[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 18, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7839-S7845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2311) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2002, and for other purposes.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to talk a little about 
energy. Of course, the appropriation before us is on energy and water, 
but the broader topic I think we are going to talk about here in the 
next couple of days as well is the whole notion of an energy policy and 
the implementation of a policy for this country.
  We have, as you know, gone now for a number of years without an 
energy policy. It has resulted in some things that we have felt 
recently. Frankly, I think we are very likely to feel them some more in 
the future. We felt it in California, of course, and continue to feel 
it, although it is a little less pressing now. We felt it in the price 
of gasoline and continue to feel it, although the price is down. But if 
we do not do something about the causes of this crisis, we will have it 
again.
  I come from a State, Wyoming, of course, where we are big in the 
production of energy. We are the No. 1 producer of coal. We are 
producing natural gas, methane gas--a grand, new operation there. So we 
also feel the up and down, in and out, of energy. Frankly, selfishly, I 
hope we can level things out a bit and get away from this boom-and-bust 
kind of economy that seems to be inherent in energy.
  To do that, it seems to me, we need to really take seriously this 
idea of having a national energy policy. I am very pleased the 
President and the Vice President have put forth an energy policy, as I 
said, for the first time, really, in a very long time. Now it is up to 
us in the Congress to take up the portions of that policy that have 
been laid out that need to have congressional action. Not all of it 
does, but a great part of it does, and we need to do so.

  The results of the lack of a policy over the years are pretty 
apparent in a couple of areas. One, obviously, is our dependence on 
overseas production. I suspect we will continue to have a good deal of 
overseas production, but we have allowed ourselves to become nearly 55-
percent dependent on OPEC and other countries to fill our needs here, 
so we find ourselves in a position where, if the OPEC countries make a 
decision with regard to production, make a decision with regard to 
pricing, we are simply the victims of that.
  What is the solution? I suspect at least one of the solutions we need 
to consider seriously is an increase in domestic production. We have an 
opportunity to do that. There is a great deal of reserve energy here. 
There is a great deal of reserve in coal, for example, that we can 
depend on for a very long time.

[[Page S7840]]

  One of the impediments to that, of course, in the West particularly, 
has been access to public lands. In a State such as Wyoming, and even 
much more so in Nevada and some of the others, half of our State 
belongs to the Federal Government. In order to have production on those 
lands where minerals are available, you have to have reasonable access 
to those lands.
  I am not talking about wilderness. I am not talking about national 
parks. I am not talking about those lands that have been set aside for 
particular things--even in many cases parts of the forest reserve. I am 
talking more about Bureau of Land Management lands, the multiple-use 
lands.
  You have to understand how those lands became what they are before 
you can really have an idea of how they might be used. Parklands, 
obviously, were set aside. Forest reserves were set aside. BLM lands 
were simply the lands that remained there after the goals of the 
Homestead Act and so on were accomplished, and they remained in Federal 
hands. So they were never set aside for any particular reason, and 
therefore they are common land and should be available.
  Unfortunately, the access to those lands is much less available than 
it was just a small number of years ago. Some of the environmental 
groups have said: Oh, my goodness, they are 85 percent available. The 
fact is they might be, in terms of their designation, but when you get 
down to specific requirements that have been placed on the lands, the 
available lands are much less than they were just 10 years ago.
  I don't want to get into the ANWR thing, where we have been wrestling 
over that. There are lots of lands that we have shown and will continue 
to show can be explored, where minerals can be produced and those lands 
can be replaced and put back just as they were.
  Another problem we have had, that continues to be there and we will 
feel again, is the lack of infrastructure--the lack of refineries, for 
instance, for gasoline. We have not produced new refineries for years. 
Part of the reason for that is the indecision, where we are. Part of it 
has been the regulations that were there--14 or 15 different kinds of 
gasoline that had to be prepared for different areas, which makes it 
much more difficult.
  One of the more pressing problems is the transportation of available 
energy, whether it be through transmission lines for electricity or 
whether it be through lines for gas and oil. We have to get the energy 
from where it is produced to where it is used in the marketplace. We 
have not done that. These are some of the things that need to be 
considered.

