Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If I might ask the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations about the EPA review of the national ambient air quality standard for particulate matter. I understand that there are recent epidemiological studies that indicate a correlation between exposure to air polluted with particulates and adverse human health effects, and that EPA is studying this matter as a high priority.

Mr. CRAIG. I am pleased to learn that the committee has directed this level of funding to EPA for this important research. This comprehensive research program is very much needed. At present, there appears to be insufficient data available for the agency to decide what changes, if any, should be made to the current standard. There is no scientific consensus on whether it is necessary to change the current ambient air quality standards for particulate matter to protect human and environmental health. It has come to my attention that in a letter to EPA on June 13, 1996, EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee concluded that ``our understanding of the health effects of [particulates] is far from complete,'' and these scientific uncertainties prevented the committee from agreeing on the agency's suggested new particulate standards. In addition, the former chairman of this advisory committee who is now a consultant to the advisory committee, Roger McClellan, wrote the current chairman in May to advise him that ``the current staff document does not provide a scientifically adequate basis for making regulatory decisions for setting of National Ambient Air Quality Standards and related control of particulate matter as specified in the Clean Air Act.'' Finally, in a peer-reviewed article just published in the Journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, scientists John Gamble and Jeffery Lewis conclude that the recent epidemiology studies that show statistically significant acute health effects of particulate air pollution do not meet the criteria for causality. They suggest that the weak statistical correlations of increased mortality are as likely due to confounding by weather, copollutants, or exposure misclassification as they are by ambient particulate matter. As the chairman is aware, EPA is under a Federal court order to make a final decision on whether to revise the current clean air rule regarding particulate matter. Under the court order, EPA must make a proposed decision on or before November 29, 1996, and a final decision on or before June 28, 1997. Can the Chairman inform me whether the court order allows the agency to decide not to revise the particulate standard until there is sufficient scientific basis for doing so?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate adopted an amendment to H.R. 3666, which was included in a package of managers' amendments, and which originally was offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], myself, and others. This amendment will restore some certainty to the Senate's appropriation for assistance under the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act, or LIHPRHA. I appreciate the managers accepting this amendment. Senators Moseley-Braun, Kemp- thorne, Kerry, and I had written Chairman Bond earlier to express our support for appropriating at least $500 million for LIHPRHA this year, and to note that, within a tight and fiscally responsible budget, this program remains a reasonable priority. Mr. President, as always, I want to reiterate my commitment to balancing the Federal budget and keeping it balanced. Balancing the budget is all about setting priorities. This Congress, the bravest in 40 years, has passed balanced budgets and I have supported them. I have no trouble finding room within those budgets for reasonable appropriations for LIHPRHA. I have spoken with Idahoans--tenants and owners alike--who have turned to LIHPRHA as a cost-effective way to maintain private ownership of low-income housing, to preserve that housing stock, and to keep it in good repair. Just last month, such a transfer was concluded in Moscow, ID, involving a seller and buyer who care about tenants of modest means and wanted to see their affordable housing maintained. The VA-HUD appropriations bill, as reported, had stated its hope and intent that $500 million is available for LIHPRHA in fiscal year 1997. But, because $150 million of that appropriation would have been conditioned on recapturing interest savings when some owners sell what we call section 236 projects and pre-pay their mortgages, the timing of that funding stream would have been highly uncertain. Such uncertainty would hamper effective decisionmaking in HUD's regional offices and would discourage the very buyers and sellers who want to keep low-income housing available to those who need it. This preservation has noble, beneficial goals. But the current process already takes too long and involves too much redtape. We don't need to make things worse by making the timing its funding still more unpredictable. Also, it would have mixed apples and oranges to rely on money generated when housing loses its status as low-income housing to pay for a program intended to preserve low-income housing. Our amendment offers the best of both worlds. The funding stream for LIHPRHA would be more certain. Any unexpected surplus section 236 savings would go to deficit reduction. This creates a win-win situation. Our amendment is budget-neutral because LIHPRHA simply would be de- coupled from the section 236 recaptured interest savings. These savings would continue, as they do under current law, to go into the Treasury, instead of being made directly available to LIHPRHA. This makes more sense. Chairman Bond and I have visited about this program last year and I appreciate his continued willingness to support this program. I know the committee has been looking for the best means of continuing the program. I hope and believe that our amendment has been helpful to the chairman and the committee in this regard. Once this bill goes to conference, I urge the committee to do everything possible to safeguard LIHPRHA funding. It is my hope that, if possible, the conference committee on this bill could provide more for this program. The $500 million in this bill represents a 20 percent cut from fiscal year 1996 dollars. Even at this level, there is much more low-income housing ready for sale that can be accommodated by fiscal year 1997 appropriations for preservation. These are projects for which most of the work on the part of the sellers and buyers has been completed, and for which HUD has approved plans of action. Obviously, some sellers will not be able to postpone selling until fiscal year 1998--if there are appropriations then--and will have to sell sooner, without the guarantee of preserving the low-income status of the housing. I understand there are concerns that the results of this program may not be as favorable and economical in every case as has been our experience in Idaho. Some reforms can and should be made that would make the program more cost-effective. Chairman Bond and Senator Kerry are both members of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and I look forward to their leadership in this area. I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership on this amendment, I commend Chairman Bond for his helpfulness in this process, and I thank the managers and the Senate for accepting our amendment. The President's Executive Order to bring Federal surplus computer equipment to public schools

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you very much. Let me express my appreciation to the Senator from Georgia for bringing about this special order in which we could discuss a topic that has just now again burst upon the scene, at least from the standpoint of us having new figures and statistics to be concerned about. But many of us have recognized that it has been going on for some time in a way that this administration and others have just either ignored it or failed to address it. As I came to the floor this afternoon, my friend from Georgia was talking about national statistics on teenage drug abuse versus local statistics and that national averages probably mean local averages if you take a close look at the problem, because I have a feeling that many of us have the habit of saying, well, gee, that really does sound bad and certainly the consequence for younger Americans is tragic but that really is not going on in my backyard. I think in a State like Idaho that remains relatively rural and, at least from the standpoint of metropolitan areas has few, that would be the case with many of my friends and associates in Idaho. Let me start my comments this afternoon by talking about my home State of Idaho because what we are now finding in our checking of statistics with law enforcement is that the national trends are Idaho's trends. I think that is probably true across the Nation. In the last 4 years we have seen a dramatic reversal in the trends that we saw in the late 1980's and early 1990's in my home State of Idaho according to the Idaho Statistical Analysis Center. Juvenile drug arrests have jumped from a 9 percent decrease--a 9-percent decrease in 1991--to a 69-percent increase in 1995, an absolute flip-flop of the record. Why is it going on? Juvenile drug arrests in Idaho are now growing at a faster rate than adult drug arrests. Let me repeat that. Juvenile drug arrests in Idaho are growing at a faster rate than adult drug arrests. Teens are experiencing drugs at younger and younger ages. And 7.1 percent of the ninth grade females and 1.5 percent of the 12th