Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I note a Dear Colleague letter is circulating this morning from one of our colleagues from Montana and one of our colleagues from California. It concerns the critical environmental vote that will occur at 11 o'clock on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments. It identifies that the protection of the health and safety of American citizens should be our highest priority. I agree with that. It further states that in order to do this, all decisions must be made based on science, not politics. It suggests this legislation does not do that. I implore my colleagues, what we are attempting to do is use the best science available. That is why we brought the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Science Academy into the recommending process for EPA. But I point out for the benefit of anyone who still has a doubt that the Environmental Protection Agency has the final authority on determining the radiation standards. But the effort is to get the best science. Let's be honest with one another. Every time this legislation comes up, it comes down to one thing: Nobody wants the waste. I have said time and again, if you throw it up in the air, it has to come down somewhere and that somewhere is Nevada. That decision was made some time ago. We have expended $6 billion in the Yucca Mountain effort. The criticism of this legislation to which this Dear Colleague letter points is it doesn't address an alternative. It is innuendo to say the legislation ``unnecessarily slows EPA's ability.'' It can't do anything until it is licensed. The ``legislation conveys undisclosed acreage of Federal land to Nye and Lincoln Counties in Nevada without providing any maps of the areas or conducting any hearings.'' That is simply not true. We are trying to accommodate the two affected counties in Nevada by giving them BLM-accessed land. What in the world is wrong with that? Is that contrary to the public health and safety? To me it is good for the people of Nevada. I am sure if you asked the two Senators from Nevada whether their constituents should receive this land, they would have a pretty positive opinion. What we have here are more smokescreens. We have a statement by the minority ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works saying they have the sole discretion over nonmilitary environmental regulations and control of atomic energy. Well, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we have the obligation to address the disposal of the nuclear waste. We have attempted to do that in a responsible manner. Yes, this is politics. This is hard core politics. It is trying to accommodate my good friends from Nevada over their objection to put the waste in their State. The Clinton administration, the administration of Vice President Gore, simply doesn't want to address it on their watch. That is all there is to it. Each Member who votes against this legislation better be prepared to go home and explain why they voted to keep the waste in their individual State, when we had a chance to move it out to one central location at Yucca Mountain. There it is, 80 sites in 40 States. We have a chance to move it to one location. The Northeast corridor State Governors said: We don't trust the Federal Government; they didn't take the waste in 1998 when it was contractually due; the ratepayers paid $15 billion; they broke the sanctity of a contractual relationship. What the Governors are saying is they don't want the waste stored in their State by the Federal Government taking title because they are convinced the Federal Government will leave it there. Well, they very well could be right. As a consequence, we have this waste stored in these States on the way to the schoolgrounds, the playgrounds, the hospitals, homes. We have it on the shores of the Great Lakes--Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Ontario--the great rivers--the Mississippi, the Colorado, the Columbia--the Nation's seashores. We must resolve to put it at a permanent site. That is all there is to it. We have a good bill. This is a responsible environmental vote. The environmental community has said, we are opposed to this legislation. What are they for? Are they for leaving the waste where it is? Well, they wouldn't respond to that question. Each Member of this body is elected to make a responsible decision and not be led by groups motivated by their own particular ideology. Make no mistake about it: A large segment of America's environmental community wants to kill the nuclear power industry. They want to kill the nuclear industry because they are opposed to it. But they don't look at the contribution that industry makes to clean air, and they do not address the responsibility of what the alternative is. So a responsible environmental vote is to move this from these 40 States and 80 sites to one central location that is designed for it. Make no mistake about it: These temporary locations are not designed for it. There is criticism that this is some kind of a full blown attack by the nuclear power industry. What they are seeking is relief. They are seeking relief from the waste that has been generated over an extended period of time and the inability of the Federal Government to meet its contractual commitments. That should make every Member of this body indignant. But that is what happened. Do you know who is taking it in the shorts? The American taxpayer, because the claims against the Federal Government for not taking that waste under the contract are somewhere between $40 and $80 billion. That is about $1,400 per family