Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Lieberman underlying amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to add, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, my satisfaction with the negotiations. I know the agony associated with this issue relative to Nevada. Unfortunately, we simply have to put this waste somewhere, and this question will now be resolved with a vote, at least in this body. I think, further, the willingness to try and work toward a solution enables the majority leader to move on with the business of the Senate, rather than tie it up in an extended filibuster, which, obviously, every Member has a right to proceed with. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to resolve these issues in a manner that suggests some expeditious process. I thank the Senators for their cooperation, ensuring that they will leave no stone unturned to pursue their convictions, but yet allowing the Senate majority leader to proceed. That is indicative of not just their good nature, but a recognition of what this body is all about. I thank the majority leader.

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 Thursday, August 1, 1996, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the implementation of section 2001 of Public Law 104-19, the emergency timber salvage amendment. 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. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony regarding S. 1678, the Department of Energy Abolishment Act, has been postponed. The hearing was scheduled to take place on Tuesday, July 23, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, and will be rescheduled later. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker, counsel (202) 224-3543 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765. subcommittee on forests and public lands

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that S. 1737, a bill to protect Yellowstone National Park, the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone National Wild and Scenic River and the Absaroka-Beartooth National Wilderness Area, has been re-referred to the Full Committee and will not be considered at the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation on July 25, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. For further information, please call Jim O'Toole at 202-224-5161.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, much has been made here of the so- called nuclear lobby relative to this bill and the status of the issue we have before us. Let's not be misled. We have letters from 22 States to the President and Members of Congress; 11 from Governors and 12 from attorneys general urging action on the nuclear waste legislation, and that action is now. Governors of Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont have all written to the President; attorneys general from Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio. Others who have written to Congress include Arizona, Massachusetts, Virginia, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Arkansas, Delaware, Maryland, and Oregon. So this is not the nuclear lobby we are talking about. We are talking about Governors, attorneys general in 41 States who are concerned about a problem that Congress has ignored. They have collected from the ratepayers $12 billion. We have expended over $1 billion on this process. The Washington Post tells us it is not an urgent problem. Well, the Washington Post does not have any nuclear waste next to them. They do not have any in Washington, DC. But it is a problem in Illinois. It is a problem in California. It is a problem throughout the United States. We have heard the statement from the Washington Post, and the minority leader suggested that we heed the Washington Post editorial relative to the issue that environmental laws are not being adhered to. All State and local transportation safety laws apply to the Department of Energy exactly as they apply to private carriers of hazardous materials. Other environmental laws are only preempted to the extent they conflict with this act. This act sets forth very stringent environmental standards that apply only to this very unique facility. There are no environmental laws that apply specifically to this facility because there is no other facility like this. This provision simply ensures that we do not have conflicting laws governing this facility. We have the laws, though, Mr. President. A provision regarding NEPA simply states that the environmental impact statement that will be prepared will not have to address alternatives that Congress has eliminated from consideration. This is really only a clarification that the EIS need not reconsider issues that we are deciding here today, like the fact that an interim facility should be built or how the site for that facility will be chosen. In all other respects, NEPA will apply under its own terms. Mr. President, the President has not taken a position on this to rectify it. He simply has condemned every effort by Congress to address the situation. He and the administration have a responsibility to respond positively with a suggestion instead of negatively to everything that Congress proposes to address the problem. I urge my colleagues to vote cloture.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Idaho wants to make a statement for the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that William Murphie be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this bill, S. 1936, a bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur at 10:10 a.m. this morning and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry, I did not hear the President on the time?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe all time has expired.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the Senator from Idaho relative to the merits of addressing once and for all the disposal of our high-level nuclear waste. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will discuss with my colleagues a number of items relative to disposition of the nuclear waste debate that is going on. The first item would be a letter dated July 15, 1996, by Mr. Panetta. Mr. Panetta, of course, is the President's right-hand man. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the letter is rather significant because, while it acknowledges the consequences for the ratepayers and the legitimacy of cleanup of our nuclear waste complex, it does not address anything positive relative to responding to the dilemma associated with finding a site. They strongly oppose designating an interim storage facility at a specific site at this time. It has taken them a year to say that. ``We strongly oppose designating an interim storage facility at a specific site at this time.'' They further believe any potential siting decision concerning such a facility should be based on objective criteria, whatever that means, and informed by the likelihood of success at the Yucca Mountain repository. In other words, they want Yucca Mountain licensed and established before you move this material. There is no indication that is going to be done before the year 2010, or thereabouts. What are we going to do in the meantime--shut down our power sources? Clearly that is not a responsible option. So, again, Mr. President, the history on this issue shows an administration that simply has no responsibility as far as playing a role in the ultimate disposition of how we work with this waste situation. There has been nothing about working with us to solve the problem, nothing about what they would propose on the legislation to solve the problem; simply do nothing; status quo. Mr. President, that is irresponsible. I suppose we could have given up at this point but we did not. Because I do not think any of us like a government that breaks its promises, and we have broken our promise to the ratepayers and to the industry because we are not prepared to take it to 1998. I do not agree the ratepayers need to spend an extra $5 to $7 billion creating 80 nuclear waste dumps all around the country when one will do. One will do in an area where we have set off nuclear devices for some 50 years. So we set off to address the problem in S. 1271, that the administration says it did not like. We incorporated in our approach suggestions by my good friend, Senator Johnston, the ranking member of the Energy Committee, to await the interim repository until the viability of the permanent repository was established. We compromised. So this morning we were greeted by the letter from Leon Panetta saying the President would now veto the bill. The ridiculous part is there is no indication they have read the new bill, but they already decided to veto it. I have been begging you, Mr. President, President Clinton, to get into the game for more than a year. Thus far you simply decided to punt. Mr. President, do not punt yet. There is still time for you to get into the game. You have a responsibility, as we do. We are in the fourth quarter now. Time is running out, but there is still time for you to help us solve the problem. And, Mr. President, this is not an issue about the nuclear lobby. We keep hearing from the Washington Post, the Nevada Senators, the minority leader, that the bill is for the nuclear power lobby. It is not. I was going to introduce letters of support from the Governors and attorney generals to the President and to Members of Congress from Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, Vermont, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Massachusetts, Virginia, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio and Oregon. These are 23 States. They want this problem solved at this time. Mr. President, these letters are available to Senators through my office. I would ask unanimous consent to print these in the Record, but they are too voluminous. There are numerous misstatements that have been made on the floor that I must address. I am going to take a little time now to do that, but it will not be too much time. I will be very short because I know there are other Senators who want to speak. What is the truth about S. 1936? The misstatement has been made that S. 1936 would effectively end the work on a permanent repository and abandon the health, safety, and environmental protection our citizens deserve. This came from page S7637 of the Congressional Record of July 10. The fact is, section 205 of S. 1936 directs that work continue on a permanent repository in Yucca Mountain. Fees being paid by American electric customers are more than adequate to pay for both the interim facility and the permanent repository program. Indeed, to help ensure a permanent repository is built and that the interim facility does not become a de facto permanent facility, as the Nevada Senators have contended, reasonable and achievable overall system performance standards are specified in the legislation. A statement that the transport cask could only survive a 30-mile-per- hour crash was made by one of the Nevada Senators this morning. It is interesting, because there has been a lot of engineering, a lot of money spent on these casks. The fact is, these casks have been tested in 83-mile-per-hour crashes. They have been tested in conditions that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Sandia National Laboratory say encompass the range of accidents that can happen in the real world. At one time they were attempting to design casks that would withstand free fall from 30,000 feet, the theory being they may move some of this nuclear waste by special long-range 747 aircraft. There have been horror stories about train wrecks. Let us set the record straight. We have been transporting nuclear waste around the world for 40 years. There have been 20,000 nuclear waste transportation movements around the world. There have been a few accidents, but there has never been a cask failure or radioactive release, because the casks have performed as designed. The transportation is safe and it will continue to be safe. How many Members of this body are aware of the nuclear waste that moves through their State, whether it be Colorado, whether it be Indiana? It moves to Savannah, it moves to Idaho, it moves to the State of Washington, and it moves responsibly because safeguards are initiated. And this waste will move safely because safeguards will be enacted. There are other Members I see who want recognition, so I am going to sum up by saying we must act now. One waste site, not 80 waste sites. Let us save the consumers of this country $5 to $7 billion that would otherwise be expended by delay. It can be safe for Nevada. It can be safe for the Nation. I grant it is a political problem. I grant nobody wants it. But I challenge that somebody has to take it, so let us put it where we have had nuclear testing for over 50 years, in the deserts of Nevada. It is not a technical, scientific problem. We have an opportunity and we have an obligation to get the job done. No more stalling. No more excuses. Let us get the administration on board. Let us do it. If we have to override a President's veto, let us do it. Because this is the environmental issue of this Congress and to defeat it is to defeat what is right for the environment. And that makes it wrong. One waste site, not 80. I reserve the remainder of my time and ask the Chair how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this letter does not address the question of what the administration proposes as an answer if it does not like what we come up with. It simply acknowledges