Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield very briefly for a question if it is on my time because we are running short.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Both sides are willing to yield back the remainder of their time and ask for a voice vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains on the other side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the amendment number 5073 at 3:30 p.m. today, and notwithstanding the agreement of July 24, the vote occur on final passage of S. 1936 at 4:55, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleagues from Nevada for expediting the process.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is agreeable.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is not the manager's intention that section 101(g) limit the liability of the Federal Government for anything other than a deadline. The manager does not intend that any other obligation imposed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996 be affected by section 101(g).

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in response to my colleague from Louisiana, that is the plan that has been agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 6 minutes to my friend from Louisiana.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is our understanding that we have 16 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. The Senator has raised some understandable concerns regarding requirements for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is an effort to clarify the issue of consideration to be provided to Lincoln County, NV. Specifically, it clarifies that assistance money provided to Lincoln County, NV, may be provided to the city of Caliente, NV. Caliente is within Lincoln County and is the actual site of the intermodal transfer facility authorized by the bill. The intermodal transfer facility is where the cask containing spent nuclear fuel would be offloaded from the trains and placed upon the heavy-haul trucks for the final leg of transport to the interim storage facility at the Nevada site. These can be the off highway type, heavy rigs that operate on very, very large tires and make virtually no footprint. That technology is well known. That equipment, off highway, is used in large mineral excavations and various other large commercial earth moving activities that are of an off-highway nature. Caliente is northeast of the Nevada test site. The reason for it being selected as the intermodal transfer is that point avoids the transportation of casks through the Las Vegas area. The elected officials of the city of Caliente, in Lincoln County, have taken what I consider to be a very reasonable, very practical approach, a conservative approach to the storage of this nuclear waste in Nevada. I think they recognize the inevitability. In spite of the difficulty with our concerns of our friends from Nevada, this waste has to go somewhere. You just cannot throw it up in the air and expect it to stay there. Nevada is the preferred site, it is a site where we have had over 50 years of nuclear testing of various types, where it has been expressed on this floor we have had test nuclear explosions that have taken place actually below the water table. So clearly, as we look at the alternative, the Nevada test site is the logical site for the interim repository. So I think what we see here is that Lincoln County, the city of Caliente, has recognized the inevitability of this and they have simply attempted to ensure that the interests of their citizens are protected, and I think that is an obligation that we have. They have maintained, throughout the process, that disposition, despite a series of legal attacks, some rather harsh, on their right to represent their citizens and their freedom of speech by the State of Nevada. I ask unanimous consent the text of a petition, signed by 286 citizens of the city of Caliente, Lincoln County, supporting this position be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was going to read, ``We the undersigned support recommendations'' and the rest of the statement, but it is cut off by the Xerox machine, so we will try to get that and enter it into the Record. I appreciate the President's willingness to have that printed in the Record. In conclusion, I certainly commend the citizens of Caliente and Lincoln County as a whole. I urge the pending amendment be adopted. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do not attempt to speak, obviously, for the people in Nevada. That is the job of the Senators from Nevada. I do think it represents a significant voice to be heard and to be brought to the floor. I yield on the Senator's time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I would like to comment about the remarks made by my good friend from Nevada relative to the concern we all have, the legitimate concern we have over terrorism. He makes the case that, you know, there is a terrorist threat and therefore we ought to leave it where it is. Let us look at where it is, Mr. President. The chart behind me shows it is in 41 States. There are 81 sites out there. Is it logical to assume that we are better off to leave it there where it is exposed in 41 States at 81 sites or put it in one place--one place--out in the Nevada desert, where we have had over a period of some 50 years extensive nuclear tests, time and time again, an area where it is concentrated and can be supervised and guarded, namely, the one site in Nevada? It just does not make sense if you are going to argue the merits of terrorism to have it all over the country, as I have indicated on this chart--41 States, 81 sites--or put it in one place where you can monitor, you can control it, you can guard it. You can take the necessary steps to ensure that the threat from terrorism is at a minimum. I do not know an awful lot about ballistics, Mr. President, but I know something about a shotgun because I hunt ducks. I cannot comprehend a type of a shotgun that can go 300 yards and pierce through 5 inches of steel. What I do know is what the Department of Energy has supplied us with. They have done eight sabotage studies. One of those included a 4,000-pound ammonium nitrate bomb that was similar in size, same makeup of what was