grade females used marijuana for the first time before the age of 13 in Idaho. And those are the statistics that ought to be alarming all of us because those are the same kinds of statistics that we have had reported to us by the substance abuse and medical health services administration in their statistics of a few weeks ago. Illicit drug use among youth doubling since 1992. Marijuana use among 12- and 13-year-olds more than doubled since 1992, and tripling among 14- to 15-year-olds. Those are the national statistics, Mr. President. And yet those are the same statistics of Idaho, a State of about 1,300,000 people. Cocaine, crack, heroin, LSD use among teenagers is expected to soon rival the highest rates of the 1970's. Why? What has changed? What in America is different in 1995 and 1996 than was existing in 1990, in 1988, in 1987 when we actually saw peaks and then declines in the use of some of these substances by our teenaged population? I think one thing has changed. And while over the last several years I have been unwilling to be bold in talking about it, clearly I think it is time to talk about it. I remember because I was here in the early 1980's when Nancy Reagan said, ``Just say no.'' There were a lot of the press and a lot of the liberal critics that said, ``Are you kidding me? Just say no? We have to have control. We have got to have institutional programs. You can't just argue with teenage America that they ought to just say no.'' But what Nancy Reagan knew as a mother and what a lot of citizens know in our country, that one of the greatest areas of control is when national leaders speak out and when in most instances there is the kind of internal peer pressure that really does have an impact. And that kind of national leadership, certainly that kind of internal peer pressure that is produced as a product of national leadership has been relatively nonexistent since the early 1990's at a time when our President openly admits he once smoked marijuana, at a time when his press secretary says, ``Well, yes, of course I did. And I've used it from time to time.'' In other words, what I am saying is, a national leadership with a relatively cavalier attitude that just simply says, ``oh, so what.'' Well, the ``oh, so what'' is very simple. The ``oh, so what'' is teenage America listening to our national leaders with a tone that it does not really make any difference, that there is not really a problem there, that somehow it is OK. I am not suggesting in any sense that our President has openly said that. But what I am suggesting is that a White House that cannot get security clearances because of its current drug use, a White House whose press secretary says ``so what'' a President who says, ``My only defense against a past action is that I really didn't inhale,'' I am sorry, that is a leadership speaking out. That is our national icon, and the President of the United States is less than caring and less than leading on this issue. What remains today as the greater deterrent? A statement that was made in the early 1980's by a lady who was openly ridiculed for making it, ``Just say no.'' That ``just say no'' amongst teenagers today, with high school counselors and those who associate in peer-type organizations with young Americans is the strongest defense today against the use of illegal drugs or substance abuse. Say no, stand up, be an individual, speak out. But most importantly, say no. Say no for yourself and no for your peers. What is the rest of the story beyond that, beyond tone setting, beyond leadership? We could pour billions of dollars into this, and we should put more into it. We tried to put more into it. As you know, the Clinton Justice Department issued a study recommending a reduction in mandatory minimum drug sentences, and the Clinton administration cut 355 DEA agents and 102 persons from the Justice Department's crime drug enforcement task force, and the Clinton administration cut the Coast Guard drug interdiction budget by $14.6 billion. I could go on and on and on. We do need that side of it. We must have that side of it to stem the flow, to deter that kind of activity. Put all of that together, and this Congress will work hard to get it back on line. But well beyond that, Mr. President, remains the fundamental responsibility that our national leadership must speak out that this is no longer something that you shrug and grin and walk away from because those who you put around you cannot meet the test, cannot meet the standard, are violating the law by their action behind the scenes. That is something that is unacceptable in this country. We reap the whirlwind of inaction. We reap the whirlwind amongst our teenagers for a failure on the part of our leadership to clearly and openly stand out in opposition to this kind of illegal and harmful activity. We all know what it can mean when drug abuse starts, when substance abuse begins. One action can lead to another. The use of marijuana oftentimes--by the admission of those who have used it--can lead to the use of harder drugs. That can lead to criminal activity beyond the act itself. Those are the kind of things that we need to worry about. Why now, then, do the criminologists of this country, why, now, do the people who study our demographics say to us that as a society we need to prepare for something that we are institutionally unprepared to handle? That in the coming decade, starting now, we can anticipate a teenage and juvenile crime wave of the kind this country has never seen. That is the whirlwind we reap because we have failed to be responsive in the kind of leadership necessary to deal with the current statistics, the kind that we now see today, be they national or in my State of Idaho or any other State in the Nation. This is an issue that will not go away. It is clearly an issue that this administration and that this Congress has to redress and move forward on. I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, for his willingness to take this kind of leadership. What I have said today and what he is saying is not easy to say. I do not want to be a condemner. I want to be a supporter. I want to build up. In this area, clearly, amongst all other areas, we would like to be proud of the statistics that would be positive for our young people. That is nonexistent in this area today. We must deal with it. I hope we deal with it aggressively. Again, it will not come by throwing money at it. It must come by a national conscience. It must come by knowing the difference between right and wrong. It must come from all of us as leaders here in the Senate and in the very White House that I have spoken of. That is the kind of leadership that we must have if we are going to deal with this issue and convince the young of our country that their actions must be changed for themselves and for their future. I thank my colleague and yield back the time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 3448. This title of this bill is supposed to be the ``Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996''. Title I, the tax title, is consistent with that spirit. It would make the Tax Code a little fairer, improve economic and employment opportunities, and provide some necessary tax relief. But the problem remains that, in passing this bill as a whole, we would be driving the economy with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake. The Senate had the chance to tip this bill in favor of creating more and better jobs and providing necessary relief for small businesses. Unfortunately, on a close vote, this body defeated the amendment offered by the Chairman of the Small Business Committee, the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond]. That amendment would have protected small, vulnerable employers from a one-size-fits-all mandate increasing the federal minimum wage. The Democrat Party had two years, during which it controlled the White House and the Congress, to increase the minimum wage. They never moved a bill out of committee. They never offered an amendment on the floor. They waited until this year to strike. I just have to suspect there were some political motivations involved, and some crocodile tears shed over the workers they say they want to help. I commend those who have labored long and hard to take a legislative lemon and turn it into lemonade. I am sorry I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the resulting bill. All too often, Congresses and Presidents have taken a perceived problem, put it under a microscope, and tried to address it with a one- size-fits-all federal mandate. The result often has been government by anecdote. Unintended consequences and innocent bystanders have not always been taken into account in the rush to adopt a ``feel-good'' solution. That risk of unintended consequences is definitely present in the bill before us today. We feel for those Americans who are working hard at making ends meet. It is easy and it is tempting to look at a $4.25 an hour minimum wage and say, let's just mandate an increase in that wage. But that is the wrong answer. That approach will hurt the very persons it is meant to help--the working poor and entry-level employees. Common sense, the laws of economics, and experience all tell us this. We've all heard the numbers. The commonly accepted figure is that a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15--a 21 percent increase--would result in the loss of at least 621,000 jobs. In Idaho, it would destroy 3,200 jobs. I don't know how many of those jobs might be saved with the tax provisions in this bill, but it's obvious that many small employers will fall through the cracks. These are