Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 13, 1999 at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 729, the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. A bill to ensure that Congress and the public have the right to participate in the declaration of national monuments on Federal land. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mike Menge (202) 224- 6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will not object, if there is an additional 10 minutes for our side.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, is the Senate still in morning business?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Wyoming who has expressed a frustration that I think many of us in the Senate hold and that a growing number of Americans hold as to the current tactic being used by Democrats to block an ag appropriations bill or to force an issue that is separate and apart from it. We do have a responsibility in the Senate and in the Congress, and that is to pass 13 appropriations bills on an annual basis to fund the workings of our Government. And the one before us today is agriculture. There is some $60 billion to be spent in many of the areas outlined by the Senator from Wyoming. They are critical to all our States, not just the agricultural community but for those people who are less fortunate, for their very nutrition--nutrition for women, infants and children, the Food Stamp Program, certainly the School Lunch Program. All of those programs are embodied in this appropriations bill. A tactic to push what now rapidly appears to be a raw political point for the purpose of upcoming campaigns against the normal and necessary workings of our Government is a bit frustrating to me. I have made that assumption at this moment. Let's assume that I am wrong, that clearly the other side is dedicated to a concern on the part of the average citizen as it relates to his or her health care, and in being so concerned they have offered a Kennedy bill that some call a Patients' Bill of Rights. If I take it at face value, it is a bit of a frustration, and in the next few moments let me express that. Chairman Patrick Kennedy in the House, a Democrat, of the Congressional Campaign Committee, was recently quoted and the national media is saying that ``we have written off rural areas.'' He means that Democrats politically have written off rural areas. Is it by coincidence the Senator from Massachusetts chooses the ag bill on which to place his political agenda? There seems to be a unique coincidence that Patrick Kennedy, Congressman Kennedy on the other side, says, ``We have written off rural areas,'' and Senator Kennedy on this side says, ``I'm going to attach it to the ag approps bill; I'll bring the ag bill down if I can't have my political agenda for a Patients' Bill of Rights.'' Let me look at the substance of what may be offered today, because it is my understanding that there may be an attempt, in an amendment, to offer a portion of the Kennedy health care mandates. What would that do? That talks about what we now call medical necessities. It is a portion of the bill that I think offers the illusion of the patients being in control, by requiring health care plans and employers to pay for whatever care a physician recommends-- without question. If that is what the physician recommends, without peer review or any observation of the total situation, it is paid for. If that were the case, in today's medical climate, here is the reaction of the Barnitz Group. Who are they? They are an economic consulting firm that deals with health care and health care costs. They evaluate them. They make judgments as to how a given policy would affect the payment for health care for the individual. Here is what they suggest this particular portion of the Kennedy bill would do. It could cost nearly $60 a year per covered household, per insured household. It could cost employers $180 a year per covered employee. In other words, it shoves the cost of health care up. Arguably, it might improve health care--I cannot debate that--by requiring that anything a doctor suggests gets funded. But it would cost more, or at least that is the observation. In that cost--this is a marketplace we are dealing with out here--it could result in the loss of 191,000 jobs or it could result in the cancellation of coverage for 1.4 million Americans. That is a provision in an amendment that might be offered this afternoon. Isn't it unique--I made some of this argument yesterday--that as we deal with ag appropriations, at a time when the chairman of the National Democratic Campaign Committee says, We write the rural areas off, that the Senator from Massachusetts would be offering a bill that would dramatically impact the uninsured by forcing more to be uninsured. It just so happens that a very large number of the uninsured live in rural America. It just so happens, according to the Employees Benefit Research Institute, nearly half, or 43 percent, of all workers in agriculture, in forestry, and in the fishing sector of our economy have no health insurance. In other words, they have to provide for themselves. Now we are suggesting that we will drive the cost of insurance up for those who are uninsured instead of doing things that bring the cost of that insurance down so that the uninsured can find insurance more affordable. Is this a coincidence or is there a relationship? I am not sure. But there is one thing that is for sure: The other side has decided to target ag appropriations with a bill that they think is extremely valuable