Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, providing for homeland security and securing our Nation against the threat of terrorism must continue to be our foremost challenge. However, many of my Senate colleagues and I recognize the budgetary strains caused by the mounting expenditures of our limited resources--and the potential future costs--of responding to the multiple and varied threats of terrorism. Our State, county, and local agencies are struggling to fund the prevention and mitigation of every imaginable attack on our citizens and our critical infrastructure. Further, providing multi-million dollar allocations at the Federal level to prevent or mitigate all perceived threats to homeland security, or to respond to each terrorism incident, could in itself bankrupt our national economy. The best management decisions at all levels of Government and industry on allocating scarce resources to the war on terrorism need an effective analytical approach to help understand the risks and to help improve the strategic and operational decisions to address those risks. Most current approaches to analyzing the ``terrorist threat'' are limited to addressing the vulnerability of--or what will happen to-- critical infrastructure if it is attacked. These ``vulnerability analyses'' generally produce long lists of security-related deficiencies and equally long checklists of expensive things to do to correct the deficiencies, but they do not help communities appropriately allocate scarce resources, people, time, and money, in the context of an organization's strategic-level goals and objectives. A more robust approach is needed to support decision-making, one that can enable Government officials and private company executives to characterize the risks of rare, high-consequence events; to identify those that pose the greatest threats; and to best evaluate mitigation alternatives.

Mr. CRAPO. Would Senator Durbin yield a minute of his time?

Mr. CRAPO. Yes.

Mr. CRAPO. Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, and I thank the Senator for his consideration and support.

Mr. CRAPO. Yes.

Mr. CRAPO. The original amendment that Senator Lieberman submitted to the underlying bill, H.R. 5005, to establish the Department of Homeland Security, contained a section that would have established an Office of Risk Analysis and Assessment within the Directorate of Science and Technology. Recognizing the successes of this Miami-Dade County pilot project and the tremendous contribution that a comprehensive, risk- based prioritization process that decision-makers could use to allocate scarce national, State, and local resources to the War on Terrorism, Senator Durbin and I offered an amendment that would have enhanced and strengthened this risk assessment function. This amendment would have required the Department of Homeland Security to establish a comprehensive, risk-based process for prioritizing and allocating the Federal, State, and local activities and resources necessary to combat terrorism and to provide for homeland security response. It also would have authorized $15 million in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003, and such sums as necessary in subsequent years, for the development of the risk-based prioritization process. Unfortunately, the current version of the Homeland Security Act before the Senate does not contain our amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, providing for homeland security and securing our Nation against the threat of terrorism must continue to be our foremost challenge. However, many of my Senate colleagues and I recognize the budgetary strains caused by the mounting expenditures of our limited resources--and the potential future costs--of responding to the multiple and varied threats of terrorism. Our State, county, and local agencies are struggling to fund the prevention and mitigation of every imaginable attack on our citizens and our critical infrastructure. Further, providing multi-million dollar allocations at the Federal level to prevent or mitigate all perceived threats to homeland security, or to respond to each terrorism incident, could in itself bankrupt our national economy. The best management decisions at all levels of Government and industry on allocating scarce resources to the war on terrorism need an effective analytical approach to help understand the risks and to help improve the strategic and operational decisions to address those risks. Most current approaches to analyzing the ``terrorist threat'' are limited to addressing the vulnerability of--or what will happen to-- critical infrastructure if it is attacked. These ``vulnerability analyses'' generally produce long lists of security-related deficiencies and equally long checklists of expensive things to do to correct the deficiencies, but they do not help communities appropriately allocate scarce resources, people, time, and money, in the context of an organization's strategic-level goals and objectives. A more robust approach is needed to support decision-making, one that can enable Government officials and private company executives to characterize the risks of rare, high-consequence events; to identify those that pose the greatest threats; and to best evaluate mitigation alternatives.

Mr. CRAPO. Yes.

Mr. CRAPO. Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, and I thank the Senator for his consideration and support.

Mr. CRAPO. Yes.