  In addition, we have to take a long look at what we can do on 
renewables--continue to do more research so wind and solar and hydro 
become more and more a part of our future in energy. That can very 
easily happen. One of the things that has to be done, of course, is 
research. We have to do more of those kinds of things. The other is 
conservation. Conservation is much a part of where we are. I do not 
think we can solve the problem in the future with conservation, but 
that is one of the approaches that must be taken.
  I hope we continue to press to get the leadership of the Senate and 
leadership of the Congress to come to an accord on taking up the 
specifics of energy and not letting ourselves be fooled into thinking, 
because of this little pullback from the so-called crisis, that the 
problem has been solved; it has not. In order to avoid that happening 
again, really in any sort of project, we need to look ahead at what our 
needs are going to be, what kind of energy do we want available to us, 
and what do we need to have. Then we need to move to implement those 
things. I hope we hear more about that.
  I yield to my friend from Alaska, who is the ranking member and has 
been chairman of the Energy Committee and is probably one of the most 
knowledgeable of all of our Senators on this area.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am here today to begin the 
discussion on the 2002 energy and water appropriations bill. I want to 
recognize the hard work of professional staff members on the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources, both the majority and the minority, 
and the hard work of the Members of this body as we address this 
difficult and often contentious issue associated with nuclear waste and 
the issue at hand, which is a substantial reduction in funding for the 
nuclear waste program.
  We have seen lots of good projects funded in this legislation, the 
energy and water appropriations bill: Flood control, reclamation 
projects, Indian water settlements such as Animas and Rocky Boys and 
others. But we also have a very significant obligation at this time, 
and that is the matter of disposing of our high-level nuclear waste 
that is generated as a consequence of the operation of nuclear 
powerplants that contribute about 20 percent of the power generated for 
electricity in the United States.
  I also want to recognize Senator Domenici for his tireless efforts in 
this area.
  What we have before us is the current measure which proposes a major 
reduction in funding to allow the Federal Government to select the site 
for storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
  This is kind of a two-headed major environmental issue. We talk a lot 
and express our concerns about global warming. One of the answers to 
global warming, of course, is nuclear energy. On the other hand, we 
have a problem with nuclear waste, and currently the industry is 
clearly choking on its own waste because of our inability to address 
and resolve what to do with that.
  So on the one hand, we have the positive aspects of the nuclear 
industry inasmuch as it answers many questions associated with global 
warming, but the reality is that this industry can never move into its 
full development capability unless we do something about the waste 
issue.
  I have been critical of the previous administration for playing 
politics with the issue, sacrificing the environment and health and 
safety of the American people for short-term political gain. Here we 
are again with an obligation of what to do about the problem because we 
have seen a substantial cut in funding in this area. The Appropriations 
Committee has proposed to make cuts in the Yucca Mountain Waste 
Disposal Program. Specifically, the administration requested $445 
million for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the 
office that oversees the Yucca Mountain projects. The House energy and 
water bill funded the program at $443 million. While not the 
administration's full request, it is about $48 million more than last 
year's funding.
  Unfortunately, we have before us in the Senate a committee 
recommendation to provide a total of $275 million to continue the 
scientific and characterization studies already underway at Yucca 
Mountain. So we are looking at a cut from $443 million in the House, 
the administration's request of $445 million, and the committee 
recommendation to fund at $275 million. There is a question of whether 
or not we are going to offer an amendment at some time to reinstate 
full funding, but before we address that, I want to discuss this matter 
in depth because it creates, if you will, an obligation for the 
American people and the Congress to face up to reality. I want to 
outline what the reality is, and I could probably best do it by having 
a chart and pointer with which we will attempt to explain just where we 
are on the issue of Yucca Mountain and the proposed scheduling.
  I am going to ask Colleen to go over here with the pointer and help 
me out.
  What we have, first of all, is a bottom line that will catch the 
attention of virtually everyone who is watching, which is the 
investment the American taxpayer has in trying to address what to do 
with the high-level nuclear waste and what we have expended at Yucca 
Mountain because that is the bottom line, and we are going to work 
backwards from there. We have spent about $8 billion of the taxpayers' 
money developing Yucca as a permanent repository. Do we have a picture 
of Yucca?
  We don't have it with us today. We have it somewhere. It shows the 
tunnel. It is the repository out in Nevada in the proving grounds where 
we have had some 25 years of extensive nuclear tests--over 800 nuclear 
tests--both above and below ground. It is a pretty hot area in the 
sense of the testing that has taken place in the area, but in any 
event, it was one of the proposed

[[Page S7841]]

sites and the site that was finally approved for a process. This 
process is overwhelmingly complex, but the bottom line is not 
overwhelming.
  The cost to the taxpayer at Yucca Mountain so far is $8 billion. That 
is only part of the story, Madam President, because the other part of 
the story is what happened in 1998. In 1998, the Federal Government had 
a contract with the industry, the nuclear industry, to take the waste 
that year.
  The Federal Government has always acknowledged a responsibility to 
deal with spent fuel and other waste from civilian reactors as well as 
our nuclear weapons program. As a consequence of the obligation to take 
civilian spent fuel, the Federal Government signed a contract saying it 
would take the waste in 1998. You might wonder, well, what is the point 
of this conversation because you have to get the bottom line of what 
happened.
  Since 1987, utility ratepayers, the nuclear ratepayers of this 
country have been paying a premium to the Federal Government so that 
the Federal Government could take the waste in 1998. That Fund, the 
Nuclear Waste Fund, currently has $19 billion--$19 billion in it. All 
to help the Federal Government meet its contractual obligation.
  Madam President, 1998 came and went. The Federal Government did not 
have the proper repository ready, and as a consequence the Federal 
Government was in breach of its contract.
  Nineteen billion dollars is a lot of money. I am not going to stop 
there because the costs don't stop there. It gets more complex because, 
as you know, any time you breach a contract you expose yourself to 
litigation. So we have already spent $8 billion on examining Yucca 
Mountain.

