this nuclear waste. We have received letters from 23 State Governors and attorneys general, including Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, urging the Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a bill that provides for an interim storage site in Nevada. Congress must speak now and provide the means to build one, safe and monitored facility at the Nevada test site, a unique site so remote that the Government used it to explode nuclear weapons for 50 years, or another site designated by the President and Congress. The time is now--the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 is the answer.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, during the closing days of the 104th Congress, I spoke many times about how a single Senator, with or without cause, can prevent any piece of legislation from moving forward, even if it is noncontroversial. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case with a piece of legislation that is very important to me and the people of my State. H.R. 2505 was passed by the House on September 26, 1996, at that time I had the legislation held at the desk in the Senate and continually tried to get it passed. Unfortunately, I was told that there was a Democratic hold on this legislation and it would not be able to move through the Senate in the final hours. I am deeply disappointed by this and am even more disturbed knowing that it was the result of a political decision and not one based on substance. H.R. 2505 is a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to make certain clarifications to the land bank protection provisions, and for other purposes. I supported all of the provisions in this package, Mr. President, and am very disappointed that it was not allowed to move forward on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The greatest consequence the failure to pass this legislation will have on the people of Alaska will be felt most severely in the Calista region. Section 5 of H.R. 2505 implements a land exchange with the Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation organized under the authority of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This exchange, originally authorized in 1991, by Public Law 102-172, would provide for the United States to acquire approximately 225,000 acres of Calista and village corporation lands and interests in lands within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Alaska. The refuge serves as important habitat and breeding and nesting grounds for a variety of fish and wildlife, including numerous species of migratory birds and waterfowl. As a result, the Calista exchange will enhance the conservation and protection of these vital habitats and thereby further the purpose of ANCSA and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. In addition to conservation benefits, this exchange will also render much needed economic benefit to the Yupik Eskimo people of southwestern Alaska. The Calista region is burdened by some of the harshest economic and social conditions in the Nation. As a result of this exchange, the Calista Corporation will be better able to make the kind of investments that will improve the region's economy and the lives of the Yupik people. In this regard, this provision furthers and carries out the underlying purposes of ANCSA. This provision, is, in part, the result of discussions by the various interested parties. As a result of those discussions, a number of modifications were made to the original package of lands offered for exchange. Chief among these were the addition of another 27,000 acres of surface estate--fee and conservation easements--of village corporation lands, as well as the Calista subsurface estate lying underneath those lands, and the removal of the Tuluksak mineralized parcel from the exchange. In a last minute agreement to move the bill through the House, the total value of the exchange package was reduced by 25 percent to $30 million. Such a reduction was unwarranted and seriously undermined the utility and benefit of the provision for the public and for Calista and the 12 village corporations involved. I intend to do all I can to restore this value to the exchange package next year and will call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to assist in remedying this problem. Mr. President, it is time to move forward with this exchange. It is my firm intent to see this exchange go forward so that the mutual benefits to Calista and to conservation of the natural resources within the region can be achieved. Following are some of the letters of support from conservationist for implementing the land exchange with Calista. The material follows: National Audubon Society, Anchorage, AK, July 10, 1996. Hon. Don Young, House Resources Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Young: I'm writing on behalf of the National Audubon Society including its 2,200 Alaska members to support your legislative efforts to achieve a land exchange authorized in P.L. 102-172 for the benefit of the Calista Corporation on the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Audubon recognizes the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge as among the premier waterfowl production areas on the continent. Its wetland habitats produce an annual fall flight of geese, ducks and swans that benefit thousands of hunters and other wildlife enthusiasts throughout the Pacific Flyway. Most importantly, these waterfowl along with millions of other migratory birds, fish and game animals constitute the mainstay of the region's subsistence economy. After having worked with Calista and other partners for some 10 years on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan, we are convinced that the majority of their stockholders fully realize how essential the protection of fish and wildlife habitat through flyway-wide cooperation is to the future of their people and the wildlife that grace their lives. Through the goose management plan, and with Calista's cooperation, we are achieving great success in restoring seriously depleted goose populations to healthy levels. The proposed land exchange will further enhance these and other joint efforts to conserve refuge fish and wildlife. We know that Calista has worked long and heard to negotiate a fair and equitable administrative land exchange with the Department of the Interior, but to no avail. Thus it appears congressional action is required to resolve the matter in a way that is most fair to Calista stockholders while providing greater protection to refuge resources of great state and national significance. We believe this can be accomplished by exchanging approximately 28,000 acres of surface and 182,000 acres of subsurface estate for certain excess or surplus government properties as P.L. 102-172 provides. With federal acquisition monies becoming increasingly scarce, this seems an innovative and practical approach to better conserve our nation's wildlife heritage while helping the Calista Corporation and its stockholders better secure their economic future. In other words, this should be a win-win solution for all concerned. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue, Congressman Young, and for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, David R. Cline, Senior Wildlife Counselor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I completely agree. The legality of the Secretary's actions, inactions and determinations affecting individual patent applicants will be reviewed, as needed, by the federal courts in accordance with due process law.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Certainly not in my view. We will review the adequacy of the Secretary's plan at the appropriate time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee received the report. I am concerned that the report appears to provide a partisan justification for Secretary Babbitt's various actions and inactions regarding the mineral patenting process since 1993.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I share your concern. Such a construction would thwart our purpose entirely.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would gladly engage in such a colloquy with my distinguished colleague, the Chairman of the Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The senior Senator from Idaho has worked on mining law reform legislation for several Congresses and is a recognized expert in the area of mining and natural resources. I am pleased to discuss the mining issue with him.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to the majority leader, it is my understanding that an agreement can be reached and a colloquy is in the process of being reviewed and completed. I personally do not have it at this time. I expect it momentarily.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to the majority leader to concur with his agreement. I have never had the obvious honor of giving birth to anything, but this is about the closest.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn to the consideration of H.R. 4236.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Chief of Staff of the President, Mr. Leon Panetta, addressed to me as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Dan Glickman to Mr. Mark Suwyn, president of the Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, that is my understanding also.