the two letters of the President. It indicates that: With respect to the proposal that we create an interim storage at Yucca Mountain, the Administration is conducting an internal policy review, as we do with all legislation pending in Congress. The Office of Management and Budget is leading this review, in its usual role. The Department of Energy is centrally involved, since it manages the nuclear waste program. All of which are self evident. The last paragraph addresses the issue in the following way: We expect to be in a position to communicate an Administration policy recommendation to you by the time you return from the Labor Day recess. And Ms. Rivlin apologizes for the delay. So here we started out in April, the first letter; August, the second letter to the President; third, we get a letter saying they are going to take it up after the recess. Time went by. Fall came. The leaves fell. Frost came. Snow came. Snow came down. Christmas passed. Then New Year's. One can only assume that the administration did not want to engage in this issue or try to solve the problem. So being somewhat consistent, on January 10, I decided I could wait no longer. So on January 10, I wrote another letter. Over the past 9 months--one can conceive a child in that timeframe. Dear Mr. President: I have written two letters to you requesting that the Administration offer a comprehensive plan that would allow the Federal Government to meet its commitment. What we have now is a program that has spent twelve years and $4.2 billion of taxpayer dollars looking for a site for a permanent high-level nuclear waste repository. By 1998, the deadline for acceptance of waste by the Department of Energy . . . is at hand. The Yucca Mountain site is not determined at this time to be licensable. We have 23 commercial power reactors that will run out of room in their spent storage pool. By 2010, the DOE's rather optimistic target date for opening a permanent repository, an additional 55 reactors will be out of space. It is estimated that continued on-site storage through 2010 would cost our Nation an additional $5 billion. I referred to my letters of April 7 and August 7 citing that I had received assurances from Alice Rivlin and an indication that the administration would have a response after Labor Day. I further advised the President that I have not had that response as promised. On December 14, Hazel O'Leary testified before the committee and indicated that she would oppose any legislation that would authorize the construction of interim storage at the Nevada test site. I further indicated to the President that the option of status quo was not acceptable. I further indicated that, if the administration continued to reject congressional proposals, I would ask the President to offer an alternative plan that would allow the Government to fulfill its commitment to the electorate, the taxpayers of this country. To hear some say--the minority leader--that we are somehow being rushed into this, that this is action taken on the spur of the moment, or the comments from the Washington Post in their editorial that there is no need to rush into this, this has been cooking with the administration since the administration came into office. They simply do not want to address the issue. They do not want to have to make a decision on their watch. They do not want to have to make a decision before the election. Obviously, our friends from Nevada, of the other party, may feel this is certain. This is a legitimate environmental issue of the highest nature. It is an obligation of this body to address it. We have expended 15 years in the process. We are up against some realities that I think bear further examination. One is that there are some members of the environmental community who are opposed to the continuation of nuclear power generation in this country, even though nearly a third of our power generation is dependent on it. The States license the storage facilities. As the storage facilities begin to fill up, these companies are desperate as to what to do with the spent fuel. The fact that they have been collecting from the ratepayers over $12 billion that has been given to the Federal Government to take that fuel in 1998 is basically incidental to these groups that oppose nuclear power generation. They see this as a way to permanently shut down the nuclear industry in the United States. I do not think that is the answer, Mr. President. The answer is again to recognize that we have this problem today, and we have the option of storing, until a permanent repository is established, this waste in Nevada in a temporary repository. I want to conclude my reference with regard to this correspondence because I wrote my letter in January 1996. Then in March 1996, nearly 1 year after the first letter of August 1995, or April 1995, I finally got a reply. The reply said basically the status quo was fine and that the administration opposed everything. I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record dated March 1 from Alice Rivlin.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. According to Mr. Panetta, the President opposes our bill since it would designate Nevada as the interim site without determining the viability of Yucca Mountain, NV, as a permanent repository. Let me provide the White House with a little factual information. Senate bill 1936, which Senator Craig and I have proposed, prohibits, specifically prohibits, the construction of an interim facility in Nevada until December 31, 1998. That is after the determination of Yucca's suitability. That is as a consequence of Senator Johnston's input. The Panetta letter says that ``the bill weakens existing environmental standards by preempting all Federal, State, and local laws.'' The facts of the matter, Senate bill 1936 does not provide NEPA waivers and other provisions in our earlier bill, Senate bill 1271. We do not permit, however, environmental laws to be misused or to have to go back and revisit decisions made by Congress in this bill, decisions such as the fact that we will have an interim facility and that will be in Nevada after the Yucca Mountain site has been shown to be viable. Mr. President, everybody should understand the permanent repository effort continues at Yucca Mountain. The merits of Yucca Mountain to be ascertained as a permanent repository depend primarily on two issues: One is licensing; the other is suitability. That is an issue ongoing, an issue that will be addressed. In the meantime, we have waste accumulating at more than 80-some-odd sites in 41 States. What we propose here is we have an interim facility to take that waste from those States and put it at Yucca until such time as it can be determined that Yucca meets the requirements of a permanent repository. Now, I