Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce. The Permanent Tax Relief for School Construction Act to make permanent the tax benefits we enacted last year relating to private activity bonds for school construction. Last year, we approved a tax bill which had many important provisions. Unfortunately, these provisions only last until the end of 2010. That's a pretty poor way to engineer the tax code. American families and businesses only have nine years to reap the benefits of lower taxes, and right when they are getting used to the current tax code, it will revert to its pre-2001 level. That is simply unfair. In order to plan for the long term, families and businesses need to know that the lower taxes we enacted last year will be permanent. An important part of the tax package that we approved last year was the inclusion of elementary and secondary public education under the private activities for which tax exempt bonds are issued. This provision will make it easier for States and school districts to raise money to build schools. In a State like mine, where there is a pressing need for school construction and not much revenue to fund it, this tax provision is very important. To see it end in 2010 would prevent many necessary facilities from being built. The harm caused by the sunsetting of this tax provision is clearly illustrated by the plight of many of my State's school districts. During may travels throughout Idaho, I visited quite a few schools, many of which were the products of New Deal work projects in the 1930's. These schools are falling part now, though, and school districts have a very difficult time raising the necessary revenue to construct new buildings. Idaho, like many States, is suffering from reduced tax revenue, so aid from the State is just not available to supplement school districts' revenue. Another problem is that it takes a super-majority to pass a levy to raise property taxes to finance school districts, and in quite a few of Idaho's districts, taxpayers are already paying high taxes. In many instances, the revenue isn't there for school districts. We recognized that problem last year and helped out school districts by providing tax incentives for school construction bonds. This type of tax relief is the best way we in Washington can help school districts. Even though we've been increasing the Federal role in education over the past few years, education matters such as school construction are still primarily a local function, as they should be. Every step we take to insert a Federal role into this local authority is a step that must be carefully considered. By providing tax incentives for these local school districts, though, we are not undermining their authority. We are giving them tools to help themselves, and help the children they are serving. Let's make sure that the tax code lets them continue to help these children after 2010, so that no child is ever left behind.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 1 minute.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I was absent yesterday during that most important vote that was cast on S. 2673. Friday morning I spoke to the importance of that legislation and the importance that we move it rapidly. I was extremely pleased that happened. I knew I would be in Idaho yesterday. The Secretary of Energy was with me in Idaho Falls to announce a new mission for our National Laboratory, the INEEL, so I was unable to make that vote. Had I been here, I would certainly have been with the unanimous majority who supported that very important piece of legislation. It is time we restore within the American people confidence that corporate America is doing all it can to manage its affairs appropriately and honestly for the integrity of the stock in which the citizens of our country invest. That is important legislation. I hope we can move quickly now to get it to the President's desk after a conference with the House so that the American people know that it is law, know that there are penalties for the bad actors and the criminal activity that has occurred in certain instances at the corporate level. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4296

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me spend a few minutes talking about the underlying legislation, S. 2673. There has been a great deal of debate over the last good number of days on this issue. I am pleased that we were able to get cloture. It is time we move on to this issue. The American public, a good many stockholders, a good many pension plans, a good many retirement plans are discussing what are we going to do about the meltdown that last occurred in corporate America at the executive level with some key corporations. It is really, in most instances, a crisis of confidence. There are a lot of well-run corporations across America that are publicly held. They have historically observed the prudent rules. Their boards have acted responsibly. But there are bad players. There are big, bad players that have had a dramatic impact on the markets. There is no question that we have to deal with this straight away. When I look at the whole of this issue, it isn't just in the markets where there is a crisis of confidence that Americans share: When you look at 9/11, then Enron, then WorldCom, and, of course, all the scandals that have occurred, and out in the West with the Ninth Circuit suggesting that the Pledge of Allegiance isn't constitutional, put all of that together, and America has to be scratching its head at this moment, asking: Where does all of this take us? Where is that rock of stability that we have come to rely on for so long? I suggest that when we are debating this issue, while this is an issue that has to be dealt with, and we are now moving appropriately, it is one of a combination of factors that is critically important for our country to deal with. One issue we have to deal with is the war on terrorism. The DOD appropriations ought to be the first bill we deal with on the defense side to begin to shore up again this sense of confidence in the American structure. Certainly, protecting our soldiers in the post-9/11 fighting that has gone on in Afghanistan is appropriate, and now, as we search out terrorism around the world, that is critical. The next step I would suggest is the confirming of judges. It is important that we deal with judges. For the judicial system of this country to remain strong, vacancies need to be filled. People should receive their day in court in a timely fashion. That has been one of the hallmarks and the strengths of this country throughout its history, and it ought to be today. Clearly, I hope we appoint judges who will not act as the ones in the Ninth Circuit who suggested that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. I think President Bush has gone a long way in nominating good judges to the Senate. Yet, the politics here in the Senate today is obvious: Withhold as long as you can. Withhold as long as you can. The President spoke the other day on Wall Street relating to corporate accounting. The U.S. Senate is speaking today, as they should. I ask unanimous consent that a commentary by Lawrence Kudlow be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I see Chairman Sarbanes on the floor. It is not often that Lawrence Kudlow praises the chairman, but he did the other day in an op-ed and commentary that he often writes. He talked about the Sarbanes bill and said: Serious Democrats, such as the Senate Banking Committee head Paul Sarbanes and Senate Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Carl Levin, have taken a completely different tact from the business as usual-- I will not repeat the remainder of it. But that ought to be a part of the Record because I think it reflects the spectrum of the thinking on the floor of the U.S. Senate at this moment. Whether you are conservative, moderate, or liberal, we know that we have to regain the confidence of the American investing public and the world investing public, and for that matter, the market systems of our country and in corporate America. As long and as loud as many of us speak about the good corporations out there and how well run they are, the moment another Enron occurs or someone else speaks out about misdealings, that confidence is once again dashed. This legislation moves to create a bright line between, good and bad accounting by separating auditing and consulting services for accountants in public corporations. It requires disclosure of off- balance sheet transactions and other obligations that might affect the corporate financial condition, and it establishes independent auditing boards to oversee corporate accounting. All of those are very critical in creating bright lines of clarity, understanding, confidence, and stronger enforcement of criminal behavior. Someone in my State said the other day: You don't have to strengthen the accounting procedure, Craig. Put the bums in jail. Those