Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intent to accommodate Senator Bingaman's schedule. I yield to the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Bingaman, with the understanding that the time be charged to the other side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are again faced with the decision of whether to put off an obligation that we have to store nuclear waste that is threatening our industry or just talk some more. If we reflect on reality, we will find that the last time this issue came before the Senate we had 64 votes in favor. There was one Senator who was absent. We anticipate that Senator to be here today, so we anticipate approximately 65 votes. In the House, it passed 253-167. So, clearly, a majority in the House and Senate have spoken on this issue. We have before us the question of the President's veto on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I say that the President is wrong. He is wrong for the environment, wrong for the U.S. energy policy, wrong for the economy, and he is wrong for international security. This has become pretty much a political issue on the floor--whether to override the President's veto and do what is right. What is right is to address the responsibility that we have to the taxpayers of this country. I urge every Member of this body to reflect on the obligation that he or she has at this time. We have a situation where, as a consequence of the inability of the Federal Government to take the waste, which was to occur in 1998, we have a breach of contract with several of our utility companies. That breach of contract has resulted in liability and damages--damages that are assessed now at somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion. So every Member of this body who does not support an override better be prepared to respond to the American taxpayer and address the reasons and have an excuse for not moving this and terminating that extended liability to the taxpayers. While the President's veto wasn't based on good science, it was based on crass politics. The President's veto is particularly troublesome because Congress has bent over backward to meet every legitimate concern expressed by this administration. So it is simply clear that this administration doesn't want to take up this matter and resolve it under any circumstances under their watch. Instead, they apparently want to use it as an election year issue. Well, I think it will come back and bite them as an election year issue. The bill the President vetoed would have disposed of our nuclear waste in a rational and effective way. It would do so by providing early receipt at Yucca Mountain of our civilian and our defense nuclear waste 5 years earlier than under existing law but not until after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a construction permit for the facility, and it would have protected the $16 billion nuclear waste fund from being raided to pay for the Government's default on its contract with the utilities--money that consumers have paid through higher electric rates. It would have protected consumers from the Secretary of Energy unilaterally and unreasonably raising the nuclear waste tax on electricity without the consent of Congress, and it would have preserved the right of the Environmental Protection Agency to set the radiation standards in a manner that fully protects public health and safety. If you go back and read the bill, it clearly gives the Environmental Protection Agency the obligation of setting the standard. Failure to address this problem does not solve the problem by any means; it simply leaves the waste where it is. I would like to refer to this chart in back of me because this is the reality. We have the waste at 80 sites in 40 States. It is located in our backyards. Each year that goes by, our ability to continue to store nuclear waste in each of these sites in a safe and reasonable way diminishes. Why? These sites were designed for temporary storage and, in many cases, they have about reached their maximum. Isn't it better to put this at one site, at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which was designed for the waste? It is irresponsible to let this situation continue. Rather than exhibiting courage and signing legislation that would address the problem, the President has abdicated his responsibility. Rather than protect the American people, he has chosen to sacrifice them to satisfy the anti-nuclear interests. The veto is absolutely wrong for the environment. Again, I refer to this chart. Is it better to have this material scattered at 80 sites in 40 States or one, single, easily-monitored location which, I add, is where we have had over 50 years of nuclear testing out in the Nevada desert? This veto means that the administration wants to continue to keep this material near our major population centers, near schools, hospitals, parks, homes, areas where we have earthquakes, such as in California, and in other areas, such as Illinois, where we have severe windstorms at times. The administration's own draft environmental impact statement released in August of last year makes it clear that leaving the material spread around the country could represent a considerable human health risk. His veto is wrong for the U.S. energy policy. The real agenda of this administration is to kill nuclear power as a means to provide electricity, but they never answered the tough questions--the reality that nuclear power generation consists of 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. It does so without emanating any air pollution or greenhouse gases. How do we address the risk of global warming without nuclear power? It is pretty hard to do. How do we meet our clean air requirements and goals without nuclear power? There is no alternative suggested by the administration. How do we provide consumers and our economy with the electricity they need if we rule out our nuclear power? The answer is very simple: We can't. The choice we face is either replace nuclear power with coal-fired power or consumers will go