Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the course of resolving the status of Senate bill 104 and recognizing that we have just
concluded a vote and the vote was 72 to 24, and it was a tabling motion which would have, had it passed, invited every State
Governor to prohibit the transfer and transportation of nuclear waste through those States, I will discuss a few States at
random, Mr. President. I hope the Members in their offices will reflect on these charts because there are just a few States
where the problem exists today. The point of this examination is to simply state that the alternative is to leave the waste in these
States or provide an alternative. 

Now, again, I want to refer to the major chart which shows where the waste lay currently. There are 80 sites in 41 States. The
commercial reactors, shut down reactors, spent fuel on site, commercial spent fuel, nuclear storage facilities, it is non-DOE
reactors, it is Navy reactor fuel, it is Department of Energy--all in spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. That is
where it is, Mr. President. 

The question is, Do we want to leave it there or do we want to move it? Now, the next chart again will attempt to show our
experience in moving waste through the country because we have done it for an extended period of time. We have had 2,400
movements all over the country. As soon as the chart comes, it will show that it has moved through all States with the
exception of South Dakota and Florida. 

Now, again the choice that we have relative to an alternative is leave it where it is. We have here the chart which shows the
transportation routes of the waste moving across the United States, and it has not been a big deal. The reason is because there
have not been any incidents. It has moved safely. It has been moving in containers subject to State and Federal law from 1979
to 1995. So to suggest that it cannot be moved safely or to suggest that we are suddenly thrust upon some kind of a crisis
because we are about to move the waste to a temporary repository in Nevada--facts dictate otherwise. It is moved by rail,
indicated by the red, it is moved by highway, as indicated by the blue network. Every State but Florida and South Dakota
have escaped. That is the reality. 

As we look at the argument here, to a large degree, the transportation argument has little validity. This would be the same type
of waste that we would be moving from our reactors. Where do we propose to move it? From all the sites I showed on the
previous chart, to one site out in the Nevada test site used for over 50 years for more than 800 nuclear weapons tests. I have
yet to have anybody come to the floor and suggest there is a better place. 

I recognize the reality that nobody wants it but we will look how this dilemma affects a few States. Take Connecticut, for
example--and it is significant in Connecticut because nuclear energy makes up 70 percent of the energy that is produced in
Connecticut--those ratepayers have paid $521 million over the last 12 years, or thereabouts, into a fund which the Federal
Government has taken and put into a general fund for the specific purpose of taking Connecticut's waste. That was a
contractual commitment. It is due next year. Connecticut should, under a contractual agreement, be relieved of its waste. The
ratepayers have paid, as I said, $521 million. In Connecticut, there are four units, the Connecticut Yankee and the Millstone 1,
2 and 3. Those reactors have stored 1,505 metric tons of waste. It is stored in Connecticut. If this bill does not pass, it will
stay in Connecticut. A portion of it is Department of Energy defense waste. 

Now, the significant thing here, Mr. President, is that Millstone 1 would be full by 1998. Now what does that mean? It means
their storage, the pools adjacent to the reactors, will be full. What will they do? Either build more storage and get new permits,
because the Federal Government is not going to be able to take it, or the other alternative is to shut down the reactor.
Millstone 2 and 3 will be filled up by the year 2000. What will they do then? Shut down the reactor? Haddam Neck will be
filled up in the year 2001. These are factual circumstances surrounding the state of the industry in Connecticut. 
Now, if I was representing Connecticut, I would want to get the waste out of there, because two things will happen. One is if
this bill passes, the waste will get out. If it does not, the waste is not going to get out, and when these reactors shut down
because storage is at capacity the waste is still going to be there. It will be sitting there until somebody does something with it.
And to do something with it, you have to move it. Otherwise, it will stay there. 

Again, we have a location. I am sure my friend is getting tired of me showing the desert of Nevada where for 50 years we have
had testing. 

Now, looking to another State, moving south a little bit, the State of Georgia. Now, Georgia is dependent 30 percent on
nuclear power. The residents of Georgia paid $304 million into the waste fund. They paid that basically to the Government to
take the waste. The Government cannot do it. We have four 

units, Hatch 1 and 2 and Vogtle 1 and 2. The waste stored in Georgia is 1,182 metric tons at the Savannah River site. The
waste stored is 206 metric tons over on the South Carolina-Georgia border. Hatch 1 and 2 reactors will be filled by 1999, and
Vogtle 1 and 2 will be filled by the year 2008. Again, we have a case where State ratepayers have paid it, and what have they
gotten from the Federal Government? Nothing, other than a chance to continue to store their waste. How long? It is indefinite if
this bill does not pass, because nobody can agree on where to put it. The alternative is to leave it where it is, and it will stay
there after the reactors have shut down because we do not have anyplace to put it. 

