Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, there won't be anybody living next to the facility. Forty-some-odd miles away is the nearest living soul to that particular area. Las Vegas is, of course, over the mountains.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That appears to be the case, because of the stone with which the building was built.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The only explanation I can give my friend from Alabama is, for reasons I can only assume are associated with the objections from antinuclear groups, this administration has simply chosen to ignore its obligation on the issue of nuclear waste. We have an industry that is strangling on its own waste. Our technology has created that waste. On the other hand, we are dependent for about 20 percent of our power on nuclear power generation. Obviously, it has made a substantial contribution to the air quality because there are no air emissions from nuclear power. As we look at the French, they are almost 90-percent dependent on nuclear energy. They have chosen not to be held hostage by the Mideast as they were in the 1973-74 timeframe. So they have developed almost entirely their power generation on a nuclear power generating industry and their sophistication of disposing of the waste is through technology. They take the waste and reprocess it, recover the plutonium, put it back in the reactors, and burn it, and hence reduce the proliferation. The residue is vitrified like a glass and that is buried, but it has a relatively short life. So while we are committed to permanently disposing of our high-level waste at Yucca, there is another alternative that we have precluded ourselves from pursuing, which, in my opinion, is probably the right way to go, and it is the way the Japanese are going as well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate you pointing that out again. As you know from the chart, it does say 80 millirems is the exposure we get here in the Capitol. If you live in a brick house, you get 70 millirems. You get 53 millirems of additional exposure from cosmic radiation in Denver, as a result of the higher altitude. The average radiation from the ground is 26 millirems. An x ray is 20. A dental x ray is 14, and you have to write a check for it. A round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles is 6. Exposure for a half hour from a transport container to a truck 6 feet away is 5 millirems. It is important that we put these in perspective.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will be responding to some statements that were made during a debate that was held on this floor late last week concerning the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999, which the leadership attempted to bring before this body. It was objected to by the other side. I will take this opportunity to go back and forth between truth and fiction regarding this issue, because I think it is important we all have an opportunity to review the facts as opposed to the rhetoric that suggested that some things are risky when, in reality, we have addressed that risk through technology or other means. Last week, there was an allegation made that the radiation release standards for the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain contained in S. 1287 are inconsistent with the range of 2 to 20 millirem suggested by the National Academy of Sciences. In the real world, somebody has to make these judgment calls regarding what level of radiation the public will recognize as being valid and protective of their interests. This level should be determined not by emotion but by sound science. The question is, Who has the sound science? We believe the National Academy of Sciences certainly has that scientific expertise to make these judgments. As a consequence, we believe they should play a role in setting the radiation standard, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. What we are going to do here is respond to the myth by reminding my colleagues that the National Academy of Sciences, in fact, did not make a recommendation for a specific radiation standard nor a range of exposure levels. Going back to page 49 of the NAS report, it states: We do not directly recommend a level of acceptable risk. In fact, the NAS said the appropriate risk level was a decision for policymakers. Congress is the ultimate decisionmaker on policy. S. 1287 establishes the basis for regulations that protect the public health and safety and the environment from radiation releases at repositories. My good friends and colleagues from Nevada will have you believe I have something against the people of Nevada. I do not have a constituency with regard to this issue because in Alaska we do not have an operating nuclear plant, therefore we do not have nuclear waste. However, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have an obligation and an oversight responsibility to address and resolve this issue. The reality is, I am very sensitive to the feelings of the people in Nevada regarding the waste. But we have to store it somewhere. The logic has always been that the best place to store this waste is in an area where we have had 50 years of nuclear testing, out in the desert. That is what we have done in the study of the feasibility of placing a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, where we have expended over $6 billion already. S. 1287 is consistent with existing law, which required the National Academy of Sciences to recommend a standard that protects people in Nevada. This chart shows the annual radiation doses allowed by various regulations. I think it is important to recognize the standard in S. 1287 is more stringent than required by Nevada law. Nevada has an administrative code, section 459.35, which states that ``the total effective minimum dose to any member of the public from any licensed and registered operation does not exceed 100 millirems per year.'' S. 1287 would result in a standard that is only one-quarter of that set by Nevada itself. To me, this is a responsible approach. I will repeat one more time: This bill will result in a standard that is one-quarter of the standard set by Nevada itself. We are certainly sensitive to the demands of Nevada that health and safety be protected. S. 1287 will ensure that releases of radioactivity from the repository will not result in an annual dose to an average member of the population in the vicinity of the site in excess of one-tenth the radioactivity received from natural background sources by the average U.S. resident. This standard is lower than guidelines recommended by the preeminent international and national advisory organizations. These organizations include the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the congressionally chartered National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurement to provide guidance on radiation protection to countries worldwide. I have another chart showing sources of radiation exposure. The term ``millirem'' may not mean much to most people, but let me put this in perspective. The standard we have set in S. 1287 will limit a possible exposure of 25 to 30 millirems per year to the people who might receive the most exposure over the next 10,000 years. As this chart shows, we all get 80 millirems a year of extra radiation working where? Right in this Capitol Building. Each one of us--all the pages, everybody--get 80 millirems a year of extra radiation, and it is from the stone in the Capitol which contains naturally reoccurring radiation. Maybe we ought to tear the Capitol down. That is one way to get rid of all extra radiation. After all, we all get more than three times as much radiation above- background levels in a year as this bill, S. 1287, will allow the closest individual to Yucca Mountain, which is the proposed site of the permanent repository. The next chart shows the location of the permanent repository. This is the Nevada Test Site. This is the area we have used previously for more than 800 nuclear weapons tests. That is where we want to store our Nation's nuclear waste. I have another chart that shows other examples, and this is in comparison to the EPA's draft rule which would limit Yucca Mountain to exposures, assuming that people in Nevada drink untreated ground