Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I send an additional amendment to the Simpson amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. I can only state what the majority leader told me as it relates to him having been there. That is not secondhand. That is firsthand.

Mr. CRAIG. May I respond to the Senator's question? I reclaim my time for the purpose of responding to the question. The Senator makes a good point, and I am not going to try to dispute him on his logic. He and I may disagree on clean CR's and the use of vehicles like CR's to move legislation, but the fact is, the House did act, and they acted by putting in the McIntosh-Istook language. If we strike it, will they agree to that? I do not know. What I do believe they might agree to is the fact that we have changed their language to conform to the language that the Senate voted on by a unanimous vote with some very slight changes that we have already expressed to the Senators that are not changes in the intent. They clearly are clarifying provisions, the kind Senator Chafee and others spoke of with some concern in the earlier legislation. I think we stand a greater chance of moving the CR and the House accepting it as we send it back to them with the amendments provided by the Senator from Wyoming and myself to clarify this issue, for we at least address it. The House has addressed it. They spoke to it last night, and I am not at all convinced that if we send back a clean CR with this stricken from it that we can deal with it in that manner. That is why we came with this approach. We think it is important, and it does conform with the Senate's wishes earlier expressed.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hold the time, thank you very much. I will simply yield the floor at this point. I made my points. I know the Senator wishes to speak. At the moment, I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues here in the Senate are listening to the debate and the colloquies that are going on at this moment on this very, very important issue. For if one is to assume that after we deal with the amendments offered by my colleague from Wyoming and my second-degree amendment and a third or a fourth, or filling up the tree, we are debating the whole McIntosh issue, that would be an inaccurate assumption. We are returning to the language that the Senate has already voted on unanimously. And, as the Senator from Michigan has appropriately pointed out, there are some slight adjustments in it. But those slight adjustments are something that are not first amendment issues, not in any sense of the word. When it comes to spending Federal dollars, that is not a first amendment issue, never has been, most assuredly never will be. Thomas Jefferson made that very clear to us in many of his writings when he said that, ``No man should be lobbied with his own tax dollar.'' What we are saying here is very clear. We are simply taking the Internal Revenue Code rules, the lobbying of nonprofit charitables, the 501(c)(3) groups, and make that formula a little more generous and apply it to all organizations that do both lobbying and receive grants. The Senator from Michigan is absolutely right, the threshold is $125,000. But then what we say is there is a formula of a sliding scale that is simple and very easy to understand until you arrive at a certain level, and beyond that you can take that first million that you can lobby with, and if you are above the $17 million, then you apply 1 percent, and if you stay within those categories, you report. I believe the taxpayers of this country have a right to know how their money is being spent. And it is not, nor was it ever, the intent of the Senator from Wyoming or the Senator from Idaho, who joined with him in the original Simpson-Craig amendments on the floor that all of us unanimously supported, that we would stifle anybody's right to speak or to express their concern. But we also said something very clearly. What are you going to be? Are you going to be a lobbying organization or are you going to be an organization that takes grants and applies them for the meaningful purpose for which they are given? You cannot be dominantly both, nor should you be under the law, because you are given a very special tax- exempt status to do certain things. If you are taking grants, for whatever purpose they are allowed, you are given that opportunity. But if you have decided to lobby with it to generate more money, to do exactly what the Senator from Michigan knows can be done--and the term is called fungibility--then you can get increasingly larger and larger and larger to lobby a specific point of view. I will not suggest that our colleagues in the House went too far in one form or another. But I will agree that some of those organizations that the Senator from Michigan mentions--or I might agree--ought not to play by these rules--they clearly are the charitables of our country that have served this country and its interested parties well--ought not have these kinds of restrictions. That is what this Senate recognized. That is why we have come back to change the language in this continuing resolution to deal with it as we had originally attempted to deal with it here in the Senate, because I think all of us recognize that it is time that we do a course correction, and that is, frankly, all that these amendments are, is a course correction from those very large multihundred million dollar organizations that have become very powerful in their skillful use of Federal grant dollars for their specific and very directed interests. All we are saying to them is that there is going to be a criteria