the businesses who will have little or no opportunity to use the tax relief provisions elsewhere in this bill. These are employers who have taken pride in creating jobs and opportunities for those who need them, and who take pride in serving their customers at affordable prices. I've heard from many small businesses in Idaho who are concerned about this bill. They are already calculating whether they will have to lay off employees because of this bill. Restaurants are already having new menus printed up with higher prices. Jobs will not be available for young and entry-level workers, because some employers simply will no longer be able to afford them when the government arbitrarily raises the price of their labor. Some have suggested that the economic impact of such an increase is ``negligible.'' But it's not negligible for each American who loses his or her job as a result. In many cases, the job lost would be the most important one that person will ever have--his or her first job. In recent years, small businesses have created every net new job in this country. They take the risks of hiring and training new workers. They do not have the economies of scale of large businesses and suffer a disproportionate impact from government regulation. They tend to be labor-intensive. If you drive up the costs of their labor, they will be forced to create fewer jobs. In fact, 77 percent of the economists who responded to a survey of the American Economics Association agreed that, by itself, a higher mandated minimum wage would have a negative impact on employment. Obviously, that negative impact is going to fall on workers at or near the minimum wage, and especially those who are the least-skilled and need an entry-level job the most. Realistically, the federal minimum wage today already is a training wage. The average minimum wage worker is earning $6.06 an hour after one year. In most work places, at every level of compensation, it is common for a new employee to be paid more after a few months. That is because there is almost always a learning curve, during which the employer is investing time, energy, and money in training and acclimating the new employee. The opportunity wage in this amendment simply reflects that reality of labor economics. Mr. President, I do want to emphasize that I support the tax title of this bill. I particularly want to express my support and appreciation for several of these provisions, including: The Shelby-Craig adoption tax credit; enactment of this credit is compassionate, pro-family, pro-children, and long overdue; increasing the availability of Individual Retirement Accounts for spouses working in the home as homemakers; revising and extending the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which will help employers hire and retain disadvantaged employees; restoring and extending the tax exclusion for employer- provided educational assistance; making S corporation rules more flexible; providing fairer treatment for dues paid to agricultural or horticultural organizations; improving depreciation and expensing rules for small businesses. I also commend the conferees for accepting the House's provision restoring and making permanent the exclusion from FUTA--the Federal Unemployment Tax--for labor performed by a temporary, legal, immigrant agricultural worker. Such employees are ineligible for FUTA benefits that are financed by this tax. Therefore, this tax is imposed on employers for no reason, except that the previous exclusion simply expired. I have supported these provisions consistently in the past and commend the Finance Committee for including them in this bill. I do want to express one note of concern. This bill would extend the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, but with an early sunset--May 31, 1997--and without making it available for investments made after it last expired and before July 1, 1996. The R and E Credit is one of those ``extenders'' that keep expiring and keep getting renewed. As a matter of fairness, most, if not all, of these extenders simply should be made permanent, or at least extended for a longer period of time. Several times in the past, these provisions have been renewed retroactively, but that is not the case of the R and E Credit this year. This stop-and-start approach to tax law undoes much of the good intended by these tax incentive provisions. We need to provide taxpayers with greater predictability in the Tax Code if we want to be effective in helping them invest and create jobs. Overall, the tax title provisions in this bill are valuable and beneficial. I commend the Chairman and Members of the Finance Committee for their work. We should be passing laws that boost the economy, increase opportunity and create jobs. We can and should do better than passing a bill that gives with one hand and takes away with the other. Therefore, although there are good provisions in this bill, I must cast a nay vote today.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that at the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to receive testimony regarding S. 931, S. 1564, S. 1565, S. 1649, S. 1719, S. 1921, measures relating to the Bureau of Reclamation, the subcommittee will also receive testimony regarding S. 1986, the Umatilla River Basin Project Completion Act, and S. 2015, To convey certain real property located within the Carlsbad Project in New Mexico to the Carlsbad irrigation district. The hearing will take place on September 5, 1996, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call James Beirne, senior counsel at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765 of the subcommittee staff. subcommittee on parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I had the pleasure of meeting for the first time yesterday with the new representative from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States, Dr. Jason Chih-chiang Hu. While it was a good opportunity to discuss areas of mutual interest, I was concerned to learn about an incident that occurred recently at the Olympic Games in Atlanta. On July 31, two Taiwan students--one currently studying at Georgia Tech, the other a recent graduate of a university in Dallas--were arrested during the gold medal table tennis match between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. It is my understanding that the incident was sparked when one of the students waived the national flag of the Republic of China during the hotly contested championship match. The other individual was arrested when trying to assist his fellow student in resisting police arrest. Mr. President, what began as an innocent, outward show of pride in his country ended with what would appear to be an excessive response. It is my hope that officials in Atlanta will carefully consider this situation and work toward a fair and equitable remedy that will not unduly punish these students. Nationalism and love of flag and country are something we as Americans can appreciate. As we look around the various venues at the Olympics, I think we all feel a source of pride to see the stars and stripes waiving in the stands and being carried by our athletes. What we may not understand is some of the history behind the conditions under which the Republic of China on Taiwan is able to participate in the Olympics. Athletes from Taiwan were banned from participating in the International Olympic Games in the 1970's due to controversies over the name, flag, and national anthem of their team. Later in that decade the International Olympic Committee amended its charter by striking out all references to national flags and national anthems. Instead, committee flag and committee song of the National Olympic Committee of each individual nation are used to describe the flag and anthem each nation's team uses. While almost all National Olympic committees use their national flag and anthem, the Republic of China, referred to in the Olympics as ``Chinese Taipei,'' are not allowed to use their flag and song. Mr. President, this prohibition applies to the Chinese Taipei Olympic team--not its fans. It is my understanding that the charter does not contain references to restrictions on individuals participating as spectators in the audience. Mr. President, while I do not have all the final details of this situation, I felt it was worthy of our notice. One purpose of the Olympic Games is for the world of nations to gather together in an event that allows us to rise above our differences. While that purpose is not always achieved, it is certainly a worthy goal. Therefore, it is my hope that we will see a swift and equitable resolution to this unfortunate situation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the legislation introduced by my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, with whom I have worked closely on many issues over the years. This important bill establishes a process whereby the people of Puerto Rico can vote for a retention or a change of their current Commonwealth status, a status preserved as a result of the November 14, 1993 plebiscite. If Puerto Ricans choose change, they can select a path toward separation--independence or free association--or a path toward incorporation--statehood. In short, the bill establishes an orderly path toward true self-determination in the true democratic spirit of our Nation. One might ask why such legislation is necessary given that less than 3 years ago, a plurality of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico chose the Commonwealth option on the November 14 ballot. This option--drafted by the Commonwealth party itself, under the agreed-upon terms of the plebiscite--presented the