Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Hocking brothers from Idaho who served together courageously during World War II. They were a family of 10 children, 4 girls and 6 boys, and lived in Moore, ID in 1929. In 1935 they moved to Mackay, ID. Mackay was considered home for all of them. Presently, one brother lives in each of the following Idaho cities or towns: Mackay, Arco, Blackfoot, Lewiston, and Deary. All of the brothers who are able are active fishermen and hunters. Two sisters and the oldest are now deceased. The oldest brother Pat Hocking, was not in the service as he had five children and worked at the Naval Gun Rellning Plant in Arco, ID. The remaining five brothers served in one branch or another of the military service. Jean Hocking was drafted before the war and was stationed for 38 months of continuous service in Kodiak, AK in the U.S. Army Coast Guard Artillery and the U.S. Army Ski Troopers from 1941 to 1945. He was one of the very first men drafted from Custer County. Jean's camp was located on a mountain and everything had to be hauled up the mountain by hand. Jean's commanding officer was so disciplined that Jean did not have even 1 day off while he was there. He was always on alert or patrol. One day they were on patrol skiing down the mountain when Jean's ski tip got stuck in the snow toward the bottom of the mountain that he suffered a broken leg. He was so afraid of his commanding officer that he did not seek treatment and hobbled around on his broken leg. Jean was given a military disability and was in Walter Reed Hospital for 6 months after his discharge. Clayton Hocking served in the U.S. Army Air Corps 9th Engineering Squadron S.A.C. from 1942 to 1967. He served all over the Pacific and retired as a well-decorated staff sergeant. Clayton received a Phillipine Liberation Medal with one Bronze Service Star, a Good Conduct Medal, a World War II Victory Medal, and an Asiatic Pacific Medal. He is currently in a rest home in Arco, ID. Frank Hocking served in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marines from 1942 to 1945. Frank served both the Navy and the Marines as the Marines had no medical corps. So the Navy furnished the Marines with a Medical Corps. The first place Frank was shipped to overseas was to New Caledonia. While there Frank went to town one day. As he was walking down the street, he literally ran into his brother Clayton. Frank had not seen Clayton since joining, and had no idea where Clayton was stationed. Frank and Clayton were able to visit each others camps while there. After leaving New Caledonia, Frank went to New Zealand where he joined the Second Marine Division and trained before the battle of Tarawa. He was on the first wave who landed on Tarawa in the Gilbert Islands of the South Pacific. The Marines were told they had to take the well-fortified Japanese defenses of the island in 6 hours or they wouldn't be able to take it. It took them 4 days to take the island. The battle cost 1,000 Marines lives and 2,300 men were wounded. Japanese losses totaled about 8,500. The taking of the island of Saipan of the Marianas Islands was another major battle. Frank was one of the original two Marine divisions that tried to take the island from the 30,000 Japanese defenders. Frank was on the island from June 15 to July 7 when the remaining Japanese resistance tried the largest suicidal counterattack in the war. The loss of Saipan was so devastating to the Japanese that Prime Minister Tojo Hideki and his entire cabinet resigned after word of the defeat reached them. Bill Hocking served in the 20th Air Force Division on Guam of the South Pacific from 1944 to 1946. He was the first aerial gunner on a B- 17. Later, he became a belly gunner on the B-29's. The most memorable event in Bill's military career happened when three B-29 planes were flying in formation when Bill's B-29 caught on fire. He and the whole crew were forced to bail out into the ocean between Guam and Tokyo. When he bailed out, he just about drowned when he got so tangled in his parachute shroud that he couldn't even upright his one-man life raft. He had to lay there holding on to his upside down raft. When he finally got into the raft, he couldn't see any of the rest of the crew as they were all scattered. One guy in the crew happened to have a whistle and he kept blowing it. They all paddled toward the sound and that is how they all got back together. They were always concerned about sharks so they used shark repellent. The crew was adrift for 3 days before being picked up by the ship. That episode made Bill a member of the Caterpillar Club. A patch was given as special recognition for surviving a bail out. Glen Hocking served in the 90th Naval Construction Battalion Combat Fleet Action from 1945 to 1946. Glen was 17 years old when he enlisted to follow in his older brothers' footsteps. He was told that his outfit was training to invade Japan. They were on their way to Japan when the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. He saw all the devastation over there. He was there for 9 months occupation duty. Glen came away from service with the Asiatic Pacific Area Campaign Medal and World War II Victory Medal. These five brothers all came home alive, but still felt the sacrifices of war. Two of their cousins did not make it home. There were killed in the line of duty. This is one of the many family stories that make up the heroism and valor that led the United States and our allies to victory in World War II. The five Hocking brothers fell very blessed and lucky to have all come home. We are very blessed that they and many others were there to serve their country and to fight for democracy and the freedom all Americans hold dearly.