Mr. CRAPO. Would Senator Durbin yield a minute of his time?

Mr. CRAPO. The original amendment that Senator Lieberman submitted to the underlying bill, H.R. 5005, to establish the Department of Homeland Security, contained a section that would have established an Office of Risk Analysis and Assessment within the Directorate of Science and Technology. Recognizing the successes of this Miami-Dade County pilot project and the tremendous contribution that a comprehensive, risk- based prioritization process that decision-makers could use to allocate scarce national, State, and local resources to the War on Terrorism, Senator Durbin and I offered an amendment that would have enhanced and strengthened this risk assessment function. This amendment would have required the Department of Homeland Security to establish a comprehensive, risk-based process for prioritizing and allocating the Federal, State, and local activities and resources necessary to combat terrorism and to provide for homeland security response. It also would have authorized $15 million in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003, and such sums as necessary in subsequent years, for the development of the risk-based prioritization process. Unfortunately, the current version of the Homeland Security Act before the Senate does not contain our amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to address homeland security. No Member of this body can deny that homeland security is of the almost importance at this time. We all agree that protecting Americans from further deadly terrorist attacks is, without question, our most urgent national priority. President Bush and the American people have called on us to act on his priority. Americans cannot ignore continuing widespread threats made by terrorist groups throughout the world. Even in Idaho, a State that is more than 2,000 miles from any of the sites of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, people are mindful of these new dangers that exist. There is a general feeling across the country that no one can consider themselves isolated or immune. In securing our Nation and protecting the American people, we need an approach that is coordinated, comprehensive, and collaborative; a system that acts at Federal, State, and community levels. We are capable of creating a Department of Homeland Security that protects the United States from terrorist threats while preserving American civil liberties on which our country was founded. It is incumbent upon us to create a dynamic, synchronized, and flexible entity, so that we can, indeed, facilitate the need for homeland security on a national level, while at the same time meeting the challenges posed by ever-changing threats made from many different fronts. We do not know where our next threat will materialize and we should not withhold from the President the ability to analyze and respond aggressively and dynamically as the situation commands. To be successful in our endeavor for national safety, the interests of the American people must supercede party differences; we must be united as we were last September if we wish to protect the people of the United States. I applaud Senator Gramm and Senator Miller for their tireless efforts working toward a bipartisan substitute that truly provides the tools and capabilities needed by those entrusted with defending the people. It is high time that the Senate move forward on this legislation, following the lead of the other body, and respond to the call of the American people. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will support President Bush, allowing him the same flexibility given other presidents in times of war. Our quick and aggressive action regarding Homeland Security is imperative; we must grant the President the power, flexibility, and necessary resources to guide us through this continuing conflict. For as long as terrorism continues to be a worldwide scourge, threats to our national security should be met with the fullest and most aggressive response. I stand with the President in his concerted effort to root out this evil and to bring security to our Nation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the birth of a fine young lady, Emily Copeland Boettger. Emily is the first child of Scott and Sally Boettger, and was born on May 8, 2002. Scott and Sally live in Hailey, ID, and are active in natural resources and environmental issues in the State. Scott serves as the Executive Directory of the Wood River Land Trust, and Sally serves as the Director of Development of The Nature Conservancy in Idaho. I have spent time in the Boettger's home and enjoyed their expertise and experience in outdoor activities. I'm happy to report that mother, father, and baby are doing well, although Scott and Sally are probably getting used to fewer hours of sleep. Emily is the granddaughter of Cherry and William F. Gillespie, III, of Wilmington, DE, and Doug and Gail Boettger of Spring City, PA. I know they join with me in sending best wishes and welcome greetings to young Emily. It is always a joyous event to bring a new family member into the world. Emily has been much-anticipated and has held a place in the hearts of her parents and family for many months now as they have awaited her arrival. As the father of five myself, I know that Scott and Sally are in for a most remarkable, frustrating, rewarding, and exciting experience of their lives. Emily will make certain of that. Our best wishes go out to the Boetger family on this most auspicious occasion.