from now on, and we are going to apply the 501(c)(3) formula with a greater generosity to the 501(c)(4)'s. They have been misled, I think, stampeded by Washington special interests into suggesting that we are doing something tragic, different. You have to remember, those who are lobbying against this have a special interest. Their special interest is access through the grant process to the Federal Treasury. And we are saying to them, ``You can still have access because many of you do very worthwhile things. But what you cannot have is a free and open rein to lobby unless you meet certain criteria.'' We think that is important. Why should we use tax dollars to lobby to get more tax dollars to lobby to get more tax dollars to get larger and larger and more powerful and powerful for political purposes, in some instances, instead of to meet the needs of the grants as we originally saw them? And as the activities of Government suggested, these agencies in a quasi-private manner could better administer them. That is what we wanted. And that is what has been our intent all along. But what the Congress has failed to do over the last decade is take a serious look at how some organizations have recognized the unique ability to [[Page S 16866]] misuse the IRS Code for their particular advantage. And, frankly, we think that is just wrong. We want to adhere to the simple approach to deal with the larger organizations that we felt it was necessary to deal with. Those who do not lobby do not have a problem. Their first amendment rights in the use of their own dollars are not questioned. Those who do lobby and take $125,000 or more of grant dollars have to adhere to a reporting process and a percentage of limitation. And they can choose to do that. Many organizations already have because they did not want to violate the rules or they did not want to misuse the congressional intent of that particular area of the IRS Code. That is why the legislation was before us. That is why Senator Simpson and I have come back to amend the language in this CR because we understand what the Senator said. We can count votes. And we thought it was important that we deal at least with this segment of the code and the particular organizations that identify with that segment of the code. I think most groups----

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator for yielding. I would like to address the question the Senator from Michigan just spoke to. All organizations keep books. All organizations have to report to the IRS. We are not asking that they do anything differently. We say that if you meet certain criteria, you have to make a certain amount of decisions. Mr. President, $39 billion worth of tax money goes out in grants every year. You mean you are saying that you do not want the taxpayers of this country to have a right to have accountability for that money? Absolutely, we do. And we do. The 501(c)(3)'s are accountable, and they report. That is a very large chunk of the money. So, right now, the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Idaho are saying that it is OK under the law, under the IRS Code, for 98 percent of everybody to play by the rules and file the forms. That is what we are saying, is that not? Now we are talking about a window which several billion dollars slides through, in which there is no accountability. Why should those who do not account today not be under the same rules as the 98 percent who do? You and I both understand that giving the privilege of tax exempt in this society is a very large Federal subsidy. That is a unique privilege. All we are saying is, to retain that privilege, to do the special things that you should be wanting to do under your organization, we are saying that these are the requirements, which are very limited, and 98 percent play by those rules; why not the other 2 percent?

Mr. CRAIG. I yield back to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I will be brief. I think the Senator from Ohio wants to speak. I have been listening to my colleague, and what I am hearing, does that meet the straight-face test? Well, it did not. I tried it on and it did not work because continuing resolutions under some other party's control--let me talk about 1986, after the Senate had been regained. Continuing resolution: Export-Import Bank, denial of MFN status for products to Afghanistan, Federal Salary Act amendments, child care services, Federal employees, Ethics in Government Act, all on a continuing resolution. I know the Senator from North Dakota and I prefer a clean continuing resolution but it has not happened very often in the Congress of the United States. So it really does not mean a great deal to come to the floor and argue that when in 1987 we brought a continuing resolution over it contained all 13 appropriations bills. That is reality. That is real. It contained a Defense Acquisition Improvement Act, it contained Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act, human rights for Romania, school lunch and child nutrition amendments, Aviation Safety Commission Act, metropolitan Washington airport--all things, very important, that got stuck on a continuing resolution. In 1988--as I think back, I think his party was in control of the Senate; he might well have been here at that time--contained all 13 appropriations bills once again. Cancellation of fiscal year 1987 sequestration order. Special House and Senate procedures for considering funding requests, and so on and so forth. In 1991, extension of certain Medicare hospital payments provisions. The point is made, Madam President, the point is made that continuing resolutions have been and remain