Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize February as American Heart Month. As its sponsoring organization, the American Heart Association (AHA) plays a major role in advocacy at both the national and local levels through activities to increase public awareness of health concerns. Their messages this month is ``Be an American Heartsaver! Know the warning signs of heart attack. Call 9-1- 1. Give CPR.'' These three simple steps are aimed at reducing the number of lives lost every day--nearly 700--because the victims were unable to reach a hospital in time. The harsh fact is that cardiovascular diseases are the number one killer of men and women. In 1997, 34 percent of deaths from cardiovascular disease occurred prematurely, before the victims reached age 75. In total, more than 953,000 deaths were due to cardiovascular disease in 1997; 47 percent of those victims were women and 53 percent men. During American Heart Month, thousands of AHA volunteers across the country canvass neighborhoods to raise funds and provide educational information about cardiovascular diseases and stroke. This is where the AHA makes its mark through its steadfast pursuit to reduce disability and death from cardiovascular diseases and stroke. By educating the American public about the early warnings signs of heart attacks and stroke, the members and volunteers of the AHA know that individuals will be better prepared to save themselves--and others around them. The AHA has produced educational kits for Americans of all ages. Accordingly to the AHA, helping children understand the early warning signs of heart problems can have a tremendous impact when their family is concerned. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation classes provide Americans, regardless of their age, with the tools to assist in cardiac emergencies. With the many advances medical science has experienced, the list of measures we can take in prevention of cardiovascular disease continues to grow. Controlling high blood pressure and cholesterol, becoming active through regular exercise, and stopping smoking are some of the easiest steps to reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. The AHA has emphasized these measures in the hopes of reducing cardiovascular disease, stroke, and the risk of these diseases by 25 percent over the next eight years. In addition, the AHA runs an Active Partnership program for cardiac patients to help them take responsibility for reducing their cardiovascular risks in the future. My state of Minnesota has long been on the frontline of health care and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released last week indicated Minnesota as having the lowest occurrence of cardiovascular disease among women nationwide. We must continue to reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular disease in Minnesota, but the study suggests we are already heading in the right direction. As American Heart Month comes to a close, I commend the American Heart Association and its army of volunteers for putting their hearts to work to see that the hearts of others continue to beat a little bit longer and a little bit stronger. They join a long list of health care- related organizations, professionals, and industries making Minnesota a healthier place to live.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Boy Scouts of America on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of its founding. From its beginning in 1911, the Boy Scouts has grown in size to more than five million active members in 1999. In the 90 years since its origination, the Boy Scouts has influenced more than 100 million boys, young men, and women. Minnesota scouting officials estimate that in my home state, more than 100,000 young people participate in the program today. Using goal setting and team building, Boy Scouts develop skills to overcome obstacles through trial and error. Whether earning their next merit badge or learning how to properly interact with the environment, Boy Scouts are able to translate what they have learned through the program into their families, churches, and communities. Let me also take a moment to commend the almost 500,000 adult volunteers, including 24,000 Minnesotans, who serve as leaders for the Boy Scouts. Both men and women serve the Boy Scouts in various capacities ranging from unit leaders to merit badge counselors. The Boy Scouts of America would certainly not be possible if it were not for the efforts of these stalwart volunteers. Although times have changed, fads come and go, the Boy Scouts continue to be an effective tool in training our nation's youth. Through the Scouts' core values of helping other people at all times and keeping themselves physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight, scouts impact our communities in many ways. Students who have been through the Boy Scout program and have adopted these values as their own are needed now more than ever before. Over the years, the Boy Scouts have produced many of the country's most respected civic, professional, and community leaders. Right here in the Senate, 66 of my fellow colleagues have served as a scout, a leader, or in some cases, both. With all that the Boy Scouts have done for our country, I hope its next 90 years will be as productive as these first 90 have been. On this 90th anniversary of the founding of the Boy Scouts of America, I wish my very best to the Boy Scouts, not only in Minnesota, but to Scouts across our great Nation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to those men and women who have made the world we live in a better place through advances in engineering. Since 1951, the week that includes George Washington's birthday has been dedicated as National Engineers Week (EWeek) to increase public awareness and appreciation of the engineering profession and technology. Our first president began his career with agricultural, military, and land surveying skills leading to his later recognition as the nation's ``first engineer.'' Last year's EWeek summit on ``The Business of Diversity'' gathered more than 100 business, government, and engineering leaders in Washington to find ways to increase the number of women and minorities in today's engineering workforce. This year, February 20-26 will be filed with activities designed by engineers for future engineers. Through national and local activities, students, women, and minorities are the focus of a campaign designed to interest them in a future in engineering. ``Discover E'' is a program in which engineers visit K-12 classrooms to answer questions and interact with students in designing and building small projects. The Future City Competition is for seventh and eight grade students, and the National Engineering Design Challenge is a high school program involving teams of students, teachers, and engineer mentors. All of these