every year in this country. Nobody seems to care about it. I care about it. I am sure you do, Mr. President. We have a good bill. It uses the WIPP transportation model. It is safe transport. The States decide the routes. Some of my colleagues are fearful it is going to be moved by rail. It is not going to be moved by rail. It is very doubtful. Rails don't go direct. A rail goes from one railyard to the next railyard. Oftentimes those railyards are around areas of high concentration of population. That doesn't make sense. The Governors are going to have control of where these routes are determined. They are going to be safe routes because we are going to have professionals out there determining the safeguards, the drivers, and so forth. In fact, we submitted a letter yesterday from the national Teamsters Union. They are concerned because they want trained people. Their trained people will be involved. Finally, EPA has the sole authority to set the radiation standard. Don't let anybody tell you differently. I love my friends from Nevada. I really do. I have a great deal of respect for them. I know where they are coming from. Do you know what they said in the hearing? They said, regardless of what the safeguards are, what assurances we have, we are not going to support a bill that would put the waste in Nevada. I understand that. So it means it doesn't make any difference what we do, what the minority does, what the Senator from California and the Senator from Montana do. We will never be able to convince them. I understand that. So let's recognize that for what it is. The Secretary may settle lawsuits and save the taxpayers this $80 billion liability. This legislation allows early receipt of fuel, once construction is authorized, as early as 2006. The nuclear waste fee can only be increased by Congress. It prevents unreasonable increases in the fees. We provide benefits to counties most affected by repository land conveyance of the 76,000 acres to Nye and Lincoln Counties. This is the land that Nevada wanted. Well, I wonder how bad they want it now. We struggled with this problem for many years. The time is right. S. 1287 is the solution. Utility consumers have paid over $15 billion into that waste fund. We cannot jeopardize the health and safety of citizens across the country by leaving that spent nuclear fuel in 80 sites in 40 States. That is irresponsible. We should move it once and for all where it belongs: at a remote site on the desert. I will show my colleagues that picture one more time, where we have had 800 nuclear tests over a period of 50 years. That is the site. We risk, if we can't get this legislation through, losing 20 percent of our clean generation. Where are we going to make it up? We can't jeopardize our economic and environmental future by ignoring the nuclear waste management issues. That is what we are going to do if this legislation is not supported. We risk losing 103 nuclear powerplants. I urge Members to vote for S. 1287 and finally put this problem behind us. And one more time, Mr. President--remember, each Member who votes against this bill is going to be obliged to explain why they voted to keep the waste in one of the 40 States that they come from when they had a chance to move it to one central location, Yucca Mountain.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And for the minority?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Chair a good morning. I ask, how much time is remaining for the majority?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 1 minute to my friend from Vermont.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a former banker, I must draw attention to what I consider an extraordinary movement by this administration, the Department of Treasury's decision to distribute the U.S. $1 coin to America's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, in Arkansas. Isn't that extraordinary? The banks have always been the agency for distributing new money and the agency for bringing in mutilated money. But for the first time the Department of Treasury has gone to a retailer, Wal-Mart, headquartered in President Clinton's home State, I might add, and I am told that as a promotion they have cut a deal with General Mills, where there are a few of them in boxes of Cheerios. The banks are the backbone of our financial system. I cannot understand the logic or the fairness where if you are a banking customer, and your customers want coins, you have to run down to Wal- Mart. A private citizen who orders those new coins from the U.S. Mint I am told can expect a 6 to 8 week delivery time. I would like to ask the following questions. Who made the decision to give these companies, Wal-Mart particularly, the ability to distribute coins before the banks? I would like to know the name of the person who made that judgment; and what part of Arkansas he was from? Was it a procedure similar to awarding Federal contracts used in choosing Wal- Mart and General Mills? I have sent that letter to Lawrence Summers, and I hope we can get a response very soon. I yield the floor and encourage everybody who has a box of Cheerios to be sure and shake it because there might be a new dollar in it. Don't go to your bank because they will not have it. I ask unanimous consent that my letter, and an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we talk a lot here about tax cuts. We talk about tax increases. But we do not often talk about changing our Tax Code. The President's proposal makes 192 separate changes to the Tax Code. The IRS book is about 5 pounds. The code itself is already 3,400 pages of text. That is 