used in the Oklahoma Federal building. They placed it in a container to see if they could pierce the cask. It was not breached, Mr. President. Another test--unfortunately, they are not able to disclose this type of technology because it is a black program, but they stated that this device was 30 times larger than an antitank weapon. Although this weapon made a small hole in the container, there was no significant release of radioactivity. Make no mistake about it, if there is a puncture, it is not going to blow up. The suggestion was made, you are going to have the equivalent of so many times of Hiroshima; if you are going to penetrate that cask, the radioactive material can come out. But it is very, very heavy. As a consequence, its tendency is to remain in the immediate area. But the point is, these casks are designed to withstand, if you will, the exposures associated with an accident, whether it be a railroad, whether it be a ship, or whether it be a highway. I would like to turn a little bit to attitudes prevailing in Nevada. As I indicated earlier, we have some 268 signatures from Caliente. I have been able to obtain the completed Xerox of the one that I started on earlier, Mr. President, and was cut off. I think it is important to read what these people said, and that has been inserted in the Record. We the undersigned, support recommendations for maximizing benefits and minimizing risks as outlined in the city of Caliente/Lincoln County Nevada joint resolution 1-95. As residents of the State of Nevada, the United States Constitution provides that, if the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is going to be amended to allow transportation of spent fuel rods through Lincoln County and the city of Caliente, we are entitled to provide input to any such proposals. Such input would request oversight of safety issues and receipt of benefits that may be associated to any transportation and/or storage facility located within Lincoln County. That is the point of this amendment, Mr. President, to provide that assistance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, dated July 26, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It states:. Dear Chairman Murkowski: The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) fully supports S. 1936 and urges its prompt passage. Nuclear fuel has been accumulating and temporarily stockpiled since 1982 at numerous staging locations throughout the United States. The stockpiling of nuclear waste in so many removed locales renders them most vulnerable to potential sabotage and terrorist attacks. That is what I said before. Do you want it over here in the 41 States in over 80 sites? The fire chiefs say, no, put it in one site. A plan [they further say] to remove this nuclear fuel and coordinate its transport to a single secure designated interim storage facility at Yucca Flat, NV, in accordance with prudent planning, training, and preparation can be a safe, logical and acceptable alternative. Senate bill 1936 offers a plan to remove this spent fuel, coordinate its transport to a single secure interim storage facility. With proper planning, training and preparation, this spent fuel can be transported safely and efficiently over the Nation's railways and highways. It is signed by Alan Caldwell, director, government relations, from the International Association of Fire Chiefs. Here is a petition, Mr. President, to the President of the United States, signed by 600 workers associated with the Nevada test site. I previously entered the specific petition and narrative in the Record, but let me read what it says. This is signed by over 600 workers at the Nevada test site. We who have signed this petition live in the State of Nevada. Many of us work at the Nevada Test Site. Some of us work on the Yucca Mountain project. The [Nevada Test Site], an area larger than the State of Rhode Island, was chosen as a nuclear weapons testing site by President Truman. Its dry climate and remote location made it ideal for weapons testing 45 years ago. Those same factors make the NTS ideal for storing high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. There is now, in southern Nevada, a resident work force that is well trained and experienced in dealing with nuclear materials. We, who are part of that work force, believe the NTS presents a solution for the United States for the temporary and permanent storage of high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. It is a well secured site, it is remote, it has already been utilized for nuclear purposes, it has an experienced and well-trained work force and we as Nevada workers, want it. We urge you to work with Congress to make the NTS the solution to this Nation's nuclear waste dilemma. There you have it, Mr. President. How much time is remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I read the following letter from the Southern Nevada Building & Construction Trade Council, dated July 23, a letter to Senator Carl Levin. Dear Senator Levin: I am writing to thank you for your support of Senate Bill 1936 and I urge you to continue that support. I am a representative of the many working men and women of Nevada who strongly support the passage of S. 1936. Although we more often than not support the positions of Senator Harry Reid and Senator Richard Bryan, our views on this particular issue differ significantly from theirs. On behalf of my members I urge you to continue your support of S. 1936, as reflected by your recent vote in favor of cloture. We sincerely thank you for your position. As way of introduction, I am President of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, Vice President of the Nevada AFL-CIO, and serve as an appointee of Nevada Governor Bob Miller to the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects. I have followed the nuclear waste issue in Nevada for many years. My years of experience at the Nevada Test Site goes back to a time when Nevada elected officials actually sought the opportunity to store high-level waste at the Test Site. The 18,000 craftsmen that I represent, as well as over 100,000 members of the Nevada AFL-CIO, feel strongly that the Yucca Mountain Project is safe and can be good for Nevada. We recognize, perhaps better than most, the importance