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 17, 1995, at 3 p.m. to hold a closed conference with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the fiscal year 1996 intelligence authorization bill.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 17, 1995, at 2 p.m.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 17, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on United States policy on Bosnia and the use of United States military forces to implement a peace agreement.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community Development of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 17, 1995, to conduct a hearing on Low Income Housing Preservation Reform.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 17, 1995 at 10 a.m., in the Senate Dirksen Building room 226, to hold a hearing on Conserving Judicial Resources: The Caseload of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Appropriate Allocation of Judgeships.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management to receive testimony from [[Page S 15258]] academicians and State and local officials on alternatives to Federal forest land management. Testimony will also be sought comparing land management cost and benefits on Federal and State lands. The hearing will take place Thursday, October 26, 1995, at 9 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or 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 Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Some of my constituents have raised questions as to whether this legislation will unleash a wave of thousands of lawsuits tying up our courts and establishing, in effect, a new Cuban claims program for Cuban-Americans to the detriment of certified claimants. Are these fears, in any way, justified?

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand this afternoon in support of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995. This is the next step in a long road leading toward releasing Castro's dictatorial ties that have bound the people of Cuba for so many years. This legislation includes a number of provisions which would strengthen international sanctions against the Castro government in Cuba, develop a plan to support a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba, and enact provisions addressing the unauthorized use of United States citizen-owned property confiscated by the Castro government. I agree with the intent of this legislation, which is to help bring freedom and democracy to Cuba. Mr. President, Libertad is a comprehensive bill designed to increase the pressure on Fidel Castro and bring about fundamental political and economic reforms. This is not a case of Americans forcing a solution on Cuba. Instead, it is Cubans who are crying for this assistance to which we are responding. It is my understanding that 47 dissident leaders who are currently inside Cuba have, at great personal risk, publicly endorsed the Helms bill. This support came in a letter sent to the chairman from Havana and organized by dissident leader Elizardo Sampedro Marin of the Democratic Solidarity Party. The letter reiterates the need to not only maintain but strengthen the current embargo, and the letter states: The economic embargo maintained by subsequent administrations has begun to make its effects felt not against the people, but against those who cling to power. Those effects are felt after the downfall of the socialist camp, which forced the Havana regime to improvise economic moves, waiting for the miracle to pull them out of a very difficult situation. Mr. President, those who are inside fighting for freedom and democracy in Cuba support the efforts of this legislation and see it as the best path toward democracy for Cuba. In addition, we should address Castro's needs for hard currency to continue to prop up his dictatorship. It is my understanding that a number of press reports indicate that the mere existence of this legislation and pending passage have had an impact on Castro's efforts to generate that hard currency. His efforts to tempt foreign investors into Cuba by auctioning off properties that were illegally confiscated without compensation from Americans must be curtailed. To assist the Cuban people to regain their freedom and prosperity is the first goal of this legislation. The second is to strengthen international sanctions against Cuba. The [[Page S 15102]] third is, this bill should provide for the national security of the United States. Fourth is, to encourage free and fair elections in Cuba. Fifth is, to provide a policy framework for United States support to the Cuban people during a transition to democracy. Sixth is, to protect American nationals against confiscatory taking and unauthorized use of their confiscated property. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of debate on title III of this bill, and, certainly, I have had my own concerns as well. However, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman. He has worked hard at offering this bill and clarifying the intent of the legislation to ensure that certified claimants have priority in all events to assets of the Cuban Government in settling property claims. In closing, I just add that we must not lose sight of the overall intent of this legislation. Embracing Fidel Castro at this time is not going to lead to freedom and democracy in Cuba. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will support this very important piece of legislation that Chairman Helms and the committee have labored long and hard at providing. Would the Senator from North Carolina entertain a question?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will not object. How much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. CRAIG. No objection.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I want to thank the chairman, the Senator from Kansas, for her help and support in arriving at a final form of the performance measurement amendment that I am offering today. I understand and I think we heard the chairman just mention that both sides have cleared this, and I do appreciate the work of both the chair and the ranking member on agreeing to this amendment and working with us to get it to the form necessary for that agreement. This amendment embodies a simple, commonsense principle but one that is often lacking in many of our Federal programs. I refer to the idea that when we have a program, we should study what we are doing to determine whether it works and, most importantly, how well it works. This amendment simply would require that each State receiving an allotment under section 102 report on how it is performing on State benchmarks and on status and results of evaluations measuring the impact of job training programs on the wages of the individuals receiving the job training services. The need for and the benefits of such an evaluation process were brought home to me by the outstanding work already being done in this area by the Southwest Idaho Private Industry Council. The folks at the Southwest Idaho PIC have visited with my staff and me frequently and have prepared an impressive array of information measuring the effectiveness of the PIC's programs. Specifically, the Southwest Idaho PIC regularly computes, among other figures, a return on investment. Now, that is a very unique concept when we think of Federal programs. But this shows various ways that the clients of the PIC are repaying their entire investment made in their training program. Currently, the average graduate each earns enough, after just 13 months in the work force, to repay in Federal taxes the entire Federal share investment of his or her training. Mr. President, if every federally funded job training provider across the country had to compute a return on investment, or similar measure of its performance, based on objective, empirical research data, we would see the best of both worlds. And in Idaho, with the training program of the Private Industry Council, we are beginning to realize that. More importantly, they are able to fine-tune their program to get the highest yield; and, in this instance, the highest yield very simply means a better-trained person, who comes to the job market more prepared and, as a result, is able to perform not only to their own satisfaction, but in a business sense, it returns to the taxpayer the kind of investment all of us strive for in job training programs. We need to build a body of evidence on the true effectiveness of job training programs. Very few programs have ever been subjected to rigorous and scientific evaluation. We have the opportunity, with this amendment, to debate results, rather than mere hopes. As a Department of Labor report already has pointed out, ``there are many areas where little thorough and reliable evaluation evidence is available.'' It is our intent with this amendment to compare the results for served clients with data from control groups--that is, unserved persons. Evaluations would be valid and reliable, and conducted through controlled experiments. I stress the importance of comparing applies with apples--the control group should be identical to the served group in every way except for the provision of the job training services. This is the essence of scientific studies of this sort. Therefore, it is my understanding and intent that this amendment require that the demographic characteristics in each group be proportional to the characteristics in the other. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their consideration. I urge adoption of this very simple and practical amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill that is due for its second reading.

Mr. CRAIG. I would object to further consideration of the bill at this time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of S. 1271 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am joining with other Senators, and the Presiding Officer in introducing legislation that will, I hope-- after many years of failure--finally provide for the timely storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste from the Nation's defense program and commercial nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1995 creates an integrated system that will ensure construction of an interim storage facility and permanent repository to manage the legacy of America's great defense force, including spent fuel from the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet of aircraft carriers and submarines, currently stored in my State of Idaho, as well as components from dismantled nuclear weapons and commercial