are criminal acts. When you knowingly are distorting the financial strength of a company which affects its stock, destroys retirement funds, employee's stock options, and all of that, it is, in fact, a criminal act. Our President has said it. Others have spoken on the floor. But there is a line we have to draw. It is not one of grandstanding for political purposes but doing the right thing, to set in place good public policy that directs the free market system in the appropriate fashion. Do we want to make it so restrictive that decisionmaking in the board room means always looking over their shoulder to see that they have done it exactly right against a Federal law when the marketplace is a dynamic place and laws are static? We know there have to be some static lines attached. There is no doubt about it. Those have to be clear. At the same time, we cannot be so restrictive that we blight the market and send investments outside the United States to the rest of the world. The Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday that everything you are hearing now from Washington is aimed at winning the November elections and not at calming financial markets. I hope this bill is all about calming financial markets. And I believe the majority of this bill does have that goal. Some of rhetoric may not reflect it. But I truly believe the chairman and the ranking member are working in the direction of building a substantive bill that will go to conference, that works out our differences between the House and that goes to the President's desk. I hope the Wall Street Journal is wrong. I hope we refrain from making corporate accountability simply another political exercise. It ought not be. It has not been. It should never be. In Idaho they say: ``You can't hang the same man twice.'' ``You can't hang the same person twice.'' So let's make the laws clear, easily defined, not arbitrary, not like our tax laws today where even the best consultants cannot give good advice. What we are working with, I hope, is clean and clear and appropriate. There are more than 16,000 corporations under the jurisdiction of the SEC. Of those, no more than a handful have been accused of criminal wrongdoing. In the end--when all the dust settles, the market stabilizes, and investors begin again to regain confidence, and the Congress has acted--no more than a handful of corporations will have been the bad actors. So I hope and I trust we can finalize what we are doing here today, and Monday possibly. It is important. The bottom line is very simple: Congress needs to act, and act now, and reaffirm the confidence the American people have in our public institutions. I just came from a Republican bicameral meeting between the House and the Senate Republican leaders. They said: Get us the bill immediately. Assign conferees. Let's go to work. Let's get this out before the August recess. Let's send a message to the American and the world investor that we have acted timely, that we have acted responsibly. The President has laid down his marker. The House has laid down their marker. It is now time for us to do the same. And in doing so, and in moving with expeditious action--not haste, not in an irresponsible way--I think we can turn to the American people and say: We have put in place the right safeguards, the right protections, the right firewalls. Study the papers, study the financials, and begin, once again, to reinvest in the American marketplace because it will be the right place to put your money. Madam President, I yield floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you. I thank my colleague for allowing me some additional time to visit with you about what is probably one of the most important environmental votes we will have this session in both the short-term and the long- term perspective of good government policy dealing with the waste stream of our nuclear era and hopefully dealing with it in a way that allows us to move forward to new reactor design. Ultimately, ensuring America it will continue to have a nuclear industry that will provide the quality of electrical power on which our country will so depend in an environmentally sound way is really an underlying premise of this debate. Before I discuss that a little more, I thought I would add to the Record an interesting fact about precedent. I know my colleague from Nevada is concerned about that as it relates to procedural activity on the floor and what this motion to proceed may or may not mean. As you know, the comment was made that if anyone other than a majority leader were to make a motion to proceed, the Senate would be seriously harmed. Let me give you a small excerpt of history. On July 8, 1957, Senator Knowland of California, the Republican minority leader of the Senate, rose and made the motion to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6127, which was being blocked by the majority and the majority leader. On July 16, 1957, after a week of debate on just that issue, the Senate voted 71 to 18 to take up the legislation. In other words, they voted on a motion to proceed proposed by the Republican minority leader. This legislation was the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The majority leader was the then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. And he survived the assault on his leadership very well. I think history will certainly attest to that. The Senate itself has also survived very well. But what we got through that fight was probably one of the most critical pieces of legislation of a generation if not in the history of this country; and that was the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The procedures we are following and that set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act are a part of the Senate rules. By the term of the statute, those procedures could be amended in the same fashion as any other rule. For 20 years, no one has complained about the procedures developed by Senators Jackson, Johnston, Proxmire, and McClure, and others, and eventually put forward by Congressman Joe Moakley, the chairman of the House Committee on Rules. No damage was done to the Senate in 1957, and it was that precedent that found its way into the 1982 act. Failure to not proceed to and not approve the resolution will not, obviously, in my opinion, advance the issue at hand. Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Record of July 8, 1957, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me also talk about one other issue that we discussed when we talk about the capacity of Yucca Mountain and, therefore, that there will always be waste out there somewhere in these temporary repositories at these nuclear reactors generating our commercial power. Yes, there will be temporary storage for periods of cooling pretransportation. There would be anyway under any circumstance. But what we are talking about--and the Senator from Nevada showed a dip--is that you can just double the numbers at each one of those, if you want. And doubling the numbers, in my opinion, does have a risk factor, certainly a management factor. What is most important is that many of these temporary repositories were licensed under State authority for a certain volume. To exceed that means you have to go back to the same State authority that was granted 15 or 20 years ago, versus today, and the politics have changed a great deal, and we know that, because those States were led to believe that the Federal Government would react responsibly in building a permanent repository and the temporary facility would be just that-- it would not become a permanent facility. Therefore, it would be a point to cool and a point to transfer. That is what those temporary repositories were always intended to be. So this really was the hand-in-glove scenario. Do not suggest that one goes without the other at all because they were licensed not for permanency but for temporary status while the Federal Government moved through that time of establishing a permanent repository. In that context, when we talk about the 70,000 ton cap at Yucca Mountain as a statutory limitation, it may be statutory but it is not physical. We do not know what the physical capability of Yucca Mountain beyond 70,000 tons would be. It could be increased over time 30 years out if, in fact, all of the geology and everything else met the standards that the scientists, through the licensing process, had established. Twenty years from now, 30 years from now, I will not be here. I doubt that the junior Senator from Nevada will be here. But on another day and in another place, and if that science meets those standards, and it is strong and stable, and the world's perspective has shifted, then, remember, we are dealing with a statutory cap, not a physical limitation, as it relates to Yucca Mountain. The reason the statutory cap was put in place originally was because we were looking at other repository locations in Vermont, in Washington State, and other