Moving on, Mr. President, to Illinois. This is even a bigger set of realities. The State of Illinois is 54 percent dependent on
nuclear power. You say `dependent'--what does that mean? It means 54 percent of the energy comes from nuclear power.
There are alternatives, sure, coal-fired, oil-fired plants. They all cost money, all take permitting time. Illinois has paid into the
waste fund, the residents have paid $1.36 billion, paid to the Federal Government to take the waste next year. The Federal
Government will not do it, and they have 13 units in Illinois: Braidwood 1 and 2, Byron 1 and 2, Clinton, Dresden 2 and 3,
LaSalle 1 and 2, Quad Cities 1 and 2, and Zion 1 and 2. They have 5,215 metric tons of waste in Illinois. A DOE research
reactor is fueled there, with an additional 40 metric tons. A State that is 54 percent dependent. 

Looking at their reactors when they have to shut down, because the storage pools are filled: Dresden 3, the year 2000.
Dresden 2, the year 2002. Clinton, the year 2003. Quad Cities 1 and 2, the year 2006. Zion 1 and 2, 2006. LaSalle, 1 and 2,
2013. Byron 1 and 2, 2015. Braidwood 1 and 2, 2019. That is a reality. What will Illinois do? Perhaps they will try and buy
energy from other States, but that will deplete, if you will, the availability of supply. This is a crisis. 

This is the reality, that somebody else before this body had another plan to relieve, if you will, these States of the storage that is
licensed. They cannot just store beyond their capacity. They store to their designing capacity. They are prepared to do that but
they exceed that capacity in those years. And their ability to increase, that is going to be very, very difficult because for one
thing the environmental community is opposed to any nuclear power generation and is going to object. They do not give any
credit for the contribution that nuclear energy brings to air quality, including lessening emissions and reducing the greenhouse
effect. It is one thing to criticize, but the environmental community has an obligation to come up with alternative and, their
alternative is `no nuclear.' They like alternative energies, which I do, too, except they are not ready and they are not economic
and are not here. 

In the meantime, the residents of Illinois are entitled to and will demand energy. What will happen in Illinois is they will have to
shut reactors and maybe they will not have air conditioning. Maybe they will have brownouts. This is an obligation that we have
in this body to address now because if you do not move it out of there it will stay, the reactors are shut down, and they are
stuck with storing high-level energy that is not producing anything, not producing power anymore, and the dilemma is, well, that
is a problem for Illinois. 
We have an opportunity to correct that today. That is what Senate bill 104 is all about--taking that waste. Remember, when
you talk about transportation, to take it, you have to move it. We have moved it safely, and we can. 

Now, in the State of Louisiana, my good friend, Senator Bennett Johnston, whom I worked with so closely over the years on
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--and I might add Senator Johnston supported this legislation the last time
around because he is a realist and he recognizes we have a crisis. We have to address it. We cannot simply ignore it. The
difficulty is we have to put it somewhere. That somewhere, unfortunately, is the desert in Nevada. 

In the case of Louisiana, the ratepayers have paid $135 million over 12 to 13 years. There are two units, River Bend 1 and
Waterford 3. How much waste? Mr. President, 567 metric tons. When do they run out of capacity? Waterford 3, in the year
2002. River Bend 1, the year 2007. The State is 24 percent dependent on nuclear energy. You can say, well, why the hurry?
Remember, we have been 15 years in this process now. Yucca Mountain, when completed, will not be ready until the year
2015, so if we do not address this today, there is no answer. We are just putting it off. 

Now, looking at Michigan, Mr. President. Ratepayers in Michigan have paid $510 million into the fund. 

There are five units: Big Rock Point, Cook 1 and 2, Fermi; 1,500 metric tons of high-level waste are stored there. This State,
26 percent, a quarter of the power, is generated from nuclear energy. Palisades goes down in 1992; Big Rock Point in 1997;
Fermi 2 in 2001; Cook 1 and 2 in 2014. 

If I was from Michigan, I would be very concerned about the reality of two points. One, continuing to have a source of power
within my State, which means my reactors have to continue to operate, which means I have to relieve my storage capacity. I
would be very concerned. I would be very concerned about losing that power base and what I am going to do without it. I
would be even more concerned if I didn't get some relief and I could not move it and it just sat there after my reactors shut
down. That is what is going to happen in Michigan, and in every other State that is in a crisis relative to storage. As I have
indicated, there are several. 