spent fuel from about 73 sites in more than 34 States. Mr. President, transferring nuclear waste from the many defense and commercial nuclear sites to a single Federal facility beginning in 1998 was the intent of Congress when it passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Unbelievably, we are only 3 years from the date when the Energy Department is obligated to begin accepting this radioactive waste, and the DOE is still studying a site in Nevada to determine if it is a suitable location for a deep geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste. Because of endless bureaucratic delays that have plunged the program into tremendous loss of time, the Federal Government now says it will not have a repository operating until 2010, at the earliest, and probably several years thereafter. That is 12 years after the Federal Government is contractually obligated to take title to spent fuel from civilian power plants and more than 10 years after the people of Idaho were first promised that high-level waste stored at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory would be moved to a permanent repository. Mr. President, you and I know INEL has now managed spent nuclear fuel from Navy warships for more than 30 years. More recently, it has also become the resting place for spent fuel and other radioactive components from the Three Mile Island incident. Like many nuclear facilities across the country, INEL has served the Federal Government and the citizens of America well. But now, the Federal Government must accept its responsibility under law to take nuclear waste to a facility licensed by an independent regulator where it can be managed safely and economically. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing with you authorizes construction of a federally-licensed facility on the Nevada test site near Yucca Mountain to store spent Navy fuel from Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and other defense facilities and spent fuel currently stored at commercial nuclear power plants from Maine to California. The bill instructs the Federal Government to begin operation of an interim storage facility in 1998 so that high-level radioactive materials can be transferred to the test site, where it can be more easily managed. Transferring nuclear materials from sites around the country to a single facility holds several advantages over the current system. First, because the interim storage facility provided in my [[Page S 14205]] bill will be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ensuring safe storage of all materials. Second, a single site will be far more economical to maintain and keep secure. Finally, the storage site designated in my bill is close to Yucca Mountain, the likely site of a permanent repository for high-level waste. Mr. President, though some will surely disagree with our approach, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that Yucca will eventually be judged as suitable for a permanent repository. Nor do I think that establishing a storage site near the mountain compromises the integrity of the scientific studies currently ongoing. It is important to recall that scientists and engineers at Yucca Mountain have conducted the most thorough and comprehensive geological survey ever undertaken on any piece of earth. After $5 billion in expenditures, the scientists have found no reason why the site would not be suitable for a permanent. nuclear waste repository. Moreover, the bill I am introducing today ensures that research at Yucca Mountain will continue during construction and operation of an interim storage facility. Mr. President, the bill I introduce today is similar to legislation (H.R. 1020) that passed the House Commerce Committees 30-4 on August 2. My bill includes the following provisions that reform the Federal Government's spent fuel management program in these critical areas: The bill reaffirms the Federal Government's responsibility to begin accepting waste from defense and commercial nuclear facilities in 1998. It authorizes construction of an interim storage facility in two phases with date-certain schedules. Phase one will allow acceptance of up to 20,000 metric tons of uranium, including defense program waste, and phase two permits up to 100,000 metric tons. It authorizes the Energy Department to develop a transportation system to safely move spent fuel from America's defense and commercial nuclear facilities to this single storage site. It authorizes continued development of a permanent repository program according to DOE's 1994 program approach. It requires the Energy Department to take title to spend nuclear fuel at plant sites and to operate a transportation system from a contract holder's designated site(s) to a Federal interim storage facility. The Federal Department of Energy must purchase transportable storage containers, taking advantage of technologies available in the marketplace. Defense spent fuel must be transferred to containers that can be used at a storage facility licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Funding priorities for the Energy Department's program should be: First, interim storage and a related transportation system; second, construction of a railroad spur in Nevada from existing rail lines to the interim storage facility; and third, scientific study for a repository location. Mr. President, the principle difference between the House bill and my bill revolves around