Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to the Senate concurrent resolution and yield 2 minutes to Senator Brownback.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from Pennsylvania be allowed to follow the Senator from Louisiana, and that following his remarks the Senate stand in adjournment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, tomorrow morning the Senate will begin consideration of the first concurrent budget resolution. Under the order, there will be 35 hours for consideration of the resolution. Any Senator intending to offer an amendment or amendments to the resolution should notify the managers to allow for an orderly process for the consideration of this measure. Rollcall votes can be expected throughout the day on Wednesday, and all Senators should anticipate busy sessions for the remainder of the week as we approach the Easter recess.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today Senator Bingaman and I join to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act. I'm pleased to have the support of a number of Senators in introducing this legislation: Senators Mack, Thurmond, Mikulski, Snowe, Daschle, Collins, Johnson, Crapo, Dorgan, Hollings, Reed, and Conrad. This bill simply expands Medicare Part B coverage to give seniors access to medical nutrition therapy services by registered dietitians and other nutrition professionals. Currently there is no direct coverage for services provided by registered dietitians, and, because they are uniquely qualified to provide medical nutrition therapy, beneficiaries are essentially denied access to this cost effective and efficacious form of care. Nutrition is one of the most basic elements of life. From the moment we are born to the moment we die, nutrition plays a critical role. It influences how we grow, how our brain develops, how we feel, and how our bodies prevent and fight disease. For decades we have known that nutrition can influence the most serious life threatening diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and high blood cholesterol. Experts have proven that proper nutrition may not only help prevent disease, but also is central to controlling and treating disease. Medical nutrition therapy plays a major role in treating some of the most threatening illnesses. It significantly improves the quality of life of seriously ill patients. It also saves health care costs by speeding recovery and reducing the incidence of complications, resulting in fewer hospitalizations, shorter hospital stays, and reduced drug, surgery, and treatment needs. Because medical nutrition therapy is not currently covered by Medicare Part B and because more and more health care is delivered on an outpatient basis, many patients are denied access to the effective, low-tech treatment they need, resulting in an increased incidence of complications and a need for higher cost treatments. Medical nutritional therapy is an integral part of cost effective health care. Our legislation would remedy this defect in Medicare Part B, improving health care and lowering costs. I invite all our colleagues to join Senator Bingaman and myself in working for this important reform.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today Senator Bingaman and I join to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act. I'm pleased to have the support of a number of Senators in introducing this legislation: Senators Mack, Thurmond, Mikulski, Snowe, Daschle, Collins, Johnson, Crapo, Dorgan, Hollings, Reed, and Conrad. This bill simply expands Medicare Part B coverage to give seniors access to medical nutrition therapy services by registered dietitians and other nutrition professionals. Currently there is no direct coverage for services provided by registered dietitians, and, because they are uniquely qualified to provide medical nutrition therapy, beneficiaries are essentially denied access to this cost effective and efficacious form of care. Nutrition is one of the most basic elements of life. From the moment we are born to the moment we die, nutrition plays a critical role. It influences how we grow, how our brain develops, how we feel, and how our bodies prevent and fight disease. For decades we have known that nutrition can influence the most serious life threatening diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and high blood cholesterol. Experts have proven that proper nutrition may not only help prevent disease, but also is central to controlling and treating disease. Medical nutrition therapy plays a major role in treating some of the most threatening illnesses. It significantly improves the quality of life of seriously ill patients. It also saves health care costs by speeding recovery and reducing the incidence of complications, resulting in fewer hospitalizations, shorter hospital stays, and reduced drug, surgery, and treatment needs. Because medical nutrition therapy is not currently covered by Medicare Part B and because more and more health care is delivered on an outpatient basis, many patients are denied access to the effective, low-tech treatment they need, resulting in an increased incidence of complications and a need for higher cost treatments. Medical nutritional therapy is an integral part of cost effective health care. Our legislation would remedy this defect in Medicare Part B, improving health care and lowering costs. I invite all our colleagues to join Senator Bingaman and myself in working for this important reform.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of Senator Hutchinson's bill to protect the states' claims on the funds from the settlement that they negotiated with the tobacco industry, I oppose the Harkin-Specter amendment. I am not a lawyer, and maybe that's why I'm not particularly impressed by all the legal hairsplitting we've been hearing from the government's lawyers about their claim to these funds. But you don't have to be a lawyer to recognize unfairness when you see it. In fact, I think my little granddaughter would recognize the story that's unfolding in Washington today: it's called the ``Little Red Hen.'' As my colleagues probably will recall, this story is about some people doing all the work and other people, who didn't lift a finger to help, wanting to share in the product of that work. In this case, we have the states who initiated lawsuits against the tobacco industry, who took all the risks, who received no assistance from the federal government in making their claims, and who ultimately succeeded in negotiating the historic Master Settlement Agreement last November. Now that the work has been done by these 46 little red hens, and the other four who negotiated individual settlements, the federal government wants to sweep in and take over. Mr. President, I do not think what we have here is an attempt to assert legal rights, but an attempt to assert control. Quite simple, the federal government wants to direct the spending of these funds by the states, despite the fact that this effort is likely to provoke more litigation, which in turn will only prevent the funds from being used to benefit the health or welfare of any state's residents. I do not think the federal government has the law on its side, and I know it doesn't have the equities or even common sense on its side. At this point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Idaho Attorney General Al Lance, objecting to the attempted money grab.