people of Puerto Rico with utterly inflated and unrealistic expectations regarding the island's future relationship with the United States. In effect, the Commonwealth option guaranteed United States citizens of Puerto Rico many of the benefits of statehood and many of the benefits of separation without any of the accompanying responsibilities of either. Given these pie-in-the-sky promises, it is no wonder that a plurality of Puerto Ricans--though, important, not a majority--chose the Commonwealth option. However, the future of Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States remains unclear, and congressional action providing Puerto Ricans with the power to determine their fate through a fair and orderly process is long overdue. It is time that Congress' silence on the results of the November 14, 1993 Puerto Rican plebiscite end, and that we afford United States citizens in Puerto Rico realistic and just options for determining Puerto Rico's future relationship with the United States of America. The Puerto Rican Government has asked that we do as much. On December 14, 1994, the legislature of Puerto Rico adopted Concurrent Resolution 62 which formally requested congressional guidance regarding the results of the 1993 status plebiscite. This legislation provides this guidance. The process established by this legislation would be unprecedented and long overdue, affording Puerto Ricans for the first time a fair process of self-determination that is consistent with everything America stands for. We owe Puerto Rico--which in 2 years will have been part of the United States for 100 years--at least this much. For decades, we have treated the right to self-determination as a cornerstone of our foreign policy. It is time that we practice what we preach.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which would establish a congressionally recognized self-determination process to resolve the political status of Puerto Rico. This proposal is made in light of the formal request of the Legislature of Puerto Rico, expressly directed to the 104th Congress, for a response to the 1993 plebiscite on Puerto Rico's future political status conducted under local law. Puerto Rico Legislature Resolution 62, adopted by the elected representatives of the residents of Puerto Rico on November 14, 1994, specifically calls upon this Congress to state the ``specific alternatives that it is willing to consider, and the measures it recommends the people of Puerto Rico should take as part of the process to solve the problem of their political status.'' Even though time is running out on the 104th Congress, this Senator believes it would be wrong to adjourn later this year without introducing in the Senate a proposal which addresses the manner in which Puerto Rico's status can be resolved consistent with both self-determination and the national interest. The solution to Puerto Rico's status cannot be one which imposes a result on the residents of Puerto Rico or on the United States. The process we are proposing recognizes the right of self-determination on both sides of the relationship. Let me explain why my colleagues should support the bill I am offering. Puerto Rico has been an unincorporated territory of the United States for almost 100 years, subject to the plenary powers of Congress under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution, article IV, section 3, clause 2. Congressional authorization for the adoption of a local constitution and delegation of authority for internal self-government in 1952 represented progress in the evolution of the territory's status, but the 3.8 million U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico do not yet have equal legal and political rights with their fellow citizens living in the States, or a guaranteed permanent status protected by the U.S. Constitution. Puerto Ricans have a statutory citizenship status prescribed by Congress in 1917, with less than equal legal standing and political rights while residing in Puerto Rico because it is not a State. In 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Rosario (446 U.S. 651) that as long as Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory subject to the territorial clause it does not violate the fundamental rights which all U.S. citizens have under the Constitution for Congress to treat the U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico differently than their fellow citizens in the 50 States as long as there is a rational basis for such unequal treatment. While any self-determination process we establish should allow the people in Puerto Rico to express approval of this present status, the idea that perpetual territorial status for such a large and populous area is desirable for either Puerto Rico or the nation as a whole needs to be examined closely. To begin with we need to recognize that Americans from Puerto Rico have served with valor along side their fellow citizens in every war this century, but Congress never has afforded the people an opportunity to express their wishes as to the options for full self-government and a permanent status outside the territorial clause--either as a state or through separate nationhood. In 1953 the U.N. recognized the Resolution 748 (VIII) that establishment of internal constitutional self-government with the consent of the residents was consistent with self-determination principles of the U.N. Charter, and on that basis the United States stopped reporting to the United Nations on the status of Puerto Rico. While Puerto Rico is no longer a non-self-governing for purposes of Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter, Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory under the U.S. constitutional process. In 1956, 4 years after the commonwealth structure for local self- government was established, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Reid v. Covert (354 U.S. 1), that the status of all such unincorporated territories, results from the exercise of the territorial clause authority and ``. . . the power of Congress to provide rules and regulations to govern temporarily territories with wholly dissimilar traditions and institutions . . . '' (emphasis added). The traditions and institutions in Puerto Rico most relevant to the political status of the people there are no longer wholly dissimilar to those of the United States. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. nationals since 1899, with U.S. citizenship for 80 years. Puerto Rico has been within the U.S. legal and political system and customs territory for nearly a century. A republican form of constitutional internal self- government was instituted through a democratic process 45 years ago. Clearly, the time has come to establish a process through which the current territorial status can be ended in favor of a constitutionally guaranteed permanent status consistent with full self-government, full political participation and equal citizenship rights. That means full integration into the United States on the basis of equality, or full citizenship and a constitutionally protected political status through separate nationhood. Again, if the residents of Puerto Rico prefer to remain in an unincorporated status and continue the present commonwealth structure for local government, any congressionally recognized self-determination process should enable them freely to express their wishes in this regard. But they will not be able to make a free and informed choice unless the legal and political nature of the current status is defined in a constitutionally valid and intellectually honest manner. Therein lies the problem with the 1993 plebiscite, in which the status options were formulated by the local political parties. The commonwealth option on the 1993 ballot included elements which were simply unconstitutional, and policy proposals that were so implausible and misleading as to make the voting results highly ambiguous. For example, commonwealth received the lowest voter approval ever at 48 percent, while statehood received the highest vote ever at 46 percent. But the commonwealth ballot definition include permanent union, the same citizenship rights as persons born in the States, increased Federal programs, and parity with the States in Federal budget outlay-- features which are constitutional guaranteed and/or politically possible only with statehood. At the same time, the commonwealth option also called for Federal tax exemptions, fiscal autonomy, a local veto over Federal laws passed by Congress under a so-called bilateral pact, and other features more consistent with independence than territorial status. Independence received 4 percent voter approval. The combined vote for the have it both ways definition of commonwealth and independence was 52 percent, but the combined vote for statehood and commonwealth as options which involved guaranteed permanent union and U.S. citizenship was over 95 percent. I doubt that the 103d Congress would have adjourned more than a year after the 1993 vote without breaking a deafening silence regarding the results of the plebiscite if the ballot definitions had not rendered those results both ambiguous and confusing. Apparently due in large part to Resolution 62, in this Congress the House committees with primary jurisdiction with respect to Puerto Rico's status conducted hearings on the 1993 voting results on October 17, 1995. Each of Puerto Rico's political parties were given a full and fair hearing regarding their views on the 1993 vote. Based on the record of that hearing, the leadership of the concerned House committees transmitted a comprehensive statement to the leaders of the