activities are geared toward introducing students in an interactive, hands-on way to engineering basics and open their eyes to the engineering inventions that are part of their daily lives. Hundreds of 3M engineers in Minneapolis/St. Paul and throughout the country will visit local schools. In Minneapolis, 3M is organizing a reception involving some of the minority engineering student groups at the University of Minnesota and other local colleges. There, 3M engineers will talk about career planning and other experiences. Also in Minneapolis, The Works, a museum for the entire family, makes learning about technology interesting, understandable, and fun. The Works was created in 1995 with many hands-on, minds-on exhibits about technology centered on kids ages 5-15. Schools have traditionally focused their teachings on the body of scientific knowledge, oftentimes neglecting the process of discovery that engineers use to help create new advances for our modern world. With the support of sponsors like 3M and NASA, programs during EWeek integrate this process of discovery and the use of technology into mathematics, science, language arts, and other topics. I am a strong supporter of exposing our children to the world around them and hope this awareness will get them involved and spark their interest in the future of engineering. EWeek also recognizes the countless engineers who have influenced nearly every aspect of our lives as a result of their dedicated work and the numerous technological advances they inspired. These contributions were honored at a luncheon in Washington on February 22 naming the 20 Greatest Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century. The winners were chosen for their impact on the quality of life in the 20th Century, and range from the harnessing of electricity to computer, telephones, and even air conditioning. These are just a few of the many events planned across America this week to urge today's youth from all backgrounds to consider a career in engineering. As someone who, early in my career, worked for an engineering firm, I appreciate this effort tremendously. I wish to send out my thanks to everyone who helps make the EWeek events possible, and the field of engineering exciting and entertaining.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on passage of H.R. 1883 occur at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 24.

Mr. GRAMS. In light of this agreement, there will be no rollcall votes today.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man who spent the first 36 years of his life as a Minnesotan, an artist who through his work--and his work ethic--illustrated the values cherished by the people of my state, and the dreams, ambitions, and even aggravations of nearly everybody else. Today, I pay tribute to Charles M. Schulz. The ``Peanuts'' comic strip that ran in newspapers worldwide on February 13 was meant as a good-bye from the cartoonist to his creation and a thank-you to its legions of fans. Instead, it turned out to be a fitting farewell to the cartoonist himself when Charles Schulz passed away the day before its publication. Mr. President, I regret that I never had the privilege of meeting Charles Schulz, but I felt like I knew him anyway. That is a sentiment the artist understood. ``If you want to know me, ready my comic strip,'' he would say to inquiring journalists. So, the journalists did, along with much of the rest of the planet. At its peak popularity, ``Peanuts'' was published in more than 2,600 newspapers in 20 languages in 75 countries, and had 350 million daily readers. The artist's observations on life from a child's point of view were internationally acclaimed. Charles Schulz twice won comic art's highest honor. He was named International Cartoonist of the Year. Adaptations of his work garnered Emmy and Tonay Awards, even the prestigious Peabody Award. Today, Charlie Brown and his companions can be found everywhere * * * populating Camp Snoopy at the Mall of America, starring in books, TV shows, movies, and on the Broadway stage, and gracing everything from pencils and backpacks to sheets, shoelaces, and greeting cards. All this from a private man who was most content in letting has art speak for itself. Charles Schulz was quite simply the best, most honored, and most beloved cartoonist of the entire 20th century. Success, however, never diminished the enthusiasm he brought to his work or his passion for doing it right; up until the day he retired, he insisted on drawing, lettering, and coloring every frame of every cartoon panel himself. ``Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems?'' he once asked. ``The do it because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they did not. That is why I draw cartoons.'' What most ``Peanuts'' fans--at least those outside of Minnesota-- probably do not know is how Charles Schulz came to be a cartoonist. Well, that story begins in the Twin Cities. Charles Monroe Schulz was born in Minneapolis on November 26, 1922, although he spent the majority of his youth across the river in St. Paul. An only child, he grew up in an apartment on the corner of Selby and Snelling Avenues, above the Family Barbershop owned and operated by his father. Charles Schulz went by the nickname ``Sparky,'' a tribute from his comic-loving father to another popular comic strip character of the day. The young boy's interest in cartooning first took hold about the time Charles was six, and was spurred after his graduation from St. Paul Central High by a correspondence course ad that read ``Do you like to draw?'' His parents paid the $170 tuition in installments, although they may have questioned their investment when the class on drawing children netted Charles a grade of just C-plus. After serving as an army tailgunner in Europe, Charles Schulz returned to Minnesota and earned his first paycheck as a cartoonist by working on a Catholic magazine feature. He also taught art, and sold 15 cartoons to the Saturday Evening Post. He created his first feature for the St. Paul Pioneer Press in 1947. ``L'il Folks'' was brought in 1950 by United Feature Syndicate, christened with a new name, and Charlie Brown and ``Peanuts'' debuted on October 2 in seven newspapers. Two days later, Snoopy was introduced to the world. A phenomenon was born. More than a few books, college theses, and critical essays have tried to dissect the popularity of ``Peanuts.'' Maybe Charles Schultz himself had the best answer when in a 1994 speech he said, ``There is still a market for things that are clean and decent.'' I have always thought that the ``Peanuts'' gang endured because the characters were so strongly developed and so genuine that we saw something we could identify with in each of them. Snoopy was the dreamer, persistently stradding his doghouse in pursuit of the Red Baron. Lucy, dispensing nickel douses of pop