do not know who wrote the letter at the White House for the Chief of Staff, but I am inclined to think that person was reading the old bill, Senate bill 1271, rather than the new bill, Senate bill 1936. We attempted to address concerns by the administration and others in the new bill, Senate bill 1936, which was more or less a composite, if you will, of many of the things that people felt were wrong in Senate bill 1271. We put together what amounts to a chairman's mark or a consensus to move this bill forward. I will provide my colleagues with a little background on our efforts to address this with this current administration. I personally worked for the past 15 months, upon achieving the chairmanship of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to bring the administration into a constructive, into a bipartisan dialog, to try to address responsibly this problem. As you know, Mr. President, being from Alaska, I do not have a dog in this fight, so to speak. Alaska, while we are interested in solving the problem, does not currently have any nuclear waste and is not looking for a repository. But I have a responsibility, just as the other 99 Senators, to address what is an environmental problem for this country, and this is an opportunity to correct an environmental deficiency with some positive legislation--legislation that would move from these sites this material to one site in Nevada that has been used for over 50 years for all types of nuclear testing. Nobody wants the waste, Mr. President. I am sympathetic to my friends from Nevada relative to the position they are in. On the other hand, it has to go somewhere. It is a simple deduction of where are you going to put it if nobody wants it? We created it in this country. The consequences of it speak for themselves: on the positive side, generating power. Also on the positive side, contributing toward a lasting peace and breaking up the Soviet Union in an arms race. These were all part of the nuclear commitment of this country. On the downside, of course, is the waste associated with this, whether it be weapons grade or waste that comes from our nuclear reactors. We currently depend on nearly a third of our power generated to come from nuclear energy. We simply have to address it with a resolve. On April 7, 1995, I wrote a letter. That letter was directed to our President. At that time, I was the newly elected chairman on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I indicated that ``one of my top priorities was to help meet this challenge facing the Nation''--I am quoting here--``in developing a safe, scientific, sound means of managing spent fuel.'' Given the Department of Energy's announcement that it recently had made in that timeframe of April 1995 that it could not meet its obligations to begin accepting nuclear waste in 1998, I indicated to the President that we must address this issue in an aggressive and forthright manner. So there we were, Mr. President, back in 1995, and the Department of Energy announced they would not have the capability of accepting the nuclear waste they had contracted for many years earlier, and they collected some nearly $12 billion from the ratepayers of this country. They could not meet their commitments. Now, I indicated further that ``judging from the attention on this matter by the Secretary of Energy, I had assumed it was a top priority for the administration.'' But I indicated that the President, in recent letters the President sent to Senator Bryan and the Nevada Governor, Governor Miller, seemed to suggest otherwise. Further, my letter reads: While you acknowledge, Mr. President, there are national security interests involved, your letter states that you can't support any current legislation to fix the problem at this time. I further stated in my letter to the President: If you cannot support current legislative proposals at this time, members of my committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would like to know how and when you plan to offer an alternative proposal. Again, April 17, 1995, I further stated: You are no doubt aware that the environmental and security implications of failing to reach a solution in the not-too- distant future are significant. With all due respect, Mr. President, I and many members of my committee believe it is time for you to become an active participant in efforts to resolve this pressing challenge. We urge you to either support the concepts in several current legislative proposals, or to offer a plan of your own. We have already held hearings on the spent fuel programs and continue to work toward a solution. Your advice and involvement would be greatly appreciated. Copies went to Secretary O'Leary and Senator Bennett Johnston. So we put, if you will, the President of the United States on notice that if he did not like the proposal that we were working on, to come on up with some constructive suggestions on how to change it. He has that obligation, if he is opposed to what we are trying to address, to resolve the problem so that we can move on with our responsibility. Well, Mr. President, the disposition of that letter of April 7, 1995 to the President was that 4 months passed and there was simply no answer from the President or the White House. Well, not being one to give up, the Senator from Alaska, on August 7, wrote another letter to the President. I will read it as follows: August 7, 1995. Dear Mr. President: I last wrote you on the subject of managing the Nation's spent nuclear fuel on April 7, 1995. In my prior letter, I made reference to the fact that you, in a letter to Senator Bryan, stated that you could not support any spent fuel management legislation currently before the Congress at this time. Your position raised a number of questions. One, if you cannot support any pending legislation, what can you support, Mr. President? If you will not support legislation now, when might you support it? I wonder if it is after the election. That is an insert, I might add, and not from the letter: If all the comprehensive spent fuel management legislation before Congress is unacceptable, will you provide us with draft legislation that is acceptable? I further refer to my letter of April 7. I challenge the administration to become an active participant in either supporting the concepts in pending legislation or by offering a comprehensive plan of its own. I further explain in my letter to the President: Unfortunately this has not yet occurred. In fact, neither you nor your office has ever responded to my letter. That was my letter of April 7: Are we to conclude that you will simply continue to remain critical of all the pending proposals without offering constructive, comprehensive alternatives? Recently, a House subcommittee marked up its legislation to