vehicles to move legislation on in this Congress. What is important for our colleagues tonight as I think we are very close to voting on these amendments, Madam President, is to remember if you want to strike the Istook amendment you vote for the Simpson-Craig amendment. Several of our colleagues have said that is what they want to do. But they want to retain the essence of the language that they voted for some weeks ago. That is exactly what the amendments of the Senator from Wyoming and my amendments do. If you want to pass Istook and fail to pass our amendments, what will the House do to the CR? I am not sure. I do not understand what might happen. I do understand what could happen. That is, if we take the simple amendments that bring us back to where we were, the majority of the Senators, a unanimous vote of the Senators with some modifications now, placed us some weeks ago with a substantial assurance if we do that we will pass the CR as we have it before us, that is how we ought to vote. That vote means that you vote for the Simpson-Craig amendments. Madam President, we are well behind on the work of the Congress. Again, I think of the straight-face test on those arguments. The Senator from North Dakota knows about 60 votes. He knows it well. He knows what has happened here, on the floor and in committee, and the very clear obstructionist tactics that have occurred on occasion on this floor that put us where we are today--needing to use a continuing resolution. The majority leader and the Speaker of the House for 25 hours were with the President of the United States just the last week and the President never once wanted to discuss the very critical nature of the budget, the debt limit, and the continuing resolution in that unique opportunity. Now, I wish the President would come to the table, but he stays in the White House and all he talks about is veto, veto, veto. Well, the Senator from North Dakota talks about the urgency of this CR. How urgent is it if the President is now saying, ``I will veto it''? It does not seem to be very urgent. It appears this President wishes to play the political game. He, too, has a responsibility for running the Government of this country. I say, Mr. President, come out of the White House, get away from your veto game, come to the table. We are trying to move substantive legislation to deal with the priorities of this Congress and the responsibilities of managing this Government. I hope we could pass the CR. I hope we could pass it with the Simpson-Craig amendments. Mr. President, I hope you sign it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator allow me to respond very briefly?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a legal opinion obtained by our assistant majority leader and the majority leader of the other body, from a constitutional expert. This explains why the House-passed Istook-Ehrlich-McIntosh amendment is constitutional. Since the Simpson-Craig amendment is more lenient in its treatment of grantees who lobby, it is even more obviously constitutional.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, many groups who claim to speak for grassroots members or large groups of Americans actually use Federal dollars inappropriately to amplify the voices of a few. Organizations which receive funding, in spite of major lobbying activities, include: The American Association of Retired Persons, who received more than $73 million in a 1-year period; The Environmental Defense Fund, which has benefited from more than $500,000 in taxpayer funding; The World Wildlife Fund, which received $2.6 million in Federal funding between July 1993 and June 1994; The National Council of Senior Citizens, which receives 96 percent of its funding from the Federal Government, to the tune of $71 million in 1 year; Families USA, which received $250,000 from the taxpayers between July 1993 and June 1994, and tried to mobilize last-ditch support for President Clinton's health care plan last year through a nationwide bus tour; The Child Welfare League of America, which received more than $250,000 in Federal funds and launched an ad campaign opposing the Contract With [[Page S 16876]] America's welfare reform bill, saying, ``More children will be killed. More children will be raped.'' Our reforms would prevent Federal subsidies of lobbying by conservative groups, too. It would apply to groups like the National Rifle Association and the Christian Coalition, too, if Congress and the bureaucrats ever were tempted to fund them. dollars are fungible It is already supposed to be illegal to spend Federal funds directly on lobbying the Federal Government. However, organizations still can draw on a combined pool of vast amounts of private and public money. Having many pipelines into one pool still allows a group to use the entire pool in such a way that it maximizes its lobbying muscle. Federal money can supplant other funding to other activities that still support lobbying, such as overhead and travel. This means the Federal Government is indirectly subsidizing millions of dollars of lobbying by special interest groups each year. All the groups need to accomplish this is creative accounting. Our amendments simply would not allow both activities to continue within the same organization. We need to prevent Federal funding from indirectly subsidizing lobbying activities by being used to free up other funds, and, as recognized in the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendment, prevent one organization, like a 501(c)(3), from being able to pass through, essentially to launder, the money through to another organization, like a 501(c)(4). Our amendments would