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise in support of the efforts to address the serious and devastating impacts of fires that are currently raging throughout the West and to impress upon my colleagues the need for immediate action to reduce this threat in the future. I thank my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, for his tireless efforts to try to find a path forward on a collaborative basis and to build the consensus necessary to address this difficult issue. The Senator from New Mexico as well has been very closely involved in developing these proposals. I commend him for his efforts. As I begin, I offer my gratitude to the brave men and women who are fighting these fires. Wildland firefighting is a dangerous and exhausting job, and I can't thank them enough for their efforts. Already this year, 6.3 million acres have been burned, and this level of destruction puts us on pace to meet the catastrophic fire season of 2000, when 8.4 million acres burned, with more than a million of those acres in Idaho. Idaho has been relatively lucky this year. However, with outbreaks of Douglas fir beetles and mountain pine beetles throughout Idaho, it is clear we are poised for another dangerous fire season. Not all fire is bad. In fact, fire can be beneficial. However, many of the fires we face today are fueled by unnatural fuels and burn with an intensity and size that makes them undesirable in our natural ecology. Additionally, insect and disease outbreaks are often naturally occurring agents of change, yet some outbreaks are enhanced by our past actions and inactions and occur in scopes that are damaging and unnatural. As a result of the previous fire seasons, Congress acted with an immediate and bipartisan response. We came forward with funding and direction for a national fire plan. Yet, to date, this plan has not been implemented effectively enough to address the risks facing our communities. I do not think we should be pointing fingers or making excuses about why or how these fires occurred. We need to look forward and address the problem. We need to do so quickly. I do not want to see another million acres burning in Idaho next year. In his Healthy Forests Initiative, the President outlined actions that will effectively address the risk of catastrophic wildfires. In the Fiscal Year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill, our majority leader identified a way to effectively reduce the risks in the Black Hills National Forest. Clearly, we all want to protect our forests. Our forests are an important part of our heritage and have great impacts on local economies and recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors alike. They provide our drinking water and wildlife habitat. In short, healthy forests are vital to all Americans. The Forest Service has identified 70 million acres of Condition Class III lands. These lands are at catastrophic risk of wildfire and subject to insect and disease infestations, windthrow, and other health risks. It is important to address risks on these lands, but it must be noted that today we are not debating action in all of these areas. As I said, many of these threats are natural and we may choose to let them occur naturally. However, we must act--and act quickly--to protect our high value forest areas. We must act to protect homes, property, and livelihood, maintain the quality of our watersheds, and take steps to ensure that burned areas are quickly rehabilitated rather than face the dangerous risks of reburn. Again, the amendments we are discussing do not include the entire 196 million acre National Forest System or 74.5 million acres of condition class III areas, but instead address areas where we cannot allow endless delays. We do so without eliminating public recourse. There has also been speculation the language will do what Senator Daschle did and limit all appeals and judicial review. This is not true. Critics also contend the amendment suspends environmental laws. That is also false. The amendment requires that projects be consistent with the applicable forest plans or resource management plans. I can tell you from experience that these site-specific plans take years of work with widespread public involvement and compliance with all of our environmental laws. Protecting our environment and the opportunity for public involvement is a vital part of any actions on our public lands. Reducing the risk of fire is no exception. However, the imminent threat demands we act quickly and move past stalling tactics and countless delays. Damage to our environment from these fires is acute. The harm to local economies is felt in many ways. It is clear our forests have deteriorated to the point were active management is a necessity. I hope my colleagues recognize that and will support the efforts of member's whose goal is to protect their communities and environment. I encourage all of the Senators to vote against the cloture motion.