address the spent fuel management problems. Floor action may yet occur in the House this year. Meanwhile, our committee continues its deliberations with industry, consumer groups, regulatory authorities, and others, with a view toward achieving a broad consensus. Even the Appropriations Committee is anxious to see some progress and is inserting provisions in their bills to promote action. Everyone seems to be working on the issue except your administration. Further, I believe that the spent fuel management problem is one that best can be solved by working in a bipartisan, collaborative manner. Unfortunately, your administration has failed to provide meaningful guidance at this important stage in our deliberations. I would again urge you to submit comprehensive legislation to address this important problem, or voice your support for concepts embodied in legislation currently before us. The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated. I enclosed the letter of April 7 in my letter, which I read, of August 7. Well, this time, we did get an answer, and the answer came back on August 18. That letter was signed by Alice Rivlin, Director, Executive Office of Management and Budget. It is rather interesting to reflect on this letter which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record along with my letter of August 7.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 1 hour equally divided prior to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I am going to make a short statement and then reserve the remainder of my time to accommodate Senator Craig and other Senators. First of all, the bill we have before us, S. 1936, is really an important bill that does two significant things. First, it keeps a promise, a promise that was made to the taxpayers of this country who have contributed about $12 billion currently to the nuclear waste fund, but, unfortunately, we have nothing to show for it at this time. It also takes important steps to a safer future. Today, high-level nuclear waste and high-radioactivity-used-type nuclear fuel is accumulating in this country at over 40 sites in 41 States, including waste stored at the Department of Energy weapons facilities, stored, Mr. President, in populated areas, near our neighborhoods, near our schools, on the shores of our lakes and rivers, and in the backyards of constituents, young and old, all across this land. Later on, I am going to have some charts that I want to show my colleagues so that we can specifically address where this nuclear fuel is stored on both the east and the west coasts, where most Americans live. It may be Yorktown, near your neighborhood and near mine. Unfortunately, spent fuel is being stored in pools that were not designed for long-term storage. Some of this fuel is already 30 years old. That is not to say it is not safe. It simply was not designed for long-term or semipermanent storage. Each year that goes by, our ability to continue storage of this used fuel in each of these sites in a safe and responsible way simply diminishes. So it is irresponsible to let this situation continue longer. 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-population centers. Furthermore, this is a national problem that requires a coordinated national solution, and this bill, S. 1936, solves this problem. It solves it by safely moving the used fuel to a safe, monitored facility in the remote Nevada desert, a facility designed to safely store the fuel, the very best that nuclear experts can build, certified safe by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So, S. 1936 will end the practice of storing used fuel on a long-term basis in pools in Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and other States all across the country. This will solve an environmental problem, Mr. President, but the approach to S. 1936 is simply to get the job done, to do what is right for the country and to do it now. For those who are not familiar with this program, let me describe the status quo. We have struggled with this nuclear waste issue for almost 15 years. We have expended over a billion dollars in the process. We have collected nearly $12 billion from the ratepayers, but the Washington establishment has not been able to deliver on the promise to take and safely dispose of our Nation's nuclear waste by 1998. Hard-working Americans have paid for this as part of their monthly electric bill. They certainly have not gotten the results, Mr. President. The program is broken and has no future unless it is fixed. We can end the stalemate; we can make the decision. I think we have reached a crossroads. The job of fixing this program is ours, the responsibility is ours. The time for fixing the program is now. We are, of course, seeing the Senators from Nevada oppose the bill, as I would expect, with all the arguments and vigor they can muster, and that is certainly understandable. Nobody wants nuclear waste in their State, but it has to go somewhere, and Nevada is the best place we have. Both Senators from Nevada, of course, are friends of mine. We have talked about this issue at length, and they are doing what they feel they must do to best represent their State. But as U.S. Senators, we must sometimes take a national perspective. We must do what is best for the country as a whole. To keep this waste out of Nevada, the Senators from Nevada have used some terms, very catchy terms, like ``mobile Chernobyl,'' to frighten Americans about the safety of moving this used fuel to the Nevada desert where it really belongs. They will not tell you that we have already moved a large amount of commercial and naval nuclear fuel throughout many, many years. The commercial industry alone has shipped 2,500 shipments of used nuclear fuel over the last 30 years. We have seen it shipped into Hanford, Savannah, a site in Idaho. I want to tell you, an even larger amount of spent fuel is transported worldwide. We have seen it in Japan. We have seen it in England. We have seen it in France. We have seen it in Scandinavia. Since 1968, the French alone have safely moved about the same amount of spent fuels as we have accumulated at our nuclear powerplants today. They will not tell you that our Nation's best scientists and engineers have designed special casks that are safety certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to transport the used fuel. They will not tell you about the rigger testing that has taken place by the Sandia National Laboratory and others to ensure the casks will safely contain used fuel in the most severe accidents that might be imagined. They will survive. There is proof that the safety measures work. There have been seven traffic accidents in the United States involving U.S. spent nuclear fuels. When the accidents have happened, these