Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the other side have 2 more minutes total and that we may have 1 minute on this side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may, Madam President, take the last 30 seconds in response to the Senator from North Dakota, we have seen in Europe the movement of over 30,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste in countries that are exposed to terrorism at a far greater theoretical sense than the United States. There has never been one instance of a terrorist activity associated with movement by rail, highway, or ship. Terrorists are not going to necessarily look at terrorizing a shipment when they can move into nerve gas and weapons disposals that are moving across this country--all types of material that are associated with weapons -- where they can create an incident of tremendous annihilation on a population. This is very difficult because it is secure, in a cask; it is guarded; and it has been proven it has moved through other countries, particularly Great Britain, France, in Scandinavia, and to some extent starting in Japan. So there is a risk associated with everything. But we have not had terrorist activity in this area because there are other more suitable sites.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I conferred with the Senator from Nevada and my colleague, Senator Johnston, and I want to check with our leadership. It is my understanding the next amendment will be offered by the Senators from Nevada, and they would want a rollcall vote on that amendment?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Voice vote. The one after that you would like--

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Might I ask whether the Senators intend to use their full 30 minutes?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will entertain then the amendment that is about to be offered that would require simply a voice vote, and that will give me an opportunity to check with the leadership on this side and then respond to the Senators concerning their proposal. I thank the Chair and yield to my colleague from Nevada.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may interrupt, I assume there is acknowledgement that the Senators contemplate a voice vote prevailing on our side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be very pleased to. Is that the wish of the Senator from Nevada?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we now have how much time?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my intention to speak for about 4 minutes and give the Senator from Louisiana about 8 minutes, and then reserve the balance of my time. Mr. President, this is another innocuous-sounding amendment which, in reality, is a bonanza for lawyers, and there are a lot of lawyers in this country. We have general laws in this country to cover situations that Congress did not specifically consider. The courts understand that. So when there is a conflict between a general law and a specific law enacted with a particular facility or purpose in mind, the court follows the specific law. With this act we are considering, the specific conditions to apply to specific nuclear waste repositories--an interim repository and a permanent repository. What the amendment of the Senator from Nevada attempts to do is to provide broadly written, general laws with the same standing as the specific directions we are providing in this bill. Theirs is an amendment, Mr. President, carefully crafted to confuse the courts, confound the legal process, and enrich the lawyers. This amendment is going to delay the process leading to a responsible solution to the nuclear waste problem. I implore my colleagues to avoid this trap. That is what it is. This is an antienvironmental amendment. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. This is an antienvironmental amendment. It does not address, obviously, the problem we have with the nuclear waste. If you want to solve a huge environmental problem in this country, you want to oppose this amendment. If this amendment prevails, Mr. President, the Department of Energy is going to be mired in litigation. It will be mired in red tape. It will be mired in delay. We are simply not going to be able to get there from here with a responsible answer to this problem. Taxpayer dollars are going to be squandered in litigation if this amendment is adopted. The problem of nuclear waste will continue to persist, and, as a consequence, we will be right back to zero. I retain the balance of my time and yield 7 or 8 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I observe, for the benefit of my friend from California, for whom I have the utmost and fondest regard, that accepting this amendment means her State gets considered as a possible alternative for interim storage. The State of California currently has approximately 1,319 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste that is stored in California. It is estimated that, by the year 2010, there will be 2,639 metric tons. So the point is, if we leave it where it is, which is what we will do with the amendment offered by my friends from Nevada, waste is simply going to stay where it is. As a consequence, at some point in time somebody will have to do something with it. To do something with it implies you have to move it. We have heard fear, fear, fear. We move money in armored cars. We used to move it in stagecoaches. We protected it. We protect it in armored cars. We will protect waste, if you will, in casks. This movement is not just helter-skelter. They have moved, in Europe, 30,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste. They moved it safely. That does not mean an accident could not happen or that a terrorist activity could not happen. But they have moved it. It has not been designed, if you will, to be easily lifted. It is very, very heavy and very difficult. The containers are built to maintain a degree of security unknown in any other type of engineering device. So while there is a risk associated with all aspects of this, there is also a reality of inconsistency in this amendment because the Senator from Nevada indicated that by permitting one repository in Nevada as a permanent repository, he has acknowledged that the material has to get there somehow. So you have the potential risk, if you will, if you simply say we are going for a permanent repository and we are not going to consider an interim repository. The stuff has to move anyhow. There is a risk associated with movement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry. I have a limited time, in all due respect to my friend from California. Adopting a NEPA process open to alternatives opens up new areas for consideration. There