without; that means brownouts, perhaps blackouts. But this should come as no surprise to an administration that has allowed this Nation to become dependent on insecure sources of foreign oil to meet our energy needs. Our energy policy consists of the Secretary of Energy going hat-in-hand to beg for help from countries that once sought our protection to maintain their existence. We have recently seen our increased dependence on oil from Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It was 300,000 barrels a day last year, and this year it is 700,000 barrels a day. Isn't it rather ironic, as we look at the foreign policy of this country, to recognize that we buy Saddam Hussein's oil and give him our dollars, and we take that oil, put it in our airplanes, and we go out and bomb him. That is really what we are doing. How ironic. Furthermore, it has cost the American taxpayer about $10 billion since the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 to keep Saddam Hussein fenced in. The veto is wrong for the economy. Failure to resolve the nuclear waste problem may well turn into a budgetary disaster that will rival the savings and loan crisis. I say that as a consequence of the increasing liability that goes to the Federal Government for its inability to take that waste when it was due under the contract terms in 1998. That is over $40 billion. It may be closer to $80 billion. That is a liability that is being assumed by the American taxpayer as we delay addressing this obligation. By failing to resolve the nuclear waste problem, the Federal courts have said this administration has violated its contractual obligations. As I said, this means the Department of Energy may have to pay as much as $40 billion to $80 billion in liability, and possibly more. Where do you think this money is going to come from? You guessed it. The taxpayer. And every Member who doesn't support this veto override had better be able to explain that to his or her constituents. Instead of using this money to keep Social Security solvent, we have to use it to pay for this administration's willful failure to comply with the law. But keep in mind that even after the taxpayers foot this bill, the nuclear waste problem still won't be dealt with because the President simply won't stand up and recognize that we have an obligation under a contract made 20 years ago to accept the waste. Further, it is wrong for the international security of this Nation. How do we convince our allies and those who are not to abide by our goal of nuclear nonproliferation when we demonstrate that we have neither the will nor the intelligence to deal with our own domestic problem? How do we convince our European allies to look to us and not Russia for solutions when we demonstrate that we do not have the courage to follow science and our own law? What type of leadership do we show to the world when we are unwilling to honor our commitments to our own citizens? It is not only our security that is jeopardized but also that of our allies who depend on our willingness and capability to defend them to enforce a peace. This is referred to as a ``mobile Chernobyl'' by some. Opponents of the legislation argue that shipping nuclear waste across the Nation will create a ``mobile Chernobyl.'' The administration seems to agree with these opponents. Yet this very same administration agreed in 1996 to accept 20 tons of foreign nuclear high-level waste shipped to the United States. The administration's Foreign Research Reactor Program brought that in. This foreign nuclear waste is being moved safely in the very same way and in the very same casks that the opponents say U.S. nuclear waste cannot be moved safely. Let me also observe as we are talking about ``mobile Chernobyls'' that there are 83 nuclear-powered U.S. submarines and naval warships which operate under nuclear power. They are around the world. They operate around the clock in both U.S. and foreign ports to ensure our security. They carry the reactors, and they have done it in a safe and admirable manner for a long period of time. There does not seem to be any concern about these ships. And the shipments we are talking about are dry, stable waste, and not reactors. But they criticize it in the capacity of suggesting this is a Chernobyl-style act. This is fear mongering. It is unnecessary. It is fear in the worst case. Finally, we recognize the obligation of our Chief Executive. The President of the United States had a choice. The President could have shown courage and chosen for the environment. Instead, he declined. The President could have shown leadership and chosen a sound energy policy. Instead, he refused. The President could have demonstrated concern for the future and chosen for a healthy economy. Instead, he ducked. The President could have shown resolve on our national and international obligations and chosen for our national security. Instead, he abdicated. The President's veto was wrong for the environment, for energy policy, for the economy, and for our national security. Today, our choice is a simple one. Again, I note on this chart behind me, all of those areas in green are the States where nuclear waste is stored, 40 States. Do we want to have that, or do we want to have one central disposal facility at Yucca Mountain where we have already expended $6 billion or $7 billion in the design of a permanent repository? Do we want to move it to one central facility in an area where over 800 nuclear devices were tested? I show you a chart and a picture of the proposed location for the permanent repository at the Nevada site. It was used for previous testing of more than 800 nuclear weapons. I urge my colleagues not to be misguided and to support the veto override. Before I yield some time to the other side, I want to make a couple of points relative to the radiation issue which has come up from time to time. One of the principles originally in S. 1287 was that the Yucca Mountain radiation standards should be set by the NRC and not the EPA. Although I still strongly believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should