  The claims filed by the nuclear industry against the Federal 
Government total somewhere between $60 and $80 billion for 
nonperformance of the contractual commitments. That is about $90 
billion to $100 billion. That is what we are looking at. We are looking 
at the $19 billion that ratepayers have paid into the Nuclear Waste 
Fund, $8 billion of which we have spent and then we are looking at $60 
to $80 billion in litigation associated with the breach of contract. 
And here we sit.
  The point I want to make now with this chart is to show you the 
steps. Back in 1978, we had the first Yucca Mountain bore hole, the 
testing. Then in 1982, we went with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Then 
in 1984, we had the draft environmental assessment. Then in 1986, we 
had the three candidate sites-selected areas. Well, the one that was 
selected and approved in 1987 was Yucca. We had final environmental 
assessment in 1986. Then in 1988, we had consultation, we had draft 
site characterization and then in 1989, and so forth, we had site 
characterization. Then in 1993, we begin the actual construction. That 
was the bore hole test. Then in 1998, we had the viability assessments. 
And then we had the draft EIS.
  Now we are in 2001 in the buff-colored area, and we have funding for 
the science and the engineering report. That is basically funded this 
year in the 2000 appropriation supplemental, draft EIS, NAS report, and 
then we have the site recommendations.
  Moving over in the next year we have suitability evaluation and the 
final EIS. Notice the significant portion where we are at risk is the 
site selection review, and that is proposed in the funding that is in 
the current water bill at $445 to $443 million. If you cut that to what 
the committee has proposed, $275 million, you are setting this whole 
program back a number of years. How many years? Heaven knows.
  But let us look at the next scenario because it suggests the 
significance of the result of this action.
  As I indicated, the amendment that might be discussed at a later time 
would increase the funding to the level that is felt that can keep the 
program on schedule. Why do you want to keep the program on schedule? 
Well, for the following reasons: According to the Department of Energy, 
the cuts would have a significant impact on the program: immediate 
reduction--in other words, layoffs--of about 650 Federal and contract 
personnel; indefinite delay in license application; renders the 2010 
spent fuel receipt date unachievable--so basically, at the end of this 
thing, which is out here in 2010 when we are supposed to take the 
waste, that makes that date unachievable--the loss of 75 percent of 
Federal staff performing oversight, the loss of most quality assurance 
oversight; loss of ability to conduct independent technical reviews; 
termination of the Nye County Early Warning Drilling Program; 
eliminates any of the universities that are involved in this process; 
loss of repository surface design support for license application; loss 
of modeling ability; loss of license application design and analysis 
capability.

  All these activities that are underway--and have been--are necessary 
to achieve this 2010 date, at which time this repository would be 
licensed and capable of taking the high-level nuclear waste. So this is 
necessary funding to keep this on a reasonable schedule.
  That is under the assumption that science will determine that Yucca 
is suitable. I believe it will. If so, then licensing activities are 
key to getting the repository back on track.
  There is no question that the Federal Government has the obligation 
to take the waste. There was a contract in 1998 to take the waste. As I 
indicated, the ratepayers have paid in $19 billion. The Federal 
Government has breached its contract. And the Federal Government is 
subject to lawsuits, litigation, somewhere in the area of $60 billion 
to $80 billion. This is serious business. This is serious accounting to 
the American taxpayers for performance. They expect the Congress of the 
United States to perform. We have an obligation to perform; that is, to 
structure this so it can achieve its purpose as designated by the 
Congress.
  I can understand the opposition of my friends from Nevada to the 
Yucca Mountain issue. They do not want it in their State. They are 
working very hard to assure that it does not go in their State.
  On the other hand, if you are not going to put it in Nevada, where 
are you going to put it? You are not going to put it in the other 49 
States for obvious reasons. There is another alternative. We could 
pursue reprocessing.
  However, today at the Energy hearing, we asked the Deputy Secretary, 
Mr. Francis Blake, if we pursue reprocessing, will we need Yucca 
Mountain as a permanent repository? He said yes. And if you don't 
depend on experts, on whom are you going to depend? Are you going to 
hold a public hearing and make a decision on emotion rather than 
science? These are scientists speaking.
  I personally believe there is a place for reprocessing. Perhaps we 
should have started on that a long time ago. But that was killed under 
the Carter administration. We had an opportunity. So here we are. We 
have nearly $100 billion of taxpayers' money at risk. We are hung up 
right on the pinnacle of what to do, and the proposal now is to cut 
funding--to cut funding without coming up with an alternative of how we 
are going to do this.
  A lot of people say we are never going to be able to move the waste 
anyway. We have moved military waste all over the country. We have 
moved high-level waste to South Carolina, to the State of Washington. 
It is moved by military means. And it is moved safely. We have been 
very fortunate in the manner in which we handle this waste. I think we 
have the scientific capability to reduce the risks to a minimum. We 
have to get this thing off center.

  My appeal to my colleagues and the staffs who are watching this 
debate is that we have a responsibility to the taxpayers. I hope 
everybody who is listening recognizes that we have spent $100 billion 
of taxpayers' money on this project. If we reduce the funding, we are 
going to put it off indefinitely, or we certainly are going to put it 
off after the watch of my good friend, Senator Reid, and others, and 
simply pass the problem on to others who may come into this body from 
Nevada.
  I do not have a constituency on this in Alaska, but I have a 
responsibility, as former chairman of the Energy Committee, and the 
ranking member, to address the obligation that this body has to address 
this problem with some finality. We are either going to fund it, keep 
it going, or we should come to grips with the other alternative. And I 
am not conversant necessarily on what that might be.
  But we have the waste. The nuclear industry produces 20 percent of 
the