politically. It is also an issue that we have come together on to say that there are some real needs and we are willing to address those needs in a bipartisan and timely fashion. But let us allow the work of the Congress to go forward in the appropriations area. We will deal with health care, as we should deal with health care, but we cannot deal with it by driving people from it, creating a greater dependency on government programs, as inevitably will happen, as shown by every research institute that has looked at the Kennedy bill. The Kennedy bill, without question, shoves possibly 2 million people out of insurance; I will be conservative and say at least 1 million, or 1.4 million by conservative estimates. So let us get on with appropriating money for women, infants, and children for their nutritional needs, for the school lunch program, for food stamps, for ag research, for those things that are important to rural America. I do not care if Congressman Kennedy on the House side has written off rural America. This Senator will not write it off. We will pass an ag approps bill. We could do it today. We could finalize it this week and send a very important message to American agriculture that your work and your interests are important to us; that we will deal with you on a timely basis; that we will respond to your needs as best we can; and we will say to those less fortunate, we will feed you, and we will not use it as a political issue. We will do it in a right and responsible and timely way. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can agree with that. It is what they ought to be agreeing with. There is enough politics to go around. Let's take politics out of the ag bill. They put it in with the injection of the Patients' Bill of Rights. They now have the opportunity to remove it. Our leaders have been negotiating for some time to establish a time certain so we can handle this issue and all sides can debate its fairness, its equity, or its lack thereof. We will have a lot more detail. But obstructionist attitudes, blocking the activity of the Senate, gain very few of us anything. And the American public scratches its head and says: What are they doing back there? Why can't they do the work of the people? Pass the ag appropriations bill. Deal with health care in a timely fashion. Move the other appropriations bills and complete the work of Government. That is what the American people expect of us. That is what they should expect of us. I hope the other side will ultimately agree with that. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, our leaders are still in negotiation as to terms and conditions under which the Senate will deal with the Patients' Bill of Rights. With that understanding, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 4:30 p.m. under the conditions of the previous extension.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

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

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, are we still in morning business?

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent we stay in morning business under the current restriction and continue until 4 o'clock.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the last several days this Senate has been engaged in a fascinating exercise. I say that because last Thursday evening before I left the Senate I was approached by an individual in the media, a press person on Capitol Hill, who said: I understand the Democrats are about to slow the process down. I said: What do you mean? They think the Republican Senate is on a roll, you have accomplished a good many things this week, and they are about to slow you down. I said: What is the strategy here? That person said: We think they are going to offer the Patients' Bill of Rights to the agriculture appropriations bill. Of course, we now know that is exactly what happened. Their tactic is to slow the process down. I am not sure why. Obviously, they are going to get ample opportunity to make their statements and to have their votes on the issue of a Patients' Bill of Rights. Whether Democrat or a Republican, we can mutually agree that there is a very real problem in the health care community of our country specific to Americans and health care coverage. I am not sure we get there by punching American farmers in the face, or by acting as if they are of little to no importance and placing other national issues ahead of them. That is what has happened. I am amazed some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from dominant agricultural States and who have oftentimes led the agricultural debate on the floor would use these tactics to move their national agenda well beyond agriculture. What is important is that we deal with the ag appropriations bill, that we deal with it in a timely fashion to address those concerns of the American agricultural community within the policies of our government but also recognize we have a problem in the agriculture community today. We have turned to the Secretary of Agriculture and to the President to work with us to identify and shape that issue; we will come back with the necessary vehicle to address it beyond the current appropriations bill. We are waiting for their response. Agriculture issues have never been partisan. They shouldn't be partisan. I am amazed my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have used this dilatory tactic that all but ``partisanizes'' an agriculture appropriations bill, almost saying it doesn't count; our political agenda is more important