water, to levels as low as one-tenth of a millirem. This is in violation of existing law. One of my five principles reflected in this legislation is that Yucca Mountain rules for radiation should be set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not by the Environmental Protection Agency. Some have asked why. This is the reason why: The 1992 Energy Policy Act required the Environmental Protection Agency to issue regulations governing the maximum annual effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public consistent with the study of the National Academy of Sciences. Instead, what EPA did is issue draft regulations that are counter to the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. One has to wonder why. Is it to kill this effort? Some within the Environmental Protection Agency would like to see the nuclear industry in this country go away, die, buried, gone forever. Regardless, we have an obligation to recognize that about 20 percent of our power is generated from nuclear power. We have created significant waste and have an obligation to address it. S. 1287 is consistent with the NRC's proposed regulations for Yucca Mountain which are consistent with the National Academy of Sciences report. The Environmental Protection Agency continues to push for unrealistic, unnecessary, counterproductive standards that have nothing to do with protecting the health of Nevadans. Proof of that is they want these standards to equal drinking water standards, as low as one- tenth of a millirem for a separate ground water protection standard. The NRC measures radiation exposures to all individuals from all sources as required by law, including exposures from drinking water. I question whether the Safe Drinking Water Act should be applied to ground water from this area where we have had 50 years of nuclear testing and over 800 tests. If the water becomes tap water, then perhaps the act should apply, but not while the water is still in the ground. EPA wants to take extreme, strict standards that were designed to apply to drinking water out of a tap and apply it to water in the ground whether people drink it or not. What they are saying is you cannot achieve the process of getting this site licensed if you set a standard that is unattainable. I am not hung up on standards and who dictates standards, but I am committed to getting this legislation through, protecting the public, and ensuring we have a standard that is achievable based on the best science available. I will not support a standard that the EPA dictates that will simply make the project unachievable at the expense of the taxpayers, who probably have over $15 million already in this process, let alone the expenditure of another $50 million to $80 million for not having taken the waste. Let me clear up a very important point. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission standard fully protects the people in Nevada. Whether the drinking water standard is applied to ground water has nothing to do with how much additional exposure there is from this facility. EPA applied similar regulations to the WIPP in Carlsbad, NM, to the transuranic nuclear waste disposal facility. This is Government waste from weapons production facilities. WIPP is a Government facility in the salt caverns of Carlsbad, NM. The drinking water standard was not an issue when WIPP was licensed by EPA because WIPP is a salt mine and has no potable water around it. One wonders whether EPA thinks all nuclear waste should be disposed of in a salt cavern. I am not sure everyone in this body will agree. The National Academy of Sciences did not recommend that the Safe Drinking Water Act be applied to ground water. Instead, it addressed requirements necessary to limit the overall risk to individuals as required by law. Finally, the NAS concluded the decision regarding the acceptable levels of protection at Yucca Mountain is a policy decision. I believe it is appropriate that Congress make the decision regarding the level of protection and that the NRC set the standard. In short, the statement of the administration position bases its objections on a disregard of both existing law and the reality of the Federal Government's obligation to take nuclear waste beginning in 1998. There is a question of whether the EPA standard will harm health and safety nationwide. Do not believe the draft EPA regulations are a victimless crime. By ignoring this requirement and insisting on a standard that no repository probably can meet, a standard that provides no additional protection for health and safety to the people in Nevada, EPA and the opponents of Yucca Mountain will harm health and safety across the country. Why? Because the current storage was not designed for this hazardous waste. It was designed to be removed, because there was a commitment made by the Federal Government pursuant to a contract beginning in 1998. The Federal Government has failed to perform under that contract. As a consequence, the waste stays where it is. Some of the Governors have said: Well, we are concerned about this waste staying in our State. And if indeed, as this legislation proposes, the Government takes title of the waste site, we are fearful it will stay in our State. I would say to our Governors: If this legislation does not pass, it is just where it is going to stay. It is going to stay in those States. This chart shows where it is. It is in over 80 sites around the United States, all over the east coast. The chart shows in brown where our commercial reactors are. We have shut down reactors with spent fuel shown in the green. That isn't going to move until we get the repository for it. We have military reactors, Navy reactors, and we have the Department of Energy reactors and waste around the country. My point is, this legislation is a mandate to address a problem. It might not be perfect, but if you have a better answer, come on aboard and let's try to address our responsibility. In the remaining minutes, let me conclude by reminding you that the Department of Energy's draft environmental impact statement on Yucca Mountain concludes that the public would be at a far greater risk of latent cancer if high-level radioactive waste in used fuel were left at the 80 sites around the country. If you are comparing apples to apples, the draft EIS assumes that in either case, people completely walk away from the repository and the on-site storage facilities after 100 years. This is the standard assumption of the EISs. For people living near the repository--with spent fuel shielded by natural and engineered barriers hundreds of feet below the ground and hundreds of feet above the water table--the long- term effects are very negligible. The Department of Energy concludes that there would be virtually no latent cancer fatalities--much less than 1--over 10,000 years. On the other hand, the consequences of leaving the material at a score of sites around the Nation are certainly far greater. And that is where we are now. In the absence of institutional controls, on-site storage would lead to ``about 3,300 latent cancer fatalities over 10,000 years as storage facilities across the United States degraded and radionuclides from spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste reached and contaminated the environment.'' The Department of Energy calls the outcome of this ``no action'' scenario a ``considerable human health risk.'' High-level nuclear waste is in the backyard of our constituents, young and old, across the land. In further presentations, we are going to spell out specifically where it is, the street it is on, across from the school, across from the church. As DOE points out in the environmental impact statement, each year that goes by, our ability to continue storage of nuclear waste at each of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. It is irresponsible to let this situation continue--literally, a crime against the future. We cannot let that happen. A myth is: The release standards for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant program were set at 3 millirems. Reality: The 3-millirem standard did not apply at WIPP. This is the Safe Drinking Water Act level which EPA has chosen to apply to ground water. However, WIPP is in a salt dome and contains no potable ground