psychology, took great pride in her crabbiness. Woodstock was the accident prone one. Peppermint Patty struggled in the classroom, but never struggled on the baseball field. Linus made it all right for us to need a security blanket from time to time. Sally, the loveable younger sister, wanted to believe in Santa Claus and the Great Pumpkin. Schroeder was the unapologetic artist who loved his music. Pig Pen* * * well, I think we all know a Pig Pen. And Charlie Brown, ``the little round-headed kid,'' was Everyman. We relate to him because at some point in our lives, we all pined for a little red-haired girl * * * were menaced by a kite-Eating Tree * * * and faced down a football we were certain would be snatched away at the last moment. Charle Brown's perpetually upbeat search for happiness was our search, too. ``As a youngster, I didn't realize how many Charlie Browns there were in the world.'' Charles Schulz said. ``I thought I was the only one. Now I realize that Charlie Brown's goofs are familiar to everybody, children and adults alike.'' No wonder he considered Charlie Brown his alter ago. ``There is a lot of myself in his character, too,'' he said. In his art, Charles Schulz could be tender, insightful, sometimes sarcastic, heartbreaking, hilarious, and occasionally sentimental. Always, his work was centered in a deep spirituality. Though it occasionally drove his fans mad, there was a practical reason why his comics were frequently tinged with pathos. In his 1980 book, ``Charlie Brown, Snoopy and Me,'' the artist wrote, ``You can't create humor out of happiness. I'm astonished at the number of people who write to me saying, `Why can't you create happy stories for us? Why does Charlie Brown always have to lose? Why can't you let him kick the football?' Well, there is nothing funny about the person who gets to kick the football.'' Mr. President, I am proud to co-sponsor legislation offered by my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, to award Charles Schulz the Congressional Gold Medal. I am pleased our colleagues in the House have already adopted this resolution. While I wish we had accorded the cartoonist this great honor in his lifetime, I know that Charles Schulz did not need the endorsement of this Congress to be fulfilled in his work, for how can a congressional honor compare with the love shown to him by his millions of faithful fans? Minnesotans have always considered Charles Schulz one of us, even though he eventually moved to Santa Rosa, California, where he made his home with his wife Jeannie. He was blessed with five children, two stepchildren, and several grandchildren, and our prayers are with them all. Mr. President, Charles Schulz fretted that his work as a cartoonist would never be considered great art and would certainly not stand the test of time. With all due respect to the cartoonist I honor today, my two-word response to that is ``Good grief!'' Charlie Brown will undoubtedly live on long after the rest of us are forgotten. And that, I would argue, is exactly the way things are supposed to be.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Medical Errors: Administrative Response and Other Perspectives during the session of the Senate on Tuesday February 22, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 22, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to hold two hearings.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, February 22, 2000, at 3:00 p.m., in SD226.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 22, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 22 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and the Subcommittee on International Trade of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 22, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. to hear testimony regarding U.S. Assistance Options for the Andes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for such time as I may consume despite the order.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take some time today to express my outrage with the way the federal government has handled its responsibility to remove and store nuclear waste from 41 states across the country and to outline my thoughts on the bill before us. I'm also going to speak about my expectations for the future of nuclear energy and the future of nuclear waste storage in the State of Minnesota. First, I hope the Senate will indulge me while I review the process that has brought all of us here today. As everyone in this chamber knows, Washington's involvement in nuclear power isn't new. Since the 1950's ``Atoms for Peace'' program, the federal government has promoted nuclear energy, in part, by promising to remove radioactive waste from power plants. Congress decisively committed the federal government to take and dispose of civilian radioactive waste beginning in 1998 through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and its amendments in 1987. This is nothing new. Eighteen years ago Congress decided that the Federal Government was going to take this waste beginning in 1998, and also by amendments in 1987 reestablish those facts. These acts established the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to conduct the program, selected Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the site to assess for the permanent disposal facility, established fees of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour on nuclear-generated electricity--and provided that these fees would be deposited in the Nuclear Waste Fund. Furthermore, it authorized appropriations from this fund for a number of activities, including development of a nuclear waste repository. Eventually, publication of the Standard Contract addressed how radioactive waste would be taken, stored, and disposed of. The DOE then signed individual contracts with all civilian nuclear utilities promising to take and dispose of civilian high-level waste beginning January 31, 1998--over two years ago. Other administrative proceedings, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, told the American public that they should literally bank on the federal government's promise. In other words, take this promise to the bank. I think this point needs to be clearly understood by the Members of this body. Our nation's nuclear utilities didn't go out and invest in nuclear power in spite of federal government warnings of future difficulties. Instead, they were encouraged by the federal government to turn to nuclear power to meet increasing energy demands. Utilities and states were told to move forward with investments in nuclear technologies because it's a sound source of energy production. And the federal government's support for nuclear power was based on some very sound considerations. First, nuclear power is environmentally friendly. Nothing is burned in a nuclear reactor, so there are no emissions in the atmosphere. In fact, nuclear energy is responsible for over 90 percent of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that have come out of the energy industry since 1973. Between 1973 and 1996, nuclear power accounted for emissions reductions of 34.6 million tons of nitrogen oxide and another 80.