Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. CRAIG. I yield myself 5 minutes. Will the Chair notify me when that time is up?

Mr. CRAIG. In the debate that has gone on and will continue to go on, on this critical issue, the management of the high level nuclear waste, there are myths and there are realities. I ask unanimous consent that four letters, dated April 7, 1995, August 7, 1995, January 10, 1996, April 26, 1996, all letters to the White House, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, when the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the Senate submitted these letters to the White House urging them to become involved in this critical national issue, the response was limited to nothing. We even suggested in legislation that I first introduced, S. 1271, that the committee worked very hard on, that if they could not support the pending legislation, they should offer an alternative. Their answer was no answer. As a result of all of that, the White House never became a player in this most critical issue. The Department of Energy, under the direction of Hazel O'Leary, could not become a player because the White House had chosen a long time ago not to deal with this critical national policy, but to play politics on something that the public cries out for a solution. As a result of that, when the Chief of Staff of the White House, Leon Panetta, on July 15, submitted a letter, a veto threat, on S. 1936, many of us looked at that in an effort to analyze it to see whether the White House had in fact began to engage in this most critical policy issue. I must tell you, Mr. President, that the answer to that is no. The letter that comes from the White House is not a policy statement; it is in every regard a political statement. It is tragic at a time when many, many States of this Nation demand that this be a solution to a critical problem that the White House would only play politics. That is very frustrating to me, and I am sure it is frustrating in a bipartisan way to a good many of my colleagues here in the Senate. The legislation now before us, S. 1936, is not something cooked up by the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee or this Senator from Idaho. We sat down with the ranking member of that committee, Bennett Johnston, and our staffs. We brought consultants in from all over the world to see how we bring about the beginning of the movement of a solution to the problem of the handling of high-level nuclear waste. In all fairness to the administration, but more important to Hazel O'Leary, she began to aggressively move the issue by speeding up the activities on the exploration development and certification process that must go on at Yucca Mountain. But even as that timetable speeds up, it does not solve the problem. It does not answer the problem that this country must address. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Abraham, Jeffords, Smith of New Hampshire, Warner, Kempthorne, Robb of Virginia, Kyl of Arizona all become sponsors of this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG. Through the course of the debate, Mr. President, a lot of the issues that have been propounded by our colleagues from Nevada will be clarified. For the Record, because of an allegation that I believe is patently false and that results from the exploration and the understanding of how these materials get transported across our country, I ask that the International Association of Fire Chiefs letter in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is important for all of us to understand--and I think for our colleagues to appreciate as we debate over the next good number of days S. 1936--is that we have employed all of the science of the known Western World to assure that the management and the handling of nuclear waste be done in a safe and effective way. And the legislation that is now before us simply begins to expedite all of that. Mr. President, I see my time is up. I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, the senior Senator, Bennett Johnston.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] in offering a substitute amendment to H.R. 1114, and I rise in support of that amendment and that bill. Last year, I introduced the companion bill in the Senate, S. 744. This legislation, also referred to as the Balers and Compactors Safety Standards Modernization Act, is simple, common-sense legislation to end a regulatory prohibition on minor employees loading balers and compactors that are safe and locked in the off position. These machines commonly are used in supermarkets, grocery stores, and other retail establishments, for preparing and bundling cardboard and paper waste materials for recycling purposes. Almost 2 years ago, Senator Harkin and I stood on the floor of this Senate and engaged in a colloquy on this same issue. Then, we were demonstrating one last round of patience with the Department of Labor and discussing a congressional directive, in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, that DOL reevaluate and take action to update the rule in question. Today, we urge the Senate to join the House of Representatives in passing a simple bill to accomplish this end. The amendment offered today by Senator Harkin and myself addresses concerns that some have had about continuing to ensure the safety of minor employees. This bill, with our amendment, is a balanced, bipartisan approach that has achieved consensus among employers, labor unions, and safety experts. I commend the Senator from Iowa for his consistent efforts on this issue, and have appreciated working with him. The Balers and Compactors Safety Standards Modernization Act will make long-overdue revisions to safety standards set by the Department of Labor [DOL] in its hazardous occupation order No. 12 (HO 12). HO 12 is a regulation issued by DOL in 1954 and intended to protect employees who are under 18 years of age. In brief, it specifically prohibits minors from operating more than a dozen different types of equipment in the workplace. I certainly agree with the underlying purpose of HO 12, which is that younger workers should not be allowed to operate certain types of machinery when doing so would place them in harm's way. DOL's current interpretation of HO 12 goes so far as to prohibit minors from placing, tossing, or loading cardboard or paper materials into a baler or compactor. Such activities take place during a loading phase that is prior to, and separate from, the actual operation of the machine. While such a loading-phase prohibition may have made sense 42 years ago, when HO 12 was originally issued, such is not the case today. As often happens, technology has overtaken regulation. Significant safety advances have been made in the design and manufacture of balers and compactors. Much like a household microwave oven or trash compactor, the newest generation of balers now in use in grocery stores and other locations cannot be engaged and operated during the loading phase. This important design feature is a result of safety standards issued by the American National Standards Institute [ANSI]. An employee is not at risk when placing cardboard materials into a baler that is in compliance with ANSI standard Z.245.5 1990, or putting paper materials into a compactor that is in compliance with ANSI standard Z245.2 1992. Nonetheless, DOL treats all balers and compactors the same, and considers the placement of materials into these machines, if performed by a minor, to be a clear-cut violation of HO 12. Each violation can result in a fine of $10,000 against an employer. If DOL could produce injury data showing that workers are at risk when loading materials into a machine that meets current ANSI standards, I might agree that the current interpretation and enforcement of HO 12 is warranted. However, DOL has acknowledged that it has no injury data for balers that meet current ANSI standards. Despite the complete lack of evidence that workers are at risk in these situations, DOL has cited numerous supermarkets throughout the United States and has assessed several million dollars in fines against grocery owners in recent years. It is difficult to understand the logic behind this kind of enforcement. It benefits no one, especially workers. Worker protection is not enhanced by issuing large fines against employers that use balers meeting current safety standards. Such a policy also is clearly inconsistent with the goal of creating employment opportunities for young people. Because so many grocers have been fined by DOL for loading violations, the industry has become less inclined to hire younger workers. Originally, DOL applied this interpretation of HO 12 to cardboard balers. As burdensome and objectionable as this policy has been, concerning cardboard balers, DOL more recently went a step farther and now is applying the same interpretation to compactors, a similar piece of equipment that retail establishments use to recycle paper materials. Without the benefit of formal rulemaking and the opportunity for interested parties to file comments, DOL extended the jurisdiction of HO 12 to compactors at the beginning of 1994, and employers found themselves subjected to fines when it was documented that a minor had placed materials into a compactor. This is one more example of the speed trap mentality of Federal agencies, and the Department of Labor, in particular. Balers and compactors are both governed by ANSI safety standards and cannot be engaged or operated during the loading phase. This means, to reemphasize, that employees loading machines meeting ANSI standards are not at risk. Clearly, DOL's position on HO 12, as it relates to cardboard balers and compactors, is not in step with the technology being used in the workplace. In view of the fact that this equipment can not be operated during the loading phase, there is no compelling reason to continue treating the placement of materials by minors a violation of HO 12. The old joke goes that, when something is difficult to accomplish, you compare it to passing an Act of Congress. If there is one process more intractable, it must be modernizing Federal agency regulations. Our bill provides a narrow amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to revise the application of HO 12, so that the placement of paper or cardboard materials into a baler or compactor that meets current ANSI safety standards by an employee under age 18 is no longer a violation of the regulation. It affects only the loading phase, which is completely distinguished from the operating phase of the machine. I have seen these grocery store balers operate. What is needed is a simple, common-sense change, and the bill we are passing today will make that change in a simple, straightforward way. This bill will open up thousands of youth summer job opportunities without relying on Government programs and grants. The jobs will be there. The young people want them. This bill will remove one significant, unnecessary, regulatory wall between them. This bill will not change the critically important safety focus of the regulation. In fact, I agree that DOL should remain vigilant and enforce the regulation in cases when the safety of young workers is compromised by use of equipment that does not meet current ANSI safety standards. This bill would provide only that young workers would be allowed to load balers and compactors that meet the current industry standards that ensure complete safety in their operation. The safety record of this new approach will be borne out by a compromise provision in this amendment that includes specific, modest reporting requirements. I urge passage of H.R. 1114, with adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Harkin and myself.