Mr. CRAIG. I wholeheartedly agree with Attorney General Lance's confidence that the Idaho state legislature is quite capable of properly determining how Idaho's share of the tobacco settlement should be spent. It is my strong hope that the Senate will defeat this amendment and allow my state's legislature, and those of the other 49 states, to make these decisions without interference.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Baucus in the introduction of legislation to reform the federal agricultural crop insurance program. Like legislation introduced earlier this month by Senator Roberts, Kerrey, myself, and others, this bill aims at bringing about common sense reform to the program and will assist farmers through the economic hardship they currently face. The bill addresses several concerns farmers from my state and I have about the current crop insurance program. Specifically, I am pleased that the legislation includes provisions to reform the noninsured crop disaster assistance program, or NAP. NAP is used by farmers who grow ``specialty'' or ``minor'' crops across the nation. Idaho's great agricultural economy is based on minor and non- traditional crops. We lead the nation in the production of such crops as potatoes, winter peas, and trout. Idaho is second in the production of seed peas, lentils, sugar beets, barley, and mint. Furthermore, we are in the top 5 states in the production of hops, onions, plums, sweet cherries, alfalfa, and American cheese. The needs of these producers are just as important as those of more traditional farm commodity producers. I believe this bill to be an important step toward meaningful and sweeping reform and includes changes that are long overdue. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Agricultural Committee to enact these important reforms and give farmers the risk management tools they need.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 21, 1999 at 2 p.m. in SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding signed by multiple agencies regarding with Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration. 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 Amie Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kristine Svinichi, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the discussion on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing along with Senator Murkowski, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act (NCGMA) was originally signed into law in 1992. The purpose of this geologic mapping program is to provide the nation with urgently needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, geology essential for all types of land use planning, as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMA contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the state geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the states submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each federal dollar be matched one-for-one with state funds. Each participating state has a StateMap Advisory Committee to insure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs. The success of this program insured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. According to a recent poll conducted by the Association of American State Geologists, the 50 states have produced over 1,900 new geologic maps since the program authorized by this legislation started. There are an additional 300 maps currently being completed. Also, the states have digitized 650 existing geologic maps (1:24,000 scale) so they can be used as a computer data base. All of these maps have been submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey for inclusion in a national geologic map database. One of the purposes of this database is to eventually provide a digital geologic map of the entire nation at a scale of 1:100,000. This national database will assure that future maps will be easy to use by anyone. The Edmap and Fedmap sections of the legislation support mapping projects led by Universities and regional mapping projects that address needs for geologic information to deal with land, water, mineral resource, natural hazard mitigation and environmental protection issues. Fed map projects are coordinated with State and university mapping portions of the program, through regional meetings, liaison groups and national reviews of ongoing projects. Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate and usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so better and safer resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. Thank you, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Rod Grams to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. Once again, Congress must clarify its intention toward the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which passed with broad bipartisan support in this body last year, as did similar legislation in the other body. It is why I am an original cosponsor of the legislation this year. We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with disposing of nuclear materials. Congress must recognize its responsibility to set a clear and definitive nuclear material disposal policy. With the passage of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate expressed its will that Government fulfill its responsibilities. This legislation makes one significant change to the course we are currently on by directing that an interim storage facility for nuclear materials be constructed at area 25 at the Nevada test site and that the interim facility be prepared to accept nuclear materials by June 30, 2003. The President and the Vice President do not support this provision. They do not support an interim storage facility at one safe, secure location in the Nevada desert. What they do support, according to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, is an interim storage at 70 some sites spread across this Nation. They support storage near population centers and major bodies of water, but not at a site located right next to a permanent repository, a site where hundreds of nuclear explosions have already been detonated over the last 50 years. In an announcement last month, the administration proposes to federalize storage of spent fuel at commercial reactors around this country by having the Government come in and take responsibility for each site. But do not worry, folks, because they promise to come and pick up the waste eventually, or at least that is what they have been promising for a long, long while. Well, I have some experience with the DOE and its promises, as many of my colleagues