Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me time. I think it is very important that what I said be what I said. Let me reiterate that it would be impossible to verify with rogue nations. We know in this country we will verify. Our chemical companies will be an open door. We have always played by the rules of the treaties we have signed and we have never intentionally or purposely violated them. That is not the point I was trying to make, and I think the Senator knows that. But, what we do know is that for countries who choose not to play by international rules--and there are a good many out there--it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the international monitoring team to be able to verify compliance. I think that is the point. I have not even discussed, nor did I bring up the point of concern, that we would be releasing information. I am also concerned about espionage. And I did express that. So, it is important that that part of it be understood. Our chemical companies, by this treaty, would be an open door. Let me also say I do not believe there is a chemical company in this country that is an expert in international affairs. Nor do I want the executives of these chemical companies negotiating a treaty. Nor do I want them establishing the foreign policy of this country. I believe that is the job of the Senator, and it is mine, and the job of this body, and of the President of the United States. I'm sorry, no matter what the chemical industry says, frankly, I don't care. What I do care about is the security of this country. What I do care about is our national sovereignty. And what I do care about is the issue of verification. I think this treaty simply does not get us where we need to get for a safer world. I must say, I am tremendously proud and I have supported this country's disarming itself of chemical and biological weapons. I encourage us to do that. We have done it and we ought to continue to do it and we ought to make sure that our troops in the field have adequate equipment to be able to protect themselves. We must lead by example, but let's not walk into or create the illusionary track that I think the CWC simply offers to the world, and most assuredly to this country.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from South Dakota today as an original cosponsor of the Imported Meat Labeling Act of 1997. This act would require the labeling of imported meat and meat products prior to their sale at a retail level in the United States. For the record, I want my colleagues to know that this type of action is legal under the terms of our GATT Agreement. In addition, a number of groups have policy that support this type of measure including the American Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the American Sheep Industry. Again, I commend Senator Johnson for introducing the Imported Meat Labeling Act of 1997 and Senator Burns from Montana for his additional efforts on this topic. I hope that other Senators will join us in support of this measure. I would pledge my support of addressing any legitimate concerns that this legislation might raise and ask in return that we seek quick resolution and passage of this bill. One legitimate concern with this legislation is the treatment of Canadian cattle that are slaughtered in the United States. Concern along the northern tier States that border Canada is high among all areas of Canadian trade. Producers in these States might ask how cattle that are born in Canada, fed in Canada, but shipped to the United States for slaughter would be labeled. Realistically, these animals are Canadian and the beef produced from them should be labeled as such. However, if the legal interpretation is different, I state my willingness for the record to amend this legislation and address this type of concern.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Georgia for the time he has taken today to bring this critical issue to the floor and for an open discussion among Senators and, hopefully, the American people on a proposed Executive order that our President is at least talking about at this moment, and that the Vice President has pledged that the administration will act upon, which would significantly change the dynamics of Federal contracting. Without doubt, open competition in a free enterprise environment is the only way the Government of this country and the taxpayers can expect fair treatment of the tax dollar when it comes to buying the goods of Government or the projects of Government for the citizens of this country. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year in this business of contracting. As Government provides services and, of course, provides capital expenditures for construction of roads, bridges, and buildings, that are a part of what we think is necessary, for the President to suggest a whole new dynamics as to how that contracting ought to come about, significantly skewing it toward organized labor is, at best, not being responsible to the taxpayers and, at worst, if I can simply say it, paying off for the great service provided in the last election by organized labor to the Democrat party. Is that a blunt and cold statement? Well, it is. But it falls on the heels of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of expenditures, targeted specifically at members of the Republican Party. And now I must say that it appears that union bosses were literally sitting inside the offices of this administration to help craft what we believed would be a significant change in the way the bidding process of a fair and competitive market would work on Government contracts. ``Require Federal departments and agencies to evaluate whether a bidder for a Government contract has a satisfactory record of labor relations and other employment practices, in determining whether or not the bidder is a responsible