[[Page S7842]]

power in this Nation, and we can't agree on how to solve it. Not only 
is the selection of a repository critical in dealing with our present 
spent fuel problem, but it is essential if we are to build an energy-
secure future. I talked a little bit about that in my opening remarks.
  There is the realization, as we look at global warming, there is 
definitely a place, a strong place for nuclear energy. Our future 
energy security depends on nuclear power if we are ever to meet our 
environmental goals. I would say to my colleagues, who are very 
sensitive to the environmental point of view, that those 
environmentalists who oppose the advancement of nuclear energy are 
really sticking their heads in the sand and unrealistically failing to 
recognize that energy has to be produced from some source, and, as a 
consequence of that, whether it be coal or oil or gas, we have concerns 
about global warming and emissions. We do not have that particular 
concern with nuclear, but we have the concern of what to do with the 
waste. We have to address that. But the contribution that nuclear 
energy is making is significant to reducing global warming.
  We have had hearings on nuclear energy in the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. We have looked at the future of the industry. We 
have discussed the reauthorization of Price-Anderson.
  Nuclear energy, as I have indicated, is 20 percent of our energy mix 
and must continue to play an even greater role in the future if we want 
to meet our energy demands and protect our air quality. The production 
of electricity from nuclear energy, as I have indicated, emits no 
greenhouse gases, no CO2, no SOX, no 
NOX. It is a baseload power which provides our grid 
stability and reliability.
  Nuclear energy supplies California with about 16 percent of its 
electricity supply. Without that in the past year, the California grid 
would have simply collapsed. High natural gas prices and low uranium 
prices have helped to make electricity produced from nuclear some of 
the cheapest in the country and some of the most efficient.
  Safe and efficient U.S. plants are operating today at record 
efficiencies. In 1999, U.S. nuclear reactors achieved close to 90-
percent efficiency. Total efficiency increases during the 1990s at 
existing plants was the equivalent--this is just the efficiency--of 
adding approximately 23 1,000-megawatt powerplants. So that gives you 
some idea of the sophistication of the industry. Keep in mind, it is 
all clean, nonemitting generation.
  Now we are seeing more acceptance, that the nuclear energy industry 
is on the upswing. Four or five years ago, who would have thought we 
would have heard about buying plants, selling plants, and, yes, even 
building new plants. That discussion is happening today.
  The U.S. industry is actually putting its money where its mouth is. 
By the end of 2001, the Chicago-based Exelon Corporation will have 
invested $15 million in a South African venture to build a pebble bed 
modular reactor, new technology, technology that reduces the risk 
associated with the operation of nuclear reactors and a very exciting 
development.

  It is fair to say that we are seeing the public becoming more 
accepting in recognizing the role of nuclear energy. This past April 
the Associated Press commissioned a poll that suggests that half of 
those polled, nearly half, support using nuclear powerplants to produce 
electric energy, and 56 percent said they wouldn't mind a nuclear plant 
within 10 miles of their home.
  The problem we still have is what to do with the waste. I believe 
there has been more of a political problem than a technical one. I 
understand the politics of Nevada, and I respect it. Now a funding cut, 
however, that impacts the technical program for reasons that we can 
conjecture simply is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for the 
American taxpayer in light of the exposure to that taxpayer already.
  Again, I cite that exposure in dollars because I think we have a 
tendency to generalize around here. But when we get specific, we have 
spent $8 billion of the taxpayers' money in Yucca Mountain, that hole 
in the Nevada mountain, we have collected $19 billion that we have 
collected from the ratepayers to have the Federal Government take the 
waste in 1998, with the realization that the Federal Government broke 
the contract and now with litigation totaling some $60, $80 billion, 
you can see the significance of the obligation we have.
  For those of us who support the Yucca Mountain program, at last count 
there were 66 Members of this Chamber who indicated support of using 
Yucca Mountain as a repository for the storage of spent nuclear fuel--
66 Members. I don't know how many Members we have today in this body 
who are willing to support this effort. It suggests that if an 
amendment is taken to a vote and the amendment would fund at the 
appropriate level necessary to continue the program, that if that 
amendment failed--and there may be a good deal of loyalty on the other 
side in reference to the amendment--then those responsible would have 
to bear the brunt of recognizing the significance of this in basically 
killing the nuclear program in this country associated with Yucca 
Mountain and the disposal of the waste.
  On the other hand, if some assurances can be made that there will be 
funding at a level to keep this at a reasonable level, to continue the 
schedule that I have outlined behind me, then, obviously, we could work 
together to recognize the necessity of maintaining this program as it 
has been developed. We can't simply accept this kind of a cut that 
would set this program back that many years.
  I don't know where the votes are, but I will let others who are 
responsible make a determination of where the votes are on this issue.
  I remind each and every Member, as they reflect on how they might 
vote on an amendment to restore the funding to the appropriate level, 
again, the taxpayers of this country may be questioning each Member on 
the validity of basically putting this program off and potentially 
abandoning the program after nearly $8 billion has been expended.
  I find it ironic, the one hook that the opponents of the site have 
always hung their hat on. They have said time and time again that 
science should decide the issue, not politics. Well, this schedule I am 
showing you is science in action. This is the check and balance system. 
This is the evaluation of all our environmental considerations in an 
orderly process. It is science in action. If politics is going to kill 
this program by cutting the funding from the roughly $445, $443 million 
down to $275 million, it will not be science that is making that cut. 
It will be politics.