have, especially in the area of nuclear waste over the last number of years. In 1995, the Secretary of Energy promised the State of Idaho, and signed a court enforceable agreement, that transuranic waste in Idaho would be headed out of the State to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant no later than next month. Now DOE says they can't meet that deadline. Why? The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is safe and ready to receive waste, but the State of New Mexico won't issue a permit for the disposal and that the court won't lift its injunction. Now, I do believe our Secretary of Energy is trying in good faith to honor his commitment to the State of Idaho in moving that waste, but, once again, on issues of this kind of political sensitivity, our Government has shown no willingness to lead on this issue, and this administration is the prime example of a government without leadership. I know something about the politics of nuclear waste. I know something about DOE's broken promises. I mentioned the example of WIPP as a misuse of environmental regulation to subvert the will of Congress. It is this kind of game playing that we must eliminate. I guess my bottom line advice to those living next to one of these commercial nuclear reactors is, when DOE says they will come in and take responsibility for spent fuel and move it later, do not be fooled. You need a centralized interim storage facility and you need this legislation to make it happen. This administration has said that interim storage in Nevada will prejudge the repository site investigation now going on at Yucca Mountain. I think it is important to note that this legislation calls for beginning operation of an interim storage facility in the year 2003, 2 years after DOE will have recommended the repository site to the President and 1 year after DOE will have submitted a license application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This can hardly be called rushing ahead recklessly on interim storage. What it is is sealing the deal, trying to build credibility with the American people on this Government's responsibility and dedication toward the appropriate handling of high-level nuclear waste. In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. This legislation will make good on the Government's commitment to the communities which agreed to host our defense laboratories--that cleanup of these sites will happen, that it will happen sooner rather than later, and that defense nuclear waste, our legacy from the cold war, will be disposed of responsibly. Just this past week, before the appropriate Appropriations Committee, I and Senator Domenici heard at length what this administration is doing to help Russia get rid of its cold war nuclear waste legacy. While we are going headlong to help them, it is ironic that we cannot help ourselves. This administration has promised and yet, in 6 years, has delivered nothing and finally gave up on its promises and found itself in a box canyon with a lot of lawyers lining up in lawsuits, because they are now out of compliance with an act that this Congress passed in the mid-1980s to deal with nuclear waste. This bill will assure that the spent fuel from our nuclear fighting ships and submarines, currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, can be sent to the interim storage facility beginning in the year 2003. This is good news for both the Navy and for Idaho. Our nuclear Navy ought to be concerned that DOE is still playing games with the real hard fact that sooner, rather than later, they must have a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel coming from our Navy vessels. Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the agreed date of the year 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho Governor Batt, DOE and the Navy. This legislation will provide assurance that nuclear waste now in Idaho for permanent storage will eventually be disposed of at the repository. The tragedy here, of course, and we understand it, in the building of safe facilities, is the long lead time necessary. That is why this legislation is important now, to construct an interim storage facility ready to receive by the year 2003. Critics of this legislation will attempt to distract you over the issue of transportation. In just a few months we will hear on the floor of the Senate the term ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This is just so much politics or political statement. There is absolutely no fact or record behind that statement other than a scare tactic that some of my colleagues will attempt to use to support an absence of fact. The fact is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of spent fuel in the United States and that there has not been a single death or injury from the radioactivity nature of the cargo. In my State of Idaho, there have been over 600 shipments of naval fuel and over 4,000 other shipments of radioactive material. Again, there has been not one single injury related to the radioactive nature of these shipments. This is a phenomenal safety record, but it is a real safety record, because this Government has insisted that the appropriate handling of our spent nuclear fuels and waste long term be dealt with in the right way. The proof is in the reality and the responsibility that this country has taken for years in the transportation of its waste. Those are the facts as I have related them. I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of spent nuclear fuel disposal. Some of my colleagues are probably fatigued at the prospect of debating this issue once again in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, as long as this administration continues to stick its head in the sand, sand that is now going to cost millions of dollars in legal fees, my colleagues and I have no choice but to address this issue once again for the sake of our country, for the future of energy production in our country from radioactive materials, and just the tremendous responsibility we have in making sure to our public that all of it is done well and safely. As this legislative body sets policies for the Nation, the Congress cannot sit by and watch while key components of the energy security of this Nation, the source of 20 percent of this country's electricity-- and that is coming from nuclear powerplants--risk going down simply because we cannot manage our waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 will address what neither the 1982 nor the 1987 Act did, and that is to provide a cost-effective and safe means to store spent fuel in the near