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere and Peace Corps Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 16, to hold hearings on security in cyberspace.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Aging be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Proposals for Reform: Ensuring Our Workers' Retirement Security'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, at 9 a.m.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. until business is completed, to hold a hearing on ``Public Access to Government Information in the 21st Century, Title 44/GPO.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 16, at 10:30 a.m., to hold an executive business meeting.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Tuesday, July 16, at 2 p.m., for a hearing on S. 1629, the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, over the course of the last good number of days, I believe the American public has grown increasingly aware of the fact that the Senate has been brought to a near halt by Senators who have made every effort to use the rules, as they are entitled to in the Senate, to not allow this Senate or this Congress to consider a very important piece of national policy. That policy rests on how we, as a country, will deal with the issue of nuclear waste. Every other country in the world that uses nuclear energy to fuel its factories and light its lights has determined that a critical part of the whole of the use of nuclear energy is to adequately handle and manage the waste stream that comes from it, so that their public can be aware and confident of the fact that all comes together in a total picture. Interestingly enough, most of those countries who do this use the very technology that has been developed in our country to manage their waste. Yet, in our country, that has simply not been the case. We, for whatever reason--and mostly political, and certainly not as a result of science and technology--have argued that this waste should be allowed to build up in a variety of storage facilities around the Nation at the numerous sites--some 80 sites--within 41 States. As a result of this policy, or absence of policy, today, we are charting a course that will throw nearly a third of our electrical- generating capacity at some time in the future into jeopardy, because it will be impossible, or nearly impossible, for utilities who have been granted the permission by their public to build nuclear-generating facilities to allow those to continue to generate if they cannot manage their waste stream or be allowed to manage it within the technology available. Senate bill 1936 is legislation that we now have before us that moves this issue. It says to the American public, and to the generating companies of our country, that we believe a sound, continuous policy in our country, by our Government, is critical for the long-term future of this generating capacity, but, beyond that, for the wise and responsible management of the waste stream that is generated. Through all kinds of environmental laws over the last two decades, we, as a Government and as a people, have said very clearly that certain kinds of waste or certain kinds of issuances that could result in some sort of environmental degradation are to be handled in strict, responsible ways. Yet, with the issue of nuclear energy and nuclear high-level waste, we have simply walked away from it. In the mid-1980's, we finally said: Here is a policy and we are going to ask those who are the benefactors of the nuclear energy--the ratepayers--to pay a certain amount into the trust fund for the purpose of developing a long-term storage policy, a managed storage policy, in the sense of a deep geologic repository. Yet, because of lawsuits, because of the politics of the issue, very little has been done to keep the promise made to the ratepayers of our country and, at the same time, to make sure that at some point, whether it is the President or myself, we can turn to the American public and say that we have done the right and responsible thing. And we as a nation all have to share in it. But we know what we are doing is sound scientifically, it is sound engineering, and we believe that S. 1936 is a reflection of that growing attitude. As a result of that, I introduce this legislation, a bill that amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. S. 1936 retains the fundamental goals and structure of the substitute which was Senate bill 1271 which we were able to report out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in March. However, S. 1936 contains many important clarifications and changes that deal with concerns raised regarding the details of that legislation by a number of Members of our Senate. In addition, we took into account the provisions of H.R. 1020 introduced by our counterparts in the House Commerce Committee, and that passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan vote a year ago. We adopted much of the language found in H.R. 1020 in order to make the bill as similar to the bill under consideration in the House as we possibly could. I have already begun discussions with House Members who are principals in the development of H.R. 1020. We think we can come to agreement very quickly on the differences between these two separate pieces of legislation. So I would like to describe what I think are some of the important significant changes we have made. S. 1936, the bill before us that we are debating today, eliminates certain provisions contained in the legislation that came from the committee that would have eliminated the application of the National Environmental Policy Act to the intermodal transfer facility and impose a general limitation on NEPA's application to the Secretary's additions to only those NEPA requirements specified in the bill. What am I saying? In short order, I am saying no environmental laws are shortcut. While we believe we clearly are at a time when this issue must be dealt with, we also are going to say to the American people and to the Senators who want to vote on this legislation and support us, ``No environmental laws are shortcut.'' This will allay the concern that sufficient environmental analysis would not be done under 1271. S. 1936 clarifies that the transportation of spent fuel shall be governed by the requirement of Federal, State, and local governments. I know that my colleague who is now presiding in the Chair has a very real concern about transportation of this waste item. What we are saying--and what I am saying to the Presiding Officer at this moment-- is that State and local communities will have full participation under the Federal law and the Federal Hazardous Waste Transportation Act of being full participants in deciding how this waste moves there with this particular jurisdiction in concert with the Federal Government. S. 1936 also allows that the Secretary provide technical assistance to fund training of the unions, with the expertise and safety training for transportation workers. We want to make sure that what is being done right today is done right in the future, and that the American public can have the kind of satisfaction in knowing that literally thousands and thousands of shipments of high-level nuclear waste that we have had in our country over the last number of decades with only seven accidents--none of them jeopardizing the containers in which the nuclear waste was being transported; not a one of them ever putting the public in jeopardy--is the kind of professionalism and expertise that we are going to have in the future. In addition, S. 1936 clarifies that existing employee protection in title 40 of the United States Code only addressing the refusal to work in hazardous conditions apply to transportation under this act. It also provides that certain inspection activities will be carried out by car men and operating crews, only if they are adequately trained. Finally, S. 1936 provides authority for the Secretary of Transportation to establish training standards as necessary for workers engaged in the transportation, storage, and disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste. Mr. President, what is important in this legislation now in the area of transportation--and why it ought to become law now--is that we have the kind of adequate time necessary to go through what I have just talked about--effective and responsible training of those critical crews that will be managing the units of transportation that move the high-level waste to a permanent repository. If we wait another decade, if we wait until the lights in the Northeast start going out, if we wait until public pressure is so great because we are having brown outs because nuclear reactors have been shut down because the public will not allow for additional storage space on site, are we going to have the lead time, the kind of responsible, cautious time necessary to make sure that which we do is as professional as it has been in the past and it is today? My suggestion is we will not have that time. All of a sudden we will be in a panic nationwide because we failed to act responsibly, and as a result of that kind of failure we are now in a catch-up mode to handle these kinds of issues so that these reactors can stay on line so that nearly a third of our power source can continue to light the lights of our cities and our factories. In order to ensure that the size and the scope of the interim storage facility is manageable in the context of the overall nuclear waste program, and yet adequate to address the Nation's immediate spent fuel storage needs, S. 1936 would limit the size of phase 1 of the interim storage facility to 15,000 metric tons of spent fuel and the