Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - March 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2648-S2678] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. HOLLINGS: S. 605. A bill to solidify the off-budget status of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act and to protect program assets; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one committee reports, the committee have 30 days to report or be discharged. [[Page S2649]] social security fiscal protection act of 1999 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on tomorrow afternoon, we begin to mark up the budget. That is, when I say we, I mean that the Budget Committee on the Senate side meets to mark up the budget for the year 2000 commencing October 1 this year, and immediately we will hear the cry, ``Surplus.'' I am constrained to say--as in the earliest days of the Republic when Patrick Henry said, ``Peace, Peace, everywhere men cry peace,'' and there was no peace--``surplus, surplus, everywhere men cry surplus,'' but there is no surplus. The fact is that we are spending $100 billion more than we are taking in already this fiscal year, and under current policy the deficit for next year will be right at $90 billion. Also, Mr. President, another thing to note is the fact that you are going to hear the cry, ``Saving Social Security.'' I can tell you categorically that neither the Republican plan, policy or approach nor the Democratic White House plan, policy or approach will save Social Security. Both spend 100 percent of the Social Security moneys coming in the fiscal year 2000, as is the case already this year. And otherwise, all the wonderful talk about paying down the debt is nothing more than fancy rhetoric for a flawed policy that has got us into a situation of fiscal cancer. Now let me go right to the meaning of ``Surplus.'' Yes, we are making progress on the budget and the deficit. At a news conference earlier today I was asked about this and when did we ever expect to get some results. Well, I see that we are beginning to understand that there is no surplus. Most of the nation's astute commentators on the budget see this, too. Allan Sloan of Newsweek said, of course, that the President's plan was double accounting. Paul Samuelson talks about when they said ``surplus,'' it was ``surplus in the sky.'' The Concord Coalition, made up of our former colleagues, Senators Rudman and Nunn, with whom I have had an on-going engagement, finally says there is no surplus. And only two weeks ago Barron's, the conservative financial newspaper--which I hold it here--said: ``Hey, Guys, There is no Budget Surplus.'' But be that as it may, the White House and many members of Congress are going to start dealing around the so-called surplus, nonexistent that it is, for education, Medicare, tax cuts, anything and everything--everything but saving Social Security. It has been a constant charade on messages of the party caucuses on both sides since January, even during the impeachment days; we have got to get our message out. Unfortunately, most of the media falls right in line with the message. They don't look into the actual fact or the reality. On the matter of the so-called surplus and the $100 billion that we are spending now: mind you me, Mr. President, we set spending caps year before last, and last year we broke the caps by $12 billion, and we have already broken the cap in this year's budget by $21 billion, which would mean in marking up 2000's budget we would immediately have to cut spending $33 billion to conform to the fiscal year 2000 budget cap. Instead of doing that, we have already met in unison, almost like a chorus singing ``Whoopee for the military,'' and we have spent $18 billion on the military, money which is unaccounted for. Instead of cutting back, the Senate has already exceeded the agreed-to caps by $18 billion. Unless, of course, they intend to cut $18 billion in domestic programs or cut $18 billion in operation, maintenance and readiness within the defense budget. We are going in the wrong direction. No one should think that Social Security has a surplus. This fiscal year, we have a surplus of the amount required to be paid out, but since we have been spending it each year there is a $730 billion deficit due and owing. Social Security is in the red. So there are no surpluses. Even trying to get around that to try to get something to politic on for this year and next year, the Campaign 2000, they say, ``Well, wait a minute; we will start our tax cuts in the year 2002 when there is one document to the effect there might be a slight surplus in Social Security, over and above the Social Security amount or otherwise we can spend it on Medicare beginning in 2000''-- anything for the Campaign 2000. They talk in the Chamber about the Chinese. Come, come, come. It is not the Chinese. It is not the baby boomers in the next generation. It is the adults in Congress who are looting the Social Security trust fund. Each one of these particular plans spends 100 percent of the Social Security so-called surplus. How do I say that? Well, it is easy. You go back into the original law--and I have a copy of the law itself--section 201. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H.R. 7260] Title II--Federal Old-Age Benefits Old-Age Reserve Account Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required under this title, such amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate of the appropriations to be made to the Account. (b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest- bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired (1) on original issue at par, or (2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum. (c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest. (d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account. (e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title. (f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will send that momentarily to the desk, section 201 of the Social Security Act. Under section 201 of Social Security, we required at this moment--and have been doing so for years--under law to invest only and immediately in T-bills, Treasury bills, these special securities of the Federal Government. Once we do that, of course, we get a bond or IOU; the Government gets the money, and immediately all of those moneys are transferred to the Government account and it is spent, allocated, or used to pay down the so-called public debt. The one way to stop that is a bill, which I will send to the desk and for which I request proper referral. Mr. President, this bill simply says, amongst other things--and I will read section 5--that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day of each month. Advisedly, Mr. President, this was worked out by none other than my Social Security friends. At one time, I had the distinction of being the chairman of the Budget Committee. We had an outstanding staffer then named Ken Apfel. He is now the Social Security Administrator. I called over there and I said: Let's stop this roundabout dance [[Page S2650]] about surpluses and spending all the money and everything else; I want you to write a provision whereby we can do exactly what we said when Congress passed the Social Security Act. Remember old John Mitchell, under the Nixon administration? He said, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' I am afraid on budget matters we have arrived exactly at that point. But, in any event, to do what we say, we have prepared this bill and now it has been introduced and, if passed by the Congress, yes, we will save Social Security. Immediately, one of the distinguished Senators said, ``Wait a minute. Is the money going to just sit there?'' No. Mr. President, that money will be invested in T-bills, just as it has been all these years. Or, if there is an additional plan, like the Kerrey-Moynihan plan, like our Thrift Savings Plan--a certain percentage invested in the market in order to make more money but take on more risk--we can debate that. What this particular bill really does is save Social Security. Social Security funds will not be spent, save and excepting on Social Security purposes. This is exactly what was intended by Mr. Greenspan when he headed the Greenspan Commission in 1983. In 1983, section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report said to take Social Security outside of the unified budget, outside of the unified deficit, and set it aside in trust. I struggled from 1983 until 1990 to translate Chairman Greenspan's recommendations into law. I thought we had done it in 1990, when we passed the Budget Act by a vote of 98 Senators here on the floor of the Senate and almost an equal majority, overwhelming as it was, over on the House side. President Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed the bill into law, including section 13301 of the Budget Act, which stated Congress could not spend Social Security moneys on anything other than the Social Security program; you had it outside of the unified budget and the deficit. Unfortunately, Mr. President, that has been ignored. That is why I have to reword it this way. But the contemplation at the particular time, the law itself, the policy of the U.S. Government with respect to corporate America--we passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994 saying: Thou shalt not, in corporate America, spend your pension fund to pay off the company debt. The most interesting and ironic thing is, when Denny McLain, the former great pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, became the head of a corporation and paid off its debt with the pension fund, he was sent to jail for 8 years. If you can find what jail poor Denny is in, say to him, ``Denny, next time, run for the U.S. Senate. Instead of a jail term, they will give you the good government award.'' That is exactly what we are doing. We violate our own policy. We pay off the debt with the Social Security Trust Fund and have been doing it for 15 years. That gets me immediately to the point of so-called paying off the public debt. You know, they have these euphemisms and different expressions that come around budget time and make you think you have a real policy on board. That has been the policy. Admittedly, if you had a stagnant economy, if you had a dormant stock market, you could welcome paying off the public debt to get the economy and the stock market moving and everything else. But to do it, not over just a year or 2, but to do it for the last 15 years to the tune of in excess of $100 billion, what it has really done is given us fiscal cancer. We have gone up, up, and away with the national debt, and the interest costs are killing us. Let me dwell a minute on the interest costs on the national debt. The interest cost, when President Lyndon Johnson last balanced the budget, was $16 billion. Today the interest cost is projected to be $357 billion, almost a billion dollars a day. What it says to me is, this year I have to spend--and next year I have to spend--$357 billion for nothing. If I had been fiscally prudent, I could have had $80 billion for tax cuts plus $80 billion for spending increases plus $80 billion to pay down the debt plus $80 billion to save Social Security. That is $320 billion. I would have had $37 billion for you to have a party out here on the west front when I jump off the Capitol dome. Since 1995, I have been telling Chairman Domenici, trying to bring sense to this entire budget debate by talking in the extreme, that by the year 2002, if he had a balanced budget, truly balanced--if we were paying out less than what we were bringing in or just at that amount--I would jump off the Capitol dome. And I reiterate the pledge. Let's make the bets--``Get old Hollings to jump off the dome.'' Because under current policies, no one can possibly balance the budget while exceeding revenue by over $100 billion. Nobody is cutting $100 billion. They are spending $18 billion more unaccounted for, breaking the caps. Nobody is spending less than $90 billion. So we know with all of this spending for tax cuts, Medicare, education, housing, and everything else of that kind, that we are in deep trouble. We have fiscal cancer. What we really should do, probably, as Mr. Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, finally came around to saying, is do nothing: take this year's budget for next year. I did that as the Governor of South Carolina. I capped the debt. By the way, that would bring truth in budgeting to this crowd, if they are right. Let's plead guilty: They are right, I am wrong, there is a surplus and we are going to pay down the debt. If that occurs, we can cap the debt as of October 1 of this year, the beginning of the next fiscal year. Whatever it is, since there is a surplus and since we are going to pay down the debt, let's cap it so it does not exceed that particular amount. You cannot get the White House--I faced them down in one of these briefings--to go along with it. I will make the motion and we will see how many people vote for that. I am trying to bring truth to our federal budget. I am trying to avoid the fiscal cancer. The Republicans talk about an $80 billion across-the-board tax cut. I want a $357 billion tax cut this year, next year, and right along the line. I want, in that 10-year period, $3.5 trillion in tax cuts, not just this $800 billion tax cut. I want to get rid of this waste in Government. I served on the Grace Commission to Eliminate Waste. I know what waste is. I speak advisedly. Before long, if those interest rates go up, instead of $357 billion, we will be up around $500 billion in interest costs. It is the largest item in the domestic budget for spending at this minute. What we ought to do is get a hold of ourselves, start talking sense to each other, work out a plan to take care of the needs of Government, but quit using the Social Security surplus and trust fund as a political slush fund for any and every idea on the media message. And the media are going along with this nonsense and act like we actually are doing it. My particular bill will bring sobriety to the entire process and debate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 605 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Fiscal Protection Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. OFF BUDGET STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of-- (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FROM SURPLUS AND DEFICIT TOTALS. The receipts and disbursements of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act and the revenues under sections 86, 1401, 3101, and 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 related to such program shall not be included in any surplus or deficit totals required under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code. SEC. 4. CONFORMITY OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS. Any official statement issued by the Office of Management and Budget or by the Congressional Budget Office of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President [[Page S2651]] or of the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional budget, and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any official publication or material issued by either of such Offices, shall exclude all receipts and disbursements under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act and the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (including the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old- Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund). SEC. 5. REPOSITORY REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of the Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day of such month. ______ By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Mack, and Mrs. Feinstein): S. 606. A bill for the relief of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation), and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. private relief bill Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 606 for Senator Mack, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and myself. This bill is intended to resolve litigation between the federal government and Kerr- McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation) and Global Exploration and Development Corporation. This legislation embodies an agreement that has been reviewed and accepted by the Hearing Officer and a three judge reviewing panel. The Department of Justice has no objection to this legislation. In addition, this legislation would also make it a criminal act to distribute certain information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. This bill was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary in this form during the 105th Congress. As background to this relief for Kerr-McGee and Global Exploration, in 1964, they first filed applications for phosphate prospecting permits in Osceola National Forest. Under Sec. 211(a) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, the Secretary can only grant prospecting permit applications following a determination that the public interest will be served by doing so. The U.S. Forest Service must also consent to the issuance of the prospecting permits. The permits were granted, and the plaintiffs subsequently discovered phosphate deposits. The plaintiffs then filed applications with the Department of Interior for leases to mine the deposits in January of 1969. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to leases is governed by the Mineral Lands Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. sec. 181 et. seq.) which requires the Secretary of Interior to issue leases to a permittee that has discovered a ``valuable deposit'' of mineral. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines and the Office of Minerals Policy Department all confirmed that valuable deposits had in fact been discovered (valued at $100 to $300 million in 1970's dollars). Kerr-McGee filed suit in 1973 and Global filed suit in 1978 seeking the immediate issuance of the leases. In 1981, the U.S. Forest Service began setting out the requirements for reclamation. The Department of Interior concluded the reclamation technology did not exist based on an Environmental Assessment (``EA'') prepared by Interior and issued in January of 1983. Based on that conclusion, the plaintiffs' applications for leases to mine the deposits were rejected. Agency personnel had told plaintiffs that they would be able to comment on the EA findings before their final issuance. By law, the government was required to permit the applicants to participate in the EA process by submitting comments and expert analysis on the feasibility of reclamation. Plaintiffs were never given a chance to participate in the EA process, to show feasibility of reclamation, or to comment on the draft EA. In 1984, the Florida Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 98-430, 98 Stat. 1665) was enacted which prevented the issuance of phosphate mining leases in Osceola, effectively foreclosing a legal remedy since plaintiffs could no longer ask for reversal of the prior decision or for relief for damages incurred. The House Committee Report accompanying the Act stated that ``in the event the courts ultimately determined that applicants have established lease rights, [the Act] provides that leases will not be issued. The applicants would instead be compensated as required in accordance with constitutional principles.'' H. Rpt. 98- 102 Part I, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., at 7. The plaintiffs pursued their case in federal district court and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the suit as moot in light of Florida Wilderness Act. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims then questioned whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the case, leaving plaintiffs without a forum to be heard. Under 28 U.S.C. 2509, a congressional reference empowers a judge of the Court of Federal Claims to sit as a Hearing Officer, hold a hearing and determine the facts of the case. The Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions are then reviewed by a three-judge panel. The panel then adopts or modifies the findings and conclusions and submits its report to the Chief Judge who then transmits the recommendations to the house of Congress which referred the case. On Jan. 10, 1991, H. Res. 29 and H.R. 477 were introduced during the 102nd Congress to refer the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in order to compensate plaintiffs for any damages incurred on account of the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to grant and permit mining operations pursuant to phosphate leases in the Osceola National Forest. On July 10, 1991, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations held hearings on H.R. 477 and H. Res. 29. On October 3, 1991, the Subcommittee reported the resolution, with a technical amendment, to full Committee. On July 21, 1992, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 29, referring H.R. 477 to Court of Claims. The formal Congressional reference confirmed jurisdiction for the plaintiffs' suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In the Court of Federal Claims, the Government moved for summary judgement. The Court ruled that plaintiffs did not have a legal claim but did have an equitable claim since the government failed