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Crapo pertaining to the introduction of S. 2942 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the birth of a fine young lady, Emily Copeland Boettger. Emily is the first child of Scott and Sally Boettger, and was born on May 8, 2002. Scott and Sally live in Hailey, Idaho, and are active in natural resources and environmental issues in the state. Scott serves as the Executive Directory of the Wood River Land Trust, and Sally serves as the Director of Development of The Nature Conservancy in Idaho. I have spent time in the Boettger's home and enjoyed their expertise and experience in outdoor activities. I'm happy to report that mother, father, and baby are doing well, although Scott and Sally are probably getting used to fewer hours of sleep. Emily is the granddaughter of Cherry and William F. Gillespie, III, of Wilmington, DE, and Doug and Gail Boettger of Spring City, PA. I know they join with me in sending best wishes and welcome greetings to young Emily. It is always a joyous event to bring a new family member into the world. Emily has been much-anticipated and has held a place in the hearts of her parents and family for many months now as they have awaited her arrival. As the father of five myself, I know that Scott and Sally are in for a most remarkable, frustrating, rewarding, and exciting experience of their lives. Emily will make certain of that. Our best wishes go out to the Boettger family on this most auspicious occasion.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague, Senator Bob Smith, to introduce the Water Quality Investment Act of 2002. We are introducing this legislation to reinvigorate the debate on investing in our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure. When I became Chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Subcommittee, I began the long process of assessing the performance of our water and wastewater infrastructure statutes and exploring needed improvements to address outstanding problems. With the able partnership of Senator Smith, over the past 3 years, I convened many hearings and meeting with the stakeholders and agency officials to better understand how to address the problems of communities with unmet water and wastewater infrastructure needs. Earlier this year, Senator Smith and I joined with Senator Bob Graham and Senator Jim Jeffords to introduce S. 1961, the Water Investment Act. As introduced, this measure represented a strong and principled bipartisan measure. The major facets of the bill, heightened investment levels in our infrastructure, increased flexibility to states, and strong accountability by utilities, reflect the commonalities of need and recommendations by stakeholders, experts, and communities. I commend my colleagues for their hard work and the partnership we established in putting together a model bill, which was closely followed by our colleagues in the House of Representatives. I am proud of the overwhelming support that bill generated. As introduced, S. 1961 represented the collaboration and hard work of many who recognize that the goal of assisting communities should be our guiding principle. Too many communities are waiting for the assistance this bill will provide to see the legislation brought down by difficult, unnecessary proposals. While by no means perfect, I hoped the committee process would not turn this legislation into a vehicle for individual proposals and controversial concepts. Against my hope, S. 1961 started to unravel as some worked to undermine the compromise and the bipartisan nature of the legislation. As you are well aware, the markup for S. 1961 was contentious and divisive. It was unfortunate that S. 1961, which started out as a bipartisan effort between the four principals, ended up in partisan votes. Despite many warnings, some felt it necessary to bring this legislation down simply to advance narrow agendas. I have welcomed the opportunity to work again with committed stakeholders and others to craft this carefully-balanced measure. This new bill builds upon the foundations of S. 1961 as introduced and adds important refinements brought forward by the affected communities and stakeholders. It is a proposal that serves the critical needs of our nation's water and wastewater infrastructure in a cost-effective and responsible manner. I look forward to the Senate's consideration of a sound, balanced, and carefully-deliberated bill to address the water and wastewater needs of the Nation. I believe all of us share that goal and we should all rally around the Water Quality Investment Act as the means to achieve that goal.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague, Senator Bob Smith, to introduce the Water Quality Investment Act of 2002. We are introducing this legislation to reinvigorate the debate on investing in our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure. When I became Chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Subcommittee, I began the long process of assessing the performance of our water and wastewater infrastructure statutes and exploring needed improvements to address outstanding problems. With the able partnership of Senator Smith, over the past 3 years, I convened many hearings and meeting with the stakeholders and agency officials to better understand how to address the problems of communities with unmet water and wastewater infrastructure needs. Earlier this year, Senator Smith and I joined with Senator Bob Graham and Senator Jim Jeffords to introduce S. 1961, the Water Investment Act. As introduced, this measure represented a strong and principled bipartisan measure. The major facets of the bill, heightened investment levels in our infrastructure, increased flexibility to states, and strong accountability by utilities, reflect the commonalities of need and recommendations by stakeholders, experts, and communities. I commend my colleagues for their hard work and the partnership we established in putting together a model bill, which was closely followed by our colleagues in