future funding for civilian spent fuel management. The House committee voted to change current law which has resulted in the Federal Government collecting more than $11 billion from utilities and their ratepayers over the last 13 years, while spending less than half of that amount for the purpose it was intended to be spent for; that is, building a nuclear waste repository. The rest of the money, more than $5 billion, has been used to finance our deficit spending habit. The House bill ensures that in future years appropriations in any given year will equal contributions from ratepayers. If Congress votes to reduce funding for the program, collections from utilities and ratepayers will be similarly reduced. My bill retains the current funding mechanism for the DOE program. I hope as we proceed in the Senate, however, that we will take a close look at the House funding provision or something similar to help ensure that Congress once and for all moves toward ending the practice of collecting funds for specific purposes and then using them to help balance our out of balance budget. Mr. President, this legislation will solve an important issue for the citizens of Idaho, and, frankly, for all Americans. The question of how best to manage spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials has been considered for most of my lifetime, certainly all of my career here in Washington. There is no question that centralized storage and disposal in a remote location is better than leaving nuclear waste scattered across the United States at multiple of sites. It is time to implement a centralized storage program and to develop the solution that protects public health and safety and the environment and future generations. A dozen years ago, the Federal Government signed contracts with utilities and agreed to take title to and dispose of used nuclear fuel by 1998. Now it is time for the Federal Government to live up to its commitment to these consumers and to the residents of States like mine who have played an essential role in managing the waste from the Nation's nuclear defense program. Mr. President, there is widespread support for these principles among State Governors, attorneys general, utility regulators and more than 180 Members from both sides of the aisle in the House of Representatives, which is considering similar legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to manage the Nation's nuclear waste in an integrated, sensible fashion and to demonstrate to the American people that the Federal Government can honor its commitments. The United States has benefited from the many uses of nuclear materials, whether as a deterrent to global conflict or nuclear fuel that is used to generate electricity in the manners that were environmentally sound and did not create air pollution. Our generation has benefited enormously from these diverse uses. We have enjoyed peace, economic prosperity and a clearer environment. Now, our generation must finally take responsibility to properly manage spent fuel from the defense program and from more than 110 commercial nuclear powerplants. I am pleased that Senators Faircloth, Hollings, Kempthorne,--as I already mentioned--Kyl and Smith, are joining me as cosponsors. I will work to assure this bill moves through Congress in a timely fashion.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am joining with other Senators, and the Presiding Officer in introducing legislation that will, I hope-- after many years of failure--finally provide for the timely storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste from the Nation's defense program and commercial nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1995 creates an integrated system that will ensure construction of an interim storage facility and permanent repository to manage the legacy of America's great defense force, including spent fuel from the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet of aircraft carriers and submarines, currently stored in my State of Idaho, as well as components from dismantled nuclear weapons and commercial spent fuel from about 73 sites in more than 34 States. Mr. President, transferring nuclear waste from the many defense and commercial nuclear sites to a single Federal facility beginning in 1998 was the intent of Congress when it passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Unbelievably, we are only 3 years from the date when the Energy Department is obligated to begin accepting this radioactive waste, and the DOE is still studying a site in Nevada to determine if it is a suitable location for a deep geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste. Because of endless bureaucratic delays that have plunged the program into tremendous loss of time, the Federal Government now says it will not have a repository operating until 2010, at the earliest, and probably several years thereafter. That is 12 years after the Federal Government is contractually obligated to take title to spent fuel from civilian power plants and more than 10 years after the people of Idaho were first promised that high-level waste stored at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory would be moved to a permanent repository. Mr. President, you and I know INEL has now managed spent nuclear fuel from Navy warships for more than 30 years. More recently, it has also become the resting place for spent fuel and other radioactive components from the Three Mile Island incident. Like many nuclear facilities across the country, INEL has served the Federal Government and the citizens of America well. But now, the Federal Government must accept its responsibility under law to take nuclear waste to a facility licensed by an independent regulator where it can be managed safely and economically. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing with you authorizes construction of a federally-licensed facility on the Nevada test site near Yucca Mountain to store spent Navy fuel from Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and other defense facilities and spent fuel currently stored at commercial nuclear power plants from Maine to California. The bill instructs the Federal Government to begin operation of an interim storage facility in 1998 so that high-level radioactive materials can be transferred to the test site, where it can be more easily managed. Transferring nuclear materials from sites around the country to a single facility holds several advantages over the current system. First, because the interim storage facility provided in my [[Page S 14205]] bill will be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ensuring safe storage of all materials. Second, a single site will be far more economical to maintain and keep secure. Finally, the storage site designated in my bill is close to Yucca Mountain, the likely site of a permanent repository for high-level waste. Mr. President, though some will surely disagree with our approach, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that Yucca will eventually be judged as suitable for a permanent repository. Nor do I think that establishing a storage site near the mountain compromises the integrity of the scientific studies currently ongoing. It is important to recall that scientists and engineers at Yucca Mountain have conducted the most thorough and comprehensive geological survey ever undertaken on any piece of earth. After $5 billion in expenditures, the scientists have found no reason why the site would not be suitable for a permanent. nuclear waste repository. Moreover, the bill I am introducing today ensures that research at Yucca Mountain will continue during construction and operation of an interim storage facility. Mr. President, the bill I introduce today is similar to legislation (H.R. 1020) that passed the House Commerce Committees 30-4 on August 2. My bill includes the following provisions that reform the Federal Government's spent fuel management program in these critical areas: The bill reaffirms the Federal Government's responsibility to begin accepting waste from defense and commercial nuclear facilities in 1998. It authorizes construction of an interim storage facility in two phases with date-certain schedules. Phase one will allow acceptance of up to 20,000 metric tons of uranium, including defense program waste, and phase two permits up to 100,000 metric tons. It authorizes the Energy Department to develop a transportation system to safely move spent fuel from America's defense and commercial nuclear facilities to this single storage site. It authorizes continued development of a permanent repository program according to DOE's 1994 program approach. It requires the Energy Department to take title to spend nuclear fuel at plant sites and to operate a transportation system from a contract holder's designated site(s) to a Federal interim storage facility. The Federal Department of Energy must purchase transportable storage containers, taking advantage of technologies available in the marketplace. Defense spent fuel must be transferred to containers that can be used at a storage facility licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Funding priorities for the Energy Department's program should be: First, interim storage and a related transportation system; second, construction of a railroad spur in Nevada from existing rail lines to the interim storage facility; and third, scientific study for a repository location. Mr. President, the principle difference between the House bill and my bill revolves around future funding for civilian spent fuel management. The House committee voted to change current law which has resulted in the Federal Government collecting more than $11 billion from utilities and their ratepayers over the last 13 years, while spending less than half of that amount for the purpose it was intended to be spent for; that is, building a nuclear waste repository. The rest of the money, more than $5 billion, has been used to finance our deficit spending habit. The House bill ensures that in future years appropriations in any given year will equal contributions from ratepayers. If Congress votes to reduce funding for the program, collections from utilities and ratepayers will be similarly reduced. My bill retains the current funding mechanism for the DOE program. I hope as we proceed in the Senate, however, that we will take a close look at the House funding provision or something similar to help ensure that Congress once and for all moves toward ending the practice of collecting funds for specific purposes and then using them to help balance our out of balance budget. Mr. President, this legislation will solve an important issue for the citizens of Idaho, and, frankly, for all Americans. The question of how best to manage spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials has been considered for most of my lifetime, certainly