places at the time. That is why there was a cap put in place. I know Senators Cantwell and Jeffords and Wellstone have talked about the limitations and, therefore, the argument that temporary repositories would still have material in them. Remember, of course, any of us who legislate know that a statutory cap is one that could be changed if the politics and/or the science would argue a change were there to do so. So let us not, in any way, fall prey to that argument of limitation. In that context, let me suggest that limitation is, in part, tied to the geology of Yucca Mountain. I cannot tell you that I was there at the beginning, but I was there during the legislative time when we were looking at a variety of locations for repositories. I had examined them all as a legislator. I read all of the preliminary geologic surveys. It was determined at that time, in the mid-1980s, that Yucca Mountain was, by far, the site that appeared to be the most desirable other than, if you will, the large granite deposits in Vermont. Granite has a unique shielding capability, and it is possible to assume that you could put repositories deep into the granite of Vermont and it would be an ideal situation. But our country did not go there. Our country decided not to have multiple repositories, but a single one, largely because of the politics of it. Governor Guinn, in his arguments of vetoing it, suggested that Yucca Mountain is unsuitable for a permanent repository because it is at the center of volcanic activity, earthquake vault zones, and rapid ground water flow. In other words, that is the geology of the mountain, as spoken to by the Governor of Nevada. Secretary Abraham has asserted Yucca Mountain is geologically stable and experiences little ground water flow or rainfall. The U.S. Geological Survey agrees, stating that the arid climate and low probability of repository-piercing earthquakes or volcanic activity support the recommendation of Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board also concurred, stating: No individual technical or scientific factor has been identified that would automatically eliminate Yucca Mountain from consideration at this point. That is a quote directly from the report by the technical review group. Based on these factors, the Energy Committee, on which I serve, examined it and determined that it was fair that we bring this issue to the floor in the form of a resolution and allow ourselves to go to the next step. And oh, by the way, the U.S. Geological Survey agrees with us. The Governor asserted that the geology of Yucca Mountain is so bad that DOE has given up on geologic isolation of waste in favor of manmade barriers. In other words, the original concept was to create a facility so deep in the Earth that the Earth itself would create the natural barriers, and that you would not need to build a barrier within a barrier, in other words, a manmade barrier. Secretary Abraham points out that a balance of both natural and engineered barriers has always been planned for the repository. Existing geologic barriers are likely sufficient to prevent waste from reaching ground water, but the engineered barriers provide additional protection. Do you remember what we did a couple years ago? Because we wanted to make sure we did it right, because we wanted to address the arguments that were being made, we put EPA into the mix and we extended the idea of engineering out into the future a facility that would withstand 10,000 years of any kind of threat. That is when the barrier within the barrier concept really began to develop. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Secretary to consider engineered barriers when making this recommendation to the President. Long before the Governor got into the argument, and long before the Governor tried to find arguments that would fit his political need, we had already thought of that. It was in the 1982 act. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not the committee or the Senate, must ultimately decide if the barriers are sufficient to prevent the seepage of radionuclides. The committee agreed with Secretary Abraham's conclusion that the consideration of man-made barriers is appropriate. The Governor claims that DOE's computer models are unable to adequately predict emission rates for 10,000 years. The NRC will rely on these models for licensing, as absolute proof of compliance with EPA radiation protection standards is not obtainable. DOE must be able to demonstrate compliance with EPA's standards for the 10,000-year cycle. The committee is concerned that DOE models are not adequate. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board has expressed similar concerns but has given guidance to DOE on improving the quality of its assessments. In other words, what we are talking about and what the Secretary made his recommendations on was the science far enough along to get us to the point of moving it the next step. The science is not cooked. It is not done. It is not over. It is evolving. What I am suggesting is that as we question the science, the science we now have is adequate to arrive at reasonable comfort under all of the best engineered scenarios to allow the safety that is required. But for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others to require additional science is possible. The committee expects DOE to improve its computer models but does not believe that existing weaknesses are sufficient to stop the consideration. In other words, we are not even satisfied with the work that has been done, although it is clear--and I must say for the Record that the work that has been done is adequate, clearly adequate to get us to this point of consideration. If we can make the best better, and if in that we create the kind of both political and real comfort that the State of Nevada needs, then we ought to do that. That is our responsible role as public policymakers. Let me conclude with the Governor's objection on what he calls the completeness of the design. The Governor notes that DOE has not completed the design of Yucca Mountain and cites 293 unresolved technical issues. Because of these, the DOE will be unable to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission until 2004, violating a statutory requirement to file an application within 90 days of congressional approval of the President's recommendation. That has been the argument placed by some. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Secretary to determine site suitability before making a recommendation to the President. It does not require him to complete the repository design or satisfy every obligation for license application. In other words, the step required by law was met, determining site suitability. It is from that process within the law that moves us to where we are today. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is confident that the DOE can supply all necessary information for license review. The 293 unresolved issues are commitments from the DOE to supply additional information. Forty-one of these issues have already been completed, reducing the number to 252. The Yucca Mountain project is already 12 years behind schedule. The DOE's inability to file an application within 90 days is unfortunate but not a violation of the statute. The provision is a directory, and not a mandatory requirement. In other words, like the science, we have met the standards but we want to achieve a greater level. In that regard, as it relates to the law and as it relates to an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we have met suitability as we now work to address the other issues that will become a part of the licensing process of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will consume the remainder of the time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, already this morning we have seen an example of the kind of record that is attempting to be made in part by the Senator from Nevada who would, first, argue a procedural issue that I and others, including renown Parliamentarians, argue does not exist. Clearly, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established an extraordinary procedure--not a precedent-setting procedure. Parliamentarians have agreed that is the case. But even today, as the Senator from Alaska has mentioned, we have been willing to shape that to accommodate the Senators from Nevada to allow debate on a motion to proceed prior to that vote. Clearly, the majority leader was not engaged on the floor. He already engaged us by saying he would not schedule a vote. He has walked away from his responsibility, if in fact it was there. I would argue that it was not there. Any Senator, by an act of Congress and by the law of the United States, could have done this. When we talk about precedent-setting action on the floor of the Senate as it relates to the rules of the Senate, we talk about the normal processes of configuring the schedule. I agree with