the House of Representatives. I am proud of the overwhelming support that bill generated. As introduced, S. 1961 represented the collaboration and hard work of many who recognize that the goal of assisting communities should be our guiding principle. Too many communities are waiting for the assistance this bill will provide to see the legislation brought down by difficult, unnecessary proposals. While by no means perfect, I hoped the committee process would not turn this legislation into a vehicle for individual proposals and controversial concepts. Against my hope, S. 1961 started to unravel as some worked to undermine the compromise and the bipartisan nature of the legislation. As you are well aware, the markup for S. 1961 was contentious and divisive. It was unfortunate that S. 1961, which started out as a bipartisan effort between the four principals, ended up in partisan votes. Despite many warnings, some felt it necessary to bring this legislation down simply to advance narrow agendas. I have welcomed the opportunity to work again with committed stakeholders and others to craft this carefully-balanced measure. This new bill builds upon the foundations of S. 1961 as introduced and adds important refinements brought forward by the affected communities and stakeholders. It is a proposal that serves the critical needs of our nation's water and wastewater infrastructure in a cost-effective and responsible manner. I look forward to the Senate's consideration of a sound, balanced, and carefully-deliberated bill to address the water and wastewater needs of the Nation. I believe all of us share that goal and we should all rally around the Water Quality Investment Act as the means to achieve that goal.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, with great pride, I commend National Public Radio and its Idaho affiliate, Boise State Radio, for their creative application of wind power technology. With unprecedented innovation, in what is believed to be the first public radio transmitter site to rely on the power of wind, Boise State Radio and National Public Radio have erected three state-of-the-art wind turbines in order to provide broadcast service to previously unreachable areas in southern Idaho and northeastern Nevada. In an age when just 3 percent of electricity in today's national mix comes from renewable sources, Boise State Radio and National Public Radio have committed to expanding their services while advancing the use of clean, efficient power sources. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that Idaho has the potential to generate over 8,000 megawatts of wind power, placing our State in a unique position to contribute significantly to domestic energy production. At the same time, it is clear that the overall economy is changing and that rural America is shouldering a great deal of this weight. The fact is, many of the jobs that have been lost over the last decade might never return. While continuing to support our traditional industries, we must also be creative in capitalizing on new opportunities for rural communities. By expanding communications and providing a new facet to the rural economic infrastructure, the generation of wind power serves not only to maintain our Nation's available resources, but also to advance economic opportunity in rural America. Recognizing Idaho's wind power potential and its benefits to our economies, National Public Radio and Boise State Radio are emerging as leaders in the advancement of environmentally efficient energy technology. This further serves as evidence that opportunities exist right at home to increase energy production that would boost our electricity supply and reduce dependence on foreign fuels, such as oil, which we import primarily from the Middle East. We need to make the best use of our domestic renewable energy resources to ensure a secure, reliable, and clean energy supply while improving the economies of rural Idaho and rural America. National Public Radio and Boise State Radio: On behalf of Idahoans and millions of Americans, I salute you.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce, along with Senator Conrad of North Dakota, legislation that would greatly enhance the use of telehealth technology to bring badly-needed health care services to rural and underserved areas throughout the country. This bill would allow for greater reimbursement for telehealth services under Medicare and calls for a valuable investment in the development of new and more advanced telehealth networks in underserved areas. Telehealth is the future of rural health care. Access to quality health care in rural areas is at a critical stage. Today, many ill and disabled people must drive hundreds of miles, often in bad weather on dangerous roads, just to receive the most basic of health care. Access to specialists is even more prohibitive. However, by using much of the same technologies that we use to communicate with our constituents from here in Washington, we can bring quality health care, and specialty care, to their local health care provider. I would like to thank Senator Conrad, who has been a longtime supporter of telehealth services, for joining me in introducing this important legislation. Our bill would allow a wide variety of health care practitioners to provide telehealth services under Medicare. One of the biggest challenges for rural practitioners is obtaining the resources and infrastructure to provide technologically advanced telehealth services. Our bill would also provide valuable resources for the development of new telehealth networks in rural and underserved areas. Technology in America is booming. We must embrace this technology as a cost-effective way to improve health care in rural and underserved areas. This legislation takes a large step in providing a modest investment toward the improvement of rural health care.