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide. Second, nuclear power is a reliable base load source of power. Families, farmers, businesses, and individuals who are served by nuclear power are served by one of the most reliable sources of electricity. Third, nuclear energy is a homegrown technology, and the United States led the way in its development. We have long been the world leader in nuclear technology and continue to be the largest nuclear- producing country in the world. Using nuclear power increases our energy security. Finally, much of the world recognizes those same values and promotes the use of nuclear power because of its reliability, its environmental benefits, and its value to energy independence. Because of those reasons, the Federal Government threw one more bone to our Nation's utilities. It said if you build nuclear power, we will take care of your nuclear waste, we will build a repository, and we will take it out of your State. In response to those promises--again, those promises the Federal Government said you can take to the bank--over 30 States took the Federal Government at its word and allowed civilian nuclear energy production to move forward. As I mentioned earlier, ratepayers agreed to share some of the responsibilities but again were promised some things in return. They agreed to pay a fee, attached to their energy bill, to pay for the proper handling of the spent nuclear fuel, in exchange for assurances that the Federal Government meet its responsibility to manage any waste storage challenge. Again, contracts were made, contracts were signed. Because of these procedures and measures taken by the Federal Government, ratepayers have now paid over $15 billion, including interest, into the nuclear waste fund. Today these payments continue, exceeding $1 billion dollars annually, or about $70,000 for every hour of every day of the year. In summary, the Federal Government promoted nuclear power, utilities agreed to invest in nuclear power, States agreed to host nuclear powerplants, and ratepayers assumed the responsibility of investing in long-term storage of nuclear waste. Still, nuclear waste is stranded on the banks of the Mississippi River in Minnesota and on countless other sites across the country because the Department of Energy has a very short-term memory, and this administration has virtually no sense of responsibility. We can all argue all day long on the floor of this Chamber on the merit of nuclear power, but we cannot stand here today and deny that the Federal Government promoted nuclear power and promised to take care of nuclear waste and that there is nuclear waste piled up around the country. The Clinton administration, however, would have you believe that they do not have a responsibility to deal with nuclear power. I have been working with Senator Murkowski and many other Members over the roughly 5 years I have been in the Senate to establish an interim repository for nuclear waste and to be able to move forward with the development of a permanent repository. We have brought a bill to the floor that accomplishes those objectives in each of the past two Congresses. Each time, we passed the bill in both the House and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Just over 2 years ago, we passed by a vote of 65-34 a bill that would have removed nuclear waste from States, and the House passed the bill with 307 supporters--a veto-proof majority in the House. We have had extensive debate with the opportunity for anyone to offer amendments. We have thoroughly addressed most issues related to nuclear waste storage, including the transportation of waste across the United States. Yet every time we have passed a bill that fulfills the Federal Government's commitments, President Clinton has issued his veto threat and he has stopped our efforts in their tracks. After years of trying to establish an interim storage site, we are now left with only the ability to make some smaller changes to the nuclear waste program and condition the date for removal of waste on the authorization for construction of the permanent repository. I want to tell my colleagues that I am not overly joyous about the bill before the Senate today. In fact, I don't think this bill does enough. But I don't blame those who support the bill for what the bill does not do, and neither should anyone else across the Nation or anyone here in Congress. If anyone is at fault for the lack of a definite action and definitive action on this issue, it is the Clinton administration. As my colleagues are very well aware, my main concerns with the nuclear waste storage issue have centered on two major issues. First, the ratepayers of Minnesota have paid countless millions into the nuclear waste fund, and they expect nuclear waste to leave Minnesota at a reasonable date. More specifically, Minnesota ratepayers expect nuclear waste to leave our State no later than beginning on January 31, 1998. We all know that it didn't, and we all have known it won't be leaving anytime soon no matter what we do this week in the Senate. Second, because the State of Minnesota recognized in the early 1990s the Federal Government would not meet its obligation to remove spent nuclear fuel from the State by January 1998, it placed a limit on the amount of onsite waste storage at Northern States Power Company's Prairie Island Facility. Northern States Power agreed to that limit. But it now appears the State-imposed limit for this onsite storage will be reached sometime in the year 2007, and then two nuclear reactors that produced 20 percent of Minnesota's electricity will be forced to shut down. At a time when we are trying to reduce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and other emissions across the country, Minnesota will be losing 20 percent of its emissions-free electricity generation, and it will be replaced with fossil fuels. The loss of those two reactors also means increased costs to ratepayers, as Minnesotans will continue to pay in their rates for the operation of the nuclear facility even after it is shut down. Security will be needed, people will have to remain onsite to monitor both the waste in casks and the spent rods and the storage pool. Water systems will have to remain working, as will any emergency response teams. In fact, the costs of operations may not reduce much at all. The ratepayers will pay the bill and they will get nothing for it. So there are some big problems that need to be addressed in my State, and it will require the participation and also the leadership of the Federal