size of phase 2 of the facility to 40,000 metric tons. Phase 2 of the facility would be expandable to 60,000 metric tons, if the Secretary fails to meet her projected goals with regard to site characterization and licensing of the permanent repository site. In other words, if all goes well, as it should so that we honor our commitment and our promises in the law that we are now working under and in the new legislation being proposed, basically we are talking about a facility that would never expand beyond 40,000 metric tons and would begin to reduce that size the moment the permanent geologic repository comes on line, in contrast to the legislation that we have taken from the table, S. 1271. It provided for storage of 20,000 metric tons of spent fuel in phase I and 100,000 metric tons in phase 2. So, Mr. President, what we have done is a substantial downsizing of the interim facility that would be the primary recipient location for fuels coming in to be characterized ready to go to the permanent repository. I would like to clarify that the new volumes are clearly sufficient to allow storage of current spent Navy fuel. Mr. President, something that a lot of people do not realize as we debate these issues--certainly as it is true with commercial reactors-- we know this legislation is largely geared to remove the spent fuel, or the nuclear high-level waste from the site of the reactor to take it to permanent repository. But what we have also done from the act of the mid-1980's which began this whole process, we have now included defense, or Federal waste. In my State of Idaho, for example, we are the recipient of every spent fuel rod that comes out of a Navy reactor; the nuclear Navy. We have been the recipient of those since the very first beginning of the Rickover nuclear Navy. As a result of us receiving them, studying them, and researching them, we have created phenomenal efficiencies and safety for the nuclear crew. But for any State that enjoys a nuclear Navy, enjoys it docked within their States, enjoys the revenue and the employees of a nuclear Navy, Idaho, my State, is the recipient of the fuel rods that come from those States. Other States also have Federal high-level nuclear waste, and we have expanded the authority of the law by these amendments to assure that the permanent repository site in Nevada at Yucca Mountain will not be just for commercial fuel but will be for Federal Government's high- level waste and Federal Government high-level waste fuel. It is important to understand that. Unlike S. 1271, which provided for unlimited use of existing facilities at the Nevada test site for handling spent fuels at the interim facility, S. 1936 allows only the use of those facilities for emergency situations during phase 1 of the interim facility. So, in other words, we built some flexibility in there for emergency situations, but it is so designated within that 1,500-metric-ton requirement. The facility should not be needed during phase 1, and construction of new facilities will be overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for any fuel handling during phase 2 of the interim facility. S. 1271, the old bill that came from the committee, would have set standards for release of radioactivity from the repository at a maximum annual dosage to an average member of the general public in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain at 100 millirems. There is a lot of debate about what 100 millirems of exposure is. But I would hate to tell you that you and I receive that kind of exposure on an annual basis by simply being in the city of Washington, DC. If you want to live in Denver, CO, on an annualized basis you are going to receive substantially more exposure than the 100 millirems. What am I talking about? I am talking about a measurement of radioactivity that is so low that anyone in or around the Yucca Mountain storage facility would in no way ever find themselves at risk as a result of this exposure. Clearly, the Federal Government, under the auspices of all of the engineering and the science that is available, has every intent to build a facility that is as safe as can humanly be built and to meet international standards, national and international risk standards designed to protect public health and safety and the environment. I said in some of my comments on the floor this morning, this ought to be called the No. 1 environmental legislation of the 104th Congress. I believe it is just that, because I think it acts in a responsible way to assure that the human environments in which we all find ourselves are never put at risk by exposure to high-level nuclear waste materials. While maintaining an initial 100-millirem standard, S. 1936 would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to apply another standard, and I think this is very important for the record to show. If it finds that the standard in this legislation--let me repeat--if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under new science and new findings, found that what we are proposing is inadequate, then they would be allowed to advance that proposition and to deal with it in a way that would change it, modify it to bring it down to a lower standard or a different standard. In other words, we are not closing the door or turning off the lights to the idea that science advances itself, and if we find reason to believe that science would argue that 100 millirems, under the current national and international safety standards, is not adequate, then we allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to apply another standard. S. 1936, the legislation before us, contains provisions, not found in S. 1271, that would grant financial and technical assistance for oversight activities and payments in lieu of taxes to the affected units of local government and Indian tribes within the State of Nevada. I know, while my colleagues from Nevada are making every argument possible to block this legislation because of the political consequences that they recognize might be the case in their State, we have also been dealing openly with local units of government in the State of Nevada. There are local units of government who believe this is positive, from the standpoint of the economics it brings and the long-term employment, and because they have done their homework and they recognize the very real safety involved in this kind of management approach. So what I am telling you is we recognize the Indian tribes involved, and the local units of government, and the payment in lieu of taxes to their affected communities as a result of their willingness to work cooperatively with the Federal Government. S. 1936 also contains new provisions transferring certain Bureau of Land Management parcels in Nye County, NV. In order to ensure that moneys collected for the nuclear waste fund are utilized for purposes of the nuclear waste program beginning in fiscal year 2003, S. 1936 would convert the current nuclear waste fee that is paid by electrical consumers into a user fee that is assessed based upon the level of appropriations for the year in which the fee is collected. In other words, those who are the beneficiaries of nuclear power pay for the facility and continue to pay for the facility. This has always been the understanding. We are not reaching out to taxpayers in States that are not the beneficiaries of the kind of abundance that is brought through a nuclear reactor producing power in their State; only those who are the recipients of it. That is not to say there will not be Federal expenses. There are clearly some as it relates to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its management responsibility and the Department of Energy and its ongoing management responsibility. But, Mr. President, you and I both know that we, as a government, our Nation's Government, has always kept its arms around the whole of the nuclear issue. It has been something that has not been automatically farmed out in toto to the private sector. As a result of that, I, once again, return to what I believe is a fundamental responsibility of good government and that is we have an endgame for the nuclear issue. To date, we have not decided, as a country, to do that. We can fuel our Navy ships, we can light the lights of our cities, we can protect the world by the use of the atom, we can treat sick people by the use of the atom. But when it comes to the waste product created by those kinds of activities, we said: ``Go away. Not in my backyard. I am frightened of it, or my people are frightened of it.'' Yet, interestingly enough, there literally is not a basis for fear but the fear itself, because we know how to handle it, and science has argued that we handle it very, very well. Section 408 of S. 1271 provided authority for the Secretary to execute emergency relief contracts with certain eligible utilities that would provide for qualified entities to ship, store, and condition spent nuclear fuel. This provision concerned some Members who feared it could be interpreted to provide new authority for reprocessing in this country or abroad. This provision is not contained in 1936. In other words, let me repeat, any fear that could have been argued that there might be an effort to reprocess fuel, there might be an effort to expand the ability that could create proliferation in our country, is now taken out of the legislation. S. 1936 has none of those provisions within it. S. 1271 contained a provision that stated the actions authorized by the bill would be governed only by the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. S. 1936 eliminates this provision. Again, I recognize the concerns the chairman has expressed. We have gone directly at those concerns. Instead, we provide that for any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, those acts will govern. In other words, when it comes to hazardous material's transportation, we take nobody out of the loop. We short-circuit no one, and we allow local units of government and States to be direct participants. S. 1936 further provides that any requirement of a State or local government is preempted only if complying with the State and local requirements and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act are beyond current law, and are impossible. In other words, we cannot, by this law, simply walk away from roadblocks that are intended to be put up for the purposes of blocking the road. That cannot be allowed. Certainly, under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, I think we all recognize that is so, understanding that we clearly are saying we want it to be the safest possible, as it is today. We want the American people to know that what we are doing is safe and