water, so the drinking water standard did not apply. Myth: If you do not pass this bill, the Yucca Mountain will open on schedule. The reality is, the antinuclear activists and the Nevada delegation are doing everything they possibly can to stop Yucca Mountain from opening, including encouraging the EPA to issue a counterproductive and impossible-to-meet standard for radiation. Further myth: Nuclear waste storage casks are safe for storage but not for transport. The reality of that is, properly licensed nuclear storage waste casks are safe for both storage and transport. We in the United States have transported over our highways 2,400 shipments of spent nuclear fuel by the nuclear energy industry and others, over the past 25 years. This chart shows the network of where it has traveled. It has moved all over the country, up and down the east coast, through the Rocky Mountains, through the Midwest, and up and down the east coast. There have been 2,400 shipments of spent nuclear fuel by the nuclear energy industry and others over 25 years. No fatality, injury, or environmental damage has ever occurred because of a radioactive cargo. It isn't that we could not have an accident, but we take steps to ensure that the risk is at a minimum. I suggest we have had an occasion where we have had a truck break down but the casks have performed as designed; they have not broken up. The nuclear disasters the Nevada Senators have promised would happen simply have not happened. Technology is the answer. Technology is available for safe transportation, and it is already paid for. We look at Europe. They are moving high-level radioactivity from their nuclear plants by ship, by railroad, as well as highways. Senate bill 1287 provides the authorization to coordinate a systematic, safe transportation network to move spent fuel to a storage facility. A further myth: Leaving the spent fuel where it is only costs $5 million per site. Reality: At a hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the NRC Chairman testified that the startup costs of building a dry cask storage facility at a reactor would be $6 million, plus $1.5 million per year for new casks and operation, plus $5 million per year for maintenance after the reactor is shut down. But the real question is, What will it cost the taxpayer? The DOE has collected, as I have previously indicated, over $15 billion from the ratepayers, the people who pay their electric bills, under a binding contract to move the spent nuclear fuel. The Federal Government did not meet that binding contractual term to take it beginning in 1998. Damages, I have indicated, for nonperformance of that contract have been estimated between $40 and $80 billion. The Government is ignoring the sanctity of its contract. That amounts to $1,300 per American family. Here is how the damages break down: The cost of storage of spent nuclear fuel, $19 billion; return of nuclear waste fees, $8.5 billion; interest on nuclear waste fees, $15 to $27 billion; consequential damages for shutdown of 25 percent of the nuclear plants due to insufficient storage--power replacement cost--$24 billion. Well, this is billions upon billions. If regulators prohibit additional on-site storage, utilities may be forced to close plants and buy replacement power at an average cost of $250,000 to $300,000 per day for a typical reactor. Finally, let me conclude by exposing the ultimate myth. That myth is: 80 nuclear storage waste sites are safer than 1 centralized storage site at the Nevada Test Site, a site so remote that it has been used to explode nuclear devices for 50 years. Let's put the picture of the Nevada Test Site up one more time. The reality of this is simple, really. Why should we leave spent nuclear fuel at nuclear powerplants in 34 States when there is a less costly storage method with an increased magnitude of safety? The picture shows, the proposed site of where we will put it, the one site. The point is, let's put it in one site where we can monitor it. If we want, we can have an appropriate repository so that if at some time we want to have a retrievable capability, we can do so, as technology advances. DOE's own environmental impact statement calls the outcome of the ``no action'' scenario a ``considerable human health risk.'' Transporting used nuclear fuel to a central storage facility in the Nevada desert is the only sensible approach. I do not have to remind my colleagues that the Federal Government made a promise and signed contracts with utilities--including those in many of individual Members' States--that it would start disposing of spent nuclear fuel in 1998. The evidence is squarely on the side of reaffirming this vital commitment. It makes good sense to consider the Nevada Test Site, an isolated, unpopulated, desert location where we used to test nuclear bombs. You have seen that on the picture behind me. When you test a nuclear bomb, even underground, radioactivity can and does escape. It does get into the ground water and sometimes even the atmosphere. My colleagues from Nevada have supported continued bombing tests on the test site but don't support storage of spent nuclear fuel in an NRC-licensed and monitored facility. I just don't understand why. Why was the Nevada Test Site good enough to test leaky bombs but suddenly is not good enough for safe and secure spent fuel storage? I know there is a little politics in it. I understand politics. Leaving used nuclear fuel at a nuclear plant site defies common sense, makes a mockery of Government accountability, reneges on a promise made by the Government, and is extremely costly to the taxpayer. Spent fuel pools at reactor sites were never intended to be used for long-term storage. As you remember, a few years ago, radioactive tritium gas leaked into Suffolk County, Long Island, ground water from the spent nuclear fuel storage at Brookhaven National Laboratory. In response, the Department of Energy removed the spent fuel and shipped it for storage to another DOE site. All we are asking is that DOE perform the same task which it is legally obligated to perform for civilian nuclear reactors. Without a Federal spent fuel storage facility or an additional on- site temporary storage, which many opponents of this bill also actively oppose, some utilities will be forced to close plants down prematurely. In fact, 26 reactors will exhaust existing storage capacity in the next couple of years. To understand the calamity this would bring about, consider what would happen if you started chipping away at 20 percent of this Nation's electric supply or what the skies would look like if this base load capacity were replaced by fossil-fuel-burning plants of the older technology. As some of you are aware, the temporary shutdown of nuclear plants in the Northeast and Midwest had authorities planning for rolling blackouts during the hottest days this last summer. The Senate must pass Senate bill 1287 and start developing the integrated spent fuel management programs that Congress has mandated and engineers and scientists have thoroughly designed safe technology for storage and for transportation of spent fuel, and for which electricity consumers in this country have paid. The Federal Government has promised it would dispose of this waste. It is now time for the Federal Government to stand up and be counted and do its job. S. 1287 is the solution.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is right.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is correct. We've actually spent a little bit more than that. We have the tunnel basically done. The facility is designed to be a permanent repository for this high-level waste.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. No fatalities. I thank my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In responding to the Senator from Alabama, a little over $15 billion has been paid to the Federal Government. The Federal Government agreed to take the waste beginning in 1998. Clearly, that date has come and gone.