contractor, eligible to receive a particular Government contract.'' This regulation, if it were to become regulation under Executive order, would require the companies bidding for Federal contracts to have a spotless record of compliance throughout the Federal regulatory spectrum, including collective bargaining, wages, benefits, equal opportunity, health, and safety. In an era of regulatory overkill, when OSHA can issue a $13,200 fine to a roofing company for having a broken shovel in the back of a truck, my guess is there is hardly a potential contractor out there today that can meet all of this criteria. And now we have added dramatically to it a second possibility, ``to prohibit Government reimbursement of Federal contracts for the costs they incur in unsuccessfully defending against or settling unfair labor practice complaints brought against them by the NLRB.'' ``Prohibit Government reimbursement of contractors for money they spend to fight unionization of their employees,'' and so on and so forth. Why is it significant that we talk about this today? The Executive order that we are concerned about has not yet been issued. Well, here is the reason why we talk about it and think it is extremely important. It wasn't very long ago that the Vice President went before organized labor and suggested to them that there would be an Executive order sent forward on worker replacement, and it was. It took a Federal court action to strike down this particular action on the part of the administration as simply being outside the law in relation to the National Labor Relations Board and its ability to make decisions. And, therefore, it was an illegal act, or certainly an act outside the law, and the decision was struck down. Now, it is interesting that our Vice President would follow the same process. I think that we can suggest to the courts that this kind of an Executive order would fall under very similar kinds of guidelines that the one of a year ago did, because it probably falls under the Supreme Court's decision of 1986 of Wisconsin Department of Industries. I think what concerns all of us is the use of Executive order and rule and regulation on the part of this administration, instead of coming to the Congress of the United States and saying this is good policy. Do you mean this policy can't be debated on the floor of the Senate and voted on as a part of the law for contracting of Government programs? It should be, if that is how we are going to make public policy instead of by Executive order of the kind and the nature that is being talked about in this potential Executive order. Union-only subject agreements clearly have an exclusive and an anticompetitive nature to them. It is not for me to give an anti-union speech. Clearly, companies that are unionized ought to have every right to bid. But other companies that meet reasonable standards can compete over good bids, and do it in a fair and responsible way and provide the service to the Government as expected. They ought to have a right in that same market. That is exactly what George Bush said when he said it very clearly in 1992 in an Executive order requiring all Federal agencies to use an open competitive process for all Federal contracts. President Clinton's executive order would revoke this basically. That was revoked in 1983, and this would go even further to narrow it and define who could bid. It just so happens that only a limited few could bid. Last year, if this Executive order, as we understand it, were in place--I guess it is a contract for fiscal year 1993--it would have been well over 13 percent more of them at about $182 billion. In addition to contracts with major corporations, a study identified with contracts with Duke University, with Loyola University, and others, would fall subject to them and could well shut them off from their kind of contracts for research and development in the area of AIDS research in one and biomedical research in another. Mr. President, what our President proposes and what the Vice President has openly talked about to be expected this next week is in itself, in my opinion, a travesty of the way Government works and the way the executive and the legislative branch come together to build good public policy. This is special interest group legislating in the worst form. It is very bold, and it is very open. But, then again, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions later, I guess they can figure they can be that bold and that open because, certainly, in the shadow of what has occurred in the last election, this appears to be a response to those kinds of levels of participation. I thank my colleague and the Senator from Georgia for bringing this issue to the floor. It must be talked about. It must be understood openly by the American people. And, as I say, what the American people want for their tax dollar, its expenditure for and purchase of Government services and the need for capital expenditure within the Government is a fair and open bidding process and a good product in the end. Certainly, the President at this moment may well be accused of attempting to skew that into less competitive and most assuredly a less open process. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Chemical Weapons Convention has such far-reaching domestic and national security implications that it deserves the most thorough and thoughtful examination by the Senate. I have given this matter a careful review and now rise to discuss some of the conclusions I have reached. If I thought supporting this treaty would make chemical weapons disappear, and give us all greater security from these heinous weapons, I would not hesitate in giving my support. Unfortunately, the facts do not demonstrate this; indeed, implementing this treaty may actually create opportunities for security breaches. The Convention has been signed by 160 nations and ratified by only 70--less than 50 percent. Five countries who are thought to have chemical weapons are not even signatories of the Convention: Egypt, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. Another six nations have signed, but not ratified the Convention: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, and Russia. In short, this Convention is not global in scale. Mr. President, even if it were true that this treaty had been signed and ratified by 160 nations, serious problems would remain. Compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention is not verifiable. I think it is timely and appropriate to remember the principle President Reagan insisted upon when negotiating an arms control treaty--trust, but verify. Unlike nuclear weapons which require a large, specialized industrial base, chemical weapons can be manufactured almost anywhere. Moreover, many lethal chemicals are common and have peaceful uses. Chemicals help us to manufacture products such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and paints. With such a broad spectrum of uses, it would be difficult to discern the legitimate from the illicit. Even if verification of compliance were not a concern, this treaty would be difficult to enforce. In a sound arms control treaty, the United States must be able to punish other countries caught in violation of the agreement. The Chemical Weapons Convention provides only vague, unspecified sanctions to be imposed on a country found in breach of the Convention. Ultimately, the Chemical Weapons Convention leaves the U.N. Security Council to impose penalties severe enough to change behavior out an outlaw nation. Since any one of the five members of the Security Council can veto any enforcement resolution lodged against them or their friends, China and Russia, for example, could simply veto resolutions imposing sanctions if they disagreed with other Security Council members. In sum, Mr. President, it does not appear that this agreement is verifiable or enforceable. Appropriate questions have also been raised about the treaty's compatibility with our Constitution. The Convention creates an international monitoring regime called the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or OPCW. The OPCW will be granted the most extensive and intrusive monitoring power of any arms control treaty ever because it extends coverage to governmental and civilian facilities. The intrusive nature of this treaty brings up important issues in regards to our citizens' constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure of private property. Mr. John Yoo, an acting professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley wrote yesterday in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that ``Under the CWC, a drug dealer running a crack house will have more constitutional rights than the law-abiding operator of a chemical plant.'' Proponents of the Chemical Weapons Convention have suggested that there are a wide variety of solutions to the constitutional problem. However, the Chemical Weapons Convention states that it is ``unlawful to disrupt, delay, impede an inspection or refuse entry of an inspection team.'' It appears as though this treaty is incompatible with our Constitution. Furthermore, Mr. President, I do not want to look for ways to get around the so-called constitutional problem. If the treaty flies in the face of rights protected under the fourth and fifth amendments, we cannot and should not ratify. The authority of the international monitoring regime also raises concern about foreign nationals having such broad authority to obtain access to property held by private U.S. citizens. The U.S. chemical industry is known to be one of the top industries targeted for espionage by foreign companies and governments. There is legitimate worry that international inspections could jeopardize confidential business information, trade secrets, and other proprietary data. Since the United States will be expected to pay 25 percent, or approximately $50 million, of the OPCW's operating costs, American tax dollars could be subsidizing increased risk for U.S. business interests. And even though we would pay the lion's share of the OPCW's budget, the United States would have no special status over other signatory nations, no veto power, and no assurance of being a member of the executive council. Despite my objections to ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, I believe Senator Kyl's Chemical and Biological Threat Reduction Act will help protect our citizens and troops from the threat of chemical and biological weapons. This bill would establish workable national policies for confronting the chemical and biological weapons threats, while not jeopardizing our national security like the CWC. Currently, there exists no U.S. law providing comprehensive criminal, civil, and other penalties for the acquisition, possession, transfer, or use of chemical or biological weapons. Senator Kyl's bill would impose stiff criminal and civil penalties for illegal possession of chemical weapons. The death penalty could be a punishment for an individual who causes the death of another through this bill. The Chemical and Biological Threat Reduction Act also imposes mandatory sanctions against nations that use biological and chemical weapons against other countries or their own citizens. Unlike the Chemical Weapons Convention that only vaguely defines sanctions which could be thwarted by the U.N. Security Council, this bill would automatically terminate foreign assistance, suspend arms sales, impose import and export restrictions, and end financial assistance from multilateral banks. This act also would improve the readiness of U.S. military forces against chemical weapons attacks by improving troop preparedness. In view of some of the contacts I've had from Idahoans