the junior Senator from Nevada on that statement. This is not a precedent-setting action today. In fact, I think those who have observed it have recognized the kind of flexibility and give and take and the responsibility that this Senate had to take under the 1982 law. I believe the record will be complete. I do not believe that complete record in any way can or will demonstrate that future Parliamentarians would argue that a precedent has been set. Quite the opposite has happened. The Senate of the United States voted in 1982 to establish a process. Therefore, the Senate collectively spoke. It was clear in its speaking that a motion could be placed. And the reason they did that was very clear. They did not want a single person, a majority leader, Democrat or Republican, blocking the responsibility of the Federal Government as it related to a necessary step in the process of determining whether this Nation would establish a deep geologic, high- level waste nuclear repository; that it was more important than one Senator, in that case the majority leader. It set in place a time schedule. It even gave the State of Nevada-- the two Senators are on the floor speaking in behalf of phenomenal power--the power to veto. They have vetoed this. But even in that case, it did not allow a total State prerogative because this is a national issue of very real importance. And that is why we are on the floor today. We can debate procedure, if we want. But I think that is clear and it has been well established, and several Parliamentarians argue on either side of the case. What is clear is a law, and a law clearly stating and a law being passed by the Congress itself and signed by a President. That is what is important. It is from that law that we act today. But because, as the Senator from Nevada has spoken, we wanted and we believed it most important to accommodate my colleagues from Nevada--as I would want to be accommodated if this were happening in my State--we have given that kind of flexibility inside the law by a unanimous consent. And it is under that action that we are currently debating Senate Joint Resolution 34. What are we doing today? We are taking another step forward. This action today does not, in itself, establish a deep geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It says that we, the Senate, agree with the Department of Energy that a certification process has gone forward to determine the minimum standards and capabilities of geology and water tables and all of those kinds of things to meet tremendously high level protocol, and now we hand it forth into the next step, and that is licensure. The Senator from Pennsylvania is concerned about transportation, as he should be. But the Senator from Alaska responded appropriately. That is part of a very meticulous effort at licensing a facility, how it will be constructed, under what conditions it will be constructed, how the waste will move from the State of Pennsylvania or from the State of Idaho to that facility. Yes, we have ample oversight capacity and capability, and we ought to exercise it. I serve on the Energy Committee from which this resolution came. I want to make sure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission handles that transportation portion of the licensing well. We also have multiple jurisdictions--the Department of Transportation. Therefore, Environment and Public Works will have some say in oversight. Will there be another action or another vote? No. That is not prescribed within the law. But I also know the State of Nevada is not through either. They will exert phenomenal oversight, as they should, as this process goes forward if--if--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines that a license is appropriate for this facility under all of these kinds of conditions. I would suggest that we have also spent $4 billion. And $4 billion is an important figure. It was not our money. It was not taxpayer money. It was ratepayers' money from the 39 States that have commercial nuclear reactors operating power-generating facilities who have paid into a fund to take us this far, a fund that continues to grow, and a fund that will, in large part, finance the construction and the operation of this facility. So we are taking the next step, the important step. I must tell you, a vote today on a motion to proceed is a vote to take the step or to not step at all. If we do not, we step back 20 years--20 years--into a debate about how to manage high-level nuclear waste with commercial facilities, and temporary repositories filling up with waste as we speak. Do we say, if we do not speak today, there will be no future for the nuclear industry in this country? Well, we certainly say we have no resolution of how to manage its high-level waste stream, except to leave it in well over 100 facilities spread across 39 States. Will the States then respond by allowing additional repositories to be built in those States when they were promised that those were the only repositories and that high-level waste would move out and move to a permanent repository, as the Congress decided, in a single location? Those are the unknowns. But what is known today is that the 20 percent of the electrical energy of this country that is generated through nuclear reactors is the cleanest electrical energy outside of hydro in the United States. Some who are concerned about climate change and want even cleaner energy--and this Nation demanding even higher volumes of high-quality electrical energy--are recognizing that, at least under current and immediate-future technology, the nuclear industry is the right industry to turn to for advanced generation. So do we want to walk away from that industry today, as we will if we vote down a motion to proceed? Or do we want to take a step forward in a licensing process that says the whole industry can move to, potentially, a future opportunity of producing 25 or 30 or 40 percent of our electric energy needs of this country in a clean and responsible fashion? Let me talk for a few moments about transportation. I do not fear transportation. The reason I do not fear transportation is the history of transportation of radioactive materials and high-level waste in this country. There have been 2,700 shipments, over the last 30 years, of spent nuclear fuel; some 300 million hazardous and radioactive shipments annually in this country; and there are currently about 3 million shipments annually of radioactive material in this country. So there is a lot of movement going on. So why the alarm? It is a tactic. It is an alarmist political tactic to try to kill this very effort. Should we be concerned about transportation? You bet we should. But we have a very good record to date of a lot of movement of nuclear waste in this country and radioactive material in a safe and sound fashion. The reason is quite clear: Because the Federal Government has demanded from day one that those shipments be done in extraordinary ways, extraordinary super-built containers, much of it traveling by rail. The high-level waste that comes to Idaho is naval waste. It comes by rail. But the low-level waste that leaves Idaho leaves by highways in very well designed, tremendously strong containers, and well- managed, selected routes, all of it guided and monitored by GPS. It is tremendously safe today as that waste goes from Idaho to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM. Yes, we have a right to be concerned, but we do not have a right to use alarm and fear where they should not exist. But we have a right to do what is responsible to keep it out of our populated areas, to move it in appropriate fashions in less populated ways. The Senator from Nevada speaks about rail and an appropriate and safe way to handle it, well demonstrated, well proved. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may well want even enhanced containers. But what I would suggest is that if we fail to act today to determine the next step, and many of these utilities go to a private location and establish a private repository--as some are now contemplating--then there is a strong possibility that, in a much less regulated way, in a much less orchestrated and monitored way, we will see nuclear waste moving across this country simply because we failed to act and failed to organize and failed to respond to a highly regulated, highly controlled, and highly monitored transportation system. Those are the realities of where we are today with this industry and where we are today with the volume of nuclear waste, high-level spent fuel nuclear waste that is building up in repositories across the country. It isn't damned if you do and damned if you don't. It is a responsible and important step to take to move this resolution through to a licensing procedure which will then have full transparency, which will then have the ability of the Senate of the United States and the House to do the kind of oversight necessary to make sure that we can recognize what both Senators from Nevada, who are in the Chamber, need: The best assurance possible, in a zero sum game, if you can get there, that this has been done to the maximum capability of the engineering talent of the best we have to offer. The 10,000-year protocol established all of those kinds of things that meet the standards that are so critically necessary to do what is right and responsible for this country: store our high-level waste in a deep geologic repository; cause the next step to happen; advance the future of the nuclear industry; advance clean electrical energy for our country well into the future. It is a responsible act that the Senate undertakes today to allow that very kind of thing to happen. I hope this afternoon, when we have an opportunity to vote on the motion to proceed, which, in fact, is a vote on whether we will allow the process to go forward, a majority of the Senate will vote in favor of that motion to proceed. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, how much time remains in morning business?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me take that 4 minutes because I know my colleagues want to move forward with DOD authorization.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I come to the floor one more time this week to speak about the tragedies in the West as they play out. While my time is limited this morning, I thought it was important that I talk about the human side of this tragedy. Let me read this wire story about Jackie Nelson of Globe, AZ, driving her pickup into a makeshift shelter yesterday morning to try to find food for a 7-month-old granddaughter of hers. She left her home on a hillside in Arizona to burn in the wildfires that play out there. She does not know whether she will go home to that home or whether she will literally be adrift and have to seek shelter from public sources. The article goes on to say: That lament resounded across the West today, as 18 large blazes burned in six states, consuming acreage at a pace roughly double the 10-year average. The reason I want to talk about that very briefly, as I did yesterday morning, is that today in the West over 2.5 million acres of public land have now been charred into a smoldering rubble--homes, beautiful wildlife habitat, timbered acreages--that simply we forgot because the public policy of this country said, over a decade ago: Leave the land to Mother Nature and walk away. And in our walking away, in the pursuit of the environment, Mother Nature took charge. Today, Mother Nature rules the West, and her mode of operation is a monstrous wildfire consuming the public timber reserves of the West, the wildlife habitat, and the watershed. To put in context 2.5 million acres having burned currently, on the same date in 2000--a year when we burned over 7.3 million acres, in 2000--at this point in time, we had only burned 1.2 million acres. So today we have already burned double what we burned by this time in 2000. And 2000 was the worst in recorded history of fires on public lands. Why is this happening? Again, neglect. Again, an irresponsible public policy that took people off the land and did not allow us to manage it in wise and responsible ways for all of the multiple-use values we hold dear to our public lands. It is a tragedy of nature. It is a tragedy we have made. It is a tragedy we can solve. We well ought to solve it by a much more prudent public policy. But it will take decades now to begin to reverse what we have allowed to happen. Where there were once 150 trees per acre in the public forests, today there are 400 or 500 trees per acre, oftentimes growing like weeds, and resulting in equivalent Btu's of 10,000 to 15,000 to 20,000 gallons of gasoline per acre. And when the temperature is right, and the humidity is right, and the drought is running rampant across the Southwest, as it is today, we set in motion the ``perfect storm,'' only in this case it is the perfect firestorm that has now consumed nearly 500 homes in Colorado, in Arizona, and in New Mexico. And our summer, our fire summer--the long hot summer in the West--has just begun. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Five plus two.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise this morning--and I will return tomorrow and the next day--to talk about a story and a saga playing its way across the western landscape that you and I watched yesterday and on the morning news. We saw the headlines in all of the papers that said, Monstrous Wildfires Near Arizona Town; Show Low, Arizona, and The Thousands of Citizens Who Live There at Risk. What I want to do for a brief period is stage this as the great John Wayne movie ``Rio Bravo,'' where John Wayne captures the outlaw Joe Bernadette and sticks him in jail waiting for the judge to get the town to try the outlaw. It is the saga of the white hats and the black hats. For two decades we have been playing the white hat and the black hat game when it comes to the management of our western public lands and especially the timber lands of the West. In the early 1990s, scientists came together and said: ``If we don't begin a concerted effort of active management and fuel reduction on the floor of western great basin forests, they will burn in wildfire.'' That is an exact quote, well over a decade ago, when the experts saw that the lack of management and the shutdown of our public lands would some day spur us into wildfires. Not only did it spur us into wildfires, the scenario those scientists did not plug in was that during the decade when we shut the public lands down, all in the name of the environment, we began to inhabit them. Every little piece of land that was nonpublic got a beautiful home built on it, as people wanted to retreat into what we called the urban-wildland interface, to have their little piece of that wild west that was left staged in the movie of ``Rio Bravo.'' The great tragedy is, there is no wild west today. It is an urbanizing West with thousands of people in it wanting to live in those lands that have built up fuel loads on the floor of the forests that are equivalent to tens of thousands of gallons of gasoline per acre. You and I have seen on the television the last few days the monster fire of Arizona that consumed Heber, AZ, that now has taken over 325 homes, that may take Show Low, AZ, today, rolling on across the landscape, burning up those thousands of gallons of equivalent fuel per acre on the ground. This is so dramatic, the President flies out today to view the carnage. It isn't just the homes that are gone. It is the landscape that is gone. It is the wildlife habitat. It is the watershed--all gone, not for 5 years, not 10 years, but in the arid Southwest gone for 100 years. Why? Because man in his infinite wisdom said, two or three decades ago, all in the name of the environment, that we would no longer enter the forests. We would no longer thin the forests. We would no longer clean the floors, all in the name of leaving the land alone. Now we go to Colorado, Durango, CO, where a fire is just a few miles from that beautiful mining town. Between Colorado and Arizona and New Mexico, we have lost over 507 homes this year, this spring. It isn't even summer yet. It isn't even late summer. It isn't the late July and August of the hot weathers of the Great Basin timeframe in which most of these lands normally burn. If this were a tornado, if this were in Louisiana or across Florida, it would have wiped out an entire landscape and thousands of homes or hundreds of homes would be gone and we would have a national disaster. We would have all kinds of focus on it, how tragic it is. But somehow this has gotten less attention, even though the West is filled with smoke today. It should never have become a white hat/black hat issue. But for two decades, it became that. Right here on the floor of the Senate that very issue got debated. It was them versus us, the chain saw versus Bambi. Bambi won. Now Bambi is losing. Bambi's home is gone. The place she sleeps is gone. The place she drinks her water is gone. The wildlife are in danger--in an area in Arizona where two fires came together, over 300,000 acres. That is an area that is 500 miles square, as big as the whole L.A. Basin. If that is not a national disaster, I don't know what is. That is just Arizona. Madam President, 1.5 million acres have all burned in the Great Basin West this year, and here we are just in the last days of June. At this time in 2000, 7.3 million acres burned in the West, and we have already forgotten about it; we had only burned 1.2 million acres. Well, the story will be continued. Let's call this ``Rio Bravo.'' Let's call this a time when America comes together to refocus its intent on public land policy. I am going to be back with charts and maps tomorrow to visit with my colleagues about this national crisis that burns its way across the landscape of Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado because what I am fearful of is, come late August, it will be in my home State of Idaho, which lost a million acres of land in 2000, and nobody talked about it because it was in the back country and with no homes burned. There was no national television coverage to watch a smoldering home. But Bambi lost her home, and Bambi's cousins lost their homes, and a million acres in Idaho today will be decades in coming back. So why don't we get real and recognize that in managing our public lands there must be a balance. It cannot be either/or or all or nothing because when that happens, Mother Nature is not always the best steward of the land. Today in Arizona, Mother Nature is making headlines and she is calling herself Monster Wildfire. That is Mother Nature, but not in her finest hour.