term while we continue to investigate and provide for the ultimate disposal. I thank you, Mr. President. I see my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, has joined me now on the floor. I yield my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing along with Senator Murkowski, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act (NCGMA) was originally signed into law in 1992. The purpose of this geologic mapping program is to provide the nation with urgently needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, geology essential for all types of land use planning, as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMA contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the state geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the states submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each federal dollar be matched one-for-one with state funds. Each participating state has a StateMap Advisory Committee to insure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs. The success of this program insured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. According to a recent poll conducted by the Association of American State Geologists, the 50 states have produced over 1,900 new geologic maps since the program authorized by this legislation started. There are an additional 300 maps currently being completed. Also, the states have digitized 650 existing geologic maps (1:24,000 scale) so they can be used as a computer data base. All of these maps have been submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey for inclusion in a national geologic map database. One of the purposes of this database is to eventually provide a digital geologic map of the entire nation at a scale of 1:100,000. This national database will assure that future maps will be easy to use by anyone. The Edmap and Fedmap sections of the legislation support mapping projects led by Universities and regional mapping projects that address needs for geologic information to deal with land, water, mineral resource, natural hazard mitigation and environmental protection issues. Fed map projects are coordinated with State and university mapping portions of the program, through regional meetings, liaison groups and national reviews of ongoing projects. Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate and usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so better and safer resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. Thank you, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Rod Grams to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. Once again, Congress must clarify its intention toward the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which passed with broad bipartisan support in this body last year, as did similar legislation in the other body. It is why I am an original cosponsor of the legislation this year. We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with disposing of nuclear materials. Congress must recognize its responsibility to set a clear and definitive nuclear material disposal policy. With the passage of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate expressed its will that Government fulfill its responsibilities. This legislation makes one significant change to the course we are currently on by directing that an interim storage facility for nuclear materials be constructed at area 25 at the Nevada test site and that the interim facility be prepared to accept nuclear materials by June 30, 2003. The President and the Vice President do not support this provision. They do not support an interim storage facility at one safe, secure location in the Nevada desert. What they do support, according to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, is an interim storage at 70 some sites spread across this Nation. They support storage near population centers and major bodies of water, but not at a site located right next to a permanent repository, a site where hundreds of nuclear explosions have already been detonated over the last 50 years. In an announcement last month, the administration proposes to federalize storage of spent fuel at commercial reactors around this country by having the Government come in and take responsibility for each site. But do not worry, folks, because they promise to come and pick up the waste eventually, or at least that is what they have been promising for a long, long while. Well, I have some experience with the DOE and its promises, as many of my colleagues have, especially in the area of nuclear waste over the last number of years. In 1995, the Secretary of Energy promised the State of Idaho, and signed a court enforceable agreement, that transuranic waste in Idaho would be headed out of the State to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant no later than next month. Now DOE says they can't meet that deadline. Why? The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is safe and ready to receive waste, but the State of New Mexico won't issue a permit for the disposal and that the court won't lift its injunction. Now, I do believe our Secretary of Energy is trying in good faith to honor his commitment to the State of Idaho in moving that waste, but, once again, on issues of this kind of political sensitivity, our Government has shown no willingness to lead on this issue, and this administration is the prime example of a government without leadership. I know something about the politics of nuclear waste. I know something about DOE's broken promises. I mentioned the example of WIPP as a misuse of environmental regulation to subvert the will of Congress. It is this kind of game playing that we must eliminate. I guess my bottom line advice to those living next to one of these commercial nuclear reactors is, when DOE says they will come in and take responsibility for spent fuel and move it later, do not be fooled. You need a centralized interim storage facility and you need this legislation to make it happen. This administration has said that interim storage in Nevada will prejudge the repository site investigation now going on at Yucca Mountain. I think it is important to note that this legislation calls for beginning operation of an interim storage facility in the year 2003, 2 years after DOE will have recommended the repository site to the President and 1 year after DOE will have submitted a license application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This can hardly be called rushing ahead recklessly on interim storage. What it is is sealing the deal, trying to build credibility with the American