concerning Senator Kyl's bill, I think it's important to point out that this bill does not ratify the flawed Chemical Weapons Convention. It would enhance our own methods to deal with chemical terrorism without making us vulnerable to the defects of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Mr. President, making the production and possession of chemical weapons illegal according to international law will not make them disappear. Use of such weapons has been prohibited since 1907, yet we have seen the results of their use. We all know about the tens of thousands of deaths from poison gas in World War I, and no one could forget the tragic photographs of the Iranian children killed during the 1980's by the Iraqi Government. Illegal? Yes, but still in use, nonetheless. Mr. President, I stand today with all Americans expressing a grave concern over the increasing proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. The real question here seems to be whether ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention will increase our own national security. Unfortunately, the answer is no. There is little value in implementing international laws which do little to decrease illegal research, development, and proliferation of chemical weapons worldwide. I support the goal of making the world safe from the threat of chemical weapons. I applaud the honorable statement the CWC makes against these heinous weapons. However, I believe the best way to protect ourselves from this threat is by rejecting this treaty. The Convention does nothing to better our security, but may even open the door to increasing risks against our vital security interests and infringing on the rights of innocent citizens. For these reason, I am compelled to vote against the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Wyoming for his statement and his sincere commitment to our National Park System. As chairman of the Parks Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he offers this country tremendous leadership in the area of parks and park management. I am sure his statement this morning is well received and clearly demonstrates some of the difficulties our Park Service now experiences that this Congress ought to be actively and responsibly dealing with. (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this morning, I stand to introduce with my colleague from New Mexico, Jeff Bingaman, legislation that will be called the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1997. I think we have all heard of the old adage that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' That is very true in the legislation that we are proposing today, along with our colleagues from the House. Simply stated, medical nutrition therapy involves the assessment of the nutritional status of patients with a condition, illness, or injury that puts them at nutritional risk. Once a problem is identified, a registered dietitian can work with the patient to develop a personal therapy or treatment. Almost 17 million Americans each year, mostly the elderly, are treated for chronic illnesses or injuries that place them at risk of malnutrition. But because of medical nutrition therapy, in many instances, this can be resolved. The only problem today is that these preventive measures are not covered by Medicare. Our legislation would simply provide coverage under Medicare part B for medical nutrition therapy services furnished by registered dietitians and nutrition professionals. This is necessary so that the elderly are not denied effective low-technology treatment of their needs. I had the privilege of touring several hospitals in Idaho where medical nutrition therapy is now being used, and the results are dramatic. As we begin to closely examine our Medicare system, we must focus on the modernization of a 30-year-old health insurance system for the elderly. We need to make sure that it is truly modern, not only in its payment, its application, its style, but in the broad array of health care services that it responds to. Today, many private health insurance programs recognize medical nutrition therapy. Now, it is time that Medicare did. I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Bingaman and myself, as we introduce the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act. It is important that we begin to recognize these services and provide coverage under Medicare part B. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this morning, I stand to introduce with my colleague from New Mexico, Jeff Bingaman, legislation that will be called the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1997. I think we have all heard of the old adage that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' That is very true in the legislation that we are proposing today, along with our colleagues from the House. Simply stated, medical nutrition therapy involves the assessment of the nutritional status of patients with a condition, illness, or injury that puts them at nutritional risk. Once a problem is identified, a registered dietitian can work with the patient to develop a personal therapy or treatment. Almost 17 million Americans each year, mostly the elderly, are treated for chronic illnesses or injuries that place them at risk of malnutrition. But because of medical nutrition therapy, in many instances, this can be resolved. The only problem today is that these preventive measures are not covered by Medicare. Our legislation would simply provide coverage under Medicare part B for medical nutrition therapy services furnished by registered dietitians and nutrition professionals. This is necessary so that the elderly are not denied effective low-technology treatment of their needs. I had the privilege of touring several hospitals in Idaho where medical nutrition therapy is now being used, and the results are dramatic. As we begin to closely examine our Medicare system, we must focus on the modernization of a 30-year-old health insurance system for the elderly. We need to make sure that it is truly modern, not only in its payment, its application, its style, but in the broad array of health care services that it responds to. Today, many private health insurance programs recognize medical nutrition therapy. Now, it is time that Medicare did. I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Bingaman and myself, as we introduce the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act. It is important that we begin to recognize these services and provide coverage under Medicare part B. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, an estimated 30 million taxpayers will file their Federal income tax returns today. They will be among the more than 100 million households filing returns so far this year. Most of these households do not have charitable feelings about the process to which their Government has just subjected them. Today, tax day, is the right day to call for tax relief, tax reform, and reform of the Internal Revenue Service. The Tax Foundation has announced today that tax freedom day for 1997 will be May 9--128 days into the year and later than it has ever been in our taxpaying history. Mr. President, our colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], is a student of classical history. I read recently that subjects in some of the outer provinces of the Roman Empire stirred up civil unrest when Roman plus local taxation reached an estimated 25 percent of their income. Today, the typical American family of four pays 38 percent of its income in taxes at all levels--working 3 hours of every 8-hour day just to pay taxes. Tax-and-spend liberals don't like it when taxpayers are reminded that it is the taxpayer's money--not the Government's --that is taken in taxes. I continue to support reasonable, fair tax relief that is pro-family and pro-economic growth. Among other efforts, today, I am joining again as an original cosponsor, with Senator Ashcroft, of the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act. American wage-earners are double taxed. They pay Social Security taxes and income taxes twice on the same wages. The least they deserve to an above-the-line deduction against their income taxes for the taxes they pay into Social Security. Too often within government, common sense is the least common kind of sense. The Ashcroft-Craig bill would be one important step in the right direction. American workers and their families need tax relief as soon as we can enact it. They are also clamoring for fundamental tax reform. Compliance with the current Federal income tax system costs 5.4 billion hours a year and $200 billion--$700 for every man, woman, and child in America. The IRS publishes 480 different tax forms, and another 280 forms to explain the first 480 forms. If laid end-to-end, the 8 billion pages of instructions sent out by the IRS every year would circle the Earth 28 times. The Internal Revenue Code is too complex, produces arbitrary results, and is far too involved in social engineering. It is costing the Government the trust and confidence of the American people. That's why Senator Shelby and I will reintroduce the Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act--the flat tax bill--in the coming weeks. Our bill would create a single, flat, tax rate of 17 percent. Families of modest and middle-class means would be protected--by a personal exemption amounting to $33,800 for a family of four. A fair, flat tax system would reward work, promote savings and economic growth, and increase willing compliance with the law. As much as Americans distrust the tax laws, they fear the tax collector who enforces them. Small wonder: Drug dealers, child molesters, and organized crime hit men have more legal rights than an average taxpayer whom the IRS suspects of underpaying his or her taxes. Blatant disregard for individuals' rights has all been in pursuit of one goal: Get the money. An ever-growing Federal Government, with its voracious appetite for taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, has led Congresses dominated for decades by tax-and-spend liberals to expand the powers of the Internal Revenue Service and allow the agency to ignore the due process of law protections to which American citizens otherwise have been entitled. Americans expect to enjoy due process of the law as one of their fundamental rights. But that's not the case when you're dealing with the IRS. Most of the time, if a criminal suspect is not publicly attracting the attention of a law enforcement officer, no one from the government--from the FBI to the local sheriff--can search their home or seize their property without a warrant from an impartial court, based upon a showing of probable cause. But if the IRS thinks someone has underpaid their taxes, it can seize cars and freeze bank accounts on its own authority--without obtaining any kind of impartial, prior approval. It can consider the taxpayer guilty until proven innocent. It can impose costly penalties until the taxpayer--sometimes after years of court proceedings--conclusively proves they did nothing wrong. So-called ``horror stories'' about the IRS are multiplying. Sometimes the problem is brought on by a Tax Code that is too complicated even for the IRS to understand. Sometimes the problem is with IRS agents who act outside the law. And sometimes, it happens when IRS officials push to the limit the legal powers they've been granted by past Congresses and Presidents. In any case, there's never an excuse for such behavior. Congress is now investigating these incidents. We are working to make the IRS more accountable and the process fairer. One of these efforts will take a major step closer to becoming law today--S. 522, the ``anti-snooping'' bill introduced by Senator Coverdell. I am proud to be a cosponsor. This bill will clamp down on rogue IRS agents and put a stop to the unauthorized inspection of taxpayers' information. Years into the age of the computer, this is overdue. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Congress never should have granted powers to the IRS that allow it-- that, in fact, have encouraged it--to trample the due process rights that all Americans should enjoy. Criminal activity by individual, rogue IRS agents should not be hidden behind a shield of sovereign immunity. We will pass the anti-snooping bill today. It is one small part of a larger reform package that still needs to be passed. Many of the other needed reforms are included in another of Senator Coverdell's bills, S. 365, the IRS Accountability Act. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of that bill, as well. No people can remain free, or their government effective, if they do not display trust and confidence in each other. Yet America's tax system increasingly eats like a corrosive acid at these very bonds of support and legitimacy. I am committed to the three-step program necessary to restore fairness to the tax system and trust to the people: Pro-family, pro-growth tax relief; a simpler, fairer, flatter Tax Code; and reform for the tax collector, increasing accountability and requiring the IRS to treat the taxpayer with dignity, respect, and due process of the law.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I extend my thanks to the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for the tremendous work he has done, very successful work on S. 104. We have picked up votes. Today we had the votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto, and we saw that action going on right here in the well. I appreciate the work my colleagues from Nevada have done. They have certainly maintained my respect for them and I hope likewise. But clearly this Nation needs a permanent repository, and S. 104 moves us in that direction. We will now move to the House. I think the value is that the administration now needs to clearly recognize that the Congress of the United States in a strong bipartisan way wants to resolve this issue and tell the American people it will honor its commitments and its contracts to resolve this major environmental issue. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the sky is not falling. The National Academy of Science adopts standards and EPA uses them. That is in the bill. Save $25 to $30 billion. Honor our commitment since 1982 to abide by the law and the contracts of our Government and the Federal court and find a single, safe repository for nuclear waste. This is the number one environmental bill this year, if you are concerned about 80 sites spread across this country. The issue is good policy. S. 104 is good law. The Senate ought to support it unanimously.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 43

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague for a question.

Mr. CRAIG. As I know my colleague from Alaska is aware, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory has, over the course of its history, received commercial spent nuclear fuel for research and development purposes. One of the largest receipts was the receipt of the discharged core from the Three Mile Island nuclear powerplant in the 1980's. Idaho has also received, and continues to store, expended fuel from naval nuclear reactors. One of the key provisions of the consent order is that the DOE is ordered to remove all spent fuel, including naval spent fuel and Three Mile Island spent fuel from Idaho by January 1, 2035.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague for a question.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to address a specific provision of the Murkowski substitute amendment to Senate bill 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This provision is also in the bill as introduced, and was in similar legislation passed by this body in the last session of Congress. This provision is of special importance to my State and I wish, therefore, to clarify its appearance in this important legislation. I refer specifically to section 101, entitled ``Obligations of the Secretary of Energy,'' paragraph (f), which states, ``Nothing in this act is intended to or shall be construed to modify . . . obligations imposed upon the Federal Government by the U.S. District Court of Idaho in an order entered on October 17, 1995, in United States v. Batt (No. 91-0054-S-EJL).'' Mr. President, the consent order referred to in section 101 of S. 104 binds the State of Idaho, through the Attorney General, and Gov. Philip E. Batt in his official capacity; the Department of Energy, through the general counsel and assistant secretary for environmental management; and the Department of the Navy, through the general counsel and director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to certain terms and conditions to fully resolve all issues in the actions Public Service Co. of Colorado versus Batt and United States versus Batt.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. CRAIG. The consent order has a number of compliance points requiring action by the U.S. Department of Energy at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, which have bearing on the overall spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste management storage and disposal program as structured in Senate bill 104. In general terms, the consent order requires specific actions for treatment, storage, disposal, or shipment offsite for disposal of spent fuel and waste at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and requires these actions to be performed according to a timetable set down in the consent order.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague from Alaska for a question.