responsible, and that is exactly what the act requires. This language is consistent with the preemption authority founded on the existing Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. In other words, we have taken the law today that makes our highways safe in the use or transporting of hazardous materials and we said, ``no exceptions to the rule.'' S. 1936 authorizes the Secretary to take title to spent fuel at the Dairyland Power Consumers La Crosse reactor, and authorizes the Secretary to pay for the on-site storage of the fuel until DOE removes the fuel from the site under terms of the act. This is a provision that I felt was necessary to equitably address concerns in Wisconsin and Iowa. Of course, that goes back to previous Government actions that place the Government in a position of responsibility for those stored fuels. S. 1936 contains language making a number of changes designed to improve the management of the nuclear waste program, to ensure the program is operated, to the maximum extent possible, in like manner to a private business. I feel this will improve the overall management of the spent-fuel program. Finally, the bill contains language that addressed Senator Johnston's concerns. The language in S. 1936 provides that construction will not begin on an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain before December 31, 1998. In other words, for those who are concerned about transportation, we are giving phenomenal lead time through the year 1999 to make sure that all of the systems are in place, because the facility, to receive those shipments, could not be ready before that with construction beginning on or after December 31, 1998. I am most pleased we have been able to work with Senator Johnston. He has led on this issue for years and is clearly one of the leading authorities in this body, if not in the country, as it relates to current policy on nuclear waste and nuclear waste management, and we have worked very closely with him in assuring that this bill met a large number of his concerns. The bill provides for the delivery of an assessment of the viability of the Yucca Mountain site to the President and to Congress by the Secretary of Energy 6 months before the construction can begin on an interim facility. In other words, we are not destroying existing law. We are simply expediting the activities that would have to start after the certification of the facility or the site at Yucca Mountain. We are saying, in essence, get your engineering studies done, get your design studies done, get yourself ready to go so that by 1999, construction can begin if, in fact, the site has been certificated. If, based upon the information before him, the President determines in his discretion that Yucca Mountain is not suitable--and he may find that, the studies might indicate that, for the development of the repository we are talking about--then the Secretary shall cease work on both the interim and permanent repository program at the Yucca Mountain site. The bill further provides that if the President makes such a determination, he shall have 18 months to designate an interim storage facility site. If the President fails to designate--in other words, this is something you cannot pass go on, the clock is still ticking, the lights are still on, but they could still be dimming, Mr. President--whomever is the President at that time, they simply have the responsibility, as does the Congress, to deal with this issue in a forthright manner. We say, if the President fails to designate a site or the site has not been approved by Congress within 2 years of its determination, the Secretary is instructed to construct an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada or at the test site 51 out in the deserts of the national test area in Nevada. The provisions ensure that the construction of an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain site will not occur before the President and Congress have had ample opportunity to review the technical assessments of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a permanent repository and to designate an alternative site for interim storage based upon technical information. However, this provision also ensures that ultimately an interim storage facility site will be chosen. In other words, what we are saying, Mr. President, is ``you can't pass go.'' At some point and in the future, in the very near future, we as a Government must act responsibly for the sake of our Nation, for the sake of our energy base and for the sake of our environment. Without the assurance, we leave open the possibility we would find in 1998 we have no interim storage, no permanent repository program, and after more than 15 years and $6 billion spent, we are back to where we started in 1981 when we passed the first version of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This is within the 50 States of the Union. What we are saying is, we must find a facility to store the waste in a safe and responsible way. Coupled with that, Mr. President, are a variety of other agreements. For example, in my State, my Governor has negotiated under a Federal court order an agreement with the Department of Energy that by certain dates at the turn of the century waste begins to leave our State. If we do not have the facility built, then the Governor has the power of the Federal courts to say, ``No more shipments.'' In this instance, no more shipments of spent-nuclear fuel. What happens to our nuclear Navy at that time that has no other place for repository? Does waste pile up on the docks at the refueling sites around on the east and west coasts? I doubt that happens. Yet, at the same time, the State of Idaho and the Federal court says that if the Federal Government fails to respond and fails to react in prescription with the agreement and certainly consistent with the legislation that we are debating this afternoon, then there are no more shipments. What happens at that point? That is why we are here. That is why we are asking our colleagues to act responsibly in working with us and with the American public to assure we move legislation, law, policy and, therefore, end result, the development of an interim storage facility and a permanent repository on the timely basis that we all want to see happen. This issue provides a clear and simple choice: We can choose to have one remote, safe, and secure nuclear waste storage facility, or, through inaction and delay, we can perpetuate the status quo and have 80 such sites spread across our Nation. As I have said in my earlier comments, what happens when the sites fill and the public in the 80 locations say, ``We don't want additional storage at that location''? What does the State government do? What does the public utility of that State do? Do they turn to the utility involved and say, ``Turn it off, shut it down''? Twenty-five percent or so of the power capacity largely in the Northeast and Midwest is dependent upon this kind of energy production. I do not think that is what we want to happen. That is why the majority leader, when he read the facts, looked at it and saw this was a time when clearly it was important for this Congress to move, that the legislation was ready, that it stood in a bipartisan fashion that we had worked out and negotiated all of the necessary changes to make sure we were able to do this. It is irresponsible to shirk our responsibility to protect the environment and the future of our children and our grandchildren. This Nation needs to confront nuclear waste management and the problem facing it is now. I do urge my colleagues to vote for cloture as we move down the line, as we did today, by a large number. It is time we expedite getting this to the floor for a final vote, that we work with our colleagues in the House, and that we ask our President to share with us in this national responsibility. We have contacted the executive branch of Government time and time again over the course of the last 2 years. Chairman Frank Murkowski, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in four different pieces of correspondence has said, ``Mr. President, if you don't agree with us, then show us what you can agree with so that we can work together to assure a responsible end to this very, very critical problem.'' As a result of that, nothing. The answer back was nothing. The answer today was political. Mr. President, this is an issue that goes beyond politics. It must go to policy, it must go to action, it must go to a public that knows that this Senate and the House and the President together have acted in a responsible way to assure the effective and the appropriate management of high-level nuclear waste in our country, both commercial and Government-generated waste. S. 1936 gives us that. After over a year and a half of compromise in building this key piece of legislation, we are now to the floor and asking our colleagues to participate with us in passing this legislation. I see no one else on the floor at this time, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for a few moments I want to discuss the issue of transportation safety. This morning I went back to my office after there had been some debate on the floor about transportation safety in this country. I know that it is a key concern to a good many Senators, including yourself, as waste moves from across the country to a central location, as to how that waste will be handled. I saw something that surprised even me even though I have had the privilege over the years to see some of the containers in which nuclear waste is transported. What I would like to enter into the Record now and show for the Senators is some of what I watched on the videotape. Scary statements have been made by the Senators from Nevada that there would be risk. I think they were using a term that was of their invention called a mobile Chernobyl. That is a dramatic statement that absolutely has no basis of truth because we have been transporting waste for a good number of years, and simply it does not exist. I will suggest why. As a matter of fact, there have been 2,400 shipments of spent nuclear fuel by the nuclear energy industry, and others, over the past 25 years. No fatality, no injury or environmental damage has ever occurred because of radioactive cargo. There have been accidents, yes, but the casks have performed as designed. What I saw this morning, Mr. President, in the video was exactly what happened. Here is one of the pictures. This picture is of a flatbed truck over here with one of the casks on it. And that flatbed truck went down a roadway and it struck a solid concrete wall, a 700-ton concrete wall, at 80 miles an hour. If you saw this on videotape, you can