to comply with the legal requirement of the EA. The court ruled that the Secretary of Interior had made an error in denying phosphate mining leases on the basis of an EA without allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to comment. The court concluded that the error was not harmless. Remaining was the question of fact whether reclamation was feasible, according to Forest Service standards as of January of 1983. A 6 week evidentiary hearing was held on that issue from October 13 to December 14, 1995. Plaintiffs presented leading experts in reclamation who showed they could have successfully reclaimed the land, that the analysis in the EA was scientifically incorrect, and that EA members who concluded successful reclamation had their conclusions omitted. Before the court issued its opinion, the parties agreed to a joint stipulation of settlement and submitted this stipulation to the Court: Global is to received $9.5 million; Kerr-McGee is to receive $10 million, which it will return to the government as partial payment for a Superfund cleanup site in Louisiana; and Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC is to receive $0. Global, Kerr-McGee and the Department of Justice accepted the report of the Hearing Officer, dated November 18, 1996, and the Review Panel endorsed the decision. On November 18, 1996, the court published its recommendations to Congress that the disputes be settled for the amounts set forth in the joint stipulation of settlement. The court's recommendation was based on a finding that the settlement was fair, just, equitable and supported by the evidence. As noted in the Hearing Officer's report, ``if the case were to proceed to final disposition and plaintiffs to prevail, then the Government would face a potential liability substantially in excess of the proposed settlement amounts. Conversely, however, a victory for the Government would not assure it of protection against all future liability.'' [[Page S2652]] This legislation would implement this settlement, and we urge its prompt consideration and approval by the Senate. For the information of all Senators, I have included the House Committee Report from the 105th Congress which provides a very clear background and the need for this provision. In addition, the bill includes language related to the prohibition of distribution of information related to destructive devices, explosives, and weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of a violent crime. This language was added to this legislation during markup of H.R. 1211 during the 105th Congress in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Feinstein and is a reasonable resolution of an issue pushed by Senator Feinstein for several years. I urge quick consideration and passage of this overdue and important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 606 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. (a) Payment of Claims.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of money not otherwise appropriated-- (1) to the Global Exploration and Development Corporation, a Florida corporation incorporated in Delaware, $9,500,000; (2) to Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation incorporated in Delaware, $10,000,000; and (3) to Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, $0. (b) Condition of Payment.-- (1) Global exploration and development corporation.--The payment authorized by subsection (a)(1) is in settlement and compromise of all claims of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, as described in the recommendations of the United States Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776. (2) Kerr-mcgee corporation and kerr-mcgee chemical, llc.-- The payment authorized by subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) are in settlement and compromise of all claims of Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, as described in the recommendations of the United States Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776. SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PROHIBITION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. (a) Unlawful Conduct.--Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(p) Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.-- ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection-- ``(A) the term `destructive device' has the same meaning as in section 921(a)(4); ``(B) the term `explosive' has the same meaning as in section 844(j); and ``(C) the term `weapon of mass destruction' has the same meaning as in section 2332a(c)(2). ``(2) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person-- ``(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or ``(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.''. (b) Penalties.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``person who violates any of subsections'' and inserting the following: ``person who-- ``(1) violates any of subsections''; (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(2) violates subsection (p)(2) of section 842, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.''; and (4) in subsection (j), by striking ``and (i)'' and inserting ``(i), and (p)''. ______ By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Murkowski): S. 607. A bill reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing along with Senator Murkowski, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act (NCGMA) was originally signed into law in 1992. The purpose of this geologic mapping program is to provide the nation with urgently needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, geology essential for all types of land use planning, as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMA contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the state geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the states submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each federal dollar be matched one-for-one with state funds. Each participating state has a StateMap Advisory Committee to insure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs. The success of this program insured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. According to a recent poll conducted by the Association of American State Geologists, the 50 states have produced over 1,900 new geologic maps since the program authorized by this legislation started. There are an additional 300 maps currently being completed. Also, the states have digitized 650 existing geologic maps (1:24,000 scale) so they can be used as a computer data base. All of these maps have been submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey for inclusion in a national geologic map database. One of the purposes of this database is to eventually provide a digital geologic map of the entire nation at a scale of 1:100,000. This national database will assure that future maps will be easy to use by anyone. The Edmap and Fedmap sections of the legislation support mapping projects led by Universities and regional mapping projects that address needs for geologic information to deal with land, water, mineral resource, natural hazard mitigation and environmental protection issues. Fed map projects are coordinated with State and university mapping portions of the program, through regional meetings, liaison groups and national reviews of ongoing projects. Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate and usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so better and safer resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. Thank you, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 607 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Section 2(a) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31a(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (10); (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following: ``(8) geologic map information is required for the sustainable and balanced development of natural resources of all types, including energy, minerals, land, water, and biological resources; ``(9) advances in digital technology and geographical information system science [[Page S2653]] have made geologic map databases increasingly important as decision support tools for land and resource management; and''; and (4) in paragraph (10) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by inserting ``of surficial and bedrock deposits'' after ``geologic mapping''. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. Section 3 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31b) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (10), respectively; (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: ``(4) Education component.--The term `education component' means the education component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(3). ``(5) Federal component.--The term `Federal component' means the Federal component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(1).''; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) the following: ``(9) State component.--The term `State component' means the State component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(2).''. SEC. 4. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM. Section 4 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31c) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(1)-- (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``priorities'' and inserting ``national priorities and standards for''; (B) in subparagraph (A)-- (i) by striking ``develop a geologic mapping program implementation plan'' and inserting ``develop a 5-year strategic plan for the geologic mapping program''; and (ii) by striking ``within 300 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``within 90 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and (D) in subparagraph (C)-- (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``within 210 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999, and biennially thereafter''; (ii) in clause (i), by striking ``will coordinate'' and inserting ``are coordinating''; (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``will establish'' and inserting ``establish''; and (iv) in clause (iii), by striking ``will lead to'' and inserting ``affect''; and (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following: ``(d) Program Components-- ``(1) Federal component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a Federal geologic mapping component, the objective of which shall be to determine the geologic framework of areas determined to be vital to the economic, social, environmental, or scientific welfare of the United States. ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the Federal component, mapping priorities-- ``(i) shall be described in the 5-year plan under section 6; and ``(ii) shall be based on-- ``(I) national requirements for geologic map information in areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single- issue need; and ``(II) national requirements for geologic map information in areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth science problems. ``(C) Interdisciplinary studies.-- ``(i) In general.--The Federal component shall include interdisciplinary studies that add value to geologic mapping. ``(ii) Representative categories.--Interdisciplinary studies under clause (i) may include-- ``(I) establishment of a national geologic map database under section 7; ``(II) studies that lead to the implementation of cost- effective digital methods for the acquisition, compilation, analysis, cartographic production, and dissemination of geologic map information; ``(III) paleontologic, geochrono-logic, and isotopic investigations that provide information critical to understanding the age and history of geologic map units; ``(IV) geophysical investigations that assist in delineating and mapping the physical characteristics and 3- dimensional distribution of geologic materials and geologic structures; and ``(V) geochemical investigations and analytical operations that characterize the composition of geologic map units. ``(iii) Use of results.--The results of investigations under clause (ii) shall be contributed to national databases. ``(2) State component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a State geologic mapping component, the objective of which shall be to establish the geologic framework of areas determined to be vital to the economic, social, environmental, or scientific welfare of individual States. ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the State component, mapping priorities-- ``(i) shall be determined by State panels representing a broad range of users of geologic maps; and ``(ii) shall be based on-- ``(I) State requirements for geologic map information in areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single- issue need; and ``(II) State requirements for geologic map information in areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth science problems. ``(C) Integration of federal and state priorities.--A national panel including representatives of the Survey shall integrate the State mapping priorities under this paragraph with the Federal mapping priorities under paragraph (1). ``(D) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants under the State component shall not use more than 15.25 percent of the Federal funds made available under the State component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, servicing, or program management charges. ``(E) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of activities under the State component for any fiscal year shall not exceed 50 percent. ``(3) Education component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a geologic mapping education component for the training of geologic mappers, the objectives of which shall be-- ``(i) to provide for broad education in geologic mapping and field analysis through support of field studies; and ``(ii) to develop academic programs that teach students of earth science the fundamental principles of geologic mapping and field analysis. ``(B) Investigations.--The education component may include the conduct of investigations, which-- ``(i) shall be integrated with the Federal component and the State component; and ``(ii) shall respond to mapping priorities identified for the Federal component and the State component. ``(C) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants under the education component shall not use more than 15.25 percent of the Federal funds made available under the education component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, servicing, or program management charges. ``(D) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of activities under the education component for any fiscal year shall not exceed 50 percent.''. SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Section 5 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31d) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``90 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``critique the draft implementation plan'' and inserting ``update the 5-year plan''; and (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``sections 4 through 7''. SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 6 (43 U.S.C. 31e) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN. ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, with the advice and review of the advisory committee, prepare a 5-year plan for the geologic mapping program. ``(b) Requirements.--The 5-year plan shall identify-- ``(1) overall priorities for the geologic mapping program; and ``(2) implementation of the overall management structure and operation of the geologic mapping program, including-- ``(A) the role of the Survey in the capacity of overall management lead, including the responsibility for developing the national geologic mapping program that meets Federal needs while fostering State needs; ``(B) the responsibilities of the State geological surveys, with emphasis on mechanisms that incorporate the needs, missions, capabilities, and requirements of the State geological surveys, into the nationwide geologic mapping program; ``(C) mechanisms for identifying short- and long-term priorities for each component of the geologic mapping program, including-- ``(i) for the Federal component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to-- ``(I) Federal mission requirements for geologic map information; ``(II) critical scientific problems that require geologic maps for their resolution; and ``(III) shared Federal and State needs for geologic maps, in which joint Federal-State geologic mapping projects are in the national interest; ``(ii) for the State component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to-- ``(I) specific intrastate needs for geologic map information; and ``(II) interstate needs shared by adjacent States that have common requirements; and ``(iii) for the education component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to requirements for geologic map information that are dictated by Federal and State mission requirements; [[Page S2654]] ``(D) a mechanism for adopting scientific and technical mapping standards for preparing and publishing general- and special-purpose geologic maps to-- ``(i) ensure uniformity of cartographic and scientific conventions; and ``(ii) provide a basis for assessing the comparability and quality of map products; and ``(E) a mechanism for monitoring the inventory of published and current mapping investigations nationwide to facilitate planning and information exchange and to avoid redundancy.''. SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE. Section 7 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31f) is amended by striking the section heading and all that follows through subsection (a) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE. ``(a) Establishment.-- ``(1) In general.--The Survey shall establish a national geologic map database. ``(2) Function.--The database shall serve as a national catalog and archive, distributed through links to Federal and State geologic map holdings, that includes-- ``(A) all maps developed under the Federal component and the education component; ``(B) the databases developed in connection with investigations under subclauses (III), (IV), and (V) of section 4(d)(1)(C)(ii); and ``(C) other maps and data that the Survey and the Association consider appropriate.''. SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 8 (43 U.S.C. 31g) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT. ``Not later 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999 and biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that-- ``(1) describes the status of the national geologic mapping program; ``(2) describes and evaluates the progress achieved during the preceding 2 years in developing the national geologic map database; and ``(3) includes any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or other action to achieve the purposes of sections 4 through 7.''. SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 9 (43 U.S.C. 31h) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act-- ``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; ``(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; ``(3) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; ``(4) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; ``(5) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; ``(6) $57,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and ``(7) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2005. ``(b) Allocation of Appropriations.--Of any amounts appropriated for any fiscal year in excess of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000-- ``(1) 48 percent shall be available for the State component; and ``(2) 2 percent shall be available for the education component.''. ______ By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Crapo): S. 608. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. nuclear waste policy act of 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Rod Grams to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. Once again, Congress must clarify its intention toward the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which passed with broad bipartisan support in this body last year, as did similar legislation in the other body. It is why I am an original cosponsor of the legislation this year. We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with disposing of nuclear materials. Congress must recognize its responsibility to set a clear and definitive nuclear material disposal policy. With the passage of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate expressed its will that Government fulfill its responsibilities. This legislation makes one significant change to the course we are currently on by directing that an interim storage facility for nuclear materials be constructed at area 25 at the Nevada test site and that the interim facility be prepared to accept nuclear materials by June 30, 2003. The President and the Vice President do not support this provision. They do not support an interim storage facility at one safe, secure location in the Nevada desert. What they do support, according to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, is an interim storage at 70 some sites spread across this Nation. They support storage near population centers and major bodies of water, but not at a site located right next to a permanent repository, a site where hundreds of nuclear explosions have already been detonated over the last 50 years. In an announcement last month, the administration proposes to federalize storage of spent fuel at commercial reactors around this country by having the Government come in and take responsibility for each site. But do not worry, folks, because they promise to come and pick up the waste eventually, or at least that is what they have been promising for a long, long while. Well, I have some experience with the DOE and its promises, as many of my colleagues have, especially in the area of nuclear waste over the last number of years. In 1995, the Secretary of Energy promised the State of Idaho, and signed a court enforceable agreement, that transuranic waste in Idaho would be headed out of the State to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant no later than next month. Now DOE says they can't meet that deadline. Why? The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is safe and ready to receive waste, but the State of New Mexico won't issue a permit for the disposal and that the court won't lift its injunction. Now, I do believe our Secretary of Energy is trying in good faith to honor his commitment to the State of Idaho in moving that waste, but, once again, on issues of this kind of political sensitivity, our Government has shown no willingness to lead on this issue, and this administration is the prime example of a government without leadership. I know something about the politics of nuclear waste. I know something about DOE's broken promises. I mentioned the example of WIPP as a misuse of environmental regulation to subvert the will of Congress. It is this kind of game playing that we must eliminate. I guess my bottom line advice to those living next to one of these commercial nuclear reactors is, when DOE says they will come in and take responsibility for spent fuel and move it later, do not be fooled. You need a centralized interim storage facility and you need this legislation to make it happen. This administration has said that interim storage in Nevada will prejudge the repository site investigation now going on at Yucca Mountain. I think it is important to note that this legislation calls for beginning operation of an interim storage facility in the year 2003, 2 years after DOE will have recommended the repository site to the President and 1 year after DOE will have submitted a license application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This can hardly be called rushing ahead recklessly on interim storage. What it is is sealing the deal, trying to build credibility with the American people on this Government's responsibility and dedication toward the appropriate handling of high-level nuclear waste. In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. This legislation will make good on the Government's commitment to the communities which agreed to host our defense laboratories--that cleanup of these sites will happen, that it will happen sooner rather than later, and that defense nuclear waste, our legacy from the cold war, will be disposed of responsibly. Just this past week, before the appropriate Appropriations Committee, I and Senator Domenici heard at length what this administration is doing to help Russia get rid of its cold war nuclear waste legacy. While we are going headlong to help them, it is ironic that we cannot help ourselves. This administration has promised and yet, in 6 years, has delivered nothing and finally gave up on its promises and found itself in a box canyon with a lot of lawyers lining up in lawsuits, because they are now out of compliance with an act that this Congress passed in the mid-1980s to deal with nuclear waste. [[Page S2655]] This bill will assure that the spent fuel from our nuclear fighting ships and submarines, currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, can be sent to the interim storage facility beginning in the year 2003. This is good news for both the Navy and for Idaho. Our nuclear Navy ought to be concerned that DOE is still playing games with the real hard fact that sooner, rather than later, they must have a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel coming from our Navy vessels. Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the agreed date of the year 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho Governor Batt, DOE and the Navy. This legislation will provide assurance that nuclear waste now in Idaho for permanent storage will eventually be disposed of at the repository. The tragedy here, of course, and we understand it, in the building of safe facilities, is the long lead time necessary. That is why this legislation is important now, to construct an interim storage facility ready to receive by the year 2003. Critics of this legislation will attempt to distract you over the issue of transportation. In just a few months we will hear on the floor of the Senate the term ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This is just so much politics or political statement. There is absolutely no fact or record behind that statement other than a scare tactic that some of my colleagues will attempt to use to support an absence of fact. The fact is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of spent fuel in the United States and that there has not been a single death or injury from the radioactivity nature of the cargo. In my State of Idaho, there have been over 600 shipments of naval fuel and over 4,000 other shipments of radioactive material. Again, there has been not one single injury related to the radioactive nature of these shipments. This is a phenomenal safety record, but it is a real safety record, because this Government has insisted that the appropriate handling of our spent nuclear fuels and waste long term be dealt with in the right way. The proof is in the reality and the responsibility that this country has taken for years in the transportation of its waste. Those are the facts as I have related them. I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of spent nuclear fuel disposal. Some of my colleagues are probably fatigued at the prospect of debating this issue once again in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, as long as this administration continues to stick its head in the sand, sand that is now going to cost millions of dollars in legal fees, my colleagues and I have no choice but to address this issue once again for the sake of our country, for the future of energy production in our country from radioactive materials, and just the tremendous responsibility we have in making sure to our public that all of it is done well and safely. As this legislative body sets policies for the Nation, the Congress cannot sit by and watch while key components of the energy security of this Nation, the source of 20 percent of this country's electricity-- and that is coming from nuclear powerplants--risk going down simply because we cannot manage our waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 will address what neither the 1982 nor the 1987 Act did, and that is to provide a cost-effective and safe means to store spent fuel in the near term while we continue to investigate and provide for the ultimate disposal. I thank you, Mr. President. I see my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, has joined me now on the floor. I yield my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a pleasant afternoon. I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, for his statement relative to the reality that 22 percent of the Nation's power is generated by nuclear energy. Here we are again today, Mr. President, with an obligation to fulfill a commitment. That obligation and that commitment was made to the ratepayers, the individuals all over America who depend on nuclear energy for their power. They paid $14 billion over the last 18 years. What h

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - March 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2648-S2678] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. HOLLINGS: S. 605. A bill to solidify the off-budget status of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act and to protect program assets; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one committee reports, the committee have 30 days to report or be discharged. [[Page S2649]] social security fiscal protection act of 1999 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on tomorrow afternoon, we begin to mark up the budget. That is, when I say we, I mean that the Budget Committee on the Senate side meets to mark up the budget for the year 2000 commencing October 1 this year, and immediately we will hear the cry, ``Surplus.'' I am constrained to say--as in the earliest days of the Republic when Patrick Henry said, ``Peace, Peace, everywhere men cry peace,'' and there was no peace--``surplus, surplus, everywhere men cry surplus,'' but there is no surplus. The fact is that we are spending $100 billion more than we are taking in already this fiscal year, and under current policy the deficit for next year will be right at $90 billion. Also, Mr. President, another thing to note is the fact that you are going to hear the cry, ``Saving Social Security.'' I can tell you categorically that neither the Republican plan, policy or approach nor the Democratic White House plan, policy or approach will save Social Security. Both spend 100 percent of the Social Security moneys coming in the fiscal year 2000, as is the case already this year. And otherwise, all the wonderful talk about paying down the debt is nothing more than fancy rhetoric for a flawed policy that has got us into a situation of fiscal cancer. Now let me go right to the meaning of ``Surplus.'' Yes, we are making progress on the budget and the deficit. At a news conference earlier today I was asked about this and when did we ever expect to get some results. Well, I see that we are beginning to understand that there is no surplus. Most of the nation's astute commentators on the budget see this, too. Allan Sloan of Newsweek said, of course, that the President's plan was double accounting. Paul Samuelson talks about when they said ``surplus,'' it was ``surplus in the sky.'' The Concord Coalition, made up of our former colleagues, Senators Rudman and Nunn, with whom I have had an on-going engagement, finally says there is no surplus. And only two weeks ago Barron's, the conservative financial newspaper--which I hold it here--said: ``Hey, Guys, There is no Budget Surplus.'' But be that as it may, the White House and many members of Congress are going to start dealing around the