Mr. CRAIG. The consent order limits shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel into Idaho. Specifically, the total number of shipments of naval spent fuel to Idaho through 2035 shall not exceed 575 shipments and shall not exceed 55 metric tons. Most relevant to our discussion of Senate bill 104, however, is the Department of Energy's commitment, through this settlement agreement, that naval spent fuel stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory on the date of the opening of a permanent repository or interim storage facility shall be among the early shipments of spent fuel to the first permanent repository or interim storage facility.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Alaska is correct. The consent order settlement agreement contains a provision that, except for a narrow exception for the treatment of graphite fuel from the Fort St. Vrain reactor in Colorado, the Department of Energy will make no shipments of spent fuel from commercial nuclear powerplants to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Therefore, selection of Idaho for further commercial fuel storage would be inconsistent with and in violation of the consent order.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague from Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate has before it at this moment, and has for some days, through tomorrow, the consideration of Senate bill 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Senator Frank Murkowski, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and myself, along with a good number of others of our colleagues, have recognized the need for this Government and this Congress to clarify its position on high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel in compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987. As a result of that recognition, that is exactly what we are doing. We are certainly encouraging at this moment a resounding passage of this bill tomorrow. Mr. President, last week my colleague from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, introduced the substitute. I am discouraged that in spite of all the work we have done, the administration has not withdrawn its veto threat of this legislation. We have listened to the other side. We have incorporated amendments from the other side. We have now picked up substantially more Members from the other side who are supporting this bill. I have recently reviewed, once again, the basis for the veto threat and I find no remaining legitimate reason for this administration to be in opposition. Let me address just a couple of specifics for just a few moments. The statement of administration policy states that S. 104 would effectively establish Nevada as the site of an interim nuclear storage facility before a viability assessment of Yucca Mountain is completed. Not true. Mr. President, let me repeat, that is an untrue statement. S. 104 designates the Nevada site as the location for the interim storage facility after--after--the DOE completes the viability assessment in 1998. The statement of administration policy states that S. 104 would create loopholes in the National Environmental Policy Act. The truth is that the substitute has lengthened the duration of both licensing and public participation opportunities. Again, what the President said and what is in fact in the legislation simply do not relate. The statement of administration policy states that S. 104 replaces the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set acceptable radiation release standards with a statutory standard. Again, we have fully addressed this concern. Our substitute reverses the approach on setting an environmental standard for the deep geologic repository. S. 104, as introduced, set a standard of 100 millirem. Last week, I addressed this body and set this 100 millirem in the proper context of everyday risk from everyday living. I noted for my colleagues that we receive an annual radiation dosage of 80 millirem simply by spending most of our time inside the U.S. Senate. Why? It is a product of the radiation that comes from the granite structure around the Senate body itself. In other words, the normal decay of stone that is part of the structure of this Capitol. We have listened, however, to the concerns of our opponents and the administration, that this legislation should contain a risk-based standard. We have heard discussions. We have listened to those suggestions and adopted the recommendations of the National Academy of Science. In our openness to enhance the broad bipartisan support already enjoyed by this legislation, we have listened to all of those suggestions. Therefore, our substitute now requires that the Environmental Protection Agency determine a risk-based radiation standard for the repository. In other words, we tried to utilize all national and international standards that are acceptable to the public, based on science, but were forced to say, OK, you won't believe the truth, then we will allow the Environmental Protection Agency latitude in developing those standards. Our substitute directs that the Environmental Protection Agency set this radiation standard in accordance with the National Academy of Science's recommendations. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Senator from Alaska, for conducting a process for developing this legislation and this substitute, in what I believe to be an unprecedented character of openness and willingness to hear and respond to the concerns of our opponents. There is simply, Mr. President, no legitimate remaining basis for the administration's opposition to this legislation. I urge the President of the United States not to fight this Congress. This Congress will soon express its will on the issue and, most likely, the outcome will be the same broad, bipartisan consensus that we developed in the last Congress. Mr. President, I said a few days ago on this floor that this legislation was good science and good engineering and good technology, and that there would be one simple reason to oppose it, and that would be political. I stand here today with the amendments the chairman has accepted and the character of this legislation when it comes to final passage. I now can say in fact that there are no impediments for this administration to accept this legislation, except for politics, and politics alone. I am amazed that the President of the United States can say that, because of his politics, he is willing to ask the American people to pay an additional $80 billion--or potentially that amount--in a negative environmental situation, when we are standing here today with a very positive environmental move that would cost less than about $3 billion to develop an interim storage facility. This facility would allow the Congress of the United States and the administration to say to the American people that we will abide by the law, we will adhere to the courts and the laws that have already been passed by past Congresses to develop a deep geologic repository, and we will do so in a timely fashion. That is the issue before the Congress when it considers S. 104. I hope my colleagues will join with us in a resounding bipartisan vote as we deal with this critical national major environmental issue. We have worked to resolve it in a balanced approach that all can agree with. I think the efforts of Senator Murkowski will be demonstrated in a vote that we see cast on this legislation tomorrow. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.