than the policies of the government handled in an appropriate and timely fashion. Our leaders are negotiating at this moment to determine the shape of the debate over a Patients' Bill of Rights. I hope they are able to accomplish that. The clock ticks. American agriculture watches and says, there goes that Congress again, playing politics with a very important issue for our country. I will be blunt and say, there goes the Democrat side of this body playing politics with a very important appropriations bill that I hope we can get to. I see Senator Feingold on the floor. Our staffs have been working together on a very critical area of this bill, as I have been working with the Presiding Officer, to make sure that we shape the agriculture appropriations bill and deal with dairy policy in a responsible fashion. I come to the floor to associate patients' rights and health care with an agriculture policy. Is that possible to do? Well, it is. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attempted to do that. I hope my colleagues will listen as I shape this issue. There is a very important connection. It will not be debated on the agriculture appropriations bill, but we all know that American agriculture--farmers and those who work for farmers--is within the sector of about 43 percent of all workers in America who are not working for an industry that insures them. As a result, they must provide for themselves. They must self-insure and provide for their individual workers within their farms or ranches. The Patients' Bill of Rights that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to bring to the floor--and I trust their sincerity in wanting it to become law--will very much change the dynamics of the self-insured in this country. They do so in a very unique way. The average family premium in the individual self-insured market--I am talking about American farm families --is about $6,585 today. That is what it costs for them to insure themselves. Under the Democrat Kennedy bill, they are going to pay at least another $316. Figure this one out: As my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the worst depression in farm country in its history, with depression-era prices for commodities, in the same breath they stop the agriculture appropriations bill and say: Hey, farm family, on our Patients' Bill of Rights, because we are about to increase your medical costs by an average of $316 a year, that is money you don't have, but we will force you to do it anyway. Your premiums will go up by the nature of the bill we want to fashion. Some have stated this bill will cause over 2 million Americans to lose their health care insurance. This chart demonstrates a problem that all Members are sensitive to but a problem that we don't want to cause to be worse. A phrase that has been used on this floor in a variety of debates in the last couple of months is ``unintended consequences.'' If we pass the Kennedy health care Patients' Bill of Rights, there is a known consequence. You can't call it ``unintended.'' By conservative estimates it would add one million uninsured Americans to the health rolls. That is the conservative estimate. I said 2 million a moment ago. That is the liberal estimate. It is somewhere in that arena. The other side knows that America's farmers and farm families will have to pay $300 to $400 more per year in health care premiums because they are self-insured. That is the nexus with the farm bill and the agriculture appropriations bill in its strange and relatively obscure way. But it is real. I hope our leaders can be successful in shaping the debate around the Patients' Bill of Rights that says we will have that debate, here is the time line, and here are the amendments that can be offered. It is going to be up or down. We will all have our chance to make our points, but let's not play the very dangerous game of tacking it onto any bill that comes along that stops us from moving the appropriation bills in a timely fashion. We will debate in a thorough nature why their legislation creates a potential pool of between 1 to 2 million Americans who will become uninsured because of an increase in premiums. On the other side of the equation is the Patients' Bill of Rights crafted by the Republican majority in the Senate. We go right to farm families. We say to farm families, we are going to give you a positive option in your self-insurance, and that is, of course, to create a medical savings account. In States made up of individual farms--Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa--already the meager efforts in creating medical savings accounts we have offered in past law have rapidly increased the coverage for health care at the farm level. So if we want to create a true nexus between an agriculture bill and a Patient's Bill of Rights, it is the Republican version that says let's expand medical savings accounts, let's give small businesspeople, farmers, ranchers, the option of being able to self-insure in a way that will cost them less money and have insurance to deal with, of course, the catastrophic concerns in health care that we would want to talk about. The reason I have always been a supporter of medical savings accounts is that it really fits the profile of my State. Farmers, ranchers, loggers, miners--small businesspeople make up a dominant proportion of the population of my State. Increasingly, many of them would become uninsured if the Democratic version, the Kennedy bill, were to pass this Congress and become law. The unintended, or maybe the intended, consequence would