all of my career here in Washington. There is no question that centralized storage and disposal in a remote location is better than leaving nuclear waste scattered across the United States at multiple of sites. It is time to implement a centralized storage program and to develop the solution that protects public health and safety and the environment and future generations. A dozen years ago, the Federal Government signed contracts with utilities and agreed to take title to and dispose of used nuclear fuel by 1998. Now it is time for the Federal Government to live up to its commitment to these consumers and to the residents of States like mine who have played an essential role in managing the waste from the Nation's nuclear defense program. Mr. President, there is widespread support for these principles among State Governors, attorneys general, utility regulators and more than 180 Members from both sides of the aisle in the House of Representatives, which is considering similar legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to manage the Nation's nuclear waste in an integrated, sensible fashion and to demonstrate to the American people that the Federal Government can honor its commitments. The United States has benefited from the many uses of nuclear materials, whether as a deterrent to global conflict or nuclear fuel that is used to generate electricity in the manners that were environmentally sound and did not create air pollution. Our generation has benefited enormously from these diverse uses. We have enjoyed peace, economic prosperity and a clearer environment. Now, our generation must finally take responsibility to properly manage spent fuel from the defense program and from more than 110 commercial nuclear powerplants. I am pleased that Senators Faircloth, Hollings, Kempthorne,--as I already mentioned--Kyl and Smith, are joining me as cosponsors. I will work to assure this bill moves through Congress in a timely fashion.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a great deal of what the Senator from Arkansas has spoken to this evening is true. He and I do not disagree in the way that policy should be managed. We may disagree on the substance of policy, but I think both he and I respect the process, and we certainly respect the law. The great frustration we have this evening, Mr. President, when we talk about this particular Under Secretary, is his arrogance in ignoring the law. Right after this administration came to power and this Under Secretary took power, he inherited a set of draft regulations that were being formulated as a result of this Congress under Democrat rule having passed an appropriations bill with appeals language. Very specifically, that bill spoke to the kind of appeals language we wanted to see inside the U.S. Forest Service. This Under Secretary ignored that law, ignored the draft regulations, and went in an opposite direction totally. That is why we have this fight on the floor tonight. Amongst other things, he ignored the law. He ignored law that was crafted by a majority Democrat Party of the U.S. Senate. That is the reality we are facing. Try to find a reason to defend this man for his actions and my guess is, you will have difficulty. I would like to add to the Record a letter tonight which speaks to how this Under Secretary has handled his responsibility. This letter is addressed to Michelle Gilbert, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and it says: This letter is to inform you that the Northwest Forest Resource Council will move this week for an order to show cause to hold Jim Lyons in contempt of court. Yes, the judge ruled, but Under Secretary Lyons ignores. That is what we are facing. I would agree with you, we should not be crafting policy in the public courts of this land, but when a member of this administration ignores the law and the court tells him to do something and he continues to ignore it, then one finds it necessary to move for contempt of court. It is beyond my memory that any member of the Bush administration was held in contempt of court. That is why I very reluctantly agree with the Senator from Alaska. This is no way to deal with anyone in Government, but when nothing else can deliver the message to this person, and now he is being held in contempt of court, it is time that this Senate speaks out. Time and time again, he has ignored our actions. I cannot understand why anyone from either side of the aisle would argue in defense of this person when he puts together a Forest Service reorganization plan and begins to implement it and does not even seek our counsel. We have that responsibility to craft public policy. We demanded that he come up here, and that was a bipartisan request. The Senator from Montana is here. The Under Secretary attempted to wipe out a major unit of the Forest Service in that Senator's State. And we said, ``No, that is no way to run this place. Come sit down with us and work out the differences,'' and we finally forced him to do that. That is why the Senator from Alaska, and a good many of us, have thrown our hands in the air and said, ``What are we to do if we write law and it is ignored. This individual is ultimately gutting an organization in a way that makes it incapable of managing the public laws of this land that we have passed?'' So I hope tonight the Senate will uphold the motion of the Senator from Alaska and not vote to table. I yield back the remainder of my time.