  Let me repeat the statement because I think it is important. Science 
should decide this issue. This is science in action, not only because 
of its importance to the taxpayer but because it may be the only area 
of agreement the opponents and I have on Yucca Mountain. That is, let 
science determine the disposition. I, too, believe that science should 
determine this issue.
  I hope, as we continue the discussion today on this matter, we 
consider the significant merits of exposing the American taxpayer to 
upwards of $100 billion in liability. Are we going to stop this program 
in its tracks at this time? If we let science make the determination 
about Yucca Mountain, then the funding should be restored and the 
program should be allowed to reach a determination about suitability 
one way or another. That is the orderly way to approach this. That was 
the general consensus of Members relative to the process which 
authorized the funding all these years, and we are still in the process 
of reaching a determination on suitability. That should be allowed to 
be funded at a level so we can make that determination.
  If the suitability determination is not there, then, obviously, the 
project cannot go forward; it would have to be terminated. But that, 
again, should be a decision made by science and not the political 
process associated with this body.
  I hope the Senate conferees will address this at an appropriate time, 
and it may be necessary that we move an amendment to restore the funds 
on the floor, but there are other Members who want to talk on this 
issue.
  I yield the floor, and I will be happy to respond to any questions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before my friend from Alaska leaves the 
floor,

[[Page S7843]]

I take this opportunity to briefly respond.
  In all my dealings with the then-chairman of the Energy Committee, 
now the ranking member, he has set an example of how one should treat 
people. He has always been available on difficult issues, on easy 
issues. He has never, as a result of our disagreement on a subject, 
done anything to be vengeful on something else that was important to 
Nevada. I have the greatest respect for the junior Senator from Alaska. 
He has been, in my estimation, a real role model as to how one should 
be a legislator.
  On this issue we disagree. There are so many issues involved with 
this. Because I am from Nevada, I always consider myself maybe not the 
right person to speak about this issue. Maybe someone else should speak 
about it. Therefore, I am not going to speak a lot other than to say we 
not only have the characterization problem with Yucca Mountain but the 
unbelievably difficult problems dealing with transportation.
  Senator Bryan and I traveled to St. Louis a year or two ago and met 
with the county commissioners, the legislative body that governs the 
county where St. Louis is located. We made a presentation to them. 
They, a short time after that, passed a resolution saying they were 
opposed to Yucca Mountain and they didn't want any nuclear waste 
traveling through St. Louis.
  People feel that way all over the country. The problems dealing with 
transportation are complex, difficult, and almost impossible. That is 
why in Europe they have gone away from the burial of nuclear waste and, 
basically speaking, to now where they are going to try to do 
transmutation that we should already be doing in America.
  We had a program going that was killed in the early 1980s. It was the 
Clinch River in Tennessee. Transmutation was terminated. Why? Because 
there was a belief at the height of the cold war that some of this 
processed plutonium could make its way into the hands of the wrong 
people. In hindsight, that was a very bad choice. Now in this bill we 
have money to again begin this process. The comanager of this bill, 
Senator Domenici, and I have worked hard to increase that funding.
  I have not tried to, in any way, be mean spirited with the cuts we 
have made with Yucca Mountain. These moneys are not just thrown away; 
they have gone to extremely important programs. I have a little 
difficulty crying big alligator tears over a program that still has 
$275 million to be spent in 1 year. We are going to conference with the 
House. Of course, there would have to be changes made there, I am sure. 
But the changes are not going to be easy because we have programs for 
places in Ohio and we have programs in South Carolina, in Idaho, and in 
Washington, where huge amounts of money are going to clean up the mess 
that we as a Government made dealing with things nuclear.
  So I understand from where my friend from Alaska is coming. It is a 
difficult problem. My personal belief is that we as a country and as a 
world would be better if we simply said let's leave it where it is, in 
dry cask storage. We will save hundreds of billions of dollars doing 
that, and we won't have the transportation problems. It would be safe 
for a hundred years. By then, we will have something to do with the 
product.
  I know that my friend, the senior Senator from Idaho, has indicated 
he wants to speak on this issue and perhaps offer an amendment. The 
junior Senator from Nevada has indicated that he wants to speak on this 
issue. Perhaps during the day we will do that.
  Madam President, let me say this. My friend from New Mexico is not 
here. I am not frustrated, but I am arriving at the point where I am a 
little bit frustrated. This is a bill involving more than $25 billion. 
Over $20 billion of this bill goes to defense-related activities, which 
is important for this country. We need to move this legislation along. 
There are a lot of phantom amendments out there. Bring them on. Let's 
have a debate and move this legislation along.
  It is very apparent to me that there is an effort being made to stall 
this legislation, slow down the progress of what we are doing in the 
Senate. As our distinguished majority leader mentioned last night, this 
legislation is important to the President of the United States. It is 
his agencies we are trying to fund--the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of 
Engineers, Department of Energy. So I really don't know what people are 
gaining by having us accomplish nothing.
  The majority leader said we are going to work to complete this 
legislation, and we have an a agreement that after this we will go to 
the Graham nomination, and we will do Transportation this week. I have 
not spoken to the majority leader, so I am on my own in saying this. 
But we don't have to sit around here and do nothing. There can be 
votes. We can vote on all kinds of things. I think that Thursday and 
Friday, if there is still the view that we are going to do nothing, 
there would probably be some votes; I would think we would be going 
until sometime on Friday.
  I have tried since last week to get an agreement as to when 
amendments would be filed, and we can't get either a finite list or a 
filing deadline. We can't get those. Yet no amendments are being 
offered. So I hope that later this afternoon we can have a time when we 
can determine not only what amendments are going to be filed but be 
more certain to have amendments filed at the desk.
  It is my understanding that the Senator from Ohio, who has a lot of 
knowledge on things nuclear--and I have worked with him on a number of 
different issues--wishes to speak on energy-related matters generally. 
Is that true?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I have no objection to yielding. It is my understanding 
there are no time constraints. The Senator wishes to speak for 20, 25 
minutes; is that correct?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I yield to my friend from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise to generally speak about the 
issue of energy in this country and to underscore the fact that one of 
the sources of energy that we really need to look at is nuclear energy. 
The sooner we resolve the issue of how we deal with nuclear waste, the 
better for this Nation. We ought to do everything in our power to 
accelerate the decision in terms of where that waste is going to be 
located if we expect to deal with not only the energy needs of our 
country but also with something about which many of us are concerned, 
and that is climate change.
  Nuclear power is a source of energy that does not produce greenhouse 
gases, and I think it is something that should be a priority for the 
Senate and for this Nation to resolve once and for all.
  My other remarks will deal with the issue of the fact that in spite 
of much talk and much writing, conservation and alternative fuels are 
not going to be able to deal with the problem we have in this Nation in 
terms of our energy crisis. We have that crisis because we lack a 
national energy policy. We haven't had one for 30 years, and it is a 
Republican and Democrat problem.
  We have a faulty deregulation law in California. We have 
environmental policies that have contributed to a lack of diversity and 
difficulties in siting new facilities, pipelines, and transmission 
lines. We are too reliant on foreign sources of oil, and we have 
inappropriately demonized nuclear power.
  Today, we are a fossil-based economy, although there is broad 
recognition that we are eventually going to shift away from primary 
reliance on fossil fuels to much greater use and emphasis on other 
sources.
  Several alternative energy sources exist today. They are either 
inexhaustible, i.e. solar, wind and nuclear--or renewed through natural 
processes--i.e. hydropower or plant-based fuels such as ethanol and 
vegetable oils.
  Currently the contribution of alternative energy sources to U.S. 
needs range from less than one tenth of 1 percent for wind and solar 
power, 3 percent from hydroelectric and biofuels each and 8 percent 
from nuclear energy.
  Today, however fossil fuel reserves appear to be adequate to serve 
the Nation's current energy needs, with a 70-year reserve for oil and 
approximately