1,600 pages longer than the King James version of the Bible, and at least the Bible is large type, but you need a magnifying glass to read the IRS code. There are more than 2000 separate sections of the Code, tens of thousands of subsections, tens of thousands of pages of regulations and interpretive rulings. Now the President wants to add another 192 sections to the code which will surely make up several hundred additional pages of mindless complexity. As I indicated, the President is proposing more than $95 billion of new taxes on a wide variety of industries. There are new taxes that are being proposed at a time when the Government is already taking in more than it spends. I wonder if there is any end to Washington's appetite for more money from the American people. Regarding especially the President's proposal to impose $1 billion in new taxes on our mining industry, I guess he is trying to drive it offshore. The President has submitted this proposal every year for at least the past 4 years and I say this proposal is going to meet the same fate it has met every time it has been sent to the hill. It will be killed, and I can promise you that. I can assure you, the same tired, worn-out proposals to add $13 billion of new taxes to the insurance industry will never again see the light of day. I notice there are other proposals the President has proposed, but I am sure most of my colleagues share my sentiment that we do not need to raise taxes by $95 billion at this time, when most of what is contained in the tax code should be summarily rejected. I conclude by saying what we need is tax reform. As a consequence, the President's proposal to add 192 separate sections to the Tax Code hardly is reform.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Motorists Privacy Act of 2000. This legislation has become necessary because technological advancements threaten to allow government and private enterprise to develop a vast database of information about the comings and goings of ordinary Americans. Recently, I learned of a device known as an electronic measurement unit (EMU). EMUs are placed on billboards along highways and at the entrances to stadiums and concert locations in Atlanta, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Boston, and a variety of other cities throughout the nation. These shoe-box size devices instantly determine what radio station a car radio is tuned to by detecting electronic signals emitted from the oscillators in every car radio. These devices are capable of measuring tens of thousands of radios in passing cars every day. And they provide nearly instantaneous information on the number of people listening to a radio station at any given time. This valuable data can then be sold to radio owners, who can then adjust their advertising rates based on listenership. Mr. President, there is nothing wrong with surveying radio usage so long as a citizen voluntarily chooses to participate in such a survey. However, when private enterprise or the government begin to monitor radio or television usage, without the knowledge of the citizen, then a line is crossed that can only lead down the path to Big Brother. And as far as this Senator is concerned, that is not going to happen so long as I am a Member of the Senate. When a citizen is sitting inside of his or her car, there is a 100 percent expectation of privacy that what is said and listened to is private. Motorists, rightfully, should have no suspicion that they are being monitored by the government or by private enterprise. However, in the case of EMUs, few motorists are aware that these devices even exist and in most cases, no attempt is made to inform motorists when they enter an area in which EMUs are utilized. Mr. President, what right does a company or government have to snoop on what people are listening to in their automobiles? It is not a very great leap to imagine a world where EMUs track not only what you listen to in the car, but combined with remote television cameras, track your driving patterns. And surely, such devices could be installed in neighborhoods in order to monitor what families watch on television in their homes. Surely such invasions of privacy cannot be tolerated. Therefore, I am today introducing the Motorists Privacy Act which outlaws the use of electronic measurement units to scan car radios. Regardless of whether or not these scans are anonymous, motorists deserve the same expectation of privacy within their cars as does a homeowner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Motorists Privacy Act of 2000. This legislation has become necessary because technological advancements threaten to allow government and private enterprise to develop a vast database of information about the comings and goings of ordinary Americans. Recently, I learned of a device known as an electronic measurement unit (EMU). EMUs are placed on billboards along highways and at the entrances to stadiums and concert locations in Atlanta, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Boston, and a variety of other cities throughout the nation. These shoe-box size devices instantly determine what radio station a car radio is tuned to by detecting electronic signals emitted from the oscillators in every car radio. These devices are capable of measuring tens of thousands of radios in passing cars every day. And they provide nearly instantaneous information on the number of people listening to a radio station at any given time. This valuable data can then be sold to radio owners, who can then adjust their advertising rates based on listenership. Mr. President, there is