Let's look at New Jersey. The ratepayers in New Jersey have paid $382 million into the waste fund. What have they gotten
for it? Absolutely nothing. The Federal Government promised in 15 years to have a sufficient repository ready by next year to
take the waste. The citizens of New Jersey have acted in good faith. They paid the price. The Federal Government has not
honored its commitment. They paid $382 million. They have four units: Hope Creek, Oyster Creek and Salem 1 and 2. They
have 1,369 metric tons of waste sitting in New Jersey. Their only hope to get it out is to have a designated repository,
designated in time to address reality. Reality is that Oyster Creek is in crisis now. That is full now. What are they going to do?
Hope Creek will be full in the year 2007, Salem 1 in the year 2013, Salem 2 in 2018. New Jersey is 62 percent dependent on
nuclear power. If I was from New Jersey, I would be pretty concerned about that. I would be pretty concerned about reality,
pretty concerned about the Federal Government committing to its contractual agreement so that I could relieve my dependence
before I have to shut down, and pretty concerned that, if I don't get it, I am going to be stuck with the waste in my reactor
pools with no relief in sight and no generating capacity. I would say New Jersey is in a crisis. 

Well, let's go out West, to Oregon. It is a little less out there. Ratepayers in Oregon have paid $76 million. They have one unit,
Trojan. Waste stored is 424 metric tons. Across the Columbia River from Oregon, which divides the two States, we have the
Hanford site. Waste stored there is 2,133 metric tons. Trojan is closed for decommissioning. What does that mean? It means
the waste is still there. 
I don't know whether the delegation from Oregon is satisfied to just leave it there. But unless we have a place to put it, it is
going to stay there. We have proved that we can transport it throughout the country. I am sure that the State of Washington
would not be anxious to take it. Hanford already has over 2,000 metric tons. So here, again, is a case of another State that
acted in good faith. The ratepayers have paid in. The reactor is closed for decommissioning. There is no place, Mr. President,
to take the waste. 

The last exhibit--and I could go on and on, but this gives you an idea of the crisis proportion we are in--the State of
Wisconsin, the dairy State. Nearly a quarter dependent on nuclear power--22 percent to be exact. The residents paid $219
million into the waste fund. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. The Federal Government, when it takes this money,
doesn't put it in escrow to have it ready to meet its obligation. It goes into the general fund. So what we would have to do now
is appropriate funds to meet our obligation. Nevertheless, it has been paid in. There are three units: Kewaunee and Point
Beach 1 and 2. About 967 metric tons are stored in Wisconsin. The status of the Point Beach 1 and 2 plants, I gather, is that
they are full now. They have a crisis there right now. Kewaunee will be full in the year 2001. 

I don't know what the residents of Wisconsin know or whether they understand or whether they care. But Point Beach 1 and
2 is at capacity. They had to initiate some relief by dry cask storage adjacent to the reactors. This is something new and
innovative that takes licensing. Well, you could say, `let's leave it there.' If you want it left in Wisconsin, then don't vote for S .
104 . Kewaunee, in the year 2001. If I were from Wisconsin, I would want to move this stuff out. I would want the Federal
Government to respond to the $219 million from the ratepayers. I would not want to run the risk of leaving it there. Now we
are taking it out of the pools and putting it in areas adjacent to the reactor, dry cask storage. The State's electricity relative to
its dependence is 22 percent. 

So, there you have it, Mr. President. Those are a few reasons why it is critical that we act now, a few reasons why it is critical
that these States and the Members of this body from those States recognize that this offers relief from leaving it where it is and
putting it out in the desert where we have a trained work force, we have security, we have the very real likelihood that the
permanent repository is going to be determined to be there. But it is not going to be ready until 

the year 2015. So this provides the relief that is needed now, and it provides a responsible consideration relative to the
necessity of a decision being made now. 

I think it is fair to say, finally, Mr. President, that to not act on this matter now is to not only disregard the responsibility we
have here to minimize the risk to the taxpayers relative to the liability that is going to pile up next year when we can't take the
waste, but I think it is also very important to recognize that we are doing a disservice to these States by not providing them
with an alternative other than leaving the waste where it is, in 41 States at 80 locations. 

I wish there were some other way that we could put it in some other area that would not raise opposition. But I can tell you,
Mr. President--and you have observed the debate--the reality is that whatever State we put it in, we are going to get a similar
reaction--an extended objection from representatives of that State. Let's recognize the problem for what it is. 

Where, of all the places, is the best place to site a temporary repository? I will conclude by referring again to the area that has
been polluted for 50 years with 800 nuclear weapons tests, an area that meets as many of the geological applications that are
preferred relative to storage, both permanent and interim, of any that have been identified. So let's not wait any longer, Mr.
President. I know there are a few more amendments that are pending on this legislation.