Government. While this bill does not immediately fix either of these concerns, it does make some progress that I believe is important to move forward. First, while this legislation doesn't move waste from Minnesota or any other State on a specific date, it does advance the removal date by allowing the construction of an early acceptance facility upon approval of construction for the permanent repository. Right now, that would mean sometime in late 2006 or sometime early 2007. Under the current situation, we won't move waste until the permanent repository is built and operating--and no one is quite sure when that will be. We thought we had a date certain for the removal of waste-- again, going back to the old contracts, bills passed in 1982, that it would begin no later than January 31, 1998. Again, the Department of Energy ignored it as if it didn't exist, that the contracts they signed didn't matter, and had no bearings. They continue to do the same yet today. This bill tries to establish a reasonable threshold for the construction of an early receipt facility. I think that is something that is achievable. The bill protects ratepayers by requiring that only Congress can undertake actions which would raise the fee paid by energy consumers into the nuclear waste fund. The Secretary of Energy will not be able to act unilaterally to raise that rate. He says he would like to take control, or take title to the nuclear waste, and they would pay for the facility and all the storage. But the only way they would do that is to go back to the ratepayers, or the taxpayers, for more money to take care of a problem they have ignored. Third, this bill will put in place transportation provisions for nuclear waste that are similar to those now in the place for the transport of low-level waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico. Fourth, this bill tries to establish a mechanism by which we can avoid unreachable regulations governing the radiation standard for the permanent repository. The EPA should not be allowed to unilaterally set an unreasonable radiation standard aimed solely at ensuring the permanent repository is never built. The radiation standard should protect long-term human health and should be based on the best science available--but it should not be a bullet aimed at the heart of the permanent repository. Fifth, this bill addresses the problems just across the Minnesota border with Dairyland Power Cooperative. They have been requesting and needing some relief from their specific problem and have tremendous support in Minnesota. In fact, the Minnesota Rural Electric Association strongly supports this bill for that very reason. Sixth, I believe this bill is a step forward for nuclear power. There are provisions in the bill that allow for additional research into the transmutation of nuclear waste and the viability of reprocessing. Senator Domenici and I traveled to France and examined their waste program and reprocessing facilities. France has taken our technology and used it to create an amazingly integrated and well planned program that allows them to derive over 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear power. For them, our fascination with nuclear waste is perplexing. They can deal with their waste. I stood on the floor under which all of their nuclear waste is now stored. We need to take another look at how we think about both nuclear power and nuclear waste storage and this bill allows for that to happen. Seventh, this bill does not include everything I believe it should. I have tried to address the situation with Northern States Power but right now we do not have a perfect answer. I believe keeping Prairie Island open and operating will require the cooperation of NSP, the Secretary of Energy, the States of Minnesota, and those of us in Congress. I will be pushing Secretary Richardson to come to Minnesota to sit down with the state legislature, the Governor's Office, NSP, and me to see if we can find some common ground. I have also received the assurance of Senator Murkowski that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will not forget about Minnesota and that he will continue to work with me on this important matter as well. I am also pleased that Senator Murkowski agreed to include some language I proposed which will aid in the process of addressing Minnesota's situation. My language has two specific components which will aid decisionmakers in Washington and in Minnesota throughout the coming months and years. The first part of my language requires the DOE to report on all alternatives available to NSP and the Federal Government which would allow NSP to operate the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant until the end of the term of its current NRC licenses, assuming existing State and Federal laws remain unchanged. I want to get the DOE engaged in discussions and cooperation with the State of Minnesota and NSP on this matter. Unfortunately, I have not seen a willingness within federal agencies to work with the State of Minnesota and NSP on what options might exist that would facilitate a resolution of this dispute. I want to get everyone working together on this problem now, not 6 years from now when a shutdown is imminent. Additionally, my language will require the General Accounting Office to issue a report on the potential economic impacts to Minnesota ratepayers should the Prairie Island facility cease operations once it has met its state imposed storage limitation--including the costs of new generation, decommissioning costs, and the costs of continued operation of on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel storage. I am hopeful this information will give both policymakers and ratepayers a clearer indication of exactly what a shutdown of the facility means not only to the reliability of their electric service, but to the checkbooks of Minnesota families as well. Finally, I believe it was vitally important that we removed the take title provision from this legislation. I do not believe we should give the DOE any further opportunities to leave waste where it now sits. Allowing the DOE to take title to waste is a dangerous proposition for ratepayers. I was proud to join Senators Collins, Snowe, and Jeffords in offering the amendment to delete the take title provision and I am grateful Senator Murkowski deleted the take title provision from the manager's amendment as well. While these components will certainly be helpful to my State, I know there will be some in Minnesota who'll want me to oppose this bill because it does not go far enough. But I do not believe I would be serving the interests of my constituents by voting against a good bill that might help Minnesota ratepayers because of what is not in it. I should not vote against a good bill because it is not a perfect bill. And I cannot vote against a bill that might move waste