set this standard, the managers' amendment contains new language--I hope my colleagues will read it--that will permit the EPA to go ahead with its rule as long as both the EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences, agrees that the standard will protect public health, safety, and the environment, and is reasonable and obtainable. If that isn't the best science available, I don't know what is. This is a very reasonable approach that provides the very best science and the very best peer review, yet allows the EPA to have the obligation to ultimately complete the rule after all the best minds on the subject have been consulted. I think it is apparent as we address this issue--and I recognize that my State of Alaska does not have nuclear waste stored in it--that if we don't resolve it today, we are going to have to address it at a later date because the fact is nobody wants this waste. I am particularly sensitive to and appreciate the position of my colleagues from Nevada. The bottom line is they don't want the waste. If the waste were going to be stored in Colorado, we would have the Senators from Colorado speaking here on the floor and objecting to it. It is going to be stored in California, or New Hampshire, or somewhere. That is just the harsh reality of recognizing that no one wants this waste. But my colleagues from Nevada claim that the Congress chose Nevada to be studied for nuclear waste disposal purely for political reasons. They would have you believe that there are no rational, technical, or scientific reasons for placing spent nuclear fuel in Nevada. That is what they would have you believe. But it is wrong. The DOE spent over $1 billion studying other potential sites before narrowing the list to three sites, one of which was Yucca Mountain. Congress settled on Yucca Mountain back in 1987. It is geologically unique. The Nevada Test Site has been used to explode nuclear weapons for over 50 years. This is a picture of the Nevada site. The last weapon exploded there underground was in 1991. The underground tests are still being performed, with nuclear materials being exploded with conventional explosives, with the wholehearted support of the Nevada delegation. In fact, not too long ago one of the Senators from Nevada supported storing spent fuel at the test site. There was a resolution that I believe took place back in 1975 or 1976.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The subheading reads: U.S. tries to drum up business for Nevada's Test Site by urging companies to use it for research too risky to try anywhere else. No job is too big, promotional brochures boast. It is huge. It is impossible to scrub clean. We are selling the concept of a place where you can do things you can't do anywhere else, said Tim Carlson, who runs the NTS Development Corporation, a nonprofit commission by the Governor to market the site. A few more observations from Nevadans quoted by the story: We take these companies out of someone's backyard and put them here. They are never going to be able to reclaim it for 10,000 or 15,000 years, says Randy Harness of the Sierra Club's Las Vegas chapter. They might as well do research there. He concludes: Given the constant monitoring, the site is probably the safest place in the whole United States. We want to take the technology and the personnel we have in the nuclear industry and apply it to new areas so we are doing things for society instead of just blowing up bombs, said Steven Rice, assistant provost for the University of Nevada, Los Vegas. Or, as the Nuclear Testing Site Development's Haase put it: Taxpayers paid for this place, after all. They should get some use out of it. We are seeing a situation develop where it is fair to say we have the final obligation in the Congress of the United States to address this with resolve once and for all. I will comment briefly on the specifics of the veto the President saw fit to initiate. In looking at the President's veto message, the President presented the argument that S. 1287 is a step backward because delaying the issue regarding radiation standards delays any decision with regard to the site recommendation. The reality is the radiation standard is only necessary for the license application through March 2000. The other argument the President reports is that the bill adds unnecessary bureaucracy to issuing standards and delays. The bill says specifically that the EPA issues the radiation standards by June 2001. EPA must also compare provisions with the National Academy's recommendation and justify this scientific basis for the rule. If good science unduly burdens the EPA, then perhaps we have a problem with the proposed rule. We are talking about the EPA having the final determination. The President further states that the bill does not help with claims against the Federal Government for damages related to failure to accept fuel. The opposite is true. The bill provides early receipt as soon as construction is authorized. That is as early as 2006, January. It permits the Secretary of Energy to enter into settlement agreements with utilities, thus limiting continued liability. I think this is another example of the administration putting responsibility for its own problems on Congress. They seek to minimize damages from their own failure to take the waste and minimize the $40 to $80 billion liability by cooperating with Congress. Is that too much to ask? I ask my colleagues to explain to their constituencies why they are exposing them to continued litigation at the expense of the taxpayer, as the $40 to $80 billion claims against the Federal Government continues to mount. Another argument is S. 1287 doesn't promote settlement because it doesn't have ``take title'' language. Mr. President, one time it had take title language but the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Richardson, didn't do his part to gain support from the States that opposed it. Why did the States oppose it? They feared the Federal Government would simply leave the waste in their States, take title to it and leave it. More importantly, the DOE has argued in the past; the Ninth Circuit, in 1991, said that the Department of Energy already had the authority to take title. That was granted by the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. This is another smokescreen. What is lacking is not legal authority but a political exercise of will. This administration, unfortunately, does not have that political will. It is interesting to note some of the support. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Governor of the State of New York, George Pataki.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the 20 minutes remaining to our good friend from Idaho.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the pending ESEA legislation this afternoon, debate only be in order for the remainder of the session today.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will read briefly from the letter. April 21, 2000. Dear Mr. President: Now before you is the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000 (S. 1287). On behalf of the citizens of New York State who have been forced to temporarily store more than 2,000 tons of radioactive nuclear waste, I urge you to sign this bill into law. Because the Federal government has failed in its statutory obligation to build a permanent and safe nuclear disposal site by 1998, our State and others are faced with continued on-site management of high-level radioactive waste. With S. 1287 Congress has developed a sensible plan that will, if signed by you, begin a process leading to this facility finally being built. This bill has passed both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives by large majorities and would allow New York State to transport the radioactive waste we have been storing on an interim basis. Disposal of this waste is one of the most important environmental concerns facing New York and other states with nuclear facilities. This is an appeal by the Governor of New York, to this body, to override the President's veto. Another point. Some of the affected States that would have high-level waste have been storing this waste at interim sites, sites that were not designed for a permanent storage. Ratepayers from the State of New York paid in over $1 billion in their electric bill for the Federal Government to take that waste. There are seven sites in New York, about 2,167 metric tons of waste. As a consequence, the State dependence on nuclear energy is about 26 percent. They had one shutdown of one plant, Indian Point, in 1974. The point is to show in New York the significance of what it means and why we have this letter from the Governor of New York addressing this body asking to move this bill and override the President's veto. Another State with a significant amount of waste is Colorado. Federal payments of about $6.3 million have been paid by the ratepayers in Colorado. There is one unit that is closed, Fort St. Vrain, and about 15 metric tons of waste. There is a significant amount of Department of Energy defense waste. The alternative is to leave the waste in Colorado or move it out. Illinois is another State where there is a significant amount of waste as a consequence of the fact that 39 percent of Illinois' power generation comes from nuclear energy. In Illinois, the ratepayers have paid $2 billion to the Federal Government to take the waste. They have 11 units and approximately 5,215 metric tons of waste. Is that waste going to stay in those numerous sites where the 11 units are, or are we going to move it out to one central location in Nevada? In North Carolina, in 1998, the ratepayers have paid over $706 million to the Federal Government to take the waste. As I have indicated, the Federal Government is in violation of the contract. Thirty-one percent of the State of North Carolina is dependent on nuclear energy. As a consequence, they are looking at 1,400 metric tons. Do we want to leave that waste in temporary storage, or do we want to move it now when we have an opportunity? The State of Oregon has a significant amount of waste stored at Hanford. Hanford is in Washington, but the site certainly affects Oregon as well. The ratepayers have paid $108 million. The Trojan plant in Oregon has been closed for decommissioning. Do we want to leave it closed, or do we want to move the high-level waste out of there to one central site? There are 424 metric tons in Oregon. Whether one is talking about Massachusetts, Connecticut, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Georgia, Louisiana, Washington State, Maine, Pennsylvania, or Vermont, these are all States which have a significant amount of waste that has been generated by the utilities under the assumption that the Federal Government would take that waste in 1998. The Federal Government has failed to take that waste and, as a consequence, the litigation goes on. I am amused because we have a statement by the Vice President on this question of the veto override. Looking at his statement, I see a rather curious phraseology. I ask unanimous consent that statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. He states: Today's veto of the nuclear waste bill is an important step to protect the health, safety, and the environment. He is saying the President's veto is in the interest of protecting health, safety, and the environment. He is saying leave it at those sites in the 40 States. That must be what he is saying. He says: This legislation was rejected because it does nothing to assist in conducting the best scientific research into the . . . Yucca Mountain site. . . . What are the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the National Academy of Sciences? That is the best science we have, and yet he says there is no science involved in this process. He says: . . . the legislation limits the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to set appropriate radiation . . . standards. That is contrary to reality. It does not. We do give that authority to the EPA. He further says: I believe we need to find a permanent solution for the disposal-- We all agree we need a permanent