nothing wrong with surveying radio usage so long as a citizen voluntarily chooses to participate in such a survey. However, when private enterprise or the government begin to monitor radio or television usage, without the knowledge of the citizen, then a line is crossed that can only lead down the path to Big Brother. And as far as this Senator is concerned, that is not going to happen so long as I am a Member of the Senate. When a citizen is sitting inside of his or her car, there is a 100 percent expectation of privacy that what is said and listened to is private. Motorists, rightfully, should have no suspicion that they are being monitored by the government or by private enterprise. However, in the case of EMUs, few motorists are aware that these devices even exist and in most cases, no attempt is made to inform motorists when they enter an area in which EMUs are utilized. Mr. President, what right does a company or government have to snoop on what people are listening to in their automobiles? It is not a very great leap to imagine a world where EMUs track not only what you listen to in the car, but combined with remote television cameras, track your driving patterns. And surely, such devices could be installed in neighborhoods in order to monitor what families watch on television in their homes. Surely such invasions of privacy cannot be tolerated. Therefore, I am today introducing the Motorists Privacy Act which outlaws the use of electronic measurement units to scan car radios. Regardless of whether or not these scans are anonymous, motorists deserve the same expectation of privacy within their cars as does a homeowner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Let me take this opportunity to again thank my colleagues from Nevada for their understanding of this difficult issue and the effect, of course, it has on their State. I encourage other Members who are seeking recognition and who might want to speak on this issue, this would be a good time to do it because we probably have an hour or two left today. Time being what it is in the morning, we have yet to hear from leadership as to what time the Senate will convene tomorrow. Might I inquire of the Chair, is there any indication of that?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Go ahead.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to my good friend from Nevada, I don't think we have been able to ascertain when. But I join him in encouraging Members to come over and speak at this time. I have been notified that Senator Craig will be coming over this afternoon. Senator Domenici will be coming over, and I believe Senator Sessions. In any event, there probably will not be a lot of time tomorrow.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. I certainly agree with my colleague from Nevada. That hour is to be split between both sides. I would like to continue for a moment, if I may. There are a couple of points that I think are necessary to highlight. They concern the issue of the Environmental Protection Agency and just what the role is as determined by the changes we made. I refer to language that is on pages 3, 4, and 5 as opposed to the statement we have from the administration on their position. I should point out, that statement was given on February 8. It is a statement of administration policy. It states that as of February 4, 2000, the manager's amendment to S. 1287--I understand this amendment will be brought to the floor--undermines EPA's existing statutory authority to set standards to protect public health and the environment from radioactive releases. As a consequence, it is unacceptable to the administration because they say it undermines EPA's existing statutory authority and is, therefore, unacceptable. They further acknowledge that the amendment allows EPA to exercise its existing authority to set appropriate radiation release standards for Yucca Mountain. It will allow another entity to block EPA's authority until June 1, 2001. Consequently, if the February 4, 2000, manager's amendment to S. 1287 is approved, and if the Senate bill with these provisions is presented to the President, the President will veto the bill. I appeal to the administration. According to the Washington Post article which I read, the White House says it opposes the bill because it would take away from the EPA the sole authority to determine radiation exposure requirements at a future permanent waste repository if it is built in Nevada. Let me read what it says. Adoption of standard: Notwithstanding the time schedule in section 801 of the Energy Policy Act, the administration shall not publish or adopt a public health and safety standard for the protection of the public from releases from radioactive materials stored or disposed of in the repository at the Yucca Mountain site except in accordance with this section before June 1st, 2001. To suggest that they don't have the sole authority is not what the legislation says. It says they shall not have the authority to publish or adopt before June 1st, 2001. Further, relative to this portion, it says: not later than April 1st, 2001, the Commission and the National Academy of Sciences shall, based on the proposed rule and the information provided by the Administrator--that is, the Administrator of EPA--under paragraph 1, shall submit a report to Congress on whether the proposed rule is consistent about section 801 of the Energy Policy Act; Or, B, provides a reasonable expectation of the public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected from the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel disposed of in the