so-called surplus, nonexistent that it is, for education, Medicare, tax cuts, anything and everything--everything but saving Social Security. It has been a constant charade on messages of the party caucuses on both sides since January, even during the impeachment days; we have got to get our message out. Unfortunately, most of the media falls right in line with the message. They don't look into the actual fact or the reality. On the matter of the so-called surplus and the $100 billion that we are spending now: mind you me, Mr. President, we set spending caps year before last, and last year we broke the caps by $12 billion, and we have already broken the cap in this year's budget by $21 billion, which would mean in marking up 2000's budget we would immediately have to cut spending $33 billion to conform to the fiscal year 2000 budget cap. Instead of doing that, we have already met in unison, almost like a chorus singing ``Whoopee for the military,'' and we have spent $18 billion on the military, money which is unaccounted for. Instead of cutting back, the Senate has already exceeded the agreed-to caps by $18 billion. Unless, of course, they intend to cut $18 billion in domestic programs or cut $18 billion in operation, maintenance and readiness within the defense budget. We are going in the wrong direction. No one should think that Social Security has a surplus. This fiscal year, we have a surplus of the amount required to be paid out, but since we have been spending it each year there is a $730 billion deficit due and owing. Social Security is in the red. So there are no surpluses. Even trying to get around that to try to get something to politic on for this year and next year, the Campaign 2000, they say, ``Well, wait a minute; we will start our tax cuts in the year 2002 when there is one document to the effect there might be a slight surplus in Social Security, over and above the Social Security amount or otherwise we can spend it on Medicare beginning in 2000''-- anything for the Campaign 2000. They talk in the Chamber about the Chinese. Come, come, come. It is not the Chinese. It is not the baby boomers in the next generation. It is the adults in Congress who are looting the Social Security trust fund. Each one of these particular plans spends 100 percent of the Social Security so-called surplus. How do I say that? Well, it is easy. You go back into the original law--and I have a copy of the law itself--section 201. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H.R. 7260] Title II--Federal Old-Age Benefits Old-Age Reserve Account Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required under this title, such amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate of the appropriations to be made to the Account. (b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest- bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired (1) on original issue at par, or (2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum. (c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest. (d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account. (e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title. (f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will send that momentarily to the desk, section 201 of the Social Security Act. Under section 201 of Social Security, we required at this moment--and have been doing so for years--under law to invest only and immediately in T-bills, Treasury bills, these special securities of the Federal Government. Once we do that, of course, we get a bond or IOU; the Government gets the money, and immediately all of those moneys are transferred to the Government account and it is spent, allocated, or used to pay down the so-called public debt. The one way to stop that is a bill, which I will send to the desk and for which I request proper referral. Mr. President, this bill simply says, amongst other things--and I will read section 5--that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day of each month. Advisedly, Mr. President, this was worked out by none other than my Social Security friends. At one time, I had the distinction of being the chairman of the Budget Committee. We had an outstanding staffer then named Ken Apfel. He is now the Social Security Administrator. I called over there and I said: Let's stop this roundabout dance [[Page S2650]] about surpluses and spending all the money and everything else; I want you to write a provision whereby we can do exactly what we said when Congress passed the Social Security Act. Remember old John Mitchell, under the Nixon administration? He said, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' I am afraid on budget matters we have arrived exactly at that point. But, in any event, to do what we say, we have prepared this bill and now it has been introduced and, if passed by the Congress, yes, we will save Social Security. Immediately, one of the distinguished Senators said, ``Wait a minute. Is the money going to just sit there?'' No. Mr. President, that money will be invested in T-bills, just as it has been all these years. Or, if there is an additional plan, like the Kerrey-Moynihan plan, like our Thrift Savings Plan--a certain percentage invested in the market in order to make more money but take on more risk--we can debate that. What this particular bill really does is save Social Security. Social Security funds will not be spent, save and excepting on Social Security purposes. This is exactly what was intended by Mr. Greenspan when he headed the Greenspan Commission in 1983. In 1983, section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report said to take Social Security outside of the unified budget, outside of the unified deficit, and set it aside in trust. I struggled from 1983 until 1990 to translate Chairman Greenspan's recommendations into law. I thought we had done it in 1990, when we passed the Budget Act by a vote of 98 Senators here on the floor of the Senate and almost an equal majority, overwhelming as it was, over on the House side. President Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed the bill into law, including section 13301 of the Budget Act, which stated Congress could not spend Social Security moneys on anything other than the Social Security program; you had it outside of the unified budget and the deficit. Unfortunately, Mr. President, that has been ignored. That is why I have to reword it this way. But the contemplation at the particular time, the law itself, the policy of the U.S. Government with respect to corporate America--we passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994 saying: Thou shalt not, in corporate America, spend your pension fund to pay off the company debt. The most interesting and ironic thing is, when Denny McLain, the former great pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, became the head of a corporation and paid off its debt with the pension fund, he was sent to jail for 8 years. If you can find what jail poor Denny is in, say to him, ``Denny, next time, run for the U.S. Senate. Instead of a jail term, they will give you the good government award.'' That is exactly what we are doing. We violate our own policy. We pay off the debt with the Social Security Trust Fund and have been doing it for 15 years. That gets me immediately to the point of so-called paying off the public debt. You know, they have these euphemisms and different expressions that come around budget time and make you think you have a real policy on board. That has been the policy. Admittedly, if you had a stagnant economy, if you had a dormant stock market, you could welcome paying off the public debt to get the economy and the stock market moving and everything else. But to do it, not over just a year or 2, but to do it for the last 15 years to the tune of in excess of $100 billion, what it has really done is given us fiscal cancer. We have gone up, up, and away with the national debt, and the interest costs are killing us. Let me dwell a minute on the interest costs on the national debt. The interest cost, when President Lyndon Johnson last balanced the budget, was $16 billion. Today the interest cost is projected to be $357 billion, almost a billion dollars a day. What it says to me is, this year I have to spend--and next year I have to spend--$357 billion for nothing. If I had been fiscally prudent, I could have had $80 billion for tax cuts plus $80 billion for spending increases plus $80 billion to pay down the debt plus $80 billion to save Social Security. That is $320 billion. I would have had $37 billion for you to have a party out here on the west front when I jump off the Capitol dome. Since 1995, I have been telling Chairman Domenici, trying to bring sense to this entire budget debate by talking in the extreme, that by the year 2002, if he had a balanced budget, truly balanced--if we were paying out less than what we were bringing in or just at that amount--I would jump off the Capitol dome. And I reiterate the pledge. Let's make the bets--``Get old Hollings to jump off the dome.'' Because under current policies, no one can possibly balance the budget while exceeding revenue by over $100 billion. Nobody is cutting $100 billion. They are spending $18 billion more unaccounted for, breaking the caps. Nobody is spending less than $90 billion. So we know with all of this spending for tax cuts, Medicare, education, housing, and everything else of that kind, that we are in deep trouble. We have fiscal cancer. What we really should do, probably, as Mr. Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, finally came around to saying, is do nothing: take this year's budget for next year. I did that as the Governor of South Carolina. I capped the debt. By the way, that would bring truth in budgeting to this crowd, if they are right. Let's plead guilty: They are right, I am wrong, there is a surplus and we are going to pay down the debt. If that occurs, we can cap the debt as of October 1 of this year, the beginning of the next fiscal year. Whatever it is, since there is a surplus and since we are going to pay down the debt, let's cap it so it does not exceed that particular amount. You cannot get the White House--I faced them down in one of these briefings--to go along with it. I will make the motion and we will see how many people vote for that. I am trying to bring truth to our federal budget. I am trying to avoid the fiscal cancer. The Republicans talk about an $80 billion across-the-board tax cut. I want a $357 billion tax cut this year, next year, and right along the line. I want, in that 10-year period, $3.5 trillion in tax cuts, not just this $800 billion tax cut. I want to get rid of this waste in Government. I served on the Grace Commission to Eliminate Waste. I know what waste is. I speak advisedly. Before long, if those interest rates go up, instead of $357 billion, we will be up around $500 billion in interest costs. It is the largest item in the domestic budget for spending at this minute. What we ought to do is get a hold of ourselves, start talking sense to each other, work out a plan to take care of the needs of Government, but quit using the Social Security surplus and trust fund as a political slush fund for any and every idea on the media message. And the media are going along with this nonsense and act like we actually are doing it. My particular bill will bring sobriety to the entire process and debate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 605 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Fiscal Protection Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. OFF BUDGET STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of-- (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FROM SURPLUS AND DEFICIT TOTALS. The receipts and disbursements of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act and the revenues under sections 86, 1401, 3101, and 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 related to such program shall not be included in any surplus or deficit totals required under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code. SEC. 4. CONFORMITY OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS. Any official statement issued by the Office of Management and Budget or by the Congressional Budget Office of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President [[Page S2651]] or of the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional budget, and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any official publication or material issued by either of such Offices, shall exclude all receipts and disbursements under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act and the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (including the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old- Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund). SEC. 5. REPOSITORY REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of the Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day of such month. ______ By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Mack, and Mrs. Feinstein): S. 606. A bill for the relief of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation), and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. private relief bill Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 606 for Senator Mack, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and myself. This bill is intended to resolve litigation between the federal government and Kerr- McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation) and Global Exploration and Development Corporation. This legislation embodies an agreement that has been reviewed and accepted by the Hearing Officer and a three judge reviewing panel. The Department of Justice has no objection to this legislation. In addition, this legislation would also make it a criminal act to distribute certain information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. This bill was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary in this form during the 105th Congress. As background to this relief for Kerr-McGee and Global Exploration, in 1964, they first filed applications for phosphate prospecting permits in Osceola National Forest. Under Sec. 211(a) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, the Secretary can only grant prospecting permit applications following a determination that the public interest will be served by doing so. The U.S. Forest Service must also consent to the issuance of the prospecting permits. The permits were granted, and the plaintiffs subsequently discovered phosphate deposits. The plaintiffs then filed applications with the Department of Interior for leases to mine the deposits in January of 1969. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to leases is governed by the Mineral Lands Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. sec. 181 et. seq.) which requires the Secretary of Interior to issue leases to a permittee that has discovered a ``valuable deposit'' of mineral. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines and the Office of Minerals Policy Department all confirmed that valuable deposits had in fact been discovered (valued at $100 to $300 million in 1970's dollars). Kerr-McGee filed suit in 1973 and Global filed suit in 1978 seeking the immediate issuance of the leases. In 1981, the U.S. Forest Service began setting out the requirements for reclamation. The Department of Interior concluded the reclamation technology did not exist based on an Environmental Assessment (``EA'') prepared by Interior and issued in January of 1983. Based on that conclusion, the plaintiffs' applications for leases to mine the deposits were rejected. Agency personnel had told plaintiffs that they would be able to comment on the EA findings before their final issuance. By law, the government was required to permit the applicants to participate in the EA process by submitting comments and expert analysis on the feasibility of reclamation. Plaintiffs were never given a chance to participate in the EA process, to show feasibility of reclamation, or to comment on the draft EA. In 1984, the Florida Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 98-430, 98 Stat. 1665) was enacted which prevented the issuance of phosphate mining leases in Osceola, effectively foreclosing a legal remedy since plaintiffs could no longer ask for reversal of the prior decision or for relief for damages incurred. The House Committee Report accompanying the Act stated that ``in the event the courts ultimately determined that applicants have established lease rights, [the Act] provides that leases will not be issued. The applicants would instead be compensated as required in accordance with constitutional principles.'' H. Rpt. 98- 102 Part I, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., at 7. The plaintiffs pursued their case in federal district court and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the suit as moot in light of Florida Wilderness Act. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims then questioned whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the case, leaving plaintiffs without a forum to be heard. Under 28 U.S.C. 2509, a congressional reference empowers a judge of the Court of Federal Claims to sit as a Hearing Officer, hold a hearing and determine the facts of the case. The Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions are then reviewed by a three-judge panel. The panel then adopts or modifies the findings and conclusions and submits its report to the Chief Judge who then transmits the recommendations to the house of Congress which referred the case. On Jan. 10, 1991, H. Res. 29 and H.R. 477 were introduced during the 102nd Congress to refer the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in order to compensate plaintiffs for any damages incurred on account of the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to grant and permit mining operations pursuant to phosphate leases in the Osceola National Forest. On July 10, 1991, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations held hearings on H.R. 477 and H. Res. 29. On October 3, 1991, the Subcommittee reported the resolution, with a technical amendment, to full Committee. On July 21, 1992, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 29, referring H.R. 477 to Court of Claims. The formal Congressional reference confirmed jurisdiction for the plaintiffs' suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In the Court of Federal Claims, the Government moved for summary judgement. The Court ruled that plaintiffs did not have a legal claim but did have an equitable claim since the government failed to comply with the legal requirement of the EA. The court ruled that the Secretary of Interior had made an error in denying phosphate mining leases on the basis of an EA without allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to comment. The court concluded that the error was not harmless. Remaining was the question of fact whether reclamation was feasible, according to Forest Service standards as of January of 1983. A 6 week evidentiary hearing was held on that issue from October 13 to December 14, 1995. Plaintiffs presented leading experts in reclamation who showed they could have successfully reclaimed the land, that the analysis in the EA was scientifically incorrect, and that EA members who concluded successful reclamation had their conclusions omitted. Before the court issued its opinion, the parties agreed to a joint stipulation of settlement and submitted this stipulation to the Court: Global is to received $9.5 million; Kerr-McGee is to receive $10 million, which it will return to the government as partial payment for a Superfund cleanup site in Louisiana; and Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC is to receive $0. Global, Kerr-McGee and the Department of Justice accepted the report of the Hearing Officer, dated November 18, 1996, and the Review Panel endorsed the decision. On November 18, 1996, the court published its recommendations to Congress that the disputes be settled for the amounts set forth in the joint stipulation of settlement. The court's recommendation was based on a finding that the settlement was fair, just, equitable and supported by the evidence. As noted in the Hearing Officer's report, ``if the case were to proceed to final disposition and plaintiffs to prevail, then the Government would face a potential liability substantially in excess of the proposed settlement amounts. Conversely, however, a victory for the Government would not assure it of protection against all future liability.'' [[Page S2652]] This legislation would implement this settlement, and we urge its prompt consideration and approval by the Senate. For the information of all Senators, I have included the House Committee Report from the 105th Congress which provides a very clear background and the need for this provision. In addition, the bill includes language related to the prohibition of distribution of information related to destructive devices, explosives, and weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of a violent crime. This language was added to this legislation during markup of H.R. 1211 during the 105th Congress in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Feinstein and is a reasonable resolution of an issue pushed by Senator Feinstein for several years. I urge quick consideration and passage of this overdue and important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 606 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. (a) Payment of Claims.