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is a very interesting point the Senator has brought up, because if we look at the clean air proposal of this administration and the proposal that 7\1/2\ percent could come from renewables, we have to question whether we have that technology. Somebody said if you took every square foot of New Mexico and Arizona and put solar panels across, you would only get half of 1 percent, because it gets dark once in a while and the wind doesn't blow all the time. So we have real problems with facing reality in the administration's proposal. There is no mention of the role of nuclear power in that proposal. Nor do they consider hydroelectric generation as a renewable, which is beyond me, because it rains, the lakes fill up, and the hydro works. But it is a mentality currently within this administration. I appreciate the Senator bringing up these points, but in the clean air proposal by this administration, there is no role for nuclear. Clearly, there has to be.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend. I see my friend from New Mexico will be seeking recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I might need a couple of more minutes to finish. I ask unanimous consent I may extend my time to a full 15 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague for his remarks on the bankruptcy bill. I think one thing--while it is not necessarily appropriate to recognize on the bankruptcy bill--we should recognize is the inability of our Federal Government to honor the sanctity of contractual commitments. I can think offhand of the agreement that was made by the Federal Government some two decades ago to take the high-level nuclear waste by the year 1998. The ratepayers paid something in the area of $15 billion into that fund for the Federal Government to meet its contractual obligation. The pending lawsuits are somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion. Obviously, the Federal Government doesn't set a very good example. This is not necessarily apropos to bankruptcy, but it is apropos to the theory that we pay our bills, that we honor the sanctity of our contracts. The old saying is, ``Charity begins at home.'' The Government should set the example. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for approximately 30 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that attempts to diminish the scope of a problem that is facing our air transport industry, namely a critical shortage of pilots. The pilot shortage is starting to have effects in many rural states. In response to this problem. I am today introducing a bill that would repeal the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule which now requires pilots who fly under Part 121 to retire at ago 60. Under my legislation, pilots in excellent health would be allowed to continue to pilot commercial airliners until their 65th birthday. The Age 60 rule was instituted 40 years ago when commercial jets were first entering service. The rule was established without the benefit of medical or scientific studies or public comment. The most recent study, the results of which were released in 1993, examined the correlation between age and accident rate as pilots approach 60. That study found no increase in accidents. The FAA contends that although science does not dictate retirement at the age of 60, it is the age range when sharp increases in disease mortality and morbidity occur. In FAA's view it is too risky to allow older pilots to fly the largest aircraft, carrying the greatest number of passengers over the longest non-stop distances, in the highest density traffic. However, 44 countries worldwide have relaxed then age 60 rule within the last ten years primarily because the pilot shortage is a worldwide phenomenon. Many of these air carriers currently fly into U.S. airspace. One of the ways carriers are attempting to adapt to the shortage is to lower their flight time requirements. In my view, this is a risk factor the FAA should be concerned about. How did this shortage occur? The reason is simple: There has been an explosive growth of the major airlines worldwide, and there's a shortage of military pilots who used to feed the system. In addition, there is an aging pilot pool that must retire at age 60. Add to this domino effect the decline in the number of people learning to fly, due primarily to the cost, and the pool of available pilots has shrunk. The shortage acutely affects my home state of Alaska because we depend on air transport far more than any other state. Rural residents in Alaska have no way out other than by air service. There are no rural routes, state or interstate highways serving most rural residents in Alaska and the airplane for many of them is their lifeline to the outside world. The pilot shortage has left Alaskan carriers scrambling for pilots. Alaska's carriers must hire from the available pilot pool in the lower 48. Many of these pilots view flying in Alaska as a stepping stone that allows them to build up flight time. Although they get great flying experience in my home state, in nearly all instances when a pilot gets a higher-pay job offer with a larger carrier in the lower 48, he leaves Alaska. According to the Alaska Air Carriers Association, raising the retirement age to 65 will help alleviate the shortage and keep experienced pilots flying and serving rural Alaskans. Mr. President, I would note that what is happening across the country is that the major carriers are luring pilots from commuter airlines, who in turn recruit from the air charter and corporate industry, who in turn hire flight instructors, agriculture pilots, etc. Which leaves rural carriers strapped. The big fish are feeding off the little ones. Small carriers simply cannot compete with the salaries, benefits and training costs of the major carriers. They simply do not have the financial resources. According to figures provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, there were 694,000 pilots in 1988 and 616,342 in 1997. Within that number, private pilot certificates fell from approximately 300,000 in 1988 to 247,604 in 1997. Commercial certificates, like air taxi and small commuter pilots, fell from 143,000 in 1988 to 125,300 in 1997. The number of total pilots in Alaska fell from more than 10,000 in 1988 to approximately 8,700 in 1997. However, light is beginning to show at the end of the tunnel. Organizations such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) have been monitoring this shortage for some time and have stepped up to the plate to get people interested in flying. AOPA has started a pilot mentoring program in 1994 and approximately 30,000 have entered the program. GAMA's ``Be a Pilot'' program is starting to bring more potential pilots into flight training. Even the Air Force is starting to institute new programs to keep pilots. In Alaska, as a result of a precedent-setting program involving Yute Air, the Association of Village Council Presidents, the University of Alaska, Anchorage, Aero Tech Flight Service, Inc., and the FAA, a program was developed to train rural Alaska Natives to fly. Seven are on their way to pilot careers. Also, the number of students working on pilot licenses at the University's Flight Technology program has almost doubled in two years. It is my hope that the shortage has hit rock bottom. But even so, it will take years before a cadre of qualified pilots is ready to take to the friendly skies. Mr. President, the time has come for Congress to wrestle with this problem. As long as a pilot can pass the rigorous medical exam, he or she should be allowed to fly. Air service is critical to keep commerce alive, especially in rural states. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment (#2359) proposed by Senators Conrad and Grassley which would tailor the Trade Adjustment Assistance program so that it helps farmers and fishermen--two groups that are not adequately assisted under the current TAA program. I voted for this amendment at the Finance Committee markup, and was disappointed that it failed by a narrow margin. But I am pleased that Senators Conrad and Grassley persevered in pushing this important issue forward. I also want to thank the authors of this amendment for working with my staff to ensure that the provisions cover fishermen in Alaska and Louisiana and other areas along with farmers in the Midwest because these two groups face similar problems. Finally, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan, for accepting this amendment today. I urge them to insist on retaining this language at conference with our House colleagues. I have long been an advocate of opening markets abroad for U.S. exporters, and putting in place rules to facilitate trade between the nations. I voted for the NAFTA and the Uruguay Round. I support the Finance Committee managers' amendment to the underlying bill which will change our focus in Africa from aid to trade, will give the Caribbean nations parity in their trade with the United States. In addition, I support reauthorizing two important programs; the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and the Generalized System of Preferences program. But even as we pursue liberalized trade initiatives, we must work harder to help Americans adjust to a changing business climate that is often affected by events half way around the World. For while we can take pride in an historically low unemployment rate nationwide that occurred partly as a result of our open and innovative workplace and trading rules, certain sectors and certain parts of the country are still facing employment losses or income losses as a result of low worldwide commodity prices. Fishermen and Farmers fall in this category. Let me just use one example. An Alaskan fishing Sockeye Salmon was getting $1.18 per pound in 1996. But last year, that price had sunk to 85 cents--a 28% drop, and a 17% drop over the five-year average. And the drop came in the face of rising imports. Foreign imports of seafood have steadily risen since 1992 while exports have steadily fallen over the same period. The current TAA program is better suited to traditional manufacturing firms and workers, than to farmers and fishermen. When imports cause layoffs in manufacturing industries, workers are eligible for TAA. In my own state of Alaska, TAA has played an important role both in the oil industry and for the seafood processors. But an independent fisherman does not go to the dock and receive a pink slip, he goes to the radio and hears the latest price for salmon, and he knows that his family's livelihood is threatened. TAA has not been available in his circumstances. As the authors of this amendment have explained, the TAA for Farmers and Fishers would set up a new program where individual farmers could apply for assistance if two criteria are met. First, the national average price for the commodity for the year dropped more than 20% compared to the average price in the previous five years. Second, imports ``contributed importantly'' to the price reduction. If these two criteria are met, fishermen would be eligible for cash benefits based on the fishermen's loss of income. The cash benefits would be capped at $10,000 per fisherman. Retraining and other TAA benefits available to workers under TAA also would be available to fishermen interested in leaving for some other occupation. Mr. President, I believe that this change in the TAA program is long overdue. Again, I want to stress that the traditional TAA program still plays an important role, and I do not want to diminish its current role--but to expand it. The TAA program averts the need for more money in unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps and other unemployment programs--in short, it keeps Americans employed and able to support themselves and their families. Let me end, Mr. President, by returning to a few points on the underlying bill. It is unfortunate, in my view, that this might be the only piece of trade legislation that we move this entire Congress. As you might guess, trade with Africa and the Caribbean Basin countries is not that important to Alaska. I am deeply disappointed that we are not looking at a WTO agreement with China. I continue to believe that President Clinton made a mistake by rejecting the deal that was put together in April, and might not ever get put back together in the same manner. I am also deeply disappointed that we have not considered trade negotiating authority that would be a strong vote of confidence as our negotiators head to the Seattle Round. Nevertheless, I commend the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and the Ranking Member, Senator Moynihan, and our Majority Leader for bringing this legislation to the floor. Perhaps, if we are able to move forward on this piece of legislation, the logjam will be broken. Let's hope.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no idea, Mr. President, how long the leadership wants to go today. But I am prepared to accommodate the interests of the Senate and am also prepared to go at great length. So it might be appropriate if we had some indication of how long the leadership wants this matter debated today because I understand we are going to be going off of it and then back on it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding, Mr. President, there are a number of Senators who are seeking recognition for items they would like to bring up in morning business. I obviously would like to accommodate them. But I wonder if we could get some idea of who and how many, because obviously I am prepared to start the debate on the nuclear waste bill and want to accommodate Members.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Please proceed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If the leader would yield?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it is my understanding that it was the leader's intention to lay down the nuclear waste bill, but there has been an objection raised. As a consequence, it is my understanding that we will be discussing the bill, recognizing that there may be procedural action by the leadership at a later date regarding the disposition of this legislation. It is my intention to simply discuss the merits of the bill for a period that would accommodate the President, as well as my colleagues, recognizing it is Friday afternoon and there are Members who perhaps have other plans. While it is not my intention to communicate to this body every thought concerning this matter that I have. I do have, through the cooperation of my staff, probably enough material to take 6 or 7 days. Hopefully, it will not take that long to convince my colleagues that we have a problem in this country with our high-level nuclear waste program. It is no secret there are not a number of States that are standing in line to take this waste. The fact is, most Members would wish for some type of a magic trick that would make this waste disappear. But the facts are, this waste is with us. It was created by an industry which contributes some 20 to 22 percent of the total electric energy produced in the United States. So it is our obligation to address how we are going to handle that waste. We have, I think, like the ostrich, put our head in the sand regarding advanced technology addressing high-level nuclear waste that has advanced in other countries, particularly in France, and to a degree Great Britain and Asia. The technology varies, but the basic premise is that spent fuel coming from our depleted cores within the reactors are taken, and through a chemical process, the plutonium is recovered and returned to the reactors as fuel. This is an oversimplification of the process, but, as a consequence, the proliferation threat of the plutonium is reduced dramatically because it is burned in the reactors. Not every existing reactor can utilize this technology, but technology is clearly available. What is done with the rest of the waste? It is vitrified. That means the remaining waste is turned into a glass. The lifetime of that material has been reduced dramatically. It still must be stored, but it has a lesser radioactive life. What we have here is a situation where my good friends on the other side have objected to consideration of this bill. That objection suggests that they might have some other alternative other than simply delaying a resolution of this problem. If there is another alternative other than delay, I would hope my friends on the other side would bring that to my attention. For the sake of full disclosure, as the junior Senator from Alaska, I do not have a constituency in my State on this issue. My hands, so to speak, from a self-interest point of view, are pretty clean. Oftentimes we have Members who are trying to foster a particular policy based on an interest in their State. We don't have high-level nuclear waste in Alaska. We