not prohibit an organization from conducting educational or charitable operations under 501(c)(3) status and conducting lobbying through a related, but completely separate, independently financed, 501(c)(4) organization. The key here is to ensure the total separation of funds, with an impenetrable wall between taxpayers' dollars and dollars for private- interest lobbying and political advocacy. real lobbying reform In July, the Senate recognized that this kind of amendment is about-- real lobbying reform, integrity in the grant, loan, and award process, and clean government, and good government. Congress and the public have been correctly focused on lobbyist and gifts to legislators. We also need to do something about Government's gifts to lobbyists. There has been a growing phenomenon of more and more Federal tax dollars going to advocacy groups, which then allows them to use these taxpayer dollars to argue their maybe very narrow point of view. Federal grants to private grantees now totals an estimated $39 billion, with no effective accountability. This contrasts with the way that Congress has enacted a complex set of controls to make sure contractors can not use contract proceeds for improper purposes. This practice of sending billions of fungible dollars into the coffers of lobbying groups undermines the people's confidence in their government. Balancing the Budget This reform is a good place to look for help in balancing the budget. With nearly a $5 trillion debt, a $200 billion deficit, and the very real concern that this year for the first time this Congress is going to establish increasingly narrow and tighter public priorities as to where taxpayer dollars get spent, it is high time we do the same in this area. Free Speech I opened with a discussion of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution. Opponents of our reforms have tried to use the first amendment against us. Their arguments simply don't hold up. We should never restrict the right of the citizen, or the group, or the organization to be an advocate before their Government. At the same time, the Government is under no obligation to promote, and should not be subsidizing, directly or indirectly, their activity as an advocacy group. There is a difference between free speech and sponsorship. The American people have a clear, intuitive understanding of that difference. Unfortunately, too many Members of Congress, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and special interest groups have lost that understanding. These proposals seek to restore that distinction. As a matter of fundamental rights and constitutional law, we want to protect free speech. Lobbying and political advocacy are speech. But we are under no obligation at all to subsidize anyone's lobbying or political agenda. No one reveres the personal liberties of the Bill of Rights more than the two Senators standing before you today. One of the most impressive accomplishments of the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich team is that they had their proposal thoroughly reviewed by constitutional scholars. We are comfortable that our reforms not only are consistent with the first amendment--they would promote first amendment principles. Conclusion I am optimistic that we will make progress, and ultimately enact legislation, in this area. The time is right, the supporters are dedicated, and, most importantly of all, critical principles of good government are at stake. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some research information that shows that over 70 percent of the American people agree with us on the Simpson-Craig amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I believe it is important to explain the important principles underlying this effort. I am pleased to have been working with my colleague--and my good friend--the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], to try and craft a consensus proposal in this area. This is one of the most important efforts going on in the 104th Congress. This is a truly critical issue. This effort already is known by various names: ``Ending Welfare to Lobbyist,'' ``Advocacy and Lobbyist Reform,'' ``Defunding Political Advocacy,'' ``Prohibiting Grants for Political Activity,'' and a ``Taxpayers Declaration of Independence from the Special Interests,'' among others. It's been joked that the hype used in describing any given issue is inversely proportional to its true importance. That is not the case with today's topic. In terms of forcing the Government to focus on its true and proper constitutional purposes, this effort may be second only in importance to passage of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Both of those efforts remain work-in-progress at this point. jeffersonian principles Earlier this year, the Senate, by a single vote, put on hold the most important legislation to come before it in decades, the balanced budget amendment. Speaking to that very idea 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson said, if ``it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution * * * '' he wanted that to be an article ``taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.'' As timely as today's newspaper, Jefferson anticipated the Simpson- Craig and Istook-Ehrlich-McIntosh amendments when he said: To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. I want to make a distinction here: Sometimes, the Government uses tax dollars for actions that someone may disagree with. That's the nature of majority rule and the nature of decisionmaking in a republic. But it's a totally different thing to confiscate tax dollars from one person and use