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of money not otherwise appropriated-- (1) to the Global Exploration and Development Corporation, a Florida corporation incorporated in Delaware, $9,500,000; (2) to Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation incorporated in Delaware, $10,000,000; and (3) to Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, $0. (b) Condition of Payment.-- (1) Global exploration and development corporation.--The payment authorized by subsection (a)(1) is in settlement and compromise of all claims of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, as described in the recommendations of the United States Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776. (2) Kerr-mcgee corporation and kerr-mcgee chemical, llc.-- The payment authorized by subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) are in settlement and compromise of all claims of Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, as described in the recommendations of the United States Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776. SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PROHIBITION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. (a) Unlawful Conduct.--Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(p) Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.-- ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection-- ``(A) the term `destructive device' has the same meaning as in section 921(a)(4); ``(B) the term `explosive' has the same meaning as in section 844(j); and ``(C) the term `weapon of mass destruction' has the same meaning as in section 2332a(c)(2). ``(2) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person-- ``(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or ``(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.''. (b) Penalties.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``person who violates any of subsections'' and inserting the following: ``person who-- ``(1) violates any of subsections''; (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(2) violates subsection (p)(2) of section 842, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.''; and (4) in subsection (j), by striking ``and (i)'' and inserting ``(i), and (p)''. ______ By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Murkowski): S. 607. A bill reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing along with Senator Murkowski, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act (NCGMA) was originally signed into law in 1992. The purpose of this geologic mapping program is to provide the nation with urgently needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, geology essential for all types of land use planning, as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMA contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the state geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the states submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each federal dollar be matched one-for-one with state funds. Each participating state has a StateMap Advisory Committee to insure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs. The success of this program insured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. According to a recent poll conducted by the Association of American State Geologists, the 50 states have produced over 1,900 new geologic maps since the program authorized by this legislation started. There are an additional 300 maps currently being completed. Also, the states have digitized 650 existing geologic maps (1:24,000 scale) so they can be used as a computer data base. All of these maps have been submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey for inclusion in a national geologic map database. One of the purposes of this database is to eventually provide a digital geologic map of the entire nation at a scale of 1:100,000. This national database will assure that future maps will be easy to use by anyone. The Edmap and Fedmap sections of the legislation support mapping projects led by Universities and regional mapping projects that address needs for geologic information to deal with land, water, mineral resource, natural hazard mitigation and environmental protection issues. Fed map projects are coordinated with State and university mapping portions of the program, through regional meetings, liaison groups and national reviews of ongoing projects. Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate and usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so better and safer resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. Thank you, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 607 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Section 2(a) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31a(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (10); (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following: ``(8) geologic map information is required for the sustainable and balanced development of natural resources of all types, including energy, minerals, land, water, and biological resources; ``(9) advances in digital technology and geographical information system science [[Page S2653]] have made geologic map databases increasingly important as decision support tools for land and resource management; and''; and (4) in paragraph (10) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by inserting ``of surficial and bedrock deposits'' after ``geologic mapping''. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. Section 3 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31b) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (10), respectively; (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: ``(4) Education component.--The term `education component' means the education component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(3). ``(5) Federal component.--The term `Federal component' means the Federal component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(1).''; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) the following: ``(9) State component.--The term `State component' means the State component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(2).''. SEC. 4. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM. Section 4 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31c) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(1)-- (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``priorities'' and inserting ``national priorities and standards for''; (B) in subparagraph (A)-- (i) by striking ``develop a geologic mapping program implementation plan'' and inserting ``develop a 5-year strategic plan for the geologic mapping program''; and (ii) by striking ``within 300 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``within 90 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and (D) in subparagraph (C)-- (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``within 210 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999, and biennially thereafter''; (ii) in clause (i), by striking ``will coordinate'' and inserting ``are coordinating''; (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``will establish'' and inserting ``establish''; and (iv) in clause (iii), by striking ``will lead to'' and inserting ``affect''; and (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following: ``(d) Program Components-- ``(1) Federal component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a Federal geologic mapping component, the objective of which shall be to determine the geologic framework of areas determined to be vital to the economic, social, environmental, or scientific welfare of the United States. ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the Federal component, mapping priorities-- ``(i) shall be described in the 5-year plan under section 6; and ``(ii) shall be based on-- ``(I) national requirements for geologic map information in areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single- issue need; and ``(II) national requirements for geologic map information in areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth science problems. ``(C) Interdisciplinary studies.-- ``(i) In general.--The Federal component shall include interdisciplinary studies that add value to geologic mapping. ``(ii) Representative categories.--Interdisciplinary studies under clause (i) may include-- ``(I) establishment of a national geologic map database under section 7; ``(II) studies that lead to the implementation of cost- effective digital methods for the acquisition, compilation, analysis, cartographic production, and dissemination of geologic map information; ``(III) paleontologic, geochrono-logic, and isotopic investigations that provide information critical to understanding the age and history of geologic map units; ``(IV) geophysical investigations that assist in delineating and mapping the physical characteristics and 3- dimensional distribution of geologic materials and geologic structures; and ``(V) geochemical investigations and analytical operations that characterize the composition of geologic map units. ``(iii) Use of results.--The results of investigations under clause (ii) shall be contributed to national databases. ``(2) State component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a State geologic mapping component, the objective of which shall be to establish the geologic framework of areas determined to be vital to the economic, social, environmental, or scientific welfare of individual States. ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the State component, mapping priorities-- ``(i) shall be determined by State panels representing a broad range of users of geologic maps; and ``(ii) shall be based on-- ``(I) State requirements for geologic map information in areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single- issue need; and ``(II) State requirements for geologic map information in areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth science problems. ``(C) Integration of federal and state priorities.--A national panel including representatives of the Survey shall integrate the State mapping priorities under this paragraph with the Federal mapping priorities under paragraph (1). ``(D) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants under the State component shall not use more than 15.25 percent of the Federal funds made available under the State component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, servicing, or program