[[Page S7844]]

250 years of reserves for coal, at current consumption rates.
  One of my colleagues noted a while ago that wind power is the fastest 
growing source of electricity in the world and we should look to it 
more seriously as an alternative energy source.
  Another one of my colleagues pointed out that solar panels covering a 
100 by 100 mile square would produce enough solar energy to power this 
entire Nation.
  The truth is that although alternative energy sources are being used 
in some places across the country, we have been subsidizing solar and 
wind power for 25 years now, and combined they only make up one tenth 
of 1 percent of the total energy demand to date.
  Renewables are now generally costlier than fossil fuels, for example, 
solar power is currently 8 to 10 times more costly. Even assuming 
optimistic technology scenarios, it will take at least 30 to 40 years 
before renewables' energy infrastructure could be built up from its 
current level and start contributing significantly to our energy 
supplies.
  As this chart shows, costs have a disproportionate impact on low-
income families.
  Since the beginning of the 107th Congress, I have been holding a 
series of public meetings across the state of Ohio where I have asked 
individuals and business owners to relay their experiences as to how 
our energy crisis is impacting them.
  In Cleveland, I have held a meeting with Catholic Charities, Lutheran 
Housing, and Salvation Army as well as senior citizens, low-income 
parents, and handicapped individuals, and another with some small 
businesspeople to talk about the impact energy costs were having on 
their businesses.

  Another was with governmental agencies and the increase our heating 
bills had on their budgets. Then I met with some folks who talked about 
the impact our high cost of gasoline was having on their businesses. 
One of the things the people of America should note is that when it 
gets to energy costs, the least of our brethren are those who are 
impacted the most.
  As this chart shows, the people making under $10,000 in the United 
States of America spend 29 percent of their income on energy costs, and 
those making between $10,000 and $24,000 spend 13 percent, and those 
who are over $50,000, about 4 percent.
  This energy crisis, quite frankly, is impacting more, as I refer to 
it, the least of our brethren than any other segment in our society. 
For example, the Catholic diocese said in the year 2000 their help line 
received 3,400 calls for basic needs, items such as food, utilities, 
mortgage, or rent. The number of calls the diocese received went up 96 
percent from 1999 to 2000 and 194 percent from 1998 to 2000--
attributable to this energy crisis.
  Let's look at U.S. energy consumption by fuel so we get an idea of 
from where our energy actually is coming. As we can see by this chart, 
the principal sources of energy today are oil, natural gas, and 
petroleum. It goes without saying that these fuels have become 
essential elements in creating our way of life.
  Despite the fact each year we use energy more efficiently, energy 
demand rises about two-thirds the rate of economic growth. As we can 
see, nuclear, hydro, and renewables are at the bottom of the chart, and 
any shortfall created between production and consumption of our three 
main energy sources--that is, oil, natural gas, and coal--is going to 
be made up in imports.