them to subsidize the lobbying and political advocacy on behalf of someone else's private-interest views. I am not alone in believing that this practice flies in the face of the first amendment. The Supreme Court in its Beck decision said as much when it prohibited unions from using agency fees from nonmembers to pay for political activities. [[Page S 16875]] general principles Both the Simpson-Craig and the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich initiatives are efforts to enact a badly-needed taxpayers declaration of independence from the special interests. They both serve the same set of general principles: Public money should be spent on the public interest, and not on the political agendas of special interests. The Government should not give special interests money to pay for lobbying for more money. Taxpayers should not be compelled to fund special interest lobbying that is against their own interests. To force them to do so really does amount to a violation of their first amendment rights. Our efforts are about ensuring Government integrity and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. This is not an issue of left-versus-right: It's about rules that should apply across the board. Left, right, and center, service or social organizations, they'd simply have to decide: Take the taxpayers money or lobby the taxpayers representatives--but you can't do both. To do both is a conflict of interest. Our goal simply is to erect a solid wall between lobbying and advocacy activities, on the one hand, and other activities funded in whole or in part by the taxpayers, on the other hand. legislative status Very briefly, here's what the action on this issue has been in recent weeks, and where it's headed: Senate Action: On July 24, the Senate adopted, 59-37, the Simpson- Craig amendment to the lobbying reform bill, S. 1060. That amendment would prohibit Federal funds going to nonprofit groups covered by Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) that engage in lobbying activities. On August 5, the Senate adopted, by voice vote, the Simpson-Craig amendment to Treasury-Postal appropriations H.R. 2020, which was modified: Instead of all Federal funds, the prohibition extended only to awards, grants, loans; the effective date was set at January 1, 1997; and groups with gross annual revenues less than $10 million were exempted. While watered down, the August 5 amendment put the Senate on record on a second vehicle in favor of the principle that fungible Government funds should not be used directly or indirectly to subsidize interest group lobbying, and prompted consideration of this issue in the Treasury-Postal appropriations conference committee, an appropriate venue because of its coverage of general Government activities. Frankly, I would not have supported these modifications to our amendment if I thought this were the final product. I saw it, and I believe Alan Simpson saw it, as our way to raise the issue on one of the legislative vehicles most likely to become law this year. House Action: On August 3, the House rejected, 187-232, an amendment to strike the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich language in the Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill, H.R. 2127. The reform language prohibits Federal grants to any groups including both nonprofit and for-profits, that engage in lobbying or political advocacy; pass-through funding to related groups is also covered; groups are exempt if they spend less than 5 percent of their first $20 million of non-Federal revenues and 1 percent of additional revenues on lobbying or advocacy. current status House conferees sought to incorporate the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendment into the Treasury-Postal conference report. Alan Simpson and I have been working with the House principals to try and forge the strongest possible combination of the best of both of the Senate and House provisions. Sixty Republicans House Members sent a letter to the Speaker saying they will oppose the Treasury-Postal conference report unless the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendment is included. In the Senate we sent a letter, with 25 cosignors, to urge the Treasury-Postal conferees to consider the full range of issues addressed by both versions and to blend the Simpson-Craig and Istook- McIntosh-Ehrlich amendments into the strongest possible combination. Twenty-five Senators last month wrote the Senate conferees on the Treasury-Postal appropriation bill urging they support the strongest possible language that reflects the best of both the Simpson-Craig and the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendments. Unfortunately, that conference deadlocked. That's one reason we are here today, debating this amendment. Another reason is that both the Senate and House have voted for these principles twice, by significant majorities. We are just trying to work out the details of the precise language. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, a few moments ago a Senator speaking said we are trying to gag the nonprofits. How clearly can I make myself to say no, no, no, it ain't true. This is the for-profits, too. These are the organizations that both lobby and receive grants and are for profit. They are included now. This is a matter of reporting. This is a matter of choice. This is a matter of establishing your priorities of what you are. This is not about gagging. Are we gagging the 501(c)(3)'s? They do not believe so, because they are doing what they are supposed to do under the law. That is all we are establishing here is a priority and a criteria that we have already established in a variety of areas in the IRS Code of our country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. If there is an organization that feels they are being gagged, I might suggest that that organization is misusing the current law and find themselves embarrassed because they got caught misusing the Federal dollar. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Small Business hold a joint hearing with the House Committee on Small Business regarding ``Railroad Consolidation: Small Business Concerns'' on Wednesday, November 8, 1995, at 2 p.m., in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, be permitted to meet during a session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 8, 1995, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing on oversight of the courthouse construction program.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for an executive session, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 8, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

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 Wednesday, November 8, 1995, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing on mandatory victim restitution.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today Senators Johnston, Kempthorne, and I are introducing legislation to expedite the opening of the waste isolation pilot plant. This legislation removes unnecessary and delaying bureaucratic requirements, achieves a major environmental objective, saves the taxpayers money and, most significantly for the Nation and Idaho, begins the process of successfully cleaning up and decommissioning the nuclear weapons complexes and temporary storage facilities. The waste isolation pilot plant is located in southeast New Mexico. It is truly a unique project. Its specific purpose is to provide for the safe disposal of transuranic radioactive and mixed waste resulting from defense activities and programs of the U.S. Government. The importance of WIPP, however, extends beyond its stated mission. Idaho currently stores the largest amount of transuranic waste of any State in the Union, but Idaho is not alone as a waste storage State. Washington, Colorado, South Carolina, and New Mexico also have large amounts of transuranic waste in temporary storage. Until the WIPP opens, little can be done to clean up and close these temporary storage sites. The agreement recently negotiated between the State of Idaho, the DOE, and the U.S. Navy, states that transuranic waste currently located in Idaho will begin to be shipped to WIPP by April 30, 1999. This legislation will assure this commitment is fulfilled. We cannot solve the environmental problems at sites such as Idaho's National Engineering Laboratory, or Rocky Flats Weapons Facility, or Savannah River, or others, without this facility in New Mexico. The reason is [[Page S 16823]] obvious, Madam President. Without a place to dispose of the waste, cleanup is impossible. Without cleanup, further decommissioning cannot occur. The goal of this bill is simple: To deliver on Congress' longstanding commitment and open the WIPP facility by 1998. This bill amends the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Withdrawal Act of 1992 in several very important and significant ways. It deletes obsolete language of the 1992 act. Of particular importance is the reference and requirements for test-phase activities. Since the enactment of the 1992 act, the Department of Energy has abandoned the test phase that called for underground testing in favor of aboveground laboratory test programs. Thus, the test phase no longer exists, as defined in the 1992 law, and needs to be removed so it does not complicate the ongoing WIPP process. Most important, this bill will streamline the process, remove duplicative regulations, save taxpayers dollars--repeat, save taxpayers dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars--and have the following effects: The existing law contains a 180-day waiting period between the time the Secretary of Energy makes a decision to operate the WIPP and the actual commencement of disposal operations. My bill eliminates this waiting period. The 180 days constitutes an unnecessary delay. Eliminating 180 days saves $140 million or more in operational expenses during the waiting period and will start the removal of this type of waste from the aboveground storage in Idaho and other affected States 6 months earlier than now scheduled. The bill requires the Secretary of Energy to determine if engineered or natural barriers in the facility are necessary. This change is consistent with the concept of allowing actions at the WIPP to be based on the technical needs of the WIPP. Section 7, ``Compliance With Environmental Laws and Regulations,'' will streamline DOE's compliance with applicable environmental laws. In other words, Madam President, we are not stepping aside from the current environmental commitment. We are assuring that all of it is met, but that it is met on time and under standard. Section 8 repeals the retrievability requirement which was an outgrowth of below-ground testing. With the replacement of the test phase by laboratory testing, retrievability no longer is needed. All tests are now performed in the laboratory and no transuranic waste is used in testing at the WIPP. The bill deletes the need for a decommissioning plan which is a duplicative and costly legislative mandate. This plan is covered by the disposal standards of the Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 and thus is not needed. It deletes the requirement for a no-mitigation determination. In a letter to Senator Kempthorne and me