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize a community-based forestry program aimed at ensuring small businesses in small rural communities have the ability to participate in all land management programs that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management undertake through contract services. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with Senator Bingaman. His persistence in working on this legislation is a testament to his interest in sound forest management that is good for the environment, as well as good for thousands of small rural communities. Senator Bingaman and I both understand that we have fundamental problems with the management of many of our public lands. We both have seen the devastation that catastrophic fires are imposing on our Western forests. Two years ago as a result of the Cerro Grande Fire that consumed portions of Los Alamos, New Mexico, many Americans had to face up to the deplorable forest health conditions and the devastating impacts of these catastrophic fires. The recent fires in Colorado, New Mexico and now Eastern Arizona are re-enforcing the message that we simply cannot stand back and ignore the deplorable health conditions in our public forests. While many in the West, including Senator Bingaman and myself, have long understood the challenge of poor forest health followed by these conflagrations, nothing focuses your attention like a community in your State consumed in a raging forest fire. As a result of this watershed event, Congress put together the funding for the National Fire Plan. Having grown up near Cascade, ID, I know that large forest fires are not new to our community. But when in the space of three years a third of two national forests were consumed in large intense fires, such as those that occurred on the Boise and Payette National Forest in 1994 and 1996, you are forced to conclude something has gone haywire with our public land's management. For a number of years I watched the implementation of the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. I watched to see if the community assistance funding would trickle down to the small communities and to the workers that were displaced as a result of the plan. Sadly, the evidence is that in the smaller more rural communities many of the displaced workers did not benefit from those programs. In 2000, with the help of Senator Bingaman, Senator Wyden and I introduced and passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act. This legislation includes provisions to empower rural communities to work with the federal land managers to undertake consensus-based projects designed to help meet the resource needs of the agency and to develop projects that will generate the economic activity so desperately needed in many of our small rural communities. In spite of our success Senator Bingaman and I knew that more had to be done. We understood that we needed to construct more opportunities for our Federal land managers to work cooperatively with the people living in these rural communities. We understood that we needed to change dynamics so the knowledge, logic and wisdom harbored within the citizen of these small rural communities could be tapped to improve our public lands. The legislation that we are introducing today will authorize the establishment of Restoration and Value-Added Centers designed to help small communities and business be better prepared to help our Federal land managers complete the forest management work that our forests so desperately need. When Congress directed the Forest Service, BLM and other land management agencies to develop the National Fire Management Plan, and then increased funding for fire prevention, suppression, and restoration activities, many of the proponents expected much of the work would be funneled to smaller communities to take advantage of the expertise that exists in these communities, as well as to help stabilize the economies of these areas. Sadly most of the Federal agency's funding and efforts have been consumed with fire fighting and by the looks of this fire season that is not going to improve any time soon. Very little restoration work to reduce the risk of intense fires before they occur has been undertaken. Thus, we have not seen sufficient efforts made to take advantage of the human resource located in these small rural communities. I believe the legislation Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today will help the Federal land managers take advantage of the local and traditional knowledge as well as take advantage of the under utilized woods workforces that have been put out of work over the last decade. This legislation will help small community and consensus-based groups who are eager to undertake work designed to improve our public lands. It will help our federal land managers reestablish a close working relationship with these communities and it will be very good for the public land. Like any new experimental program we have included a number of provisions that first are designed to phase into these new relationships and secondly, designed to ensure that the Restoration and Value-Added Centers will not become a long term financial burden to the American public. We have included provisions to shift away from federal financing and toward private funding sources five years after the opening of the centers. Additionally, we have included monitoring provisions so we can track these new programs and make corrections as needed. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the coalition who helped to form and clarify the thinking of Senator Bingaman and myself as we developed this proposal. We held lengthy hearings to which many in the coalition traveled long distances to participate. They have been inspirational in their willingness to think outside the box and to work with our staff to refine this proposal.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize a community-based forestry program aimed at ensuring small businesses in small rural communities have the ability to participate in all land management programs that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management undertake through contract services. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with Senator Bingaman. His persistence in working on this legislation is a testament to his interest in sound forest management that is good for the environment, as well as good for thousands of small rural communities. Senator Bingaman and I both understand that we have fundamental problems with the management of many of our public lands. We both have seen the devastation that catastrophic fires are imposing on our Western forests. Two years ago as a result of the Cerro Grande Fire that consumed portions of Los Alamos, New Mexico, many Americans had to face up to the deplorable forest health conditions and the devastating impacts of these catastrophic fires. The recent fires in Colorado, New Mexico and now Eastern Arizona are re-enforcing the message that we simply cannot stand back and ignore the deplorable health conditions in our public forests. While many in the West, including Senator Bingaman and myself, have long understood the challenge of poor forest health followed by these conflagrations, nothing focuses your attention like a community in your State consumed in a raging forest fire. As a result of this watershed event, Congress put together the funding for the National Fire Plan. Having grown up near Cascade, ID, I know that large forest fires are not new to our community. But when in the space of three years a third of two national forests were consumed in large intense fires, such as those that occurred on the Boise and Payette National Forest in 1994 and 1996, you are forced to conclude something has gone haywire with our public land's management. For a number of years I watched the implementation of the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. I watched to see if the community assistance funding would trickle down to the small communities and to the workers that were displaced as a result of the plan. Sadly, the evidence is that in the smaller more rural communities many of the displaced workers