begin to understand the dramatics of it. The truck's cab literally disappeared. This bright orange object, which is the container itself, bounced up against the concrete wall, because by then the cab of the truck had been pulverized, and it bounced back. Afterward, technicians were beginning to peel off from the face of this orange cask an object of metal. And your first reaction is, Mr. President, well, that is the cask. It was damaged. It was the cab of the truck that had literally been peeled around this object, this cask that holds the spent nuclear rods. The cask was undamaged. Another picture is of a similar flatbed truck that is parked across a railroad crossing. Of course, this material can be transported both by truck and by rail. The naval waste that comes to Idaho is transported by rail. The truck is parked in the middle of a railroad crossing. As a result of that, a locomotive, traveling at 80 miles an hour, broadsides it. And the weight is a 120-ton locomotive. Again, the orange object itself is the cask that stores the nuclear objects. It bounces literally as this locomotive hits it. Again, test after test after test. This container was originally designed to be dropped from the air. The reason was because we anticipated aerial transportation. So all of the designs required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that is what it has to do. How about dropping it from 30,000 feet, originally? Well, that is what it was designed to do. Here is a drop from 30 feet now on to an unyielding surface. Mr. President, it is important to remember that every other surface is yielding. The ground itself is a yielding surface because when you hit it with heavy impact, it gives, it bounces, it breaks away. In this case, the surface is solid concrete. It was dropped 30 feet on to a solid concrete surface with a steel spike sticking up out of it with the intent of penetrating the container itself. What happens? The container bounces off. As a result, again, no damaging of the container. Here is an example. It is engulfed in 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit, a fire for 30 minutes; submerged under 3 feet of water for 8 hours. All of those are part of the video test. The container, again, was never ruptured. There was no jeopardy. There was no leak of radioactivity. The reason I bring these issues to the floor is because my colleagues keep saying, ``high-risk transportation.'' That is why we have had over 2,400 shipments over the last several decades, Mr. President, and no one--no one--has been injured as a result of the release of radioactivity. Simply because--guess what?--our Government did it right. Admiral Rickover did it right. The industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did it right. They required that the containers that transport this high-level waste be so impenetrable that nothing could happen to them. And that is exactly what has happened. In all the tests, as in seven real-world accidents, the transportation containers retained their integrity and would have kept their radioactive material sealed safely inside. That is extremely important for the record. Whether it is the 30-foot or the 100-foot drop, whether it is the raging locomotive at 80 miles an hour at 120 tons, whether it is the truck itself going at 80 miles an hour into a solid concrete wall, the bottom line, Mr. President, is in no instances have we had jeopardy and release of radioactivity. I hope we are able in some way to allay the concerns that a lot of our citizens have that while this material is being transported through the countryside to a safe and permanent location, that we would not, nor would this law ever allow, nor certainly in the case of current law does it allow, our citizens to be at risk. Transportation is an issue, and it will always be one. It is very easy to stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and talk about a catastrophe, talk about a situation that could create a safety problem for millions of Americans. Now, Mr. President, if that situation exists, I do not know where it exists. The reason I do not know where it exists is because this country has been in the business for well over three decades now of transporting high-level nuclear waste across the Nation, into our State of Idaho, from all points where naval vessels are refueled. We have transported it in other forms from commercial reactors to Federal facilities for purposes of tests and research, and all instances they have tracked with similar containers to these shown in the pictures, and there has never been an accident in which radioactivity is released. Let me make sure the record is perfectly clear: There have been accidents. I understand there have been seven-some accidents out of the 2,400 shipments. Those accidents resulted in, I am sure, damage to property and probably injury to individuals, but there was no environmental injury. There was no release of radioactivity. That, of course, is the test here. That is the argument of my colleagues from the State of Nevada that somehow 50 million Americans are going to be put in jeopardy. Not so, Mr. President. It just ``ain't'' so, or we would not be here today talking about legislation. There is not a Member of the U.S. Senate who would want to or who in any knowing way would ever put any of their citizenry or those people whom they serve and represent in jeopardy. The thing that is exciting for me to stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate after we have researched it, after we have studied and understood what the industry is about, what DOE has done, what the Navy is doing, what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires, is that I can stand here and believe with all of my energy that what we offer is the safest possible approach for the movement and the transportation of this waste to a permanent repository. That is the way all of these issues ought to be handled. That is what the American public deserves, a fair and honest debate and the assurance of the kind of safety that is provided now by industry, by defense, and by our Government. This legislation in no way short-circuits any of that. In fact, we have assured that all of the environmental laws, all of the transportation laws, all of that in S. 1936, all fit together and in no way do we bypass existing law or existing protection. Those are the facts. Now, you can choose to judge them in different ways, but you cannot dispute the simple fact. The simple fact, in 2,400 shipments over the course of the last 30 years, 2,400 shipments in containers like the container I have shown you in these pictures and charts this afternoon, never once was one ruptured or jeopardized in a way that caused an environmental release that would have, had people been near it, placed them in jeopardy. Those are the facts. That is the reality of how we handle this issue. I am pleased I have had an opportunity to be part of what is a very critical debate and a very important piece of public policy to our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled from the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place Tuesday, July 30, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the conditions that have made the national forests in Arizona susceptible to catastrophic fires and disease. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as we reach the final days of the 104th Congress, an urgent environmental problem remains unresolved. However, unlike many issues, fortunately the question of how to deal with this Nation's high-level nuclear waste has an answer that is responsible, fair, environmentally friendly, and supported by Members of both parties. Today, high-level nuclear waste and highly radioactive used nuclear fuel is accumulating at more than 80 sites in 41 States. Each year, as that increases, our ability to continue storage of this used fuel at each of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. The only responsible choice is to support legislation that solves this problem by safely moving this used fuel to a safe, monitored facility in the remote Nevada desert. This answer will lead us to a safer future for all Americans. To facilitate our consideration of such legislation, Senator Murkowski and I, introduced S. 1936, a bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Bill, S. 1936, retains the fundamental goals and structure of the substitute for S. 1271 that was reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in March. However, S. 1936 contains many important clarifications and changes that deal with concerns raised regarding the details of that legislation by Members of this body. In addition, we took into account the provisions of H.R. 1020, which was reported out of the House Commerce Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan vote last year. We adopted much of the language found in H.R. 1020 in order to make the bill as similar to the bill under consideration in the House as possible. I would like to describe some of the most significant of these changes. S. 1936 eliminates certain provisions contained in S. 1271 that would have limited the application of the National Environmental Policy Act to the intermodal transfer facility and imposed a general limitation on NEPA's application to the Secretary's actions to only those NEPA requirements specified in the bill. This was to allay the concern that sufficient environmental analysis would not be done under S. 1271. S. 1936 clarifies that transportation of spent fuel shall be governed by all requirements of Federal, State, and local governments and Indian tribes to the same extent that any person engaging in transportation in interstate commerce must comply with those requirements. S. 1936 also allows that the Secretary provide technical assistance and funds for training to Unions with experience in safety training for transportation workers. In addition, S. 1936 clarifies that existing employee protections in title 40 of the United States Code only addresses the refusal to work in hazardous conditions apply to transportation under this act. It also provides that certain inspection activities will be carried out by carmen and operating crews only if they are adequately trained. Finally, S. 1936 provides authority for the Secretary of Transportation to establish training standards, as necessary, for workers engaged in the transportation, storage, and disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste. In order to ensure the size and scope of the interim storage facility is manageable in the context of the overall nuclear waste program, and yet adequate to address the Nation's immediate spent fuel storage needs, S. 1936 would limit the size of phase I