have never had a nuclear power reactor, with the exception of a small program back in the early 1960s on one of our military bases. That facility has since been removed. The point is, the obligation I have is one as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to try to get my colleagues to recognize that we collectively have a responsibility as to what we are going to do with this waste. The industry is strangling on its waste. If we don't address it in a responsible way, the industry will decline. It will decline for a couple of reasons. The storage at many reactors is at, or almost at, the maximum limit allowed by their licenses. That means that each reactor is licensed for the amount of waste that can be stored on the site of the reactor. Many of you have been to nuclear reactors. You have seen the blue pools where the spent rods are stored. There is a limit to how much storage is available. As a consequence, we run into a situation where some reactors have reached their maximum limit under the authorization and cannot continue to operate without some relief. That relief, as I will indicate to my colleagues, was to have been provided by the Federal Government. The Federal Government contracted with the nuclear power industry in the United States to take this waste beginning in 1998. As often is the case, the Government doesn't seem to honor the sanctity of contractual commitments to the level the private sector does. The Government was unprepared to take this waste in 1998, even though there had been a continuing effort to meet the Government's obligation by opening a facility at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, for the permanent placement of high-level nuclear waste. To date there has been almost $7 billion expended in that process. That facility is not ready. So what we have before us is a situation where the Government has violated its contractual commitments. The damages associated with that currently are estimated to be $40 to $80 billion. The U.S. taxpayer is going to have to accept the responsibility for these damages as a consequence of the Government's failure to initiate taking of the waste in 1998. When you look at $40 to $80 billion, you must recognize that this obligation arises as a consequence of DOE's failure to perform the contract. This is basically damages. So we have a situation where nobody wants the waste, including the Federal Government that is contracted to take the waste as of 1998. We have a stalemate. We have an effort to ignore this waste as though it didn't exist, that it will go away. Some would even make the generalization that the Clinton administration simply does not want to address this issue on their watch. There are all kinds of interests here. There are some of the environmental groups that don't want to see this issue resolved. They want to kill the nuclear power industry in this country. They certainly don't want to see it grow. There has not been a new reactor ordered in the United States since 1979. So we are not advancing, and we are not standing still; we are stepping back. The consequences of this are: What are we going to do? How do we meet our obligation to provide power if, indeed, we lose a portion of our nuclear industry? Some suggest we will just reach out and find more natural gas. We have had hearings in our committee that indicate you just don't plug in if you need more natural gas; you are going to have to depend on an expanded distribution system. That expanded distribution system isn't going to be built unless there is an increase in the price of gas. And to suggest you are going to have cheap gas available is strictly speculation. You will have to go after deeper gas. To give someone the incentive to drill in these more difficult areas, you are going to have to increase the price. As a consequence, the critics of this legislation fail, I think, to meet their obligation to come up with an alternative as to where this energy is going to come from if we don't address this high-level nuclear waste issue. Leave it where it is? Where is nuclear waste? Behind me we have a map that shows every Member of this body where it is today. It is stored in about 80 sites in 40 States. If you don't want to do anything about this, you are deciding to leave it where it is. Some of the Governors have indicated they are reluctant to support this legislation because it has been amended to accommodate the administration's proposal that it be authorized to take title to the waste at the site. The governors are fearful the waste will stay there. For the life of me, I can't understand that logic. If we don't do anything, it is going to stay there anyway. So we have to address the problem. Leave it where it is? Now you know where it is. I am going to go through several States individually this afternoon because I think it is important that the States that depend on nuclear power have a general understanding of how much they have paid into the waste fund, how much they are dependent on nuclear power, and what is going to happen if we don't address this problem. First is the State of Illinois. As you can see on the chart, the consumers in the State of Illinois have paid $2 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund. What is the Waste Fund? It is the Government. They paid the Government to take this waste. This started in 1982. How many units do we have in Illinois? We have the Braidwood 1 and 2, Byron 1 and 2, Clinton, Dresden 2 and 3, LaSalle 1 and 2, Quad Cities 1 and 2. How much waste is stored? We have 5,215 metric tons of waste in the State of Illinois. In addition, the Department of Energy research reactor fuel is stored there, 40 metric tons. If you don't find a place for this, what is going to happen? It is going to stay. Here, where it says ``no vacancies,'' are the reactors by name and when they run out of storage space: Dresden 3, the year 2000; Dresden 2 in the year 2003; Clinton, 2003; 2006; 2006; 2013; 2015; and 2019. We have a crisis coming up because the earliest, from all estimates, that we can have a facility ready to receive waste is in the year 2007. That is the expedited schedule under S. 1287. We have done extensive work at Yucca Mountain. The tunneling is done. You can wander around in there. It looks very impressive. Why Yucca Mountain? Well, some of the people who make decisions decided that was the best place to put this waste because of the unique geography of the site. Nobody wants this material. Vermont has a lot of granite. It would probably make a good repository, but I am sure if the delegation from Vermont were here today, they would have something to say about it. But the point is, it has to go somewhere. So they chose a site out in Nevada, a site where we have had nuclear testing for some 50 years. You might say it is polluted. It has been used over a period of time for hundreds of above-ground and underground nuclear explosions. So they decided to put it out there, and they spent almost $7 billion of the taxpayers' money. Back in Illinois, how significant is nuclear power in the mix? It is 39 percent of Illinois' power. I hope every person in Illinois understands this because it is their lights and pocketbook. You want to get nuclear waste out of here? You want your reactors to continue to be able to produce power? Or do you want your electric rates to go up when these plants close? Are you going to hold the Government responsible for the payment you made in your electric bill to take that waste when you paid them $2 billion? They are in violation of the sanctity of that contractual commitment. So that is the story in one State, the State of Illinois. But I am not through. We have a lot of charts, and we are going to go through a few. The State of Michigan. They make a few automobiles out there, as I recall. We don't make automobiles in Alaska. We grow fish and trees in Alaska. The ratepayers paid $696 million into the waste fund so the Federal Government would take their waste in 1998. They have four units: Cook 1 and 2, Fermi 2, and Palisades. The waste stored is 1,493 metric tons. The DOE has research reactor waste there as well. What happens? Palisades says 1992. So they are out of luck. Fermi 2 is down in 2001, and Cook and 2 are down in 2014. Michigan is 24-percent dependent on nuclear power. The