be to push these people out of private health care insurance and therefore have them come to their Government begging for some kind of health care insurance. Why should we set up an environment in which we force people to come to the Government for their health care instead of creating an environment, a positive environment, that says we will reward you for insuring yourself by creating for you the tools of self-insurance and therefore create also a tax environment we want, where today health care premiums for the self-employed are fully deductible, as they are for big businesses which offer health care plans to their employees. There is a strange, unique, and somewhat curious nexus between Democrats blocking an agriculture appropriations bill coming to the floor and the politics of the Kennedy bill on health care. It is that they would cause even greater problems in the farm community by raising the premiums, by forcing certain costs to go into health care coverage today. Our Patients' Bill of Rights would go in a totally opposite direction, creating an environment in which people could become more self-insured at less money, at a time in American agriculture when it is estimated the average income of the American farmer, having dropped 15 percent last year, could drop as much as 25 to 30 percent this year, with commodity prices at near Depression-era levels. We need to pass the agriculture appropriations bill. We will then work with the Department of Agriculture and the Clinton administration to examine the needs, as harvest goes forward, to assure we do address the American farmers' plight, as we did effectively last year. But it should be done in the context of agriculture appropriations and a potential supplemental, if necessary, to deal with that. It does not fit, nor should it be associated with, a Patients' Bill of Rights. I hope the end result today is to clear the track, provide a designated period of time for us to debate the Kennedy bill and a true Patients' Bill of Rights, as has been offered by the Republican majority here in the Senate, and then to allow us to move later today, this evening, and on tomorrow, to finish the agriculture appropriations bill and get on with the debate on that critical issue. American agriculture is watching. I hope they write my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and say: Cut the politics. Get on with the business of good farm policy. Do not use us as your lever. I hope that message is getting through to my colleagues on the other side. Let us deal with agriculture in the appropriate fashion. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about a resolution related to Kosovo which was brought before the Senate late last Thursday evening and adopted by unanimous consent. This concurrent resolution commends the President and the Armed Forces for the ``success'' of Operation Allied Force. I had reservations in supporting this resolution, but ultimately decided to do so because it provided an opportunity to honor the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line for this dangerous cause. However, to term this operation a success, either now or in the foreseeable future, is an unconscionable stretch of the truth, at best. This mission represented a complete failure of the Clinton administration's foreign policy. This resolution also implies that the book has been closed on Kosovo, and peace will reign in the Balkans. I do not think it is necessary to remind the Senate of the bloody and tumultuous history of the region, or the uncertainty of the future. And it certainly is not appropriate to mislabel this foreign policy mishap as a success. The failure of the administration's policy was apparent from the negotiations at Rambouillet. It was one-sided from the beginning and Secretary Albright made no secret where the administration's loyalties lay: ``If the Serbs are the cause of the breakdown, we're going to go forward with the NATO decision to carry out air strikes,'' she threatened. It was NATO's way, or no way. It is little wonder an agreement was not reached. The arrangement provided no preservation of national sovereignty for Yugoslavia. NATO troops would have been authorized ``free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia].'' There was also no guarantee, and indeed evidence to the contrary, that Yugoslavia's sovereignty and territorial integrity would remain intact after NATO troops rolled into the country. The United States took sides in the negotiations, and then wondered why the Serbs refused to sign the proposed agreement. Equally harmful to the peace process was the lack of historical understanding with which the administration engaged in the negotiations. Kosovo is the site of key historical and religious monuments for the Serbs. However, the President and Secretary failed to recognize this fundamental fact. It was both arrogance and shortsightedness which allowed the administration to proceed on this flawed course to disaster. I do not claim to be a scholar of the region myself; however, I am not arrogant enough to believe one can solve centuries-old conflicts with three nights of an air campaign, as the administration originally anticipated. The administration ``policy'' was nothing more than a policy du jour. At first, the goal of the air strikes was to bring Milosevic to the negotiating table. Next, the strikes were to harm Serb military might. Then strikes were to force a complete Serb withdrawal from Kosovo. Regardless of what the strikes were supposed to do, they were never part of a methodical, strategic