did not benefit from those programs. In 2000, with the help of Senator Bingaman, Senator Wyden and I introduced and passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act. This legislation includes provisions to empower rural communities to work with the federal land managers to undertake consensus-based projects designed to help meet the resource needs of the agency and to develop projects that will generate the economic activity so desperately needed in many of our small rural communities. In spite of our success Senator Bingaman and I knew that more had to be done. We understood that we needed to construct more opportunities for our Federal land managers to work cooperatively with the people living in these rural communities. We understood that we needed to change dynamics so the knowledge, logic and wisdom harbored within the citizen of these small rural communities could be tapped to improve our public lands. The legislation that we are introducing today will authorize the establishment of Restoration and Value-Added Centers designed to help small communities and business be better prepared to help our Federal land managers complete the forest management work that our forests so desperately need. When Congress directed the Forest Service, BLM and other land management agencies to develop the National Fire Management Plan, and then increased funding for fire prevention, suppression, and restoration activities, many of the proponents expected much of the work would be funneled to smaller communities to take advantage of the expertise that exists in these communities, as well as to help stabilize the economies of these areas. Sadly most of the Federal agency's funding and efforts have been consumed with fire fighting and by the looks of this fire season that is not going to improve any time soon. Very little restoration work to reduce the risk of intense fires before they occur has been undertaken. Thus, we have not seen sufficient efforts made to take advantage of the human resource located in these small rural communities. I believe the legislation Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today will help the Federal land managers take advantage of the local and traditional knowledge as well as take advantage of the under utilized woods workforces that have been put out of work over the last decade. This legislation will help small community and consensus-based groups who are eager to undertake work designed to improve our public lands. It will help our federal land managers reestablish a close working relationship with these communities and it will be very good for the public land. Like any new experimental program we have included a number of provisions that first are designed to phase into these new relationships and secondly, designed to ensure that the Restoration and Value-Added Centers will not become a long term financial burden to the American public. We have included provisions to shift away from federal financing and toward private funding sources five years after the opening of the centers. Additionally, we have included monitoring provisions so we can track these new programs and make corrections as needed. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the coalition who helped to form and clarify the thinking of Senator Bingaman and myself as we developed this proposal. We held lengthy hearings to which many in the coalition traveled long distances to participate. They have been inspirational in their willingness to think outside the box and to work with our staff to refine this proposal.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe we are in morning business, is that not correct?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this morning I want to speak to a couple of issues that I think are important to this body and certainly to the citizens of our country. First and foremost, I want to speak of a meeting that occurred at the White House yesterday that I had the good fortune to be a part of, a meeting of the President and the joint leadership, Democrat and Republican, of the House and Senate. We met with President Bush, the Vice President, and Governor Ridge to talk about the President's decision to create a new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security and his decision to send to the Congress a proposal that would allow us to work with him in the shaping of legislation to ultimately create that agency. I saw the current Presiding Officer on television the other night speaking to this issue. I was pleased that he, too, like I, agree that a time has come in our country that we need to recognize the extraordinary global terrorism threat that has been brought to our doorstep and to the doorstep of most American citizens, and the need to recognize that the mechanisms of our Government to combat this threat have in part failed--or certainly the mechanisms are not in tune with the current threat in a way that they can effectively connect all of the dots to draw the necessary conclusions of the magnitude of the threat by those who bring it to our doorstep. As a result of that, the President, in a very forward-looking way, having assumed the leadership of this great country, has brought to us an opportunity to work with him to make a decision that I think will be historic for our country, a decision to create a new department that I believe, when completed and effectively run, will make all Americans safer. It will give our country, through this department, the ability to protect our borders, to collate and analyze intelligence and information about ongoing threats, to expedite decisions at all government levels, and to take immediate action when the conclusion of the event or the risk that might occur warrants it. The new department eliminates what has become a patchwork of agencies and lines of authority that were designed for a threat of an era ago. What worked in cold war and post-cold-war environments does not fit, or is apparently not fitting the current threat that this Nation recognizes. This department, in my opinion, is not a step toward big government. Big government is when the Federal authorities needlessly take over functions better left to State and local governments. The Presiding Officer is a former Governor. He understands so well the importance of State government and State law enforcement authorities. What we want to have happen is an improvement of those relationships as they relate to the threat. My Governor, Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, was once a U.S. Senator. As a Senator, he had greater clearance than he now has as a Governor. In other words, he had a right to know, under the law and by his title, more about the security risk in our country than he does as a Governor today. That is wrong. Governors in the role they must play as law enforcement officers within their States and directors of law enforcement communities within their States have to know. I use as an example the opportunity to create a seamless relationship between Federal intelligence and Federal law enforcement and State law enforcement. In my opinion, this is not the creation of a bigger government. This is called getting smart and getting it right at a time when our country demands it. This proposal, however, which I think the President offers is the direct opposite of what some might call big government. Our Founding Fathers said it clearly when they stated within the Constitution the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide for the security of the citizens of this country. That was the foremost charge of a Federal Government's responsibility under the Constitution. I think our President has recognized that oh so well ever since 9-11 and now brings to us an opportunity and a challenge to create this new department that, in my opinion, will not bloat government. Personnel and offices will remain relatively at current levels. In fact, due to consolidation, it is possible we might even see over time a slight reduction. The challenge is now ourselves. The challenge is to set aside that which is mine or that which is yours--it is called turf here on Capitol Hill--and to recognize that this is a time to act and to act promptly. I was extremely pleased to see the bipartisan character and feeling of the meeting at the White House yesterday with Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, Dick Gephardt, and Denny Hastert--all of these leaders talking in a bipartisan mode about a timeline of importance. I think we all recognize that Leader Gephardt said: Why not 9-11-02? Why not on the anniversary of this tragic time in America when we began to rethink and realign our efforts that we should make available to the American people a new department, a new government, a new shaping of government. Well, I hope we can do 9-11-02. But if we are to do it, it means we have to burn the midnight oil a bit. It clearly means we have to roll up our sleeves and go to work. And it also means that the Senate and the House operate differently than they are historically at least expected to operate. We have done it in the past, and we can do it again. And we should do it now. I hope Leader Daschle and Leader Lott, in recognizing this, can bring the Senate together in a way unprecedented at least in modern times to get the job done--to get it done in a quick but thorough fashion, to do the necessary and proper reviews that bring about for this country a new shaping of government that we hope in the end will make us a safer, more secure place, and in that process not infringe upon or in any way lessen the rights and the freedoms of the citizens of this great country.