of the interim storage facility to 15,000 metric tons of spent fuel, and the size of phase II of the facility to 40,000 metric tons. Phase II of the facility would be expandable to 60,000 metric tons if the Secretary fails to meet her projected goals with regard to site characterization and licensing of the permanent repository site. In contrast, S. 1271 provided for storage of 20,000 metric tons of spent fuel in phase I and 100,000 metric tons in phase II. I would like to clarify that the new volumes are sufficient to allow storage of current spent naval fuels. Unlike S. 1271, which provided for unlimited use of existing facilities at the Nevada test site for handling spent fuel at the interim facility, S. 1936 allows only the use of those facilities for emergency situations during phase I of the interim facility. These facilities should not be needed during phase I and construction of new facilities will be overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for any fuel handling during phase II of the interim facility. S. 1271 would have set the standard for releases of radioactivity from the repository at a maximum annual dose to an average member of the general population in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain at 100 millirem. The 100 millirem standard is fully consistent with current national and international risk standards designed to protect public health and safety and the environment. While maintaining an initial 100 millirem standard, S. 1936 would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to apply another standard, if it finds that the standard in the legislation would pose an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public. S. 1936 contains provisions not found in S. 1271 that would grant financial and technical assistance for oversight activities and payments in lieu of taxes to affected units of local government and Indian tribes within the State of Nevada. S. 1936 also contains new provisions transferring certain Bureau of Land Management parcels to Nye County, NV. In order to ensure that monies collected for the nuclear waste fund are utilized for purposes of the Nuclear Waste Program, beginning in fiscal year 2003, S. 1936 would convert the current Nuclear Waste Fee, that is paid by electricity consumers, into a user fee that is assessed based upon the level of appropriations for the year in which the fee is collected. Section 408 of S. 1271 provided authority for the Secretary to execute emergency relief contracts with certain eligible utilities that would provide for qualified entities to ship, store, and condition spent nuclear fuel. This provision concerned some Members who feared it could be interpreted to provide new authority for reprocessing in this country or abroad. This provision is not contained in S. 1936. S. 1271 contained a provision that stated the actions authorized by the bill would be governed only by the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. S. 1936 eliminates this provision and instead provides that, if any law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, those acts will govern. S. 1936 further provides that any requirement of a State or local government is preempted only if complying with the State or local requirement and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is impossible, or if the requirement is an obstacle to carrying out the act. This language is consistent with the preemption authority found in the existing Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. S. 1936 authorizes the Secretary to take title to the spent fuel at the Dairyland Power Cooperative's La Crosse reactor, and authorizes the Secretary to pay for the onsite storage of the fuel until DOE removes the fuel from the site under terms of the act. This is a provision that I felt was necessary to equitably address concerns in Wisconsin and Iowa. S. 1936 contains language making a number of changes designed to improve the management of the Nuclear Waste Program to ensure the program is operated, to the maximum extent possible, in like manner to a private business. I feel this will improve the overall management of the spent fuel program. Finally the bill contains language that addresses Senator Johnston's concerns. The language in S. 1936 provides that construction shall not begin on an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain before December 31, 1998. I am most pleased to now have Senator Johnston's support of this legislation. The bill provides for the delivery of an assessment of the viability of the Yucca Mountain site to the President and Congress by the Secretary of Energy 6 months before the construction can begin on the interim facility. If, based upon the information before him, the President determines, in his discretion, that Yucca Mountain is not suitable for development as a repository, then the Secretary shall cease work on both the interim and permanent repository programs at the Yucca Mountain site. The bill further provides that, if the President makes such a determination, he shall have 18 months to designate an interim storage facility site. If the President fails to designate a site, or if a site he has designated has not been approved by Congress within 2 years of his determination, the Secretary is instructed to construct an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site. This provision ensures that the construction of an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site will not occur before the President and Congress have had an ample opportunity to review the technical assessment of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a permanent repository and to designate an alternative site for interim storage based upon that technical information. However, this provision also ensures that, ultimately, an interim storage facility site will be chosen. Without this assurance, we leave open the possibility we would find in 1998 we have no interim storage, no permanent repository program, and--after more than 15 years and $6 billion spent--we are back to where we started in 1982 when we passed the first version of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That is within the 50 States in the Union we must locate a site to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. This issue provides a clear and simple choice. We can choose to have one, remote, safe, and secure nuclear waste storage facility. Or, through inaction and delay, we can perpetuate the status quo and have 80 such sites spread across the Nation. It is irresponsible to shirk our responsibility to protect the environment and the future for our children and grandchildren. This Nation needs to confront its nuclear waste problem now. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and support the passage of S. 1936.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the benefit of Members and the public that the hearing previously noticed for the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on several measures relating to the Bureau of Reclamation for July 30, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. and will now commence at 2:30 p.m. in the committee hearing room. The measures that had been noticed are: S. 931. To authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes. S. 1564. To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide loan guarantees for water supply, conservation, quality, and transmission projects, and for other purposes. S. 1565. To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 and to supplement the Federal Reclamation Laws by providing for Federal cooperation in non-Federal projects and for participation by non- Federal agencies in Federal projects. S. 1649. To extend contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigation districts in Kansas and Nebraska, and for other purposes. S. 1719. To require the Secretary of the Interior to offer to sell to certain public agencies the indebtedness representing the remaining repayment balance of certain Bureau of Reclamation projects in Texas, and for other purposes. In addition, the subcommittee will receive testimony concerning S. 1921--To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain facilities at the Minidoka project to the Burley Irrigation District, and for other purposes. As I stated, the hearing will now take place on Tuesday, July 30, 1996, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to testify or submit written statements for the record should contact James Beirne at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765 of the subcommittee staff or write the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield? Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Idaho, in working with the Senators from Nevada, assured them the protection that they now ask that they have and is granted under the rules of the Senate. There was no way to change their protection. The process we used to bring this bill to the floor is the process of the Senate. So the Senator from Alaska is absolutely right. The Senators from Nevada, their full rights are protected. Now they use the defense bill, tragically enough, because I agree with the Senator from Alaska, while it is clearly within their rights to do what they do, and I do not dispute that now and I do not think the Senator from Alaska does, I believe their action is unprecedented. I think it is important the Record show the Senator from Idaho has worked very hard to bring this national nuclear waste bill to the floor so that we can deal with a national problem. I dealt with the Senators from Nevada in a very forthright way to assure them that all of their rights would be protected and that I or any other Senator interested in this legislation was not in any way going to attempt to step on their rights, because in the Senate we do not do that. So they were protected in an adequate way. I yield back to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as we reach the final days of the 104th Congress, an urgent environmental problem remains unresolved. However, unlike many issues, fortunately the question of how to deal with this Nation's high-level nuclear waste has an answer that is responsible, fair, environmentally friendly and supported by members of both parties. Today, high level nuclear waste and highly radioactive used nuclear fuel is accumulating at more than 80 sites in 41 States. Each year, as that increases, our ability to continue storage of this used fuel at each of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. The only responsible choice is to support legislation that solves this problem by safely moving this used fuel to a safe, monitored facility in the remote Nevada desert. This answer