of health and safety in dealing with high-level waste and nuclear materials. We have dealt with it for many years and as the workers handling this material we have the most to lose if this program is not safely run. Based upon our past experience in Nevada, we have a great deal of confidence that this facility will be safe. Nevadans are pragmatic people and I believe that, contrary to statements made by some Nevada officials, many if not most Nevadans would not contest the location of this facility in Nevada. Remember that we have tested over 900 nuclear devices in the Nevada desert with little local opposition. Like the nuclear weapons testing program the nuclear waste program is essentially a non-issue among rank and file Nevadans. We find it extremely difficult to imagine that you could possibly find a more willing political climate anywhere else in the United States for this type of facility. We understand that you may have been asked, by members of the Nevada delegation, to oppose legislative efforts to move the nuclear material storage program forward. An immense amount of scientific study has been conducted at Yucca Mountain and it has conclusively found the location to be a superior one for this type of facility. Some officials from Nevada have made a concerted effort, using every conceivable means, to thwart this scientific and environmental program. Enclosed you will find petitions signed by many Nevadans who support passage of this legislation. We intend to meet with the White House shortly to express our position and to transmit the petitions. Our message to the President will be: Move this program forward--do not allow partisan politics to stand in the way of a solution to this problem. Any other approach would be both bad politics and bad public policy. As a fellow American, a fellow Democrat, and as a representative of the working men and women of Nevada, I urge your continued support of S. 1936. It is signed by Frank Caine, president of the Southern Nevada Building Construction & Trade Council.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to the Senator from North Dakota, that is the very point we are talking about. Terrorism is a threat, but we have this currently in 41 States at 81 sites, and the ability to secure those sites from terrorism in its current form is much more difficult than having it in one central spot, because that is where it will be permanently stored, either until Yucca Mountain has a permanent repository or, during the interim, until the permanent repository is set. What we are looking at here is one site, one storage capability, one set of experienced personnel to guard against terrorist activity, as opposed to the chart, which I will again leave for the Senator to view, 41 States and 81 sites. It just simply makes sense. The Senator from North Dakota was not here when I entered into the Record a letter from the International Association of Fire Chiefs which simply says: . . . so many removed locales renders them most vulnerable to potential sabotage and terrorists attacks. A plan to remove this nuclear fuel and coordinate its transport to a single secure designated interim storage facility at Yucca Flat, NV, in accordance with prudent planning, training, and preparation can be a safe, logical and acceptable alternative. So this is the very concern we are talking about. Obviously, you are not going to store in these sites forever. That is a given. You have to take it out of these sites at some point in time. The Federal Government has collected almost $12 billion from the ratepayers. It has entered into a contractual agreement. We are talking about reneging on the agreement, basically, if we don't go ahead with it, and leaving it where it is for an undetermined period of time until then you decide to move it. It is inevitable that you are going to move it. We are talking about here--once you move it, the threat of terrorist activities associated with it are much reduced because you don't have that number of sites in that exposure in the 41 States. So the logic, I think, speaks for itself. I think, from the standpoint of terrorism, exposure is less dramatic if you have it at one site where it is easier to secure. I think my time has about expired.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I respond by asking my friend from North Dakota, is it not inevitable that at some point in time, in order to meet the contractual commitment, you are going to have to move this anyway?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. So it is still going to be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the Senator from----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. On my own time. First of all, the Senator from North Dakota is suggesting that we dispose of it on-site somehow through advanced technology. That suggests reprocessing, which we don't allow. So that is basically a nonalternative. Some people suggest that is somewhat unfortunate because, in France, they do reprocess, reinject. They don't bury the plutonium like we do. They put it back in the reactors and burn it. Now, the inevitability of the question of whether or not you leave it where it is and subject yourself to the potential terrorist exposure in 41 States and 81 sites--that suggests that you are not going to have the same degree of security and experience in all these sites because you cannot possibly cover that many sites. So you put it at the one site in Nevada where you can provide the security. So the terrorism exposure in Nevada is, for all practical purposes, eliminated. Your exposure is shipping them, granted. That is why the casks are designed as they are designed. As I said in an earlier statement, the Army has tested a device 30 times larger than an antitank weapon, and although it made a small hole in the cask, there was no release of radioactivity. So you can't eliminate the entire risk, but you can eliminate, to a large degree, the technical design--this is a heavy thing; the terrorists are not going to run off with it. They have to do something very significant. Obviously, there is going to be security associated with the movement. I think we are talking about 10,000 casks. I defer to the Senator from Louisiana who, I think, wants to address the Senate.