is behind us the map showing all of the places other than a Nevada test site that could be used for an interim central storage facility. You can see them. They are all over the country. If you say yes to this amendment, you may be saying yes to nuclear waste storage in your State or near your State. The possibilities include New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, Washington, Maine, Iowa, California, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Oregon, and others. There are potential locations in 40 other States of about 605,000 square miles; 20 percent of the continental United States. You have to put it somewhere. So what we have here is an effort by the Senators from Nevada that may sound reasonable at first glance but it sets this whole process back 15 or 20 years. It allows all the decisions we are making today to be reconsidered. It allows them all to be challenged in the courts. It guarantees further delay, further gridlock, further stalemate, and it will, therefore, force the ratepayers in all of these States not to pay once but to pay twice, to continue to pay into the nuclear waste fund and to build new interim reactor storage sites because some of them are full at this time. This is a giant loophole for the Government to use in avoiding its promise to store and handle waste. It is an effort to derail the process. Senate bill 1936 does not--and I emphasize ``does not''--exempt the establishment of an interim or final repository for NEPA. Instead, it requires an EIS for both the interim and permanent repository. We require it. Furthermore, S. 1936 is consistent with NEPA and the Executive Order 12114 which implements NEPA. NEPA and the Executive order clearly anticipates the situation we have here. There are some decisions of policy that are within the agency's power to affect. There are others that are not. Congress may properly reserve some decisions for itself and allow other decisions to be considered in the NEPA process. Otherwise, we would never get anything done around here. Senate bill 1936 identifies six decisions that are appropriate for congressional consideration only. These six decisions involve whether we need a repository, when we need a repository, and where the repository should be built. So it is whether, when, and where. These are fundamental decisions of policy. I say to my colleagues that there are some things that we have the responsibility to decide and decisions that we are paid to make. These are some policies that we alone must determine, and that is our job. If we adopt this amendment, we are being irresponsible because it will simply put off the process, put into the courts and delay beyond this administration to sometime in the future, and we will never address it. What this amendment would do is to throw all of the cards back up in the air again as if to say Congress has made the tough decisions and cast the tough votes, but we are going to ignore all of that and revisit all of these decisions that we have already made. Mr. President, if we are going to allow the agencies to revisit all of the decisions of Congress, either through NEPA or some other means, then there is no need for us to be here. We might as well go home because there is nothing for us to do. So do not be fooled by this amendment. This is an amendment designed to derail responsible action to address nuclear waste in a repository. It looks reasonable at first glance, but it merely is a means to upset the applecart and put us back to where we were in 1980. Mr. President, I yield all of my remaining time. I move to table the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is not the manager's intention that section 101(g) limit in any way the rights of contract holders, their ratepayers, or those agencies of the State governments that represent ratepayers, from enforcing any right they might have, including the right to hold the Federal Government liable financially, under the 1982 act and the contracts executed pursuant thereto. Section 101(g) is expressly subject to section 101(f), which makes clear that rights conferred by section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 or by the contracts executed thereunder are not affected by this bill, including section 101(g). To the extent that act or the contracts established a 1998 deadline and the DOE fails to meet that deadline, it is not the manager's intent that the substitute amendment in any way restrict the relief available to those damaged by the failure to meet the deadline.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. It is not the manager's intent that the language of section 101(g) proscribe the court of appeals or any other court from awarding monetary relief or other financial remedies to those who have paid fees to the Government under the 1982 act and the contracts, or those who will incur additional expense on account of the DOE's failure to comply with any right conferred by 1982 act or the contracts.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is not the manager's intention that section 101(g) limit the rights or remedies available under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 or the contracts executed thereunder. If a failure by DOE to comply with any deadline established in the amendment also constituted a failure to comply with a deadline established by the 1982 act or a contract under that act, it is not the manager's intent that section 101(g) modify the right of any contract holder to seek any and all remedies otherwise available for the violation of the 1982 act or for breach of the contract. It is the manager's intention that section 101(f) preserve all of those rights, regardless of whether the same or a similar obligation is expressed in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is not the manager's intent that section 101(g) proscribe anything other than financial liability for failure to meet a deadline imposed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996. To the extent other forms of relief are available for the government's failure to comply with a deadline imposed by the amendment, the manager does not intend that such a remedy be prohibited.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is my understanding, Mr. President.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I may have the Chair identify the time that will be divided on either side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as I understand it--I was distracted as well--we have about 30 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I inquire among Senators on this side as to how much time they need. I think the Senator from Wyoming requests time. How much time does he need?

Frank Murkowski

Speeches

Manage analytics