repository; And, C, it is based on the best reasonable obtainable scientific and technical information concerning the need for and consequences of the rule; And, D, imposes the least burden consistent with obtaining the regulatory objective of protecting the public health and safety and the environment. No. 3, in the event that either the Commission--that is, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--or the National Academy of Sciences finds the proposed rule does not meet one or more of the criteria issued in paragraph 2, it shall notify the Administrator--that is, the EPA Administrator--not later than April 1st, 2001, of its finding and the basis for such finding. I repeat that the Environmental Protection Agency has the final say and, under the statute, shall have the sole authority to address the levels of radiation but not before June 1st, 2001. We have not heard from the administration relative to those changes. I hope the administration will be sensitive to our effort to ensure that, indeed, the Environmental Protection Agency will have the last word. The objective is not to take away from the obligation of the EPA, which has the authority under statute. The effort is to bring forth the best science available. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that licensed and monitors the plants has more Ph.D.s in the area of nuclear science and the National Academy of Sciences can contribute something, is that not in the public interest? Again, I appeal to my colleagues to recognize our bottom line is simply to have an emission standard that is attainable and that allows Congress to address a final resting place for the waste. Senator Kerrey's office advised me he wishes to be deleted as a cosponsor of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that request be honored.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2819 in the second degree offered by Senator Conrad.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on either of the amendments and ask the Chair to put the question on the amendments.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I assure my colleagues, Senator Bingaman, and the administration of our willingness to use the remaining time to try to be responsive to their concerns. I will summarize the situation. We have been at this a long time. We all agree we have an obligation as elected representatives to resolve this problem. The failure of the Government--certainly not under this Secretary of Energy--to take the waste in January of 1998 is what we are living with today. The ratepayers have paid $15 billion in electric rates on their bills with the assumption the Federal Government would take that waste; the damages and the claims go on and on and on as a consequence of time passing as that waste remains at the sites of our nuclear plants. The nearest estimate we have is $40 billion to $80 billion. The longer we wait, the greater the burden of the taxpayer. I think the public looks to Congress to address this with resolve. Some have suggested this administration simply does not want to resolve this matter on its watch. That may be the basic position of the administration. That may be justified in their minds. There is another group out there that sees the passage of this legislation to resolve what we will do with our nuclear waste as some kind of a significant benefit to the nuclear industry. If they can defeat this and bring the industry to its knees by causing it to choke on its own waste, nuclear power as we know in this country will die. It will reach a slow process of strangling on that waste, the nuclear power industry will go away, and we will simply generate power from some other source. The difficulty I have with that is the inability to identify what that other source will be and what it will do to our air quality. To me there is a tradeoff in the process. If we lose the nuclear power generating capacity, which is about 20 percent in this Nation, what will we replace it with? We have to solve the waste problem. If this administration does not want it to occur on its watch, we are still going to have to solve it under another administration, whether it be Republican or Democratic, or we are simply going to add this obligation of the damages to the American taxpayer. I think we are all in agreement that we simply must deal with it. We have an equal responsibility. I gave an interview a few minutes ago. The first question was: Senator, why can't you resolve this? I am sure all my colleagues know why we can't resolve it. Nobody wants the waste. Unfortunately for our good friend from Nevada, a decision was made to proceed with Yucca as a permanent repository some time ago. We have spent over $6 billion. The tunnel is drilled. We are awaiting licensing. That is where we are. I am also told the administration is split on this. Some would like to see it resolved. Some don't want it resolved at all. I guess it rests with each Member to recognize his or her responsibility as elected representatives to bring this to a resolve responsibly. If somebody else has a better idea of how to resolve it responsibly, they can certainly have this dais, the microphone, and whatever else goes with it. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I shall not further debate the issue today.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, that is my understanding.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, I can announce that there will be no further votes today and final passage of the nuclear waste bill will occur tomorrow at 11 a.m.

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