casks have never failed--never failed--to safely contain the used fuel. There has never been an injury or a fatality caused by casked radioactive cargo. There has never been damage to the environment. Can the same be said of gasoline trucks, other hazardous movement on our highways? Of course not. Still, we can expect our friends from Nevada are going to try to convince the people that the transportation will not be safe. The evidence of the industry in the United States and in Europe proves otherwise. The safety record of nuclear fuel transport, both here and in Europe, as I have said, speaks for itself. The issue provides a clear and simple choice. We could choose to have one remote, safe, and secure nuclear waste storage facility or, through inaction and delay, we can permeate the status quo and have 80 such sites spread across the Nation. Mr. President, the chart to my right shows the locations of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste sites that are designed for the geologic disposal. You can see the reactors. The commercial reactors are in brown situated primarily in States in the Midwest and on the east coast, Illinois, and others. The green are the shutdown reactors with spent fuel on-site. The black are commercial spent-fuel storage facilities that are located in various areas throughout the country. The green are the non-Department of Energy-related reactors. The gold is the nuclear reactors fuel in the Navy holdings. The red is the Department of Energy-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. There is the chart, Mr. President. That shows where the sites are around the country. The next chart which I will put up is the proposed solution to this dilemma. It proposes, obviously, one site, the Nevada test site. The theory behind this is we in the last 50 years tested numerous nuclear devices in this area and found it to be safe. The reality of the situation, Mr. President, is--and I grant to my friends from Nevada, nobody wants the waste. Somebody has to take the waste. Where do you put the waste? This has been determined to be the most plausible site as a consequence of the efforts to develop a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. What we are proposing by this legislation is to allow a temporary repository to initiate a process of becoming a reality. I have another chart here which shows in each State the number of volumes associated with the storage in the inventory currently in the estimated inventories through the year 2010. We will have another chart relative to each Member being able to see his or her own State and what it represents. What we have here, Mr. President, is a situation where it is not morally right to perpetuate the status quo on this matter. I think to do so shirks our responsibility to protect the environment and the future of our children and grandchildren. This Nation needs to confront its nuclear waste problem now. The time is now. Nevada is the place. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of S. 1936 and to support cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. One final thing, Mr. President, as we reflect on some of the material that we have seen relative to the question of why move now? Mr. President, as I have indicated, we spent $1 billion. We have spent over 15 years trying to develop and respond to a promise made to the American taxpayer, as the Federal Government has collected from the ratepayers some $11-plus billion--over $12 billion. So I concede, Mr. President, that no one wants it. On the other hand, if you oppose what has been suggested by this bill, then I think you have an obligation to come up with a solution, a reasonable solution and responsible solution, a long-term solution. The Federal Government promised the ratepayers, promised the industry to take this waste by 1998. The Government cannot deliver on that promise. Furthermore, Mr. President, this is a major environmental issue. We must accept the responsibility of addressing the accumulation of this waste. We cannot duck it anymore. S. 1936 does that. What we have here, Mr. President, is an effort by the Nevada Senators to gridlock the Senate, to filibuster the Senate. I have no particular interest in this, but as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have a responsibility, Mr. President. My State, fortunately, is not one of the States listed. But by the same token, the obligation to address this is a responsibility of every U.S. Senator. We cannot delay it any longer. We can store it now in the one safe site where we have been exploding nuclear weapons for some 50 years. We owe it to the U.S. citizens to move this material and do it now. I note the Washington Post editorial this morning, Mr. President, suggested that somehow this action would not meet all the standards of a permanent facility. This is not intended to meet the standards of a permanent facility. This is an interim facility. But by the same token, we all know that the construction continues on the permanent facility at Yucca Mountain with all the safeguards necessary. I might add, in this legislation none of the safeguards are waived. All of the Federal acts must be adhered to. ``The interim bill is the wrong way,'' the Washington Post says, ``to solve what is not fully yet an urgent problem.'' I differ with the Washington Post. It is an urgent problem, Mr. President. In many of these States the licensing of the nuclear waste on hand is almost at its maximum limit. As a consequence, Mr. President, we can no longer shirk the responsibility. There have been numerous hearings. There have been numerous debates. The best plausible alternative is a temporary repository associated with Yucca Mountain. That is what the legislation is all about. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time and allow the other side to be heard from. Then I think Senator Craig is going to have some remarks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we had a good discussion today about the status of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository and I think the record should reflect discussion of some points that have been made that require a little further examination. First of all, we have heard the terminology ``millirem'' as the standard measure for radioactivity. Much has been said about the 100- millirem standard in protecting the public health and safety. We have that responsibility, but I think we should put it in perspective because the average member of the public really does not know how to relate 100 millirems to his or her everyday life. The proposed limit in the bill has been set at 100 millirems as a standard. It may interest my colleagues that one receives over 100 millirems extra per year by living in a house, a White House, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is a stone building with attendant natural radiation. Now, the Senator from Nevada says 100 extra millirems is too high. Is the Senator suggesting that 100 extra millirems is OK for the White House but not OK for a fence line deep in the Nevada desert; that 100 extra millirems OK for the President of the United States, his family or Socks, the cat, but not OK for jackrabbits or roadrunners out in Nevada? Mr. President, you also get 100 extra millirems from living in Denver, because of its altitude. Do we prohibit people from living in Denver? Of course not, because 100 millirems do not harm anyone. It is an internationally accepted standard. So the public should keep in perspective these terms. Today, Mr. President, we got 65 votes for cloture. That was a good vote, but, unfortunately we did not get votes from some of the States where this nuclear waste issue is a legitimate concern. I had hoped we would get votes, say, from our Members from Connecticut. Now, what is the justification for Connecticut, you might wonder. Mr. President, we build naval submarines in Connecticut. These are nuclear submarines. These submarines produce waste. Connecticut gets the jobs. They do not have to keep the waste. Where does the waste go? Well, currently a lot of it is going to Idaho. My point is simple: we all have a responsibility. We all have a share in the question of what to responsibly do with nuclear waste. Now, another interesting thing, as we look at the voting makeup of this body, Connecticut generates 73.7 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Connecticut ratepayers have paid $429 million into the waste fund. What have they got to show for it? Absolutely nothing. I think as we look at the various States and their positions, we have to recognize we all have a share in this. Florida--well, we did not do quite as well as we had hoped, but we did about half-and-half. Florida ratepayers pay more than half a billion into the fund, yet nuclear waste sites at Turkey Point Power Plant right in between two national parks, the Everglades National Park and the Biscayne National Monument. Now, there are other States where we did not get a level of support that we might have. My good friends from Hawaii do not have a nuclear power plant, but they do store highly enriched naval fuel. If we can't solve the waste problem this fuel in Hawaii has no place to go. It stays in Hawaii. Also, if we do not pass this bill, I assume we will see more and more pressure to find some site, perhaps in the Pacific. We have seen Palmyra brought up time and time again as a possible dump site. I do not support that at this time but, again, I think we all have a voice in resolving this issue. There are other States that have an interest in resolving this issue. The State of Delaware imports nuclear power and has paid $29 million into the fund. New Mexico imports nuclear power and has paid $32 million into the fund. California, 26.3 percent of its generation is nuclear energy. California has paid $645 million into this fund that the Federal Government has collected, which now totals nearly $12 billion. This was a fund established, if you will, Mr. President, to ensure that the Federal Government had the means in order to take this nuclear waste by 1998. Arkansas, 33 percent of the generation comes from nuclear power. They put $266 million into the fund. Colorado has an interest. They are concerned about access of nuclear waste through their State, but they have a reactor that has been shut down, awaiting decommissioning, no place for the fuels to go. So what will happen, Mr. President? Well, nothing will happen. Colorado is going to be stuck with that reactor until such time as Congress authorizes a repository and the fuel can be removed. Indiana imports nuclear power. It paid $288 million into the fund. North Dakota relies on nuclear power, it paid $11 million into the fund. Nebraska, 30 percent generating from nuclear power paid $136 million into the fund. Wisconsin, 23 percent of Wisconsin generation comes from nuclear energy, and they paid $336 million into the fund. Kentucky relies on nuclear power and $81 million has been paid into the fund. Ohio, 7.7 percent of their generation, $253 million into the fund. Iowa, 13 percent, $192 million. Massachusetts, 15 percent of the power comes from nuclear power. They paid $319 million. What do they have to show for it? What did the ratepayers get in Massachusetts? Absolutely nothing. Maryland, next door to us, 24 percent of their power is nuclear, $257 million paid in, nothing to show for it. New York, 28 percent of their power is nuclear, they paid in $734 million. Rhode Island relies on nuclear power, $8 million paid into the fund. It is important, Mr. President, that every Senator reflect as he represents his or her own State, the realization that we are all in the nuclear waste situation together, and we all have to get out of it together. Senate bill 1936 is the most important meaningful environmental legislation to come before the Senate because it addresses the health, safety, and environment of the American people who live with this high-level waste in storage sites in 41 States in our Nation. Senate bill 1936 was well-crafted and developed after years of study and months of discussion and negotiation. It is based on sound science and meets every legitimate concern imaginable. Much of the rhetoric we have heard today is based on fear, and a good deal is based on politics. The bottom line is that somebody has to get it and, unfortunately, the site that has been chosen is a site where we have had nuclear testing for some 50 years out in the desert in Nevada. The opposition would, in my opinion, attempt to delay this process of addressing health, safety, and environmental issues on behalf of the American people for a short-term political advantage, and it also lacks the responsibility of coming up with viable alternatives. The right decision is to support Senate bill 1936. It is right in terms of health, safety, and the environment. There are a couple of other points that I think are necessary to make as a consequence of the debate that we have had throughout the day. I compliment my two friends from Nevada because I know how they feel. I know how they are fighting to represent the interests of their State. But, again, somebody has to take this waste. Now, there has been generalization that somehow we are waiving some of the environmental laws. That is not the case, Mr. President. Complaints by environmental groups about the NEPA waivers in Senate bill 1271 have been addressed in S. 1936. We do not waive NEPA for the intermodal transfer facilities, as the previous bill did. Unlike the previous bill, there is no general limitation on NEPA in