out of Minnesota sooner than under current conditions, because it does not move waste out as soon as I would like. I intend to vote in support of this bill because I believe it is an important bill. I intend to vote for the bill because I want to remain part of this process and because I do not believe Minnesota can withdraw itself from this debate. And I intend to vote for this bill because I believe this is part of a process in restoring government accountability in the nuclear waste debate. I may be back asking for more or looking for other opportunities to help my State and my State's ratepayers. I do not consider this matter closed either in Minnesota or in Washington, DC. I want to take just a moment to thank Senator Murkowski for his willingness to work with me and to continue to explore ways in which we can help my State. His staff have remained open to our concerns and willing to work with my staff. They have been honest about what they cannot do--and I appreciate that as well. I also want to issue a warning and a challenge to my colleagues in the Senate. Let us not assume that this is a great victory for ratepayers or for our States. This legislation does not fulfill the Federal Government's commitment to remove nuclear waste. Regrettably, this bill is but a shell of the bills we have passed with bipartisan support in each of the last two Congresses. So we should not go home and tell our constituents that this matter is resolved or that our work here is finished. I am a little biased, but I hope we have a totally new direction in the White House after next year. I hope that translates into a willingness to engage Congress and the States on nuclear waste issues rather than the protracted effort to ignore Congress and the States that this administration has relied upon. I believe we are going to have that new direction and I am going to be back asking that administration to move forward immediately on interim storage. If this administration is unwilling to provide the American people with the services for which they have paid, I hope and expect they will make sure the next administration will do that and live up to the promises it made. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Probably less than 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Somewhere around there; maybe 12. I am just guessing.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to express my support for an amendment I was planning to offer, along with Senators Snowe, Collins, and Jeffords, to strike the so-called take title provision from S. 1287. I thank Chairman Murkowski for including this in his substitute. We are withholding offering that amendment. For as long as I have been in the Senate, I have argued that the Department of Energy has a legal responsibility to remove nuclear waste from my home State of Minnesota. We all know the DOE was obligated to begin removing waste from civilian nuclear reactors by January 31, 1998. Sadly, the DOE virtually ignored that date and instead has engaged in a protracted struggle to dodge any responsibility it might have to our Nation's ratepayers. As everyone in this Chamber knows, Washington's involvement in nuclear power is not new. Since the 1950s Atoms for Peace Program, the Federal Government has promoted nuclear energy in part by promising to remove radioactive waste from powerplants. Congress decisively committed the Federal Government to take and dispose of civilian radioactive waste beginning in 1998 through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and its amendments in 1987. It has been on record for 18 years, a mandate by the Congress, to do this. These acts established the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to conduct that program. It selected Yucca Mountain, NV, as the site to assess for the permanent disposal facility. It also established fees of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour on nuclear- generated electricity, and it provided that those fees would be deposited into the nuclear waste fund. Furthermore, it authorized appropriations from this fund for a number of activities, including development of a nuclear waste repository. Eventually, publication of the standard contract addressed how radioactive waste would be taken, stored, and disposed. The DOE then signed individual contracts with all civilian nuclear utilities promising to take and dispose of civilian high-level waste beginning on January 31, 1998. The DOE signed contracts to do this. Other administrative proceedings, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's waste confidence rule, told the American public they should literally bank on the Federal Government's promises. This point needs to be clearly understood by the Members of this body. Our Nation's nuclear utilities did not go out and invest in nuclear power in spite of Federal Government warnings of future difficulties. Instead, they were encouraged by the Federal Government to turn to nuclear power to meet our increasing energy demands. Utilities and States were told to move forward with investments in nuclear technologies because it is a sound source of energy production, and the Federal Government's support for nuclear power was based on some very sound considerations. First, nuclear power is environmentally friendly. Nothing is burned in a nuclear reactor, so there are no emissions released in the atmosphere. In fact, nuclear energy is responsible for over 90 percent of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that have come out of the energy industry since 1973. Between 1973 and 1996, nuclear power accounted for emissions reductions of 34.6 million tons of nitrogen oxide and 80.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide. Second, nuclear power is a reliable baseload source of power. Families, farmers, businesses, and individuals who are served by nuclear power are served by one of the most reliable sources of electricity. Third, nuclear energy is a home-grown technology, and the United States led the way in its development. We have long been the world leader in nuclear technology and continue to be the world's largest nuclear-producing country. Using nuclear power increases our energy security. Finally, much of the world recognizes those same values and promotes the use of nuclear power, again, because of its reliability, because of its environmental benefits, and its value to energy independence. For those reasons, the Federal Government threw one more bone to our Nation's utilities. It said: If you build nuclear power, we will take care of your nuclear waste, we will build a repository, and we will take it out of your State. Again, they told the public: You can bank on those promises by the Federal Government. In response to those promises, States across the country took the Federal Government at its word. It allowed civilian nuclear energy