Puerto Rico Legislature on February 29, 1996, setting forth authoritative policy statements and points of law regarding the 1993 voting results. On March 6, 1996, legislation consistent with the principles set forth in the February 29 policy statement was introduced in the House. After hearings in San Juan Puerto Rico in which all parties were heard once again regarding H.R. 3024--United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act--the bill was amended to meet certain concerns that had been raised and unanimously approved by the Committee on Resources on June 26, 1996. On June 28, 1996, senior minority members on the two House committees which had conducted the hearings on the 1993 vote also transmitted views to leaders in the Puerto Rico Legislature regarding the results thereof. In addition, on July 18, 1996, 11 members of the minority in the House, including some of the most knowledgeable and experienced Members of Congress where the issue of Puerto Rico's status is concerned, wrote to that body's minority leader expressing their support for the Puerto Rico status bill reported unanimously by the Resources Committee on June 26, 1996. What the measures taken by House committees and members to date demonstrate is that there is some important new thinking in Congress about the Puerto Rico status issue. There is an emerging bipartisan consensus that the time has come for Congress to recognize that a process which makes definitive self-determination and permanent full self-government available to Puerto Rico is in the U.S. national interest, as well as that of the residents of Puerto Rico. In particular, I want to point out that the July 18, 1996 letter from concerned members of the minority to House Minority Leader Gephardt defends the specific approach to legitimate self-determination for Puerto Rico set forth in H.R. 3024 against criticism generated by supporters of the fatally-flawed and discredited definition of commonwealth presented on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. Specifically, the July 18 letter notes that: Some have tried to revive discussion over the language and citizenship provisions of the bill, even though these issues were dealt with in the reported text of H.R. 3024. Others claim that the ballot process is unfairly skewed toward one option or another, hoping to revert back to the three-way ballot in 1993 which yielded no clear majority. More than just attempts to amend the legislation, these efforts are aimed at delaying its consideration or tainting its language so that it will never see the light of day. I have described the response in the House to Resolution 62 of the Puerto Rico Legislature in some detail so that my Senate colleagues can better appreciate the need for some demonstration that Members of this body have an interest in the issues raised by the formal request directed by the local constitutional authorities to the 104th Congress. The bill we are introducing today is not a definitive or final formal response to that request, but it sends an important message to the House and to Puerto Rico that the Senate also will address this matter consistent with the principles of self-determination and the national interest. Accordingly, the legislation we are proposing, like the House version, recognizes that the commonwealth option can and should be presented accurately and fairly on a status referendum ballot. The voters must be able to evaluate the current status and the commonwealth structure for local government on the merits. But those who think that Congress is required to adopt the same 3-option ballot format employed in the 1993 local plebiscite format need to think again. While we need to respect, study, and consider the 1993 vote despite obvious flaws in the ballot, Congress cannot restrict itself to considering only past practices in Puerto Rico or the approach previously considered by Congress. We need to keep an open mind, and this bill proposes a new approach consistent with that being developed in the House. It recognizes that Congress may determine that it could be misleading to present the status quo option without distinguishing it in any way from the options for ending territorial status and instituting fundamental changes that would be required to establish permanent full self-government and a constitutionally guaranteed status. Only when the people who live in Puerto Rico are allowed to vote in a referendum process which defines the choices in a way that is valid and accurate will Congress be able to understand the meaning of the results. Then Congress can respond to those results by proposing the terms under which the preferred option would be possible, after which an additional informed stage of self-determination can take place. If the terms for change are not approved by the people, or the people vote for the option of continued commonwealth, then Congress will have to consider its response to that result as well. Before my colleagues, or those responsible for these issues in the administration, attempt to defend the approach of the 1993 plebiscite ballot, I suggest they review all of the congressional documents responding to Puerto Rico Legislature Resolution 62 referred to above. To facilitate an openminded consideration of what we are proposing, those documents are included here in the order mentioned above. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which would establish a congressionally recognized self-determination process to resolve the political status of Puerto Rico. This proposal is made in light of the formal request of the Legislature of Puerto Rico, expressly directed to the 104th Congress, for a response to the 1993 plebiscite on Puerto Rico's future political status conducted under local law. Puerto Rico Legislature Resolution 62, adopted by the elected representatives of the residents of Puerto Rico on November 14, 1994, specifically calls upon this Congress to state the ``specific alternatives that it is willing to consider, and the measures it recommends the people of Puerto Rico should take as part of the process to solve the problem of their political status.'' Even though time is running out on the 104th Congress, this Senator believes it would be wrong to adjourn later this year without introducing in the Senate a proposal which addresses the manner in which Puerto Rico's status can be resolved consistent with both self-determination and the national interest. The solution to Puerto Rico's status cannot be one which imposes a result on the residents of Puerto Rico or on the United States. The process we are proposing recognizes the right of self-determination on both sides of the relationship. Let me explain why my colleagues should support the bill I am offering. Puerto Rico has been an unincorporated territory of the United States for almost 100 years, subject to the plenary powers of Congress under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution, article IV, section 3, clause 2. Congressional authorization for the adoption of a local constitution and delegation of authority for internal self-government in 1952 represented progress in the evolution of the territory's status, but the 3.8 million U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico do not yet have equal legal and political rights with their fellow citizens living in the States, or a guaranteed permanent status protected by the U.S. Constitution. Puerto Ricans have a statutory citizenship status prescribed by Congress in 1917, with less than equal legal standing and political rights while residing in Puerto Rico because it is not a State. In 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Rosario (446 U.S. 651) that as long as Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory subject to the territorial clause it does not violate the fundamental rights which all U.S. citizens have under the Constitution for Congress to treat the U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico differently than their fellow citizens in the 50 States as long as there is a rational basis for such unequal treatment. While any self-determination process we establish should allow the people in Puerto Rico to express approval of this present status, the idea that perpetual territorial status for such a large and populous area is desirable for either Puerto Rico or the nation as a whole needs to be examined closely. To begin with we need to recognize that Americans from Puerto Rico have served with valor along side their fellow citizens in every war this century, but Congress never has afforded the people an opportunity to express their wishes as to the options for full self-government and a permanent status outside the territorial clause--either as a state or through separate nationhood. In 1953 the U.N. recognized the Resolution 748 (VIII) that establishment of internal constitutional self-government with the consent of the residents was consistent with self-determination principles of the U.N. Charter, and on that basis the United States stopped reporting to the United Nations on the status of Puerto Rico. While Puerto Rico is no longer a non-self-governing for purposes of Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter, Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory under the U.S. constitutional process. In 1956, 4 years after the commonwealth structure for local self- government was established, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Reid v. Covert (354 U.S. 1), that the status of all such unincorporated territories, results from the exercise of the territorial clause authority and ``. . . the power of Congress to provide rules and regulations to govern temporarily territories with wholly dissimilar traditions and institutions . . . '' (emphasis added). The traditions and institutions in Puerto Rico most relevant to the political status of the people there are no longer wholly dissimilar to those of the United States. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. nationals since 1899, with U.S. citizenship for 80 years. Puerto Rico has been within the U.S. legal and political system and customs territory for nearly a century. A republican form of constitutional internal self- government was instituted through a democratic process 45 years ago. Clearly, the time has come to establish a process through which the current territorial status can be ended in favor of a constitutionally guaranteed permanent status consistent with full self-government, full political participation and equal citizenship rights. That means full integration into the United States on the basis of equality, or full citizenship and a constitutionally protected political status through separate nationhood. Again, if the residents of Puerto Rico prefer to remain in an unincorporated status and continue the present commonwealth structure for local government, any congressionally recognized self-determination process should enable them freely to express their wishes in this regard. But they will not be able to make a free and informed choice unless the legal and political nature of the current status is defined in a constitutionally valid and intellectually honest manner. Therein lies the problem with the 1993 plebiscite, in which the status options were formulated by the local political parties. The commonwealth option on the 1993 ballot included elements which were simply unconstitutional, and policy proposals that were so implausible and misleading as to make the voting results highly ambiguous. For example, commonwealth received the lowest voter approval ever at 48 percent, while statehood received the highest vote ever at 46 percent. But the commonwealth ballot definition include permanent union, the same citizenship rights as persons born in the States, increased Federal programs, and parity with the States in Federal budget outlay-- features which are constitutional guaranteed and/or politically possible only with statehood. At the same time, the commonwealth option also called for Federal tax exemptions, fiscal autonomy, a local veto over Federal laws passed by Congress under a so-called bilateral pact, and other features more consistent with independence than territorial status. Independence received 4 percent voter approval. The combined vote for the have it both ways definition of commonwealth and independence was 52 percent, but the combined vote for statehood and commonwealth as options which involved guaranteed permanent union and U.S. citizenship was over 95 percent. I doubt that the 103d Congress would have adjourned more than a year after the 1993 vote without breaking a deafening silence regarding the results of the plebiscite if the ballot definitions had not rendered those results both ambiguous and confusing. Apparently due in large part to Resolution 62, in this Congress the House committees with primary jurisdiction with respect to Puerto Rico's status conducted hearings on the 1993 voting results on October 17, 1995. Each of Puerto Rico's political parties were given a full and fair hearing regarding their views on the 1993 vote. Based on the record of that hearing, the leadership of the concerned House committees transmitted a comprehensive statement to the leaders of the Puerto Rico Legislature on February 29, 1996, setting forth authoritative policy statements and points of law regarding the 1993 voting results. On March 6, 1996, legislation consistent with the principles set forth in the February 29 policy statement was introduced in the House. After hearings in San Juan Puerto Rico in which all parties were heard once again regarding H.R. 3024--United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act--the bill was amended to meet certain concerns that had been raised and unanimously approved by the Committee on Resources on June 26, 1996. On June 28, 1996, senior minority members on the two House committees which had conducted the hearings on the 1993 vote also transmitted views to leaders in the Puerto Rico Legislature regarding the results thereof. In addition, on July 18, 1996, 11 members of the minority in the House, including some of the most knowledgeable and experienced Members of Congress where the issue of Puerto Rico's status is concerned, wrote to that body's minority leader expressing their support for the Puerto Rico status bill reported unanimously by the Resources Committee on June 26, 1996. What the measures taken by House committees and members to date demonstrate is that there is some important new thinking in Congress about the Puerto Rico status issue. There is an emerging bipartisan consensus that the time has come for Congress to recognize that a process which makes definitive self-determination and permanent full self-government available to Puerto Rico is in the U.S. national interest, as well as that of the residents of Puerto Rico. In particular, I want to point out that the July 18, 1996 letter from concerned members of the minority to House Minority Leader Gephardt defends the specific approach to legitimate self-determination for Puerto Rico set forth in H.R. 3024 against criticism generated by supporters of the fatally-flawed and discredited definition of commonwealth presented on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. Specifically, the July 18 letter notes that: Some have tried to revive discussion over the language and citizenship provisions of the bill, even though these issues were dealt with in the reported text of H.R. 3024. Others claim that the ballot process is unfairly skewed toward one option or another, hoping to revert back to the three-way ballot in 1993 which yielded no clear majority. More than just attempts to amend the legislation, these efforts are aimed at delaying its consideration or tainting its language so that it will never see the light of day. I have described the response in the House to Resolution 62 of the Puerto Rico Legislature in some detail so that my Senate colleagues can better appreciate the need for some demonstration that Members of this body have an interest in the issues raised by the formal request directed by the local constitutional authorities to the 104th Congress. The bill we are introducing today is not a definitive or final formal response to that request, but it sends an important message to the House and to Puerto Rico that the Senate also will address this matter consistent with the principles of self-determination and the national interest. Accordingly, the legislation we are proposing, like the House version, recognizes that the commonwealth option can and should be presented accurately and fairly on a status referendum ballot. The voters must be able to evaluate the current status and the commonwealth structure for local government on the merits. But those who think that Congress is required to adopt the same 3-option ballot format employed in the 1993 local plebiscite format need to think again. While we need to respect, study, and consider the 1993 vote despite obvious flaws in the ballot, Congress cannot restrict itself to considering only past practices in Puerto Rico or the approach previously considered by Congress. We need to keep an open mind, and this bill proposes a new approach consistent with that being developed in the House. It recognizes that Congress may determine that it could be misleading to present the status quo option without distinguishing it in any way from the options for ending territorial status and instituting fundamental changes that would be required to establish permanent full self-government and a constitutionally guaranteed status. Only when the people who live in Puerto Rico are allowed to vote in a referendum process which defines the choices in a way that is valid and accurate will Congress be able to understand the meaning of the results. Then Congress can respond to those results by proposing the terms under which the preferred option would be possible, after which an additional informed stage of self-determination can take place. If the terms for change are not approved by the people, or the people vote for the option of continued commonwealth, then Congress will have to consider its response to that result as well. Before my colleagues, or those responsible for these issues in the administration, attempt to defend the approach of the 1993 plebiscite ballot, I suggest they review all of the congressional documents responding to Puerto Rico Legislature Resolution 62 referred to above. To facilitate an openminded consideration of what we are proposing, those documents are included here in the order mentioned above. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the legislation introduced by my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, with whom I have worked closely on many issues over the years. This important bill establishes a process whereby the people of Puerto Rico can vote for a retention or a change of their current Commonwealth status, a status preserved as a result of the November 14, 1993 plebiscite. If Puerto Ricans choose change, they can select a path toward separation--independence or free association--or a path toward incorporation--statehood. In short, the bill establishes an orderly path toward true self-determination in the true democratic spirit of our Nation. One might ask why such legislation is necessary given that less than 3 years ago, a plurality of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico chose the Commonwealth option on the November 14 ballot. This option--drafted by the Commonwealth party itself, under the agreed-upon terms of the plebiscite--presented the people of Puerto Rico with utterly inflated and unrealistic expectations regarding the island's future relationship with the United States. In effect, the Commonwealth option guaranteed United States citizens of Puerto Rico many of the benefits of statehood and many of the benefits of separation without any of the accompanying responsibilities of either. Given these pie-in-the-sky promises, it is no wonder that a plurality of Puerto Ricans--though, important, not a majority--chose the Commonwealth option. However, the future of Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States remains unclear, and congressional action providing Puerto Ricans with the power to determine their fate through a fair and orderly process is long overdue. It is time that Congress' silence on the results of the November 14, 1993 Puerto Rican plebiscite end, and that we afford United States citizens in Puerto Rico realistic and just options for determining Puerto Rico's future relationship with the United States of America. The Puerto Rican Government has asked that we do as much. On December 14, 1994, the legislature of Puerto Rico adopted Concurrent Resolution 62 which formally requested congressional guidance regarding the results of the 1993 status plebiscite. This legislation provides this guidance. The process established by this legislation would be unprecedented and long overdue, affording Puerto Ricans for the first time a fair process of self-determination that is consistent with everything America stands for. We owe Puerto Rico--which in 2 years will have been part of the United States for 100 years--at least this much. For decades, we have treated the right to self-determination as a cornerstone of our foreign policy. It is time that we practice what we preach.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will immediately turn to the consideration of S. 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The bill will be considered under a previous unanimous-consent agreement that limits the bill to eight first-degree amendments with 1 hour of debate equally divided on each. Following disposition of that bill, the Senate will resume consideration of the transportation appropriations bill which will also be considered under an agreement limiting first- degree amendments to that bill. Following disposition of those bills, the Senate may also be asked to turn to consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Therefore, Senators can expect a full legislative day with rollcall votes expected throughout the day and into the evening in order to complete action on the bills just mentioned or any other items cleared for action.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my chairman for yielding. I apologize. Some of the people who work the most closely with us we often forget. I want the Record to show that Nils Johnson on my staff, who has worked on this issue for a good number of years with me and the staff of the committee, was a tremendous asset through all of this debate. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for yielding, and let me thank him for the work he has done on this legislation and the effort that has been put forth by the senior Senator from the State of Louisiana, to bring us to where we are at this moment. I do not oftentimes do this, but I think it is time to speak to the citizens of Minnesota, because their Senator has produced an amendment that in my opinion reverses a longstanding Government policy. This amendment purports to release the Government from its obligation to take the waste. The Senator from Minnesota calls this a taxpayers' protection amendment. What he does not tell us is that it would nail the ratepayer, the ratepayers of his State. For instance, it would force the people of Minnesota who have already paid over $229 million into the waste fund to pay millions more to build more storage sites at their reactors. Minnesotans have already paid twice. I believe the Wellstone amendment, if the courts upheld it, would force Minnesotans, who get 31 percent of their electricity from nuclear power, to pay again and again and again. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that DOE has an obligation, and that has been thoroughly debated by the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Louisiana. It is very clear what the court said. The obligation exists. We will decide when the time comes that you have the responsibility to take it how you will take it. This amendment, in my opinion, is unfair and it changes the rules in the middle of the game. It damages tremendously the citizens of the State of Minnesota who have already invested heavily in what they believed was the Government's role in taking care of this waste issue. In fact, the courts held that the Congress cannot change the contractual obligations of the Government, precisely because it would not be fair. If we were to be able to do something like this, no one would ever sign a contract with the Federal Government. Let me repeat: No one would ever sign a contract with the Federal Government if the Congress could come along, willy-nilly after the fact, and change the rules. This amendment is little more than an effort to kill the bill--I do not think there is any doubt about it--that is the source of 22 percent of our Nation's electrical power and 31 percent of the electrical power for the State of Minnesota. That would be, in my opinion, one of the worst environmental votes we could make. Minnesota nuclear power plants have reduced Minnesota's carbon dioxide emissions by 3 million metric tons in 1995, and by 55 million metric tons from 1973 to today. Last year, nuclear power in Minnesota displaced 118,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 53,000 tons of nitrogen oxide. Following Senator Wellstone's prescription, if that is what the Congress chooses to do and what becomes law, could result in more emissions of acid rain and more carbon emissions than the climate could tolerate. Somehow we have to also talk about the tremendous advantage the citizens of Minnesota have received from the clean source of power, 31 percent of their power, the electrical power. Now, today, we are insisting by this legislation, a process that allows us to adhere to what the courts have said is our contractual relationship with the ratepayers of our country who receive the benefits of nuclear power, and to do something positive for the environment, to do something that will say this country is going to be responsible in the management of high-level nuclear waste in a way that is optimum science, in a way that maximizes our pledge and our responsibility to the citizens of this country. I hope my colleagues will vote with me in tabling the Wellstone amendment. We need not kill the process. We need not stick the citizens of Minnesota with additional millions and millions of dollars where they are going to be forced to either build additional storage facilities or turn their lights out. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield to me one moment?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my chairman for yielding to me. Let me close with this thought. It has been a long, hard effort. It took an awful lot of very talented people involved. Let me thank Karen Hunsicker, David Garman, Gary Ellsworth, and Jim Beirne of the Energy and Natural Resources staff for the tremendous work that they have done and for the expertise they themselves have developed, the cooperative effort they have had in working with all of the staffs in a bipartisan manner. Let me thank once again our chairman, Frank Murkowski, and also the senior Senator from the State of Louisiana, Bennett Johnston, for his dedicated effort over several decades to assure that there would be a safe and responsible solution to the management of high-level nuclear waste, and we are clearly on the threshold of allowing that to happen. I hope in the end once this makes it to our President's desk that he will read the bill--read the bill--and look at the changes we have made. I think in doing so this President will say that we have been responsible to our country and to the State of Nevada in promulgating legislation that can deal with a very important national issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me thank the chairman for the time and thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Louisiana, who has worked so closely with us in the last year to produce and bring to the floor this legislation. I first introduced this legislation in September of 1995 as S. 1271. We worked our way through the process with hearings held, of course, before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in December with additional hearings in March and in May. Finally, we have been able to craft and bring to the floor what I believe and what I call--because I think it is fair to call it that-- probably one of the most comprehensive environmental bills that has come before the Congress this year. Our Nation's high-level nuclear waste has an answer now that is responsible, fair, and environmentally friendly and is supported by a very large majority of this body and the U.S. House of Representatives. Today, high-level nuclear waste and highly radioactive used nuclear fuel is accumulating in over 80 sites in 41 States. You have heard our colleagues come to the floor and talk about their concern