people on this Government's responsibility and dedication toward the appropriate handling of high-level nuclear waste. In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. This legislation will make good on the Government's commitment to the communities which agreed to host our defense laboratories--that cleanup of these sites will happen, that it will happen sooner rather than later, and that defense nuclear waste, our legacy from the cold war, will be disposed of responsibly. Just this past week, before the appropriate Appropriations Committee, I and Senator Domenici heard at length what this administration is doing to help Russia get rid of its cold war nuclear waste legacy. While we are going headlong to help them, it is ironic that we cannot help ourselves. This administration has promised and yet, in 6 years, has delivered nothing and finally gave up on its promises and found itself in a box canyon with a lot of lawyers lining up in lawsuits, because they are now out of compliance with an act that this Congress passed in the mid-1980s to deal with nuclear waste. This bill will assure that the spent fuel from our nuclear fighting ships and submarines, currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, can be sent to the interim storage facility beginning in the year 2003. This is good news for both the Navy and for Idaho. Our nuclear Navy ought to be concerned that DOE is still playing games with the real hard fact that sooner, rather than later, they must have a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel coming from our Navy vessels. Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the agreed date of the year 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho Governor Batt, DOE and the Navy. This legislation will provide assurance that nuclear waste now in Idaho for permanent storage will eventually be disposed of at the repository. The tragedy here, of course, and we understand it, in the building of safe facilities, is the long lead time necessary. That is why this legislation is important now, to construct an interim storage facility ready to receive by the year 2003. Critics of this legislation will attempt to distract you over the issue of transportation. In just a few months we will hear on the floor of the Senate the term ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This is just so much politics or political statement. There is absolutely no fact or record behind that statement other than a scare tactic that some of my colleagues will attempt to use to support an absence of fact. The fact is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of spent fuel in the United States and that there has not been a single death or injury from the radioactivity nature of the cargo. In my State of Idaho, there have been over 600 shipments of naval fuel and over 4,000 other shipments of radioactive material. Again, there has been not one single injury related to the radioactive nature of these shipments. This is a phenomenal safety record, but it is a real safety record, because this Government has insisted that the appropriate handling of our spent nuclear fuels and waste long term be dealt with in the right way. The proof is in the reality and the responsibility that this country has taken for years in the transportation of its waste. Those are the facts as I have related them. I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of spent nuclear fuel disposal. Some of my colleagues are probably fatigued at the prospect of debating this issue once again in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, as long as this administration continues to stick its head in the sand, sand that is now going to cost millions of dollars in legal fees, my colleagues and I have no choice but to address this issue once again for the sake of our country, for the future of energy production in our country from radioactive materials, and just the tremendous responsibility we have in making sure to our public that all of it is done well and safely. As this legislative body sets policies for the Nation, the Congress cannot sit by and watch while key components of the energy security of this Nation, the source of 20 percent of this country's electricity-- and that is coming from nuclear powerplants--risk going down simply because we cannot manage our waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 will address what neither the 1982 nor the 1987 Act did, and that is to provide a cost-effective and safe means to store spent fuel in the near term while we continue to investigate and provide for the ultimate disposal. I thank you, Mr. President. I see my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, has joined me now on the floor. I yield my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 66

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on the topic of Deceptive Mailings and Sweepstakes Promotions.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in closed session, to receive testimony on U.S. Government policies and programs to combat terrorism.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, at 10:45 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on U.S. Government policies and programs to combat terrorism.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to hold two hearings.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the senior Senator from Missouri. He speaks so clearly about the frustration that exists at local levels today of decisionmaking for education, in that sometimes what might work in New York City just does not seem to fit down on the farm or near the farm in Missouri or in a rural school district of Idaho, and that is the reason for a demonstration program of 12 States. That is why we have determined that a greater amount of flexibility is necessary in the area of education. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Democrats want to block this bipartisan bill in the name of education. There is adequate time to debate other issues in education. I hope they will work with us. Coming out of the impeachment process I thought we were going to get a bipartisan environment from which to move the Nation's business forward. The Nation, I hope, is listening today. The Nation's business is education. And it isn't moving forward. It isn't moving forward not because of Republicans but because of some folks on the other side of the aisle who think their agenda of larger Federal involvement and greater Federal control is an approach to educate our young people. Let the parents, the educators and the school boards decide. Mr. President, I yield the floor.