solution, but the Vice President does not suggest any permanent solution. He says we ought to have one. We have spent almost $7 billion digging a hole out of Yucca Mountain and, in 1998, the ratepayers have paid $16 billion to the Federal Government to take the waste. Now the taxpayers, as a consequence of the inability of the Federal Government to live under the terms of that contract, are looking at a liability exposure of $40 billion to $80 billion. When the Vice President makes that kind of a statement, I wonder what he is talking about--we need to find a permanent solution. This is a permanent solution for disposal of the high-level nuclear waste and is one based on the best science available to protect public health and the environment. This is just another issue of politics. Obviously, there is a certain sensitivity about overriding any President's veto, but there is a recognition of and an obligation to do what is in the interest of the taxpayers and of protecting those 80 sites in 40 States where this waste is stored and getting on with the obligation. What concerns me more than anything is the reality that at some point in time we may find ourselves in a position where we simply are unable to come to grips with this matter. I am going to quote one of my friends from Nevada who, in a February 9 press release, indicated a key victory on the nuclear waste bill. It is entitled, ``Senators Secure Votes Needed to Sustain Presidential Veto.'' The interesting paragraph reads, under a criticism of S. 1287: The Environmental Protection Agency will have full authority to set radiation standards for Yucca Mountain which many experts say will ultimately prevent-- Ultimately prevent-- the site from ever being licensed as a nuclear waste dump. Make no mistake about this, there is a conscientious effort by many people who are antinuclear to simply stop the nuclear industry in its tracks by making sure there is no permanent repository for that waste. The sequence of what will happen is these reactor sites are licensed for a certain capacity. When that capacity fills up, those plants have to shut down, and we can bid goodbye to the nuclear industry. The problem is the administration and those who oppose it have not suggested an alternative as to where we are going to pick up the power. It is fair to say the ultimate objective of some people is to ensure that Yucca Mountain is never used, others never want to see a permanent repository built, regardless of where it is. In deference to my good friends from Nevada, clearly they do not want it in their State under any terms and circumstances. That is the posture of where we are, but we do have an opportunity today to bring this matter to a head by overriding the President's veto and getting on with the business at hand. I have used a good deal of time this morning. I yield the floor to the other side. First, how much time have I used?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is all that has been used on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining from the 20 minutes that was allotted?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I want to point out a couple of things. I saw my friend from California on the floor a few moments ago. I guess she intends to speak. Let me point out something that I think is paramount as we address this matter. That is the reality of where this waste is and where this waste is coming in. I think it is important to note that San Francisco is obviously key because just up from the area of Sacramento and the Sacramento River is Concord, CA. Concord, CA, is unique inasmuch as it has been designated by the Clinton administration as one of the major west coast ports for receiving high-level nuclear waste under the Foreign Research Reactor Program. It is kind of interesting because over a 13-year period some portion of 20 tons of spent nuclear fuel from 41 countries will be shipped to the United States for storage, and a good portion of that will come into Concord, CA. Once it gets into Concord, CA, it will be shipped from the Concord Naval Weapons Station in California, and it will follow a route up to Idaho. That shipment will either go by rail or truck. I think it is significant to recognize the reality that we move waste. The waste moves in areas that are prone to earthquakes. California certainly is. California has four nuclear reactors currently: San Onofre, Rancho Seco--and one which is shut down. Here is another opportunity for the waste to simply stay at the shutdown reactor, or move almost 20 percent of California's electricity which comes from nuclear energy. I might add that the residents of California have paid $762 million into a nuclear waste fund. That is three-quarters of a billion dollars. In 1998, nuclear reactors avoided about 5.35 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. Have they helped with the greenhouse gases? Since 1983, the total avoided greenhouse emissions are 83 million metric tons. These are to be avoided as a consequence of the contribution of nuclear power in California. During 1998, nuclear power avoided 878 tons of sulfur dioxide in California. If indeed my friend from California intends to speak on this issue, I would certainly encourage her to address the concerns of California being chosen as the West Coast recipient for the transfer of waste from the 41 countries and some 20 tons of spent fuel. On the east coast, the Charleston Naval Weapons Station in South Carolina will be the recipient of waste moving by rail and truck. This is pertinent to the discussion at hand. We have heard in detail the question of the important agenda before the Senate, whether we are talking about juvenile justice, protecting Medicare or Patients' Bill of Rights. These are all important issues, but so is this. It is important we get this issue behind us. It is costing the taxpayers a good deal every day it goes unresolved--$40 to $80 billion in liability. That continues to increase as a consequence of the Nation's inability to honor the sanctity of the contracts. I urge my colleagues to reflect on the importance of this bill, the importance of this legislation, and not be misled. It is meaningful to the taxpayers of this country that we vote today to override the President's veto. How much time remains on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And we have more this afternoon, is that right?