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce, along with Senator Conrad of North Dakota, legislation that would greatly enhance the use of telehealth technology to bring badly-needed health care services to rural and underserved areas throughout the country. This bill would allow for greater reimbursement for telehealth services under Medicare and calls for a valuable investment in the development of new and more advanced telehealth networks in underserved areas. Telehealth is the future of rural health care. Access to quality health care in rural areas is at a critical stage. Today, many ill and disabled people must drive hundreds of miles, often in bad weather on dangerous roads, just to receive the most basic of health care. Access to specialists is even more prohibitive. However, by using much of the same technologies that we use to communicate with our constituents from here in Washington, we can bring quality health care, and specialty care, to their local health care provider. I would like to thank Senator Conrad, who has been a longtime supporter of telehealth services, for joining me in introducing this important legislation. Our bill would allow a wide variety of health care practitioners to provide telehealth services under Medicare. One of the biggest challenges for rural practitioners is obtaining the resources and infrastructure to provide technologically advanced telehealth services. Our bill would also provide valuable resources for the development of new telehealth networks in rural and underserved areas. Technology in America is booming. We must embrace this technology as a cost-effective way to improve health care in rural and underserved areas. This legislation takes a large step in providing a modest investment toward the improvement of rural health care.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I was unavailable to vote on the afternoon of July 10, and all of July 11, 12, 15 and 16 due to the death of my mother. Had I been able I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 169--``yea''; Rollcall No. 170--``yea''; Rollcall No. 171--``yea''; Rollcall No. 172--``yea''; Rollcall No. 173--``yea''; Rollcall No. 174--``yea''; Rollcall No. 175--``yea''; Rollcall No. 176--``yea''; Rollcall No. 177--``yea''.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his graciousness in yielding me this time. I rise today to add my voice and my strong, unequivocal support for Senate Joint Resolution 34, a resolution approving development of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, notwithstanding the disapproval of the Governor of Nevada. Before I get into my main remarks, I wish to talk a moment about my colleague from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, who, as a member of the Energy Committee in the Senate, has been tireless in his efforts to make certain that the procedural maneuvers and the substantive debate over this issue move forward expeditiously and that we address the issues that the law provides so we can make certain the Yucca Mountain facility is able to maneuver forward into the permitting process. As many of those who have debated today have already stated, this debate is not about whether to open the Yucca Mountain facility so much as it is about allowing the process of permitting to begin to take place. As my colleagues know, this is the required legislative procedure spelled out by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. In 1982, 20 years ago, Congress made the decision we should begin resolving this issue and set forth a series of legislative and other procedures that must be followed to assure that every question--that of national security, safety, of individual State rights, and all the other issues--were adequately addressed as we deal with this critical issue. Over those 20 years, the importance of dealing with this issue has grown. Now the issue of the role of nuclear power in the portfolio of America's energy policy and the manner in which we will resolve the handling of the spent nuclear fuel has become a national security issue, in my opinion. I come to this debate with a long history of working on this issue. The State of Idaho, which I have the honor to represent, hosts the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, NEEL, which currently stores a large volume of spent nuclear fuel and high level nuclear waste. The INEEL now has 56.5 percent by volume and 11 percent by weight of all spent nuclear fuel in the DOE complex. This spent nuclear fuel includes the Navy's spent nuclear fuel, the spent fuel and rubble from Three Mile Island and other commercial power plants, foreign research reactor fuel that is coming to the United States from other countries for nonproliferation reasons, and spent fuel from the dozens of reactors operated at the INEEL, Argonne-West, and other DOE facilities throughout the country. Under the Idaho Settlement Agreement, the Navy's spent nuclear fuel in Idaho must be some of the first fuel to go into Yucca Mountain. Defense high-level waste is the waste that resulted from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. At the INEEL, this high level waste is in granulated ``calcine'' form. DOE is currently deciding how this high level waste can be prepared and shipped to Yucca Mountain. In the past, DOE looked at turning this waste into glass logs in a vitrification plant as required by law, but Bechtel and DOE now hope they can make direct shipments of the calcine waste to Yucca Mountain using a standard package similar to that used for spent fuel. The INEEL also manages the DOE National Spent Nuclear Fuel program. This program performs the analysis and technology development to support inclusion of DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel in the repository license application. As Yucca opens, this program will play a larger role for DOE and the INEEL. Because of the history of the INEEL, located near my hometown of Idaho Falls, I have been involved in nuclear issues for many years. I visited Yucca Mountain and I have seen the dry, isolated location President Bush has recommended as the site for our Nation's permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Right now, across the Nation spent nuclear fuel is stored in temporary facilities near cities, homes, schools, rivers, lakes, and oceans. These temporary storage facilities were never intended for long-term storage, but they have become that because our Nation has bent over backwards to do all of the science needed to ensure permanent storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain can be done safely. After spending billions of dollars, our Nation's best scientists say nuclear waste can be stored safely at Yucca Mountain. No one can dispute the logic that it makes more sense for the environment, for national security, and for our Nation's energy policy to store spent nuclear fuel in one isolated location in the desert of Nevada instead of leaving it scattered across the country at over 130 temporary facilities. Some of the opponents of Yucca Mountain say we should not support S.J. Res. 34 and development of Yucca Mountain because we cannot safely transport this material. To these opponents I say we have safely sent thousands of shipments of nuclear waste across the country for decades. I know other speakers have already repeated this information before. But it is critical to reiterate that in this country we have seen 1.7 million miles of shipments conducted safely without a release of radioactivity. That is over 2,700 shipments. As the Senator from Alaska said earlier, in Europe where they have been doing this for two and a half decades, they have had over 70,000 tons of radioactive material safely transported. Compare that record to the risk that we would face if we do not transport it. For those in favor of stopping the development of Yucca Mountain, the issue of terrorism has been raised. If we have over 131 sites across this country where much of this material is not stored safely--in a remote underground facility--the risk of terrorism would rise. Even the risk from a hypothetical earthquake would be much greater at the 131 sites if they were left untreated or unresolved than at one central underground location that is safe, secure, and protected. Whether one is looking at the safety record of transportation or the risk of leaving these facilities with the stored nuclear fuel in them spread throughout the country in unsafe conditions, the conclusion must be that for our safety, for the environment, and for our national security, we must move toward one underground, safe depository. There is also an equity issue before the Senate. For decades, energy users across this country who have received their electricity from nuclear power have paid a surcharge on their energy bill to pay the Federal Government to dispose of this waste. The Federal Government faithfully collected these fees and assumed the responsibility under law for developing a nuclear repository. Now after collecting these fees and doing the necessary science, the Federal Government has an obligation to provide for the permanent disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Development of the repository at Yucca Mountain will greatly enhance our Nation's energy balance by demonstrating that we can dispose of nuclear waste created by nuclear power. Today, with our dependence on foreign oil for so much of our energy supply, it is critical we broaden our energy portfolio in this country. When one looks at the amount of money we pay to nations such as Iraq for oil, when we could expand our reliance on other sources of energy, including nuclear power, one has to recognize the national security implications of this vote today. Nuclear power should play a greater role in our Nation's energy portfolio. A path forward for spent nuclear fuel will remove one bottleneck in the nuclear energy fuel cycle. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, if Congress does not approve this resolution, the Yucca Mountain project cannot go forward. There will not be a nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste in 39 States across this country will stay where it is. I ask my colleagues, Are we going to vote today to leave spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste in New York, Vermont, Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, Connecticut, Washington, Idaho, and the many other States in which it is now located or are we going to move forward with a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel that makes sense for this Nation and the environment? I urge strongly my colleagues to vote in favor of S.J. Res. 34. I yield the floor.