I would like to comment about the remarks made by my good friend from Nevada relative to the concern we all have, the legitimate concern we have over terrorism. He makes the case that, you know, there is a terrorist threat and therefore we ought to leave it where it is. Let us look at where it is, Mr. President. The chart behind me shows it is in 41 States. There are 81 sites out there. Is it logical to assume that we are better off to leave it there where it is exposed in 41 States at 81 sites or put it in one place--one place--out in the Nevada desert, where we have had over a period of some 50 years extensive nuclear tests, time and time again, an area where it is concentrated and can be supervised and guarded, namely, the one site in Nevada? It just does not make sense if you are going to argue the merits of terrorism to have it all over the country, as I have indicated on this chart--41 States, 81 sites--or put it in one place where you can monitor, you can control it, you can guard it. You can take the necessary steps to ensure that the threat from terrorism is at a minimum.
On the recordJuly 31, 1996
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the distribution of potential terrorist threats across the U.S. during a Senate debate.
Share
More from Lisa Murkowski
Aug 2, 2026
By providing women with the option to voluntarily prevent unplanned pregnancies and to protect themselves from transmission of the virus and have access to clinics, the United States can prevent further deaths of women and the cruel and…
Aug 8, 2026
It's only off the table because this nomination is pending and the Senate has leverage.
Aug 19, 2026
His extensive experience, professionalism, and judicial temperament make him exceptionally well-qualified for this role.
Jul 17, 2026
The recent lease sale results were not surprising, given the acreage already leased and the continued partisan push against responsible development.