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Grams.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grams for his statement, particularly for highlighting the risk we face in not acting, inasmuch as some of our plants that anticipated having Yucca Mountain available for permanent storage, indeed, are in danger. Maryland, for example, has two reactors at Calvert Cliffs producing over 13,000 kilowatts a year. They provide 26 percent of the clean electricity for the State of Maryland. The consumers in Maryland have paid $337 million into the nuclear waste fund since 1982. There are 741 metric tons stored there, and it is short term. It is temporary because, when they built that plant, they were looking at Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage. Indeed, there is genuine concern about the ability to maintain this very clean source of energy if, indeed, we do not act in this body and override the President's veto. Before we break, I wish to take my colleagues through a brief summary of the inconsistencies of this administration with regard to transportation. In 1996, the Clinton administration agreed to participate in the Foreign Research Reactor Program where, over a 13-year period, some 20 tons of spent nuclear fuel from 41 countries will be shipped to the United States for storage. It goes into Concord, CA, and up to Idaho on railroads and highways. It goes into Savannah River and is moved there through the rail system, as well as highways. At the Savannah River site in South Carolina, as well as the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, this waste is moved, depending on whether it comes from the west coast or east coast-- shipment comes in on freighters through the Charleston Naval Weapons Station in South Carolina and the Concord Naval Weapons Station in California--the spent fuel is transported from the ship to a final designation by either rail or truck. Shall we leave it in California? Shall we leave it in South Carolina? The President mentions the importance of nonproliferation goals that a central repository will meet and that the nonproliferation for these shipments of foreign spent fuel is a good one. We do not want terrorists or rogue governments coming into possession of these weapons, but let's look at reality. For example, when the program started in 1996, we were faced with transporting spent fuel from a reactor in Bogota, Colombia. The spent fuel was moved from the reactor, loaded into a shipping cask, placed into a semitractor trailer truck for shipment, and then what did we do? We went to the Russians. We chartered a Russian Antonov AN-124 airplane large enough to carry tanks and helicopters and drove the semi aboard the plane and flew the shipment to the seaport city of Cartagena and placed it on a freighter. It then joined spent fuel already loaded from Chile. It was delivered to the Charleston weapons center where it was loaded on railcars to Savannah River. This was the Department of Energy acting to pull out all stops, sparing no expense to complete this important shipment. Administration policy then is to take nuclear fuel from foreign nations flying, shipping, and trucking all over the world and storing it at military facilities, and even building interim storage sites in the United States, but this administration will not address the waste generated by the domestic nuclear power industry; it will not reconcile a policy to address this in a responsible manner. It would rather leave it at the 40 States in 80 sites. That is what this administration proposes to do. It is unconscionable at a time when we are looking to the nuclear energy for roughly 20 percent of the power generated in the United States, and this administration does not accept its responsibility. That is why I urge all my colleagues to look at this realistically: Do we want the waste concentrated where it is in temporary storage, or do we want it in a permanent repository where we have already expended some $7 billion to place it? I believe my time has expired or is about to expire.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In a minute and a half, I note the Senator from California showed a beautiful picture of Death Valley. I will show you a beautiful picture of the proposed location of the repository out at Yucca Mountain. This is it. It is not very pretty. We have had 800 nuclear weapons tests in the last 50 years. That is the area we are talking about. Some suggest, why are we talking about this when we have other more important things to do? This is an obligation of this Congress. The House has acted. It is up to the Senate to act now and move this legislation over the President's veto. This is important. This costs the taxpayers money. We have an obligation. Furthermore, this is the pending business of the Senate at this time because the House voted. It went down to the President. The President vetoed it. It is the standing order of business before this body. So it is most appropriate that we resolve this matter today. I encourage my colleagues this afternoon to vote to override the President's veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, I thank my colleagues for their confidence and recognition that this matter still remains to be resolved by either this Senate in this session or at a later time because the contribution of the nuclear industry is such that we simply cannot allow it to strangle on its own waste. We really do not have that alternative. I yield the floor and thank the leader for his courtesy.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I grant 5 minutes to Senator Sessions.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time do we have on both sides?