  For example, oil imports have risen, as we are all aware, from 1973, 
when they were 36 percent, to 2001 at 56 percent. Refined gasoline net 
imports have risen from 1 percent in 1980 to approximately 5 percent in 
2000. The reason for it is we have had to import oil to make up for the 
lack of our own production.
  Oil and natural gas demand is expected to continue to grow for the 
foreseeable future. Alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar 
power, are being pursued but will not alter this outlook for decades to 
come, again making the point that for those who say do not worry about 
these three major sources of energy, we are going to make it up with 
nonrenewables, we can see the large discrepancy.
  Now that we know how much Americans expect to consume over the next 
two to three decades, it is important to look at how that expectation 
will be met given our current state of resources. This chart shows how 
much energy we produce domestically by fuel type.
  At the top of the list are natural gas, coal, petroleum, and then we 
have nuclear and renewables at the bottom of the list.
  According to the Department of Energy, natural gas is expected to be 
the fastest growing component of world energy consumption. Gas use is 
projected to almost double to 162 trillion cubic feet in 2020 from 84 
trillion cubic feet in 1999. So the world demand for natural gas is 
going up.
  It is that increase in natural gas prices that drove up the cost of 
energy in my State for my homeowners, my businesses, my farmers, and 
for the other portions of our economy. If that continues, we can see 
continuing high prices.
  We need to increase our infrastructure. According to a study by the 
nonprofit operator of New England's power grid, New England will be 
increasing its natural gas demand from 16 percent in 1999 to a 
projected 45 percent in 2005, but they lack--another thing we need to 
talk about--the local pipelines to distribute the gas to its market. We 
have a need for gas. The next question is, How do we get it to folks? 
We know we do not have the infrastructure to do that.
  With that in mind, we also know there is an estimated 40 percent of 
undiscovered natural gas that is located on land owned by the Federal 
and State Governments. These resources will need to be tapped to 
accommodate the inevitable increase in natural gas consumption. If not, 
then we face the hardship of increasing dependence on foreign resources 
that will have the capacity to cripple our energy economy and again 
drive up our cost.
  The challenge to produce more oil and natural gas is greater because 
the production from our existing resource base is subject to natural 
decline through depletion.
  Fuel cells, electric vehicles, hybrids, biomass, solar, and wind 
technology, all represented on this chart as nonhydropower renewables, 
are all promising energy sources for the future, but right now there is 
no suitable infrastructure in place that will allow for these energies, 
even combined, as we will see in later charts, to sufficiently supply 
current needs, much less future demands.
  Energy consumption: As we can see by this chart, Americans consume 
more energy than we produce and will continue to consume more energy, 
especially fossil fuels, for decades to come.
  Although several alternative energy sources exist today, the chart 
reflects that even the combination of those sources, marked 
``renewables'' at the bottom of the chart, through 2020 will not 
compensate for the need for energy production that will take place over 
the next two decades.

  Even if we double or triple renewables, we will not make up the 
difference between production and consumption. The President is right: 
We need more refineries, more electric powerplants, more coal, and more 
natural gas pipelines and production. It is plain to see that we will 
not be able to conserve our way out of this crisis. While conservation 
helps, it is not going to meet our estimated consumption without 
drastically changing Americans' standard of living.
  Looking at this chart, we can see renewable energy sources that 
reflect some of the most promising forms of alternative energy in 
existence today. However, each is accompanied by extremely realistic 
limitations that hamper their ability to be viable in the near future.
  We hear a lot about fuel cells, and I have studied fuel cells 
substantially. I met with the president of General Motors. He said it 
is going to be 10 to 15 years before fuel cells will be marketable and 
commercially viable.
  Electric vehicles: I visited a facility in Euclid, OH, Alliance 
Electric, a Rockwell Automation subsidiary, and they are working on a 
little gismo for hybrid automobiles, but it is going to be 5 to 6 years 
before they get that down to a cost where it is going to be 
commercially viable.
  We have biomass and solar power to which I made reference.
  All of these are available, but the practical impact on our needs in 
this

[[Page S7845]]