plan. Instead, they were a knee-jerk reaction to daily events. Perhaps most disconcerting is the potential damage the operation may have inflicted on the NATO alliance. This mission marked the first time in the 50 years of the alliance's history that it was involved in an operation that had nothing to do with defending the territorial integrity of one of its members. The operation should be proof positive about the dangers of a ``new strategic concept'' that would expand NATO's missions beyond territorial self-defense to peacekeeping arenas outside its borders. NATO maintains a hefty burden in protecting members from an unstable Russian and Korean Peninsula, and the growing proliferation threat around the world without the burden of regional peace-keeping, or other humanitarian missions which have nothing to do with preserving the territorial integrity of members. I point out these facts not to lessen the impact of the human tragedy that occurred in Yugoslavia before the bombing began, or to lessen the responsibility of Milosevic's role in that tragedy. However, I feel compelled to raise this issue in the Senate today because it is premature to hail the Kosovo agreement as a success. Today, the Balkans are far less stable than when the operation began on march 24. The lesson to be learned from this operation should not be that good intentions are good reasons for foreign policy whims, particularly when those whims risk the lives of our men and women in uniform. The brave men and women of the Armed Forces deserve the praise and thanks of a grateful nation for serving with distinction and honor. I wholeheartedly join the Senate in thanking the members of the Armed Forces who served in the campaign in the Balkans. However, I am not ready to endorse this ill-conceived mission as a victory for the United States or NATO. Instead, this mission ought to go down in the history books as a lesson in what foreign policy blunders should be avoided in the future. To recover from this blunder, the President must provide a comprehensive post-war plan for the region. Bringing true peace to Kosovo will depend on the development of a stable balance of power on the ground. Whatever course of action is pursued by the administration, it must be one that ultimately would help the United States and its NATO allies to reduce their military commitments in the Balkans, and avoid entangling the United States and the Alliance in another Kosovo in the future.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the leader for yielding. This is not an issue about steel. This is an issue about trade. The United States will be hosting the World Trade Organization's ministerial meeting in Seattle later this year. If this Senate voted out a quota bill at a time when we were expecting to engage the rest of the world in further discussion about knocking down trade barriers to give agriculture and other trade entities greater opportunity in the world market, this Senate and this Government would be sending the wrong message. I am not going to argue with the Senator from Pennsylvania. There is no question the steel industry has been hurt. Agriculture is being hurt as we speak, but we do not close our borders and turn our lights out. We work to build a stronger and more fair trade organization around the world. Furthermore, this act would violate our international obligations under the World Trade Organization and General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. By closing the U.S. Steel market, we would encourage other countries to follow our lead and undermine the system that the United States has worked so hard to establish. If we are to expect other countries to honor their obligations under these agreements, we must do the same. Mr. President, raising barriers against steel imports will only provide the steel industry temporary benefits while the American consumers suffer long-term consequences. Products that are made from steel, such as cars, homes, and appliances, will cost more to produce and will become more expensive to consumers. For example, large U.S. companies, such as Cargill and Hewlett Packard, that have substantial business in Idaho would be adversely affected. This situation will cause American consumers to purchase less and put millions of American jobs at risk. These consequences far exceed the risks the steel industry is facing. I yield the time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, June 23, 1999 at 2:15 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 503, the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act of 1999; S. 953, the Terry Peaks Land Conveyance Act of 1999; S. 977, the Miwaleta Park Expansion Act; and S. 1088, the Arizona National Forest Improvement Act of 1999. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public the addition of two bills to the hearing which has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 23, 1999 at 2:15 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The bills are H.R. 15, The Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999, and S. 848, Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, with my colleague's comment regarding the lack of current Department of Energy authority to use the Nuclear Waste Fund in the way I am concerned, I will reconsider offering my amendment at this time. I thank the Chair and my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to explain my amendment to S. 1186, a bill making appropriations for certain Department of Energy programs. Among these programs is the radioactive waste management program which is responsible for developing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. This repository will, if successfully completed, one day hold the spent nuclear fuel from all of this country's commercial nuclear power plants, in addition to defense high-level radioactive waste left-over from the development of nuclear weapons. It has been 12 years since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987, and I believe the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain program is in serious trouble. In 1983, the Department of Energy signed contracts with every one of this country's nuclear power generators saying that the government would start taking their spent fuel for disposal in January of 1998. Because of the Government's failure to meet that deadline, a number of utility companies, in conjunction with many State governments, are suing the Federal Government for failure to fulfill its contractual commitments. Many of these utilities are being forced, because of the Government's failure, to construct additional storage capacity at their sites. Many of these companies are seeking monetary damages from the Government. Inheriting this situation from his predecessors at the Department of Energy, Secretary Richardson laid a proposal before the nuclear utilities last year. Secretary Richardson told the utilities that if they would agree to drop all future claims against the government, the Department of Energy would be willing to pay the utilities for their on site storage costs and that DOE would ``take title''--meaning DOE would take over ownership and all liability--for the spent nuclear fuel and store it at the nuclear power plants for an indefinite period of time. It is safe to say--since this administration opposes my interim storage legislation--that we can expect spent nuclear fuel under their scenario to be stored at reactors until at least the year 2015, because that is when the repository is expected to open--at the earliest. The amendment I offer today speaks to the heart of this issue. To be blunt, I think it is irresponsible to create some 80 new federal interim storage sites for spent fuel scattered around this country. And I think the Administration compounds their neglect of this crisis by depleting the funds collected for development of the permanent solution--the Nuclear Waste Fund, created by law in 1982--by dispersing these funds back out to the same utilities who paid them in the first place, only now they are being used as a ``band-aid'' to pay to store fuel at reactors. Very simply put, my amendment prohibits the Department of Energy from using funds appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the purpose of settling lawsuits or paying judgments arising out of the failure of the federal government to accept spent nuclear fuel from commercial utilities. Money in the Nuclear Waste Fund has been collected to pay for a permanent solution to our nuclear waste problem. Mr. President, I don't think we should be squandering these funds on band-aid schemes. My amendment prohibits this from happening.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from New Mexico for his assistance in this matter. doe clean-up at fernald

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from New Mexico, the bill manager, regarding the need to change the name of one of the programs in the Department of Energy's appropriations. Within the Energy Supply account, there is an account called ``Nuclear Energy.'' Within the nuclear energy account, there is a program called ``Termination Costs.'' For some time, the name ``Termination Costs'' has caused considerable confusion. In fact, in the past the Department of Energy has submitted its budget request for this program using a different name. They called it the ``Facilities'' program and the Senate last year even appropriated funding using the name ``Facilities'' but the name change was dropped in conference. The name ``Termination Costs'' is not an accurate depiction of the activities occurring under this program. I will quote from the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000 budget request. The following items are listed as the program mission for the Termination Costs Program. (1) Ensuring the cost-effective, environmentally-compliant operation of Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology sites and facilities; (2) Maintaining the physical and technical infrastructure necessary to support research and technology development by U.S. and overseas researchers; (3) Demonstrating the acceptability of electrometallurgical technology for preparing DOE spent nuclear fuel for ultimate disposal; and (4) Placing unneeded facilities in industrially safe and environmentally compliant conditions for low- cost, long-term surveillance. With the possible exception of the last item, No. 4, these important mission priorities do not fit the heading of ``termination.'' Again, quoting from the Department of Energy's budget submittal, the stated program goal for the Termination Costs Program is, ``To contribute to the nation's nuclear science and technology infrastructure through the development of innovative technologies for spent fuel storage and disposal and the effective management of active and surplus nuclear research facilities.'' I think this is an enduring mission for DOE and therefore the moniker ``Termination Costs'' is misleading.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to conduct a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee in Hart 216 beginning at 9:35 on June 16.