dated September 8, 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency started that a no-mitigation variance is duplicative because the WIPP is held by the other statutes to a higher standard. EPA states, ``A demonstration of nonmitigation of hazardous constituents will not be necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment.'' Despite this view, EPA further states that unless the current law is amended, the WIPP will be forced to comply with the no-mitigation standards. This unnecessary duplication would be time consuming and costly. It allows the Secretary of Energy to dispose of a small amount of nondefense transuranic waste in the WIPP. In my opinion, this is a cost effective and safe way to dispose of a relatively minor amount of waste. But just as important, I would like to make clear what my bill does not do. This bill does not remove EPA as the DOE regulator of the WIPP. DOE has stated numerous times that it does not want to self-regulate. The Department believes that having EPA as the regular will instill additional public confidence in the certification process and the facility itself, once it opens. I am skeptical regarding EPA. EPA has a poor record of meeting deadlines. The WIPP, as a facility, is ready to operate now and is basically waiting on EPA's final approval. The schedule DOE has established to meet the opening dates is an aggressive but not entirely workable timetable. It is aggressive only if EPA can accomplish its tasks on time. Because of EPA's demonstrated inability to meet schedules and to avoid imposing unnecessary large financial burdens on the taxpayer, there is a strong sentiment in the Congress to remove EPA from the WIPP regulatory role. Based on assurances made to me by the EPA, my bill does not follow this course. However, if EPA again falters, I will have to reconsider this position in future legislation. Idaho and the Nation need to have the WIPP opened sooner rather than later. Each day of delay is costly, and the potential dangers to the environment and human health resulting from the temporary storage of this waste continue. It is time to act. We must, if we are to clean up sites such as Idaho's. We must act to dispose of this task permanently and safety for future generations. This bill clears the way for action. I encourage my colleagues to become cosponsors of this legislation. We hope to move it expeditiously through the necessary committee and hearing process so that it can become law.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of S. 1402 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') (Mr. BENNETT assumed the chair.)

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there are very few issues that provoke the kind of passionate debate abortion policy continues to provoke. It's unfortunate the debate has deteriorated into pro-choice and pro-life labels because, in reality, it is a hugely significant conflict over when life begins and what life comprises. That's perhaps why it divides people along unpredictable lines; even in my State of Idaho, people of like political beliefs can take different positions on this issue. I mention this because today we are dealing with an aspect of the abortion issue that even causes divisions among those who generally find abortion acceptable. What we saw in the House of Representatives just a few days ago demonstrated this. The overwhelming vote in support of the bill included many who usually identify themselves as pro- choice. Let me repeat that: Even those who accept abortion found this particular procedure so objectionable they voted in favor of banning it. A ban is an extraordinary step for Congress to take--but then, this is an extreme and hideous abortion procedure. We've heard it described in detail; we've seen diagrams that those performing this procedure have certified to be accurate. And Mr. President, I have seen strong men and women look away, to avoid dealing with the reality of this procedure. I urge any of my colleagues who have reservations about this bill to take the time to understand exactly what's involved. Then you will understand why even abortion proponents draw the line here. To put it simply, we're talking about causing and then stopping a delivery, to kill a baby mere inches and seconds before he or she is protected by our laws as a living human being. Some would like to defend this procedure by claiming it is only used when the life of the mother is at stake or when the baby is shown to have genetic deformities. However, the testimony from those who perform these late-term abortions contradicts these arguments. Even Dr. Martin Haskell, who originated the technique, estimated as many as 80 percent of the procedures he performed were elective, not for genetic or life- saving reasons. It's important to note that this bill contains an exception for situations in which the life of the mother truly is at stake and no other procedure can save it. Those who are honestly worried about this issue should be reassured. But it's also important to note that this procedure is hardly risk-free to the mother; medical professionals agree it poses dangers to both the lives and the future reproductive health of the women involved. Mr. President, we all are thankful for today's life-saving advances in medical technology. It's appalling to think this particular procedure twists those advances in a legalistic game, with a human life in the balance. In closing, I urge all my colleagues not to let political labels blind them to the facts. This radical, barbaric procedure goes much too far. Let's draw the line here, now, and pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.