Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, we began this debate with the consideration of Senate bill 1271. The Senators from Nevada, of course, objected, saying the bill would gut environmental laws, saying it would allow unsafe transportation and endanger the health and safety of Americans.

We had objections from the administration. They opposed choosing Nevada as the interim site prior to a determination that Yucca Mountain would be viable as a permanent repository. To address these concerns and others, we have attempted to adjust our bill. We began with Senate bill 1271, then a new bill, Senate bill 1936, and again with an amendment in the form of a committee substitute to Senate bill 1936. With each new version of the bill, we attempted to strengthen the public health and environmental safeguards as well as meet the criteria of Members who were concerned about these items.

First, in an effort to address the administration's concerns, we made it clear that no construction of an interim facility would take place at the Nevada test site until Yucca Mountain was determined to be technically viable as a permanent repository. So let me make that clear. No construction would be initiated without the viability being determined.

We have extended the time period in order to accommodate the reality that nothing moves very fast when you are addressing nuclear waste.

With respect to concerns over radiation protection standards, we began with a 100-millirem standard which could not be reviewed by any Federal agency. The bill before us today allows the EPA to issue a stricter standard if it determines one is necessary. So we have tightened up on the radiation standards.

With respect to the NEPA requirements, our latest version requires the Department of Energy and the NRC to fulfill the requirements of NEPA in conjunction with the operation of both an interim storage facility and a repository. Our first bill did not contain that requirement. So, again, we tightened it up with regard to NEPA requirements.

With respect to concern about transportation safety, we have accepted transportation language offered by Senator Moseley-Braun of Illinois, Senator Wyden, and others.

With respect to the preemption of other laws, we proposed language consistent with the preemption authority found in the existing Hazardous Material Transportation Act. Indeed, I think we have made substantial changes in the bill. What is before us today is far different than what we originally introduced as Senate bill 1271 in the 104th Congress.

Despite all of the changes we have made, the opponents of this bill continue to object to the bill as if no changes were made. We have heard it referred to as `Mobile Chernobyl,' `emasculating NEPA laws' and `running roughshod over all environmental laws.'

The emotional rhetoric that has been used fails to recognize the changes we have made in this bill and the charges that we have refuted.

The suggestion has been made that the transportation is unsafe. We have shown how we have safely been moving fuel around for many years. I have some charts behind me to show that. Not only have we moved fuel, but fuel has been moved overseas.

Here is a chart showing specifically fuel what is coming to the United States from other countries: Australia; it is coming from Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and Canada. How does it get here? It moves. It is transported. And it is transported safely. The French, the Japanese, and the Swedes are moving spent nuclear fuel. Spent nuclear fuel is coming from Japan, going to France for reprocessing, being taken back to Japan, and being put back in the reactors. They have what they call reprocessing. They don't bury their waste. They put it back in the reactors and burn it. It combats proliferation. I am not here to argue the merits of that. I am simply showing that this waste does move, and it moves in transportation casks.

We have heard it argued that transportation casks are unsafe. But we have shown that the transportation casks can withstand significant exposure to crashes, and can survive fires. We have shown the casks have been tested by a locomotive hitting them at the 90 miles an hour, or crash into a brick wall at 80 miles per hour, submerged in water, and bathed in fire. These casks are safe, and they are designed to survive any type of real world accident. We have the technology to do that.