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to point out a couple of things. We can show all the pictures we want around here about ``what if's'' but the facts remain. There was no nuclear waste associated with that particular photograph of the unfortunate train wreck. Let's talk a little bit about how this is stored. There have been 1,500 tests performed to confirm and approve container safety. In the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tests, transportation canisters have been subject to some very tough tests, as they should be, tests that confirmed that they did not break open. They survived a 30-foot free- fall onto an unyielding surface, which is the same as a crash into a concrete bridge abutment at 120 miles an hour. Puncture tests, as well, were done, allowing the container to fall 40 inches onto a steel rod 6 inches in diameter; 30 minutes in a fire of 1,475 degrees that engulfs the whole container; submerging the container under 3 feet of water for 8 hours. It goes on and on. It is rather interesting to note, about 10 years ago we were looking at flying nuclear waste for reprocessing from Japan to France. At that time, the requirement was to design a cask that would withstand a free-fall from 30,000 feet. We were advised it was technically available. What we have here is almost a Nevada litmus test. Everyone has to be against Yucca Mountain. I know there is a good deal of pressure on Members, out of allegiance to my good friends from Nevada, from those who do not want the waste in their State. That is the bottom line. If they have to kill the nuclear waste industry to achieve it, that is what will happen. I am holding a copy of the U.S. Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program. This is the so-called ``Mobile Chernobyl,'' some 90 reactors moving all over the world. It is entitled ``Over 117 Million Miles Safely Steamed on Nuclear Power.'' That is the record of our Navy. What we are hearing today is nothing but fear tactics of the worst kind, and this is emanated by the veto of the President. Let's be realistic; the EPA has the sole and final authority to issue a radiation standard. I do not want to hear any Member reinterpreting that any other way. They--the EPA--must set forth a scientific basis for the rule. That is the best science. On June 1, 2001, they--meaning the EPA--are free to issue whatever standard they deem appropriate. They have the final say. We can only hope it makes a sensible and achievable interpretation and is based on sound science. We talk about the science. In the President's veto message, he talks about the science. The Vice President talks about the science. We are talking about the best science--the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the National Academy of Sciences, with the EPA having the sole and final authority. There is absolutely no question about that if you read the bill. Let's look at something else. Taking the waste is a Federal responsibility, the sanctity of a contract. The deadline was 1998. The ratepayers have paid $16 billion to the Federal Government to take that waste. The taxpayers have spent some $6 billion already at Yucca Mountain where we have the hole in which to put the waste. The longer the delay, the more liability the Federal Government has for not taking the waste because the utilities are suing the Federal Government for not taking the waste. That is some $40 billion to $80 billion. It is estimated it will cost each taxpaying family in the United States $1,300. I will talk about foreign-domestic transportation. We have seen 300 safe domestic shipments over the last 30 years--no injury, no radiation. This chart shows the network all over the country. Since 1996, transport of foreign reactor fuel has come into this country from 41 other nations. That is over 20 tons over the next 13 years. To where does it go? It goes into Concord, CA, Sacramento River, and moves up to Idaho. On the east coast, it goes to the Charleston Naval Weapons Center by rail up to Savannah River, and by truck on the highways. It is shipped as high-level waste from other countries. In the debate, the Senators from Nevada never acknowledged that exists. They never acknowledged there is an inconsistency in our policy. We accept it from foreign governments, and we store it in the United States, but this administration will not address its obligation to take the domestically produced waste from our own utilities and the ratepayers have paid the Government to take it. That is the inconsistency. That is what is wrong with the administration's policy. One example of this is U.S. participation in foreign shipments. A semi truck full of spent fuel was loaded into a chartered Russian Antonov AN-124 cargo plane and flown from Bogota, Colombia, to Cartagena so it could join a shipment from Chile bound for Charleston by freighter. The flight was believed to be necessary to avoid terrorists in Colombia, and the shipment went off without a hitch. The point of this message is obvious. We are doing it for foreign nations. We are shipping it all over the world to two places in the United States: Concord, CA, and Charleston, SC. I do not know if the Senators from those States are concerned about it. I do not see them speaking on the floor about it in indignation. Do we want to leave the spent fuel at 80 sites in 40 States, as this chart shows? That is the alternative. I leave all Members with one thought. Putting politics aside, how will you as a Senator explain why today you voted to leave the waste in your State, subjecting your taxpayers to continued liability for broken promises of this administration? I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto. Let's put this issue behind us once and for all. If we do not, it will come back at a greater cost to the taxpayers. Finally, on the issue of health and safety, about which we have heard so much from our good friends from Nevada, this waste is spread out at 80 sites in 40 States, as I have indicated. I have another chart which shows that. These might be determined to be 80 mini Yucca Mountains, but they were not designed for permanent storage. They were designed