will lead us to a safer future for all Americans. To facilitate our consideration of such legislation, yesterday I, along with Senator Murkowski, introduced S. 1936, a bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and it was placed on the calendar. S. 1936 retains the fundamental goals and structure of the substitute for S. 1271 that was reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last March. However, S. 1936 contains many important clarifications and changes that deal with concerns raised regarding the details of that legislation by Members of this body. In addition, we took into account the provisions of H.R. 1020, which was reported out of the House Commerce Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan vote last year. We adopted much of the language found in H.R. 1020 in order to make the bill as similar to the bill under consideration in the House as possible. I would like to describe some of the most significant of these changes. S. 1936 eliminates certain provisions contained in S. 1271 that would have limited the application of the National Environmental Policy Act to the intermodal transfer facility and imposed a general limitation on NEPA's application to the Secretary's actions to only those NEPA requirements specified in the bill. This was to allay the concern that sufficient environmental analysis would not be done under S. 1271. S. 1936 clarifies that transportation of spent fuel shall be governed by all requirements of Federal, State, and local governments and Indian tribes to the same extent that any person engaging in transportation in interstate commerce must comply with those requirements. S. 1936 also allows that the Secretary provide technical assistance and funds for training to Unions with experience in safety training for transportation workers. In addition, S. 1936 clarifies that existing employee protections in title 49, United States Code in connection with refusal to work in hazardous conditions apply to transportation under this act. It also provides that certain inspection activities will be carried out by carmen and operating crews only if they are adequately trained. Finally, S. 1936 provides authority for the Secretary of Transportation to establish training standards, as necessary, for workers engaged in the transportation, storage and disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste. In order to ensure that the size and scope of the interim storage facility is manageable in the context of the overall nuclear waste program, and yet adequate to address the Nation's immediate spent fuel storage needs, S. 1936 would limit the size of phase I of the interim storage facility to 15,000 metric tons of spent fuel, and the size of phase II of the facility to 40,000 metric tons. Phase II of the facility would be expandable to 60,000 metric tons if the Secretary fails to meet her projected goals with regard to site characterization and licensing of the permanent repository site. In contrast, S. 1271 provided for storage of 20,000 metric tons of spent fuel in phase I and 100,000 metric tons in phase II. Unlike S. 1271, which provided for unlimited use of existing facilities at the Nevada Test Site for handling spent fuel at the interim facility, S. 1936 allows only the use of those facilities for emergency situations during phase I of the interim facility. These facilities should not be needed during phase I and construction of new facilities will be overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for any fuel handling during phase II of the interim facility. S. 1271 would have set the standard for releases of radioactivity from the repository at a maximum annual dose to an average member of the general population in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain at 100 millirem. The 100 millirem standard is fully consistent with current national and international standards designed to protect public health and safety and the environment. While maintaining an initial 100 millirem standard, S. 1936 would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to apply another standard if it finds that the standard in the legislation would pose an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public. S. 1936 contains provisions not found in S. 1271 that would grant financial and technical assistance for oversight activities and payments in lieu of taxes to affected units of local government and Indian tribes within the State of Nevada. S. 1936 also contains new provisions transferring certain Bureau of Land Management parcels to Nye County, NV. In order to ensure that monies collected for the Nuclear Waste Fund are utilized for purposes of the Nuclear Waste Program, beginning in fiscal year 2003, S. 1936 would convert the current Nuclear Waste Fee that is paid by electricity consumers into a user fee that is assessed based upon the level of appropriations for the year in which the fee is collected. Section 408 of S. 1271 provided authority for the Secretary to execute emergency relief contracts with certain eligible utilities that would provide for qualified entities to ship, store, and condition spent nuclear fuel. This provision concerned some who feared it could be interpreted to provide new authority for reprocessing in this country or abroad. This provision is not contained in S. 1936. S. 1271 contained a provision that stated the actions authorized by the bill would be governed only by the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Atomic Energy Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. S. 1936 eliminates this provision and instead provides that, if any law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, those acts will govern. S. 1936 further provides that any requirement of a State or local government is preempted only if complying with the State or local requirement and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is impossible, or if the requirement is an obstacle to carrying out the act. This language is consistent with the preemption authority found in the existing Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. S. 1936 authorizes the Secretary to take title to the fuel at the Dairyland Power Cooperative's La Crosse reactor, and authorizes the Secretary to pay for the on-site storage of the fuel until DOE removes the fuel from the site under terms of the act. S. 1936 contains language making a number of changes designed to improve the management of the nuclear waste program to ensure the program is operated, to the maximum extent possible, in like manner to a private business. Finally, although we had not reached a final agreement with Senator Johnston on language regarding the schedule and conditions for the beginning of construction on the interim facility at the time S. 1936 was filed, the bill contains new language that was drafted in an attempt to address Senator Johnston's concerns. The language in S. 1936 provides that construction shall not begin on an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain before December 31, 1998. The bill provides for the delivery of an assessment of the viability of the Yucca Mountain site to the President and Congress by the Secretary of Energy 6 months before the construction can begin on the interim facility. If, based upon the information before him, the President determines, in his discretion, that Yucca Mountain is not suitable for development as a repository, then the Secretary shall cease work on both the interim and permanent repository programs at the Yucca Mountain site. The bill further provides that, if the President makes such a determination, he shall have 18 months to designate an interim storage facility site. If the President fails to designate a site, or if a site he has designated has not been approved by Congress within 2 years of his determination, the Secretary is instructed to construct an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain Site. This provision ensures that the construction of an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site will not occur before the President and Congress have had an ample opportunity to review the technical assessment of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a permanent repository and to designate an alternative site for interim storage based upon that technical information. However, this provision also ensures that, ultimately, an interim storage facility site will be chosen. Without this assurance, we leave open the possibility we will find in 1998 we have no interim storage, no permanent repository program, and--after more than 15 years and $6 billion spent--that we are back to where we started in 1982 when we passed the first version of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act . This issue provides a clear and simple choice. We can choose to have one, remote, safe and secure nuclear waste storage facility. Or, through inaction and delay, we can perpetuate the status quo and have 80 such sites spread across the Nation. It is irresponsible to shirk our responsibility to protect the environment and the future for our children and grandchildren. This Nation needs to confront its nuclear waste problem now. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and support the passage of S. 1936.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to H.R. 3448 offered by the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond. I also support the Finance Committee's amendment to the tax title of that bill, which already has been adopted. For once, with the inclusion of these amendments in H.R. 3448, Congress would be looking at an issue in context and taking in the big picture. Both amendments are necessary to make this an acceptable bill, on balance. This bill is supposed to be named 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. However, unless the Senate adopts the Bond amendment as well, this bill will not be worthy of its name. It will not protect small business. And it will hurt the low-wage breadwinners it is supposed to help. I commend Senator Bond and Senator Roth for the work they have done on their amendments. All too often, past Congresses 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 case of proposals to increase the Federal minimum wage. 