production to move forward. As we all know, ratepayers agreed to share some of the responsibilities but were promised some things in return. They agreed to pay a fee attached to their energy bill in exchange for an assurance that the Federal Government meet its responsibility to manage any waste storage facilities. Because of those promises and measures taken by the Federal Government, ratepayers have now paid roughly $16 billion, including interest, into the nuclear waste fund. Today, these payments continue, exceeding $600 million annually or about $70,000 for every hour for every day of the year. For the ratepayers of Minnesota, these contributions have claimed over $300 million of their hard-earned money since the creation of the nuclear waste fund. In summary, the Federal Government promoted nuclear power, utilities agreed to invest in nuclear power, States agreed to host nuclear powerplants, and the ratepayers assumed the responsibility of investing into the long-term storage of nuclear waste. Still nuclear waste is stranded on the banks of the Mississippi River in Minnesota and on countless other sites across the country because the Department of Energy has a very short-term memory and this administration has virtually no sense of responsibility-- --let me say that again--because the Department of Energy has a very short-term memory and this administration has virtually no sense of responsibility. Now we can all argue all day long on the floor of this Chamber on the merits of nuclear power. But we cannot stand here on the Senate floor and deny that the Federal Government promoted nuclear power and that the Federal Government promised to take care of nuclear waste. Taking title to the waste does not fulfill that promise. Unfortunately, if the DOE is allowed to take title to nuclear waste at the plant site, I can't provide the ratepayers of my State with any reason to believe the waste will eventually be moved. Allowing the DOE to take title to waste and to leave it at the reactor site is an invitation to even more ratepayer abuse at the hands of the Department of Energy. I think the record of the DOE has shown that this administration would much rather leave waste where it is than move it to a centralized storage facility. A number of my colleagues in the Senate have suggested the same thing. I don't believe that is a good policy, nor is it the policy in which the ratepayers of Minnesota have so generously invested--again, not only in Minnesota but across this country. I met yesterday with Minnesota's Commerce Commissioner, Steve Minn. He made it very clear to me that for States, the most objectionable aspect of this bill is the take title provision. He indicated that the provision is viewed with extreme skepticism by the State of Minnesota. I understand why. I know Senator Murkowski has read from the letter the Governors, along with Governor Ventura of Minnesota, have written and sent to President Clinton dealing with this problem. It says: We governors from states hosting commercial nuclear power plants and from affected states express our opposition to the plan proposed by Energy Secretary Richardson in his February 1999 testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Secretary Richardson proposes that the Department of Energy take title, assume management responsibility and pay costs at nuclear plant sites for used nuclear fuel it was legally and contractually obligated to begin removing in January 1998. The Department of Energy says: Oh, we'll pay for it. But where are they going to get the money? They are going to take it from the ratepayers or the taxpayers. So basically this is a punt by the Department of Energy--again, not committed to those contracts that it signed with all the States. This proposed plan would create semi-permanent, federally controlled, used nuclear fuel facilities in each of our states. This letter states some of the objections by the Governors: This plan abridges states rights--it constitutes federal takings and establishes new nuclear waste facilities outside of state authority and control. The Governors went on to say, in their objection to the take title provision offered by Secretary Richardson of the Department of Energy: The new waste facilities would likely become de facto permanent disposal sites [some 100 sites across the country]. Federal action over the last 50 years has not been able to solve the political problems associated with developing disposal for used nuclear fuel. Establishing these federal sites will remove the political motivation to complete a final disposal site. The Governors across the states that are affected are very concerned. Again, I understand why. Quite reasonably, States don't want to see the Federal Government take up permanent residence at these waste sites. It is the nuclear waste equivalent to having the fox guard the hen house. Allowing the Federal Government control of waste sites removes a State's oversight role. It removes the State's authority and control over these sites and it does not--I underline that--it does not remove waste from Minnesota or any other State. In closing, I ask my colleagues to listen to the Governors of our States and to vote to remove the take title provision from this legislation, in other words, support Chairman Murkowski's substitute. With this bill, we need to lock in transportation provisions, protect the ratepayers from increases in their contribution, facilitate a constructive resolution to the radiation standard dispute, and also advance the goal of completing a national repository for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. We do not need to provide the DOE with an excuse to leave waste stranded permanently in Minnesota and across the country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on February 9, 2000, by the President of the United States: Rotterdam Convention concerning Hazardous Chemicals, and Pesticides in International Trade (Treaty Document No. 106-21). I further ask that the convention be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The message of the President is as follows: To the Senate of the United States: I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, with Annexes, done at Rotterdam, September 10, 1998. The report of the Department of State is enclosed for the information of the Senate. The Convention, which was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, with the active participation of the United States, provides a significant and valuable international tool to promote sound risk-based decisionmaking in the trade of certain hazardous chemicals. Building on a successful voluntary procedure, the Convention requires Parties to exchange information about these chemicals, to communicate national decisions about their import, and to require that exports from their territories comply with the import decisions of other Parties. The United States, with the assistance and cooperation of industry and nongovernmental organization, plays an important international leadership role in the safe management of hazardous chemicals and pesticides. This Convention, which assists developing countries in evaluating risks and enforcing their regulatory decisions regarding trade in such chemicals, advances and promotes U.S. objectives in this regard. All relevant Federal agencies support early ratification of the Convention for this reason, and we understand that the affected industries and interest groups share this view. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Convention and give its advice and consent to ratification, subject to the understanding described in the accompanying report of the Secretary of State. William J. Clinton. The White House, February 9, 2000.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to address concerns about the direction our country is taking in agriculture policy for our Nation. It has been very frustrating to me that our Federal dairy policy has been driven by what I can only describe as urban myths about the supposed benefits of dairy compacts in our country. These myths, just like stories on the street, have been repeated so many times in Congress that they are assumed to be true, despite their total lack of a factual basis. I would today like to discuss the myth that dairy compacts are necessary to provide an adequate supply of fresh, locally produced milk to consumers. As I have said before, I believe this assertion is a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers into believing that if we do not have compacts, there may not be milk in the dairy case the next time they go to the grocery store. Perhaps the statement is not a total deception because it says that the dairy compact is designed to guarantee fresh, locally produced milk. But as we enter the 21st century, we as consumers know that a product in the grocery store does not have to be produced locally to be ``fresh.'' If it is produced locally, all the better, but we regularly go to the grocery store and buy fresh, perishable food that comes from all over the United States, including fruits, vegetables, meats, poultry, and any of a number of other foods. Similarly, fresh milk and dairy products can now be safely and rapidly shipped all over the country in refrigerated trucks--there is no need to restrict interstate trade in our country to guarantee fresh milk to our consumers. One of the reasons that America thrives economically is because we allow individuals to produce what they are most skilled at producing. And this principle extends to geographic regions of the country. As an example, Americans buy most of their citrus products from Florida and California, cotton and rice from the South, and potatoes from the West. Economists call this ``comparative advantage''--regions produce and sell whatever they are most efficient at producing, and everyone benefits because trade and efficiency is maximized. Lower price; better products to the consumer. It all seems very simple, but it is not allowed to work that way in our dairy industry. The upper Midwest, due in part to its climate, low feed prices, and an abundant water supply happens to have a comparative advantage in milk and dairy products. However, unlike the rest of the country, it is not permitted to freely sell the product that it so efficiently produces. Instead, Congress has chosen to protect entire regions of the milk industry against competition from the upper Midwest through dairy compacts and/or outdated milk marketing orders. Basically, in dairy, the Government is picking winners and losers, not who can produce the best, not who can be competitive, what area of the country it is. But under a Government program, the Government is saying who is a winner and who is a loser when it comes to the dairy industry. Dairy compacts require that processors pay a minimum price for the milk they sell for fluid consumption. Compact proponents will claim that producers outside the compact region are not prevented from selling into the region, but for all practical purposes, this is exactly what it does. If you have a floor price, it eliminates the ability of lower cost producers to sell in that region. There is no incentive for processors to buy from producers outside the region because the price they pay is already set. So they are not able to buy at the lower price or more competitive supply, but because of the compact setting the price, that is where they buy it. It is interesting that the argument that compacts are necessary to guarantee a supply of fresh milk to a region was also made to justify the unreasonably high support prices in the 1980s that resulted as you will remember, in massive government purchases of surplus dairy products. The Federal Government spent $2.6 billion on surplus purchases in 1983 alone, more than 12 percent of U.S. milk production. Congress consequently had to begin a dairy termination program which paid dairy farmers not to produce milk for 5 years. Congress today is perpetuating the same myths as in past years, with the same predictable results of producer surpluses and higher milk prices to consumers. Upper Midwest producers could sell cheaper milk to consumers almost nationwide, but instead, not only can they not compete for markets outside the region, but their prices in cheese markets are depressed by the oversupply of production in the compact region that flood into the Midwest. Finally, it appears that not only are dairy compacts not necessary to guarantee a fresh supply of milk to consumers, but they seem to only offer Government protection to dairy farmers within the compact area and guarantee decreased consumption by families due to the high milk prices. If something costs more, you sell less of it, and milk is no different. For example, in 1998, each consumer drank an average of 23.8 gallons of fluid milk products. That is compared to 56.1 gallons of soft drinks, 15 gallons of fruit juices, and 14 gallons of bottled water. Moreover, beverage milk consumption declined from 28.6 gallons in 1975 to 23.9 gallons in 1997. This is not a trend we can ignore. If we went to encourage milk consumption, we cannot do so by artificially raising the price and keeping less expensive, domestically produced milk out of the market. As we begin the second session of the 106th Congress, I ask my colleagues to be truthful in the dairy debate and not perpetuate the falsehood that compacts are necessary to ensure a fresh supply of milk to consumers. There are, unfortunately, other dairy myths to be exposed, so you can look forward to me returning to the Senate floor to make sure Congress and the American people learn the truth about our Federal dairy policy. We need some fairness in our dairy policy. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.