next chart: Arkansas. The ratepayers in Arkansas paid $365 million to the Federal Government for the waste fund. You would think President Clinton, being from Arkansas, would have some interest in solving this problem. No way. They have two units, Arkansas 1 and 2. Waste storage is 690 metric tons. Unit 1, down in 1996; unit 2, down in 1997. What they have done is they took their waste out of the spent fuel pool, and put it on site in casks temporarily. That is where it is. The State allowed them to do that. We don't know if all the States are going to allow that. Now, mind you, that is temporary. ``Temporary'' implies you are going to do something for a permanent solution. Arkansas is 33-percent dependent on nuclear power. The next chart: The State of Oregon. They paid $108 million into the waste fund. One unit, Trojan. Waste stored, 424 metric tons. It is the location of the Hanford site. Waste stored, 2,133 metric tons. Trojan closed for decommissioning. The waste stays in Oregon. If the Governor doesn't want relief, it is going to stay in Oregon. Next is Louisiana. Waste fund, $239 million. That is what the ratepayers paid in Louisiana. Two units, River Bend 1 and Waterford 3. Waste stored, 567 metric tons. What is happening? In the year 2002, down goes Waterford 3, and in 2007, down goes River Bend 1. The State of Louisiana is dependent 22 percent. Georgia. The waste fees that the people in Georgia paid on their rate bills total $529 million. Four units: Hatch 1 and 2 and Vogtle 1 and 2. Waste stored 1,182 metric tons. They have the Savannah River site. Waste stored, 206 metric tons. It is going to stay there. Hatch is out in 1999; Vogtle out in 2008. Georgia is 30-percent dependent on nuclear energy. The dairy State, Wisconsin. What bothers me here is the fact that Members from these States should be concerned. You have been ripped off by the Federal Government. They are taking your consumers' money, and they haven't taken your waste. Do you want it to stay there? If you do, don't do anything. If you want to move it, you had better get behind some legislation. Three units, Kewaunee and Point Beach 1 and 2. Waste stored, 967 metric tons. Point Beach: They are storing it in casks on the surface at the nuclear reactor. Kewaunee goes down in 2001, and Point Beach goes down in 1995. They are 8-percent dependent on nuclear power. Connecticut. We haven't had much concern from Connecticut. I can't imagine why. Connecticut is 43-percent dependent on nuclear power. That is the first quarter figures for 1999. The residents, in their utility bills, have paid in $655 million for the Federal Government to take the waste. Two units, Millstone 2 and 3. Waste stored, 1,445 metric tons; DOE defense waste. They build a few nuclear subs in Connecticut. They have for a long time. Do you want us to be able to continue building those submarines? Millstone 2 is up in 2002. Millstone 3 is up in 2003. They are 43-percent nuclear dependent in Connecticut. Next chart: The State of Washington, moving out near my part of the world. The waste fund contribution is $344 million. Residents paid that amount in Washington in their utility bills. The Government didn't take the waste. One unit, WNP 2. Waste stored, 292 metric tons. No vacancy in 2000. Despite the fact that they have tremendous hydro in the State of Washington, they are 6-percent dependent on nuclear. Moving on to Massachusetts. The ratepayers there paid $156 million in their electric bills. One unit, Pilgrim 1. Waste stored, 495 metric tons. The State is 12-percent dependent. That gives you some idea geographically of where this stuff is. It is all over the country. We are trying to get consideration of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1999. This issue has been before this body before. We passed bills by broad bipartisan margins in previous Congresses but couldn't overcome a veto threat by our President from Arkansas. On that last vote there were 65 votes in support of the bill and 34 were opposed to it. Our President is from Arkansas. I guess he wants to leave the waste in Arkansas because he threatened to veto the bill. We didn't quite have a veto- proof vote. We only had 65 votes. That is pretty good around here. Those bills were a complete substitute for the existing Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. That bill gave the authority to build an interim storage facility for nuclear waste at a temporary above-ground storage pad adjacent to Yucca Mountain. In other words, the relief proposed in that bill was to move the waste into casks that were designed and engineered for transportation and move them out to Yucca Mountain where they could be stored temporarily in above-ground storage until such time as Yucca Mountain was ready to receive the waste. I have another chart that shows how high-level waste moves around the country in the transportation network. It is important that you understand this high-level waste moves across the United States today. There have been from time to time suggestions made that somehow this can't be moved safely. When we show you the chart, you will recognize that there is a risk involved in moving anything, including you and I. With proper precautions and with proper engineering, the risks can be reduced dramatically. That is what has been done. When one considers the risk inherent in leaving this waste where it is, scattered around the country in places where it wasn't designed to be stored, or storing it onsite in casks, one has to question why there is such a concern over moving this waste to one concentrated site as was proposed initially in the previous legislation to establish interim storage at a temporary above-ground storage pad adjacent to the Yucca Mountain site. Here are 30 years of safe transportation of used-fuel routes that occurred from 1964 to 1997. There were 2,913 shipments. There is the routing. They go from Portland to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Cheyenne, Bismark, Minneapolis, Omaha, Des Moines, St. Louis, Oklahoma City, Nashville, Columbia, Raleigh, Richmond, Washington, DC, Philadelphia, New York, Syracuse, Boston, Pittsburgh, Charleston, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, and St. Paul. They have been moved, and they have been moved safely. I think there was one accident where somebody ran off the road. No damage was done to the spent fuel cask. The inherent safety of the technology within the casks resulted in no release of radiation. Sure, something could happen. Something could happen by leaving it where it is. The fact is, with these numbers of shipments over that timeframe, there has never been a fatality. There has never been an injury. There has never been any environmental damage because of carriage of this radioactive cargo. To suggest we should suddenly become excited about the prospects of moving it, fails to recognize that we have been moving it for 30 years. The previous legislation contained extensive provisions on licensing for Yucca and interim storage facilities, including NEPA radiation protection standards and transportation requirements. History tells us the administration, of course, threatened to veto this legislation because it opposed interim storage, and the justification for that was that they wanted the viability assessment to have been completed regarding the permit repository at Yucca Mountain. The viability assessment has been completed. So that is behind us. That is one roadblock that has been thrown in our way. We have had, of course, a great deal of objection from our friends from Nevada. I can understand their objection. They don't want it in their State. Where are we going to put it? Are we going to put it in the District of Columbia, which belongs to everybody? We know the practicality of that is unrealistic. We know we have to store it somewhere. If it weren't for my friend from Nevada objecting, it would be my friend from someplace else objecting. But you can't continue to ignore the problem. There is an anti-nuke movement out there that doesn't want to see any advancement of technology for anything that has anything to do with nuclear power generation. One thing they forget is what the nuclear power industry contributes to air quality. It makes the greatest contribution of any source because there are