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 would be the wrong answer. Standing alone, an arbitrary increase in the minimum wage destroys jobs for 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. There is no dispute over this fact, except from some inside the Washington, DC, beltway and from some academicians with a political agenda. We've all heard the numbers. The commonly accepted figure is that, an arbitrary, 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 621,000 jobs. In Idaho, it would destroy 3,200 jobs. Some have suggested that the economic impact of such an increase is negligible. But it's not negligible for each one of those 621,000 Americans--or possibly more--who would lose their jobs 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. The Bond Amendment takes a fair and balanced approach that would minimize the harm that would come from a one-size-fits-all, federally mandated increase in the minimum wage. It would treat small employers fairly and would be good for those entry-level workers most in need of making it to the first rung on the ladder of economic opportunity. Unlike the amendment defeated in the House, the small business exemption in the Bond Amendment would apply only to the minimum wage increase in this bill. Mr. President, most Senators were serving in Congress in 1989. We remember what happened when we finally voted for a compromise minimum wage bill then. Everyone--if you read the Record, you will see everyone--thought and said there was a small business exemption in that bill for every small business with gross receipts of less than $500,000. That bill would not have passed in 1989 without that $500,000 exemption. Everyone understood that the 1989 compromise would increase the small business threshold from $362,500 to $500,000 and broaden the exemption from some service and retail employers to all enterprises. But then, a bureaucrat at the Department of Labor noticed an apparent drafting error. The bill's language was convoluted and was interpreted as applying the Fair Labor Standards Act to virtually every individual employee in the country, regardless of the employer's receipts. I say it was an apparent drafting error because everyone thought there was a universal, $500,000 threshold, and I do not want to accuse anyone of lying to the Congress or the President back in 1989. Correcting this apparent drafting error had been a bipartisan effort up until recent weeks. Democrat Members in both the Senate and the House previously introduced bills to restore this intended exemption, in bills that would have gone farther than the Bond Amendment. 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. The Bond amendment would safeguard the most vulnerable employees, those of the smallest businesses, against that impact. The Bond amendment also includes a realistic opportunity wage, or training wage. Realistically, the Federal minimum wage today already is a training wage. The average minimum wage worker is earning $6.06 an hour after 1 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. Some critics have said the training wage would allow churning of employees--the firing of employees when they become eligible for the new, higher, minimum wage, and replacing them with new hires at the training wage. The Bond amendment makes that practice specifically illegal. Finally, the Bond amendment would provide employers--especially small businesses with limited resources and profit margins that are slim or nonexistent--with a more realistic effective date for this bill. Unlike the Federal Government, employers make reasonable projections of their revenues and then budget their resources to live within those means. To impose an immediate increase in costs of thousands of dollars would be a cruel jolt to many small, vulnerable employers. To do so retroactively, as would happen under the Kennedy amendment or the House-passed bill, would be unconscionable. The Bond amendment would provide the necessary flexibility to protect the workers and small businesses that would be most vulnerable to a one-size-fits all mandate. It is an important part of a two-step process to improve this bill. The second step is the inclusion of the tax provisions that would provide essential relief for small businesses, help them create jobs, and make the Tax Code a little fairer. I particularly want to express my support and appreciation for several of the tax provisions in title I of this bill, including: Increasing the availability of spousal individual retirement accounts; 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; extending the research and experimentation tax credit; and improving depreciation and expensing rules for small businesses. I have supported these provisions consistently in the past and commend the Finance Committee for including them in this bill. There is at least one provision in the House-passed version of this bill that I hope the Senate would accept in conference: 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. The Finance Committee provisions are valuable and beneficial. And I commend the chairman of the Small Business Committee for the thoughtful approach he has taken on his amendment. For me to vote for this bill, it would also be necessary for us to adopt the Bond amendment, which includes essential safeguards for employees and small businesses alike, and make this package complete. higher education savings act

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution of critical importance to our Nation's cattle producers. The beef industry assistance resolution is designed to address the short-term problems that plague the cattle industry because of the prolonged down cycle of the beef market. A number of my colleagues share my concerns, and I am pleased to announce that original cosponsors of this resolution are Senator Max Baucus, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Larry Pressler, Senator Pete Domenici, Senator Conrad Burns, Senator Dirk Kempthorne, and Senator Craig Thomas. As a former rancher, I have a first-hand understanding of the challenges that face the cattle industry. The prolonged down cycle is especially troubling because it affects the livelihoods of thousands of ranching families in Idaho and across the country. These beef producers are the largest sector of Idaho and American agriculture. Over 1 million families raise over 100 million head of beef cattle every year. This contributes over $36 billion to local economies. Even with the extended cycle of low prices, direct cash receipts from the Idaho cattle industry were almost $620 million in 1995. These totals only represent direct sales; they do not capture the multiplier effect that cattle ranches have in their local economies from expenditures on labor, feed, fuel, property taxes, and other inputs. Over the years, cattle operations have provided a decent living and good way of life in exchange for long days, hard work, and dedication. While the investment continues to be high, the returns have been low in recent years. The problems facing the cattle industry in recent years are complex. The nature of the market dictates that stable consumption combined with increased productivity and growing herd size yield lower prices to producers. This, combined with high feed prices and limited export opportunities, has caused a near crisis. Many Idahoans have contacted me on this issue. Some suggest the Federal Government intervene in the market to help producers. However, many others have expressed fear that Federal intervention, if experience is any indication, will only complicate matters and may also create a number of unintended results. I tend to agree with the latter. Time and again, I have seen lawmakers and bureaucrats in Washington, DC, albeit well-intentioned, take a difficult situation and make it worse. This does not mean that I believe Government has no role to play. I have supported and will continue to support measures of proven value. However, I will continue to follow this situation closely with the hope that free market forces will, in the long run, aid in making cattle producers more efficient, productive, and profitable. The cattle industry is part of a complex, long-term cycle; however, there are producers who might not survive the short term consequences. The beef industry assistance resolution addresses a number of these short-term issues. These are issues that were raised at a hearing of the Agriculture Committee that I chaired a few weeks ago. The resolution has five sections--antitrust monitoring, market reporting, private sector self-regulation, recognition of barriers to international trade, and emergency loan guarantees. Section 1 encourages the Secretary of Agriculture and Department of Justice to increase the monitoring of mergers and acquisitions in the beef industry. Investigation of possible barriers in the beef packing sector for new firms and with other commodities is encouraged. Section 2 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to expedite the reporting of existing beef categories and add additional categories. These categories include contract, formula and live cash cattle prices and boxed beef prices. The Secretary is also encouraged to increase the frequency of captive supply cattle from every 14 to 7 days. I am especially interested in the improved reporting of all beef and live cattle exports and imports. The second section also directs the Secretary to capture data on a previously unrecorded segment of the market--away from home consumption. While this market consumes approximately half of the Nation's beef production, very little is known about it. Section 3 encourages two very important measures within the private sector. First, meat packing companies are encouraged to fully utilize a grid pricing structure which will provide producers with a more complete picture for the particular type of the cattle they produce. Second, agricultural lenders are encouraged to consider the total asset portfolio, not just cash-flow, when evaluating this year's beef loans. Even the best operators will have great difficulty cash-flowing a cattle outfit because of the prolonged period of low prices. Section 4 recognizes a number of barriers to international trade that adversely affect American beef producers. The section is meant to elevate the importance of all trade issues and specifically references the elimination of the European Union hormone ban and animal health barriers between the United States and Canada. Section 5 recommends that emergency loan guarantees be made available to agricultural lenders with cattle industry loans. I am disappointed that the President zeroed out funding for this program in his fiscal year 1997 proposal. I have heard from a number of lenders that a high number of loans are questionable for this fall. The beef industry assistance resolution is a measure designed to provide immediate, short-term solutions to some of the serious problems facing the cattle industry. I know that a number of my colleagues have legislation pending in regard to the cattle market. I would comment that I see this resolution as a starting point, not an ending point for cattle industry issues.