country in the next 20 years is negligible.
  World primary energy is another issue at which we ought to look. This 
is not to say that alternative fuels are destined for failure. I agree 
with the President that we need to diversify our energy sources. I 
believe promoting technology of these sources is the right approach to 
take, not for the near term but for the future.
  We as a government should continue to invest in providing grants and 
incentives to move forward with some of these alternatives. Over time, 
we have learned advancing technologies is perhaps the single most 
important factor that contributes to long-term productivity and 
economic growth. For example, we have clean coal technology available 
that we could use for burning coal. We need to move forward with that.
  This chart is a little complicated, but it shows how energy sources 
have peaked in the world: Oil going down, gas going up, and we are 
seeing nuclear at the bottom of the chart. This little bit is the 
increase in renewables.
  Again, if you look at the world picture, we have a problem. Today, 
China imports oil. They used to export oil. We are seeing that all over 
the world. The economy is getting better for all people. Their standard 
of living is going up and they are using more. We need more energy.
  On petroleum production, the United States is the world's largest 
energy producer, consumer, and net importer. It is no secret the United 
States is becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil imports. This 
chart reflects what we have to look forward to by way of dependence 
through the year 2020. This is petroleum production and consumption, 
which is going up. Imports in the month of April as a percentage of 
petroleum delivered was 62.4 percent. This time last year it was only 
60 percent. The total petroleum products delivered to the domestic 
market in April was over 19 million barrels per day. In the same month 
last year, it was 18\1/2\ million barrels per day.
  Scarce petroleum resources is not a problem experienced only by the 
United States. The energy crisis is being felt across the globe; so 
much so that inevitably, as foreign countries realize an increase in 
their own energy needs, they will be less willing to accommodate the 
growing energy demands our country places on them. With the increased 
reliance on foreign oil, we will not get far if we do not work to 
expand the current oil and natural gas pipeline system.
  Our Nation's 200,000-mile pipeline system is the world's largest. 
These nearly invisible ribbons of steel deliver more than 13.3 billion 
barrels of crude oil and petroleum products in a typical year. Without 
them, it will take thousands of trucks and barges clogging the Nation's 
roads and waterways to do the job. The capacity of the system, however, 
is being seriously eroded and the future of oil and natural gas 
transmission does not appear promising.
  If we refuse to act, the alternative will be a continued capacity 
squeeze and higher transmission costs, passed on to the consumer. That 
is one of the problems we had last year with the big spike in gasoline. 
We had a break in two lines, one coming from the Gulf of Mexico, the 
other coming from Canada. That had a dramatic increase on the cost of 
oil to the people living in Ohio and other parts of the Midwest.
  On conservation and its impact, this chart shows what we can expect 
under three different energy production scenarios through the year 
2020. The top line assumes constant energy use with respect to economic 
growth, and it is going up. Hopefully, the economy continues to grow. 
This means if a nation continued along the same path we are traveling, 
through 2020, with energy demands rising with proportion to growth, and 
there were no technological advances made, consumption would increase 
dramatically.
  The bottom line represents energy production growth without 
significant change. If we stay the way we are now, we are in very big 
trouble. The second line shows what the Department of Energy predicts 
will happen when or if consumers are offered a menu of available 
technologies from which to choose. An example would be a family 
replacing a vehicle after several years of usage for a more fuel-
efficient automobile. This menu of options makes a big difference when 
compared to increased energy intensity and consumption in the first 
line. We need to move forward in order to meet our demand.
  The third path reflects the impact of conservation at its height. 
This includes nonuse and the use of the most competent and efficient 
technology combined. This chart shows an ``available technology'' 
consumption curve by barely 20 percent. There is still a considerable 
gap between consumption, even at the greatest levels of conservation. 
We need to be concerned about it.

  The point I am making this morning is that we have a challenge to 
meet the energy needs of this country. Those people who advocate 
conservation and alternative fuels, renewables and so forth, as the 
answer to the problem, frankly, are not being intellectually honest or 
facing reality. That means the Members of this Senate and the House of 
Representatives are going to have to face up to the issue of how to 
harmonize this Nation's environmental needs and this Nation's energy 
needs so we can come up with a realistic energy policy.
  It is very important for the future of our country. I happen to 
believe, in terms of issues that need to be dealt with, we need to face 
this head on as soon as possible. President Bush should be given a 
great deal of encouragement for coming up with a comprehensive energy 
policy that is being quarterbacked by the Vice President of the United 
States. It is long overdue to get on with the issue of debating how it 
is that we are going to confront this energy crisis that is having such 
a negative impact on the people in my State of Ohio, the people who 
live in our inner cities, our small businesspeople.
  I had a meeting this week with small businesspeople, manufacturers. I 
asked the question, How many believe we are not in recession? There was 
not a hand that went up. Part of the reason they are being negatively 
impacted is the fact that the energy costs are skyrocketing. We have a 
very large plastics industry. We have more jobs in plastic than any 
other State. Because of the high cost of natural gas, they are now in a 
noncompetitive position and are laying off workers. For farmers in our 
State, natural gas is used in fertilizer. As a result, our corn crop 
will be 25 percent less this year because of the cost of fertilizer.
  Some fertilizer companies are not manufacturing fertilizer this year 
but selling their natural gas contracts and are making more doing that 
rather than selling fertilizer.
  The point I am making is, the energy crisis is cutting across my 
State and, I am sure, the State of the Presiding Officer and all other 
Senators. We owe it to our constituents to make sure we do not duck, 
take a walk, be unwilling to make the hard decisions we are going to 
have to make to deal with this problem, including the issue of what do 
we do with waste from our nuclear energy plants in this country. There 
are still people who demonize nuclear energy, for example, and fail to 
recognize our entire nuclear fleet has had not one problem since Three 
Mile Island, very little problem whatsoever. It is a safe way of 
producing energy. Europe is into it. We have had it in limbo because of 
the fact it has been demonized.
  More important than that is how to deal with the nuclear waste. It is 
time we moved on with this. I hope this energy appropriations bill puts 
in enough money so we can intellectually move forward in resolving that 
issue. If it is not Yucca Mountain, what are the alternatives? We have 
to come up with a solution for what we do with our nuclear waste, to 
take advantage of nuclear energy in this country.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________