no air emissions. If you want to clean up the air, and we are concerned about global warming, nuclear is an answer. They won't have that. They want the status quo, which is doing nothing while the waste continues to pile up. We are trying to accommodate the administration. We are trying to make advances so we can make progress on how we are going to address this problem. In response to the administration's concern, the bill before us, Senate bill 1287, is a completely different approach. I hope my colleagues and staff who are watching this debate understand what this bill does. It is not a complete substitute for the old act. It is a minimal approach. It does not contain interim storage provisions. We have taken those out because there has been great objection to that. The reason there is great objection is because the fear is that if you put spent fuel in Nevada in interim storage it will become permanent. I do not agree with this position, but I am not going to argue the point. Nevertheless, this legislation is different. It doesn't mandate an interim storage provision. So let's get that out of the debate. It is no longer in the bill. There are two major things this bill does. First, it gives the Department of Energy the tools it needs to meet its commitment to move spent fuel by opening a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. That is the policy. That is the objective. Every responsible policy-maker has agreed. We have to have an answer to this. The answer, of course, is the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. One may not agree that is the correct answer, but we have collected over $15 billion from the ratepayers to put that waste in that hole we dug at a cost of over $7 billion at Yucca Mountain. That is our policy. We have to have some policy. Otherwise, we are going down a million rabbit trails at once. The second major thing: It provides fair treatment for those who have fulfilled their end of the bargain by paying over $15 billion under the contract, only to have DOE leave them literally holding the bag. This is pursuant to the contract to take the waste in 1998, which the Federal Government failed to do. Specifically, this legislation, Senate bill 1287, clarifies the existing unconstitutional one House veto for raising the nuclear waste fee. It states, I think, appropriately, that only the Congress can vote to raise the existing one mill per kilowatt fee if necessary to pay the additional expenses anticipated in this program. We are saying only the Congress has that authority. The bill allows plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the Department of Energy to reach voluntary settlements of DOE's liability for failing to take nuclear waste in 1998. To accommodate Secretary Richardson, with whom I have been working at great length, we have included the administration proposal to take title to the waste at reactor sites. This offers the industry an alternative. They can do one of two things: They can either let the Government take title to the waste at site or they can choose to proceed to litigate their claim for the Government for failing to take the waste. There is a radiation standard that has received a lot of consideration. The question is, Who sets the standard? Should it be the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that has the extended, in-depth expertise in nuclear matters and setting standards? Should that agency set the standard that protects the people of Nevada and other States without imposing unnecessary and counterproductive restrictions? Some will argue that the regulator ought to be the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA should regulate and set the standard. Let's be sure we understand one another. That standard has to be reasonable. Otherwise, this whole thing is for naught. The EPA has a rather curious record. Some suggest there are portions within the administration that don't want to have anything to do with nuclear energy; they are opposed philosophically to it. Are they going to be objective and set a standard that is unattainable on purpose? That is the real risk. This whole thing can be killed on that one issue. That has been known to happen. If they set a standard for groundwater comparable to the drinking water standard, this thing is through. The Government's money is wasted, and the $6 billion in Yucca Mountain is wasted. I know some people would love to have it that way because we wouldn't be putting it in Yucca Mountain or Nevada and we would still have the problem. Be careful of this one, colleagues. The bill contains a radiation standard set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am willing to take a look at other proposals as long as it will result in a rational standard. The fourth issue in this new proposal is to allow the fuel to be accepted when the NRC authorizes construction of a permanent repository in the year 2007. Again, we assume that will be at Yucca Mountain. It allows the Department of Energy to begin moving fuel as soon as possible after Yucca Mountain is licensed in the year 2007. I appeal to those States and those Governors who are following this debate who say wait, if this proposal goes and the Government takes title, it is still stuck in my State. I remind the Governors, if this bill does not pass, it is still stuck in your State. We have to have a vehicle to move this process along. Everybody is free to come in if they can build a better mousetrap. Transportation provisions based on those used for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, are another provision. Again, I refer to the transportation chart. We move spent fuel all the time in the United States and around the world and have no release of radiation. This revised bill builds on the existing safety system by adding money for education, emergency responders, local communities, transportation personnel, provisions for routing, allowing the State input, special rules for populated areas, and advanced notification for local government. That is not what is done now by the Federal Government; they just go ahead and move it. This is civilian, government-owned and military waste. The same stuff. It moves to Idaho, moves all over the country; we just don't say anything about it. Now we are saying: OK, public, this is what we will do. Is it any less safe than what we are doing now? It will be safer if we pass S. 1287. We will have an opportunity for a demonstration. Some folks will come out and have a field day. But they have an obligation, too. What will they do about this waste? Will they stand and block it so it can go back to where it came from? That is irresponsible. Where is the administration? I am not sure. I talked to the Secretary. We have accommodated the Secretary. It was his proposal that said we would take the waste at site. I explained we are having problems with some of the Governors, particularly in the northeast part of the United States. They want to get this waste out of their area. They had better get behind something that will address a process so the waste can be moved, because if they don't, it will sit there forever. We have eliminated the source of the administration's opposition to our previous bill on the issue of no interim storage, and on their suggestion relating to the Government taking title of the waste. I am not sure I understand whether the administration still opposes the bill, but I am sure my friends on the other side will enlighten me. They certainly have not come to the table to try to work constructively to resolve this problem which I believe we can no longer ignore. I think it is the philosophy of the Clinton administration to simply ignore this for the remainder of their watch. As a consequence, it is delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed. I have gone on for a reasonable period of time. I want to accommodate my colleagues. I see the Senator from Nevada waiting to be recognized, as well as some of my other colleagues. Madam President has been most accommodating in allowing me this time, but I am inclined to yield the floor. This may be enough for me today, but I have about 680 more pages of material that, hopefully, will convince you, if I have not convinced you already. With that, Madam President. I temporarily yield the floor.