and the seriousness that this accumulation brings to these individual States. Today, we stand before you responsible to our country and to our Government in assuring that we will be able to comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to meet the court examinations and to be able to do what our country expected us to do to facilitate this legislation. We have all worked closely together in a strong bipartisan way to assure that we could produce the ultimate legislation that would pass. However, in doing all of this, S. 1936 contains many important clarifications and changes that deal with concerns raised regarding the details of the legislation amongst most of our Members. As a result of that, I think we can hopefully today produce a vote and a work product that the U.S. House of Representatives will take as we reconvene in September. The issue is clear, and the proposal we have before you is direct. It does not violate any environmental laws, and yet directs our country to move responsibly and decisively to resolve an issue that has plagued our country for well over two decades. I hope that today our colleagues in a final vote on this issue will vote in very large numbers to assure that we move forward on this issue. Let me cover one other detailed topic. It is frustrating to me as the two Senators from Nevada have come to the floor on several occasions over the last week and a half to talk about the reality of a 100- millirem test and how, for some reason, this in some way questioned the integrity of a site and the development of a deep geological repository at Yucca Mountain. Let me quote from the Nevada Administrative Code, section 459.335. This is the code that governs 153 facilities in the State of Nevada. It says this: ``The total effective dose equivalent to any member of the public from its licensed and registered operation does not exceed 100 millirems per year, not including contribution from the disposal by the licensee of radioactive material in sanitary sewage,'' and so on and so forth. The point I am making here--and this chart clearly spells it out--is that the standards that we have established, the standards that come from the GAO audit, the standards that the State of Nevada, the very State the two Senators are from and arguing today, argues this. It argues right here that 153 facilities in the State of Nevada that use radioactive material cannot exceed the very standard that we are saying Yucca Mountain cannot exceed. I hope, once and for all, that we do not shake the scare tree, that we look at the facts and we look at the statistics, and they are very clear. Whether it is proposed EPA guidance of 1995, whether it is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission limit, whether it is the proposed DOE limit, whether it is the State of Nevada, or whether it is Yucca Mountain, what we are talking about here is an international standard well accepted by all of the professionals in the field and accepted by the State of Nevada, by the State government of Nevada and, obviously, by State politicians in Nevada. Why do they arrive at that standard? Because that is the national standard. That is the international standard that clearly says this is an acceptable level. Madam President, I recognize my time is up.

Mr. CRAIG. What remains on the other side?

Mr. CRAIG. I have no more time to yield. Thank you. In this issue, emotion sometimes works and scare sometimes works, and I understand that. I have no concern about that. The citizens of my State are very frustrated, as I know the citizens of the State of Nevada are. But what the citizens of Idaho have to admit is that in the years that nuclear waste has been transported to Idaho or through Idaho there has never been a spill. It has been transported safely. Idaho has been concerned about it and has repeatedly checked on it, and as a result of all of that, it has been done in a very safe way. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act that S. 1936 complies to, the responsibility that States and authorities have under that act and that the local communities have under that act to assure the safest of transportation, is exactly what we are achieving here. It is my intent, and it is the intent of the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Louisiana, to assure this Senate that within the capacity of the law and in the capacity of science and engineering today, this is safe. History proves it to be safe. There is no way to argue an example where it has failed or has been unsafe. At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. CRAIG. The 150 miles an hour we talk about in relation to the science that was developed to an ``unyielding surface.'' I believe that is the term that is used in the test. That was the result of the calculation which was a product of Sandia National Laboratory, so, I guess I could say, from the best engineers in the country who know how to look at the science and the engineering involved and come up with those calculations. The most I can say--and I think my colleagues deserve to hear this-- is that the language that has been offered and the statements that have been offered this afternoon by my colleague from Nevada as it relates to transportation are simply misleading. By the way, when you talk of Chernobyl or you talk of Hiroshima and you talk of explosions, casks do not explode, period. There is no one in the scientific field today who would make that argument. If they were breached, they would release radioactivity, but they do not explode, and it is unfair to in any way paint the verbal picture that that kind of risk would be involved. What the paper from Missouri did not say was that waste now traffics through St. Louis, MO, and it has for a good number of years in its route across the country to the State of Idaho, or to other States where the waste ultimately finds a temporary storage destination. So for this to be something new in the city of St. Louis is not true. What is important to say about it is that in all the years that it has been trafficked by our Federal Government, there have been no accidents that resulted in any radioactive spill. That is what is important to understand here. I think that is the issue that is so critical as we debate this. The amendment we have before us is very clear. It says that DOE must comply with all Federal, State, and local laws unless they are inconsistent, or duplicative with the requirements of S. 1936. My colleagues from Nevada could list all of the Federal laws in the country; every one of them. You can just pick and pull. The point is that, if they are duplicative, then we have already met the test. Why ask somebody to repeat and repeat again only for the exercise, the futility, if you have already made the determination? Would we list all of the defense laws in the country? Pick any law you want. That is not the issue. The issue is the question of compliance being responsible, being environmentally safe, and humanly safe. I must say that, based on the record that we have already demonstrated in this country by the transporting of the high-level waste of the Defense Department, we have a spotless record. So it is impossible to argue unless you really wish to only characterize this for the purposes of a motion.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield for a question; a question, not a statement, or I will take my time back. Thank you.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will you signal me when I have spoken for 10 minutes? Mr. President, we have heard a series of statements by my colleague from Nevada that I think the least you could say about is that they were subtly inflammatory. The worst you can say about them is that they are shocking; alarming. The only problem is, if they were true, they might be that. But they are not true. Science argues it, the law argues it, and the facts argue it. There is nothing worse than a picture of a train wreck which my colleague from Nevada has put forth; very dramatic. If there had been a cask of spent nuclear fuel in the middle of that train wreck, it would still be there and it would be whole and it would be unbreached. That is the evidence. While my colleague from Nevada would argue that these tests are at 30 miles an hour, what it shows is that, in speeds in excess of 150 miles an hour, there might be a potential of breach. My colleague from Nevada is right. You rarely see a train that moves less than 30, although I have never seen one moving at 150.

Mr. CRAIG. No, I will not yield. The Senator has his own time. My point is simply this: If you have changed the contractual relationship, then you have changed the obligations. If you do that, somebody else has to pay. Who has been paying in Minnesota? The ratepayers. Who would pay under the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota? The ratepayers. That is what I believe thorough study of this amendment would cause if it were to become law.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my chairman for yielding. This is not a question of whether the fund is sufficient. I agree with the Senator from Louisiana. I have spent an awful lot of time studying, and when push comes to shove, obviously the amendment that the Senator from Minnesota would inject into it, the question becomes, is it sufficient or not? What I am talking about are utilities in Minnesota who no longer have storage facilities and had relied on the Government to take the high- level waste that they were paying for. My guess is that if this Senator's amendment passes, that comes into question. Do you turn the power off or do you build additional storage facility?