Murkowski: I also want to show a chart relative to the movement of waste throughout the United States, which I think is significant inasmuch as it reflects on the reality that we move a tremendous amount of waste throughout the United States.

But here we are. In the years 1979 to 1995, there were 2,400 shipments across the United States through every State except Florida and South Dakota. I don't know how we missed those. But there are the transportation routes. So we have moved them safely. We have shown that our national labs have certified that the casks can survive any real world crash.

We have heard statements that radiation protection standards are unsafe. We have shown how our standard is more protective than the current EPA guidance that allows five times as much. We allow EPA to tighten the standards further, if need be.

It has been said on the other side that the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board says there is no compelling technical or safety reasons to move fuel through a central location.

We have shown that a more complete reading of the Technical Review Board's testimony--and their report--indicates there is a need for interim storage, and there is a need for Yucca if Yucca is determined to be a suitable site for the permanent repository.

The other side has indicated we can delay this action until

August 1998, at a time when a viability determination is made with respect to Yucca.

We have shown that delay is what has gotten us into this situation in the first place.

There is a court case which has already determined that the Federal Government is liable because of its delays and its inability to accept the waste .

Eight months from now, when the Government is in breech of contract, then the courts are going to consider the damage that we face.

We as legislators have a responsibility to protect the taxpayers. With each delay, the damage is going to mount. With each delay, the liability to the taxpayer will mount. With each delay, there will be a pressure to yield to even further delays. The call for delay is really a siren's song. It is a trap. It is an excuse for no action.

Only yesterday I heard our ranking member, Senator Bumpers, suggesting that we could wait until August 1998 to deal with this problem. Well, it might sound reasonable at first. It has been so long now. But let's give it a little more thought.

Will Congress deal with the nuclear waste issue in an election year with time running out in the 105th Congress? I think not. Will my friends from Nevada forego their rights to filibuster the bill at that time? I think not. As a practical matter, delay until August 1998 will slip to 1999. And, if we are waiting until 1999, why not allow the decision to wait for the license applications in 2001 or 2002?

All the while we will be in violation of our contractual commitment. We will be increasing the damages. If we delay until 2001 or 2002, then why not delay until final licensing of a permanent repository is due in the year 2015.

Let me refer you to the picture of where we propose to put this. This waste would be put in a temporary repository located at the Nevada test site, which was used for more than 50 years and over 800 nuclear weapons tests have taken place in that area.

That is what we propose. It would be adjacent to the continuing development of a permanent site in Yucca Mountain. We have gotten nearly 5 miles of tunnel done now. The problem is that site is not going to be ready until the year 2015.

I do not expect the changes we have made in this bill, along with the others, will necessarily satisfy all my friends on the other side. All the members of the Nevada delegation have appeared before the committee, and they have said they would oppose any approach that would bring nuclear waste to Nevada, so I do not realistically expect my good friends to change their minds. They are doing what they feel they must do for their State. But I do hope my other colleagues who have not expressed support for our bill will understand just how far we have already come to make accommodations and to reject the emotional rhetoric that has been heard so often with regard to this bill.