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to speak about a need of this Senate to act and act soon. I am speaking about a provision within the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that required a procedure by which this country would ultimately step forward in determining a permanent storage site for high-level nuclear waste. It is known here as Yucca Mountain in the State of Nevada. It has been a high-profile issue, one that has been given a great deal of debate over the last good number of years, but one that has come again to the floor of the Senate in which we must make a decision to make one step forward in a review and licensing process to determine whether the site of Yucca Mountain in the State of Nevada is capable of handling and effectively storing for 10,000 years the high-level nuclear waste of this country. In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, we established what is known as an expedited procedure for consideration of the resolution approving the President's selection of the nuclear waste site. Now the President has selected, because the NEPA process through the Department of Energy has determined that it is now time to go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for their review and their determination as to whether the site ought to be licensed. So the time is at hand, as was seen in 1982 under this act. The expedited procedure under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, specifically provides that once an approval resolution is on the calendar--and that means the authorizing committee has acted and sent it forward, as it has--the law says very specifically that any Senator may move to proceed to its consideration. And the motion to proceed is privileged and nondebatable. Under current practices, measures normally reach this floor through agreement to a unanimous consent request by the majority leader. It is critically important for the operation and the procedure of this Senate on a daily basis that the majority leader of the Senate set the agenda. But there is always the provision, because we are all equal in the Senate under the Constitution, that sometimes the majority leader may not set the agenda the way the majority of the Senate would want it set. And, of course, that can be objected to and a vote to proceed. But what we are talking about here is recognition of a special procedure--unprecedented, or at least certainly one that does not establish the precedent of the normal decorum of the Senate. If unanimous consent cannot be obtained, as we know now, the Senate has taken care of that procedure by simply allowing the rule or the decision to be tested. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides special statutory authority to make exceptions to the contemporary practice to which I have just spoken. Let me say that again. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides a special statutory authority to make exception to contemporary practice. In other words, it is not to establish a precedent. It is not to override the majority leader, as some would like to have it thought today and are certainly arguing. It is in fact the law of the country and not the rules of the Senate to which we are speaking. It is one of four statutes adopted since the 100th Congress that expressly allow any Senator to offer a motion to proceed to an item of approval or disapproval. Those statutes are not redundant to Senate rules and do not upset contemporary practice regarding motions to proceed to other legislation on the Senate calendar. Exercising a Senator's right under the statutory authority in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act should be considered extraordinary, and not a general assault on the normal prerogatives of the majority leader. When the Senate passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it envisioned a circumstance in which a leader might be unwilling to propound a motion to proceed. It appears that may be what is happening on the floor of the Senate. Thus, the law expressly permits someone else to act so Congress can work its will before a statutory deadline passes. Finally, let me say this: If a leader will not propound a motion to proceed, he cannot contend his leadership prerogatives will be violated if someone else moves the procedure. You can't contend that you have been violated if in fact that is the law of the land. And that is the law of the land. The very procedure I have outlined is expressly stated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Agreement with such a position gives the leader absolute and unilateral authority to veto power over consideration of any legislation, if in fact that can be argued. But at times, when Trent Lott was majority leader of the Senate, that was challenged, and a majority of the Senate stayed with the leader when it dealt with contemporary legislation of the moment and the setting of the calendar outside the statutes of the Federal Government within the rules of the Senate. I wanted to speak about that briefly this morning because I know that is now being talked about amongst us Senators as we ultimately come to a time, prior to late July, when we must address this issue for the sake of the country, for the sake of ratepayers, certainly for the sake of the future of the energy sources of our country, and especially for nuclear-generated energy. It is important to understand, and I will be to the Chamber speaking out about this issue more as we develop it. I would hope that the majority leader or the authorizing committee chairman who brought the resolution forward would act as they should under the rules to establish a time and a date certain when this Senate can debate and act responsibly on this most critical national environmental issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health Training Incentive Act. I am pleased that Senators Patty Murray, Conrad Burns, Mike Crapo and Frank Murkowski are joining with me in this effort today. We are all aware there is a nationwide shortage of health practitioners in rural America and that this shortage is affecting the availability of health care in those communities. This trend is aggravated by the upcoming retirement of 77 million baby-boomers and the overall aging of the rural populations. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix for the problem, and the solution will require a long-term investment in human resources. The bill that I am introducing today would begin work on this long-term investment through the regional Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho, WWAMI, program. The WWAMI program has an excellent track record in its 30 year history of designing programs that work. It has a regionally focused medical school with a mission to train physicians for the communities in Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho. With 27 percent of the land mass of the Nation and only 3.3 percent of its population it is truly a ready made laboratory for exploring the best ways to recruit and train rural health care professionals. This legislation seeks to expand upon the existing WWAMI programs for the recruitment and training of all health care professionals in the five state rural settings and to develop and evaluate similar programs that could be used in other regions of the country. This legislation would be a step in preparing our young people to go into the medical professions and, importantly, would encourage them to practice in rural communities. I am pleased to be able to introduce this legislation as part of an overall strategy to stabilize health care in rural communities. This session, I have introduced legislation that would provide rural health care facilities with much needed capital to build new or repair existing infrastructure and to purchase medical equipment to help them keep pace with changing technologies. I am also pleased to have worked with my colleague Senator Harkin on two separate pieces of legislation that would provide Medicare equity to both providers and seniors in rural States. The bill that I am introducing today adds an integral element of this strategy by making sure that health professionals are available to serve in rural areas. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.