Senate bill 1936. During the debate, there was a list of laws that were proposed that would be waived or would not be applicable that were suggested by the Senators from Nevada. I would like to briefly mention that S. 1936 contains a comprehensive regulatory licensing program plan for a permanent facility. This is a unique facility, Mr. President. There is no other facility like it. That is why. Thus, there are no specific environmental laws, other than the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that is designed to regulate permanent geologic repositories for nuclear waste. So it is self-evident. There is no use in trying to develop a situation where we cannot possibly achieve this because we do not have a prototype to go on. We are bound by the existing environmental laws, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We are not waiving basically anything relative to this repository. The language in S. 1936, section 501, simply provides that the specific environmental standards set forth in that bill will govern if they conflict with other more general laws that were mentioned by the Senators from Nevada. Mr. President, the language in this bill merely prevents environmental law from being misused to reconsider the decisions that we are making today in this Congress. Senate bill 1936 is a bill to prevent a gridlock--and that is what we have been in--and to prevent stalemate--and that is what we have been in. All we have to do is to say that Congress has decided that we will build an interim site in Nevada, and we do not let the NEPA process revisit that decision. That is what we are saying, Mr. President. We started on this, I think, in 1983 or thereabouts. We have expended 15 years. We have expended almost $6 billion trying to determine a process and a site. The responsibility to conclude that is now. As we proceed with a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, this will provide the movement and the storage in casks of the high-level waste from the various sites around the country. Mr. President, I have a couple of other points, and I will conclude because the hour is late. The State of California, as an example, has six nuclear units, including the Rancho Seco. These are reactors that have been shut down since about 1989, or thereabouts. But they cannot be decommissioned until the spent fuel is taken away from the site. What do the people of California want? They want that former reactor removed and the site brought back to its previous state? Surely, they do. But it is not going to happen unless we pass a bill like this. The estimated cost of monitoring each shut down reactor is some $50 million per year. You will never get rid of them unless you have a place to put the spent fuel. And the place to put it is in the one place that has been designated in S. 1936. Now, finally, there have been references to the industry's role and that somehow this process is a fabrication. The Record will note letters from some 23 Governors and attorneys general relative to the necessity of this bill passing, so that they can get some relief for the storage of nuclear waste that is in their States in pools and is about to exceed the licensing capability. And as far as suggesting that the Washington Post editorial somehow is the beneficial voice of reason, I think one should simply go back and read it. It says, ``Waste Makes Haste.'' Well, Mr. President, we have been at this 15 years. We have been at it to the tune of $6 billion. The Washington Post editorial does not propose a solution. S. 1936 is a responsible solution to the problem of nuclear waste. May I suggest that the Washington Post is a responsible solution to the problem of parakeet pet waste. I was very pleased with the vote today. We got 65 votes for cloture on the motion to proceed. We had one Senator out, who is inclined to vote for us. So that gives us 66. That is one short of overriding the Presidential veto. That is why I went on to great length in my statement, to encourage those Senators who did not vote with us on cloture to reflect a little bit on their own situation in their own State relative to whether or not they are building nuclear submarines and do not want to have any part of the responsibility for the waste when those submarines are cut off, but purporting to simply give the responsibility to the State of Idaho is being unrealistic and unfair. I am sure that, as we address the new technology in nuclear submarines, there are some Members here that will remind the Senators from Connecticut, as an example, that they, too, must bear the responsibility associated with what nuclear technology provides our country in the interest of our national defense, but, as well, in the responsibility of addressing what we could do with the nuclear waste in Senate bill 1936, which is the best answer we have had so far-- certainly a responsible one, unlike the position of the administration, which has chosen to duck the issue. We would have an entirely different matter if we were debating a proposal that the administration had vis-a-vis a proposal that had come through the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. That is not the case, as the evidence has suggested. In the communications with the White House that I have had over the last couple of years relative to trying to address this, along with my colleague, Senator Johnston, we have found that the White House has simply chosen to duck the issue. They do not want it to come up before the election. They are satisfied with the status quo. Well, the American public is not satisfied with the status quo. The Governors in the States are not satisfied with the status quo. The attorneys general are not satisfied. And the Government has reneged on its commitment to the ratepayers to provide, by 1998, the capability of storing that waste, and the Government is not prepared to deliver. Yet, they have collected $12 billion from the ratepayers. I think I have made my case for the merits of this legislation. As we continue to debate, I urge my colleagues to reflect a little bit on the fact that we are all in this together and we all have to share the responsibility together. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see no other Senator wishing recognition. I wish the Chair a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony on S. 1920, a bill to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and for other purposes, has been cancelled. The hearing was scheduled to take place Wednesday, July 17, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD--366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. I plan to reschedule this hearing at a later date. For further information, please contact Brain Malnak or Jo Meuse. committee on energy and natural resources