for short-term storage, just as we have seen at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland. The current onsite storage was designed for short-term storage, not long-term storage. In conclusion, I encourage my colleagues to remember that in the 1999 Department of Energy draft EIS report, it said: Leaving the waste onsite represents considerable human health risks as opposed to one central remote facility in the Nevada desert. That is a statement by this administration relative to the issue of health and safety and leaving this waste where it is in these 40 States at these 80 sites. Again, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on what they are going to say to their constituents when they go home and say, I guess I voted to leave the waste in my State, when, indeed, they had an obligation and an opportunity to move it to one central facility that has been selected at Yucca Mountain, an area where we had 800 nuclear weapons tests over a 50-year period and where we did our experimentation with the nuclear bomb--an area, frankly, that is probably already so polluted that it can never be cleaned up. I ask my colleagues to read the letter, which is printed earlier in the Record, from Governor George E. Pataki, who indicated that the citizens of New York State have been forced to temporarily store more than 2,000 tons of radioactive waste and urged the President to sign this bill into law, and the statement that disposal of this waste is one of the most important environmental concerns facing New York and other States with nuclear facilities. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take on Tuesday, May 9, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1756, the National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 1999; and S. 2336, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development for Department of Energy Missions Act. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger or Bryan Hannegan at (202) 224-7875. committee on indian affairs

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff: Jim Beirne, Howard Useem, Betty Nevitt, Colleen Deegan, Trici Heninger, Kristin Phillips, Brian Malnak, and Kjersten Scott.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to salute the achievements of a man who has dedicated most of his life to improving the quality and safety of Alaskan and Pacific Northwest seafood, and whose efforts have made a positive and permanent impact on America's food industry. Roger DeCamp is by no means a household name. Roger has never sought recognition or fame. Yet it is not too much to say that he has made a profound contribution to the welfare of America's seafood consumers. In just a few short weeks, Roger DeCamp will retire as the Director of the National Food Processors Association Northwest Laboratory, in Seattle, Washington. In 1960, Roger joined the Association as a microbiology and processing engineer. In 1964, he moved to Seattle to become the head of the microbiology and thermal processing division at the Northwest facility, and in 1971, he became the assistant director for the entire facility. He has been the director since 1981. Unlike some who achieve senior positions, Roger has not ceased his work ``in the trenches.'' He has remained accessible to anyone who needed his assistance, and as one of the most knowledgeable individuals in the world about seafood quality control and safety, his advice has been widely sought. One of the major achievements in Roger's career has been the modernization and direction of the Canned Salmon Control Plan, which assures the safety and integrity of the millions and millions of pounds of canned salmon produced annually in Alaska, and which is shipped worldwide. Canned salmon is one of the United States' most successful seafood exports. That success owes a great deal to the control plan, which gives buyers everywhere the confident knowledge that American canned salmon is a wholesome and beneficial protein source. Under Roger's direction, the Canned Salmon Control Plan, with participation from industry, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Food Processors Association, received the Vice-Presidential Hammer award for its unique approach to meeting the highly complex, technical, and sometimes conflicting requirements of the industry and the government agencies that regulate it. Roger has continually worked to modernize the practices and procedures of the industry, and has represented it with distinction in the development of regulatory guidelines at both the state and federal levels. He provided much of the impetus and expertise that led to the development of new Alaska seafood inspection regulations, has counseled the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute technical committee on seafood quality since its creation in 1981, and led the development of the Hazard Analysis/Critical Control Point approach to seafood processing. The latter revolutionized seafood safety requirements, and when put in place in Alaska, became the model on which later federal regulations were constructed for seafood products nationwide. This same technical approach is now being applied not just to seafoods, but to meats and other products as well. Roger also has been active on international trade issues of critical importance to the seafood industry. Among other things, he played a crucial role in obtaining agreement on a method of certifying seafood for the European Union market without resorting to the imposition of new user fees on the industry. Finally, it must be noted that the respect in which Roger is been held by both the industry and by government regulators has been key to the successful negotiation of scientific and technical agreements between the industry and the Food and Drug Administration, to the maintenance of a strong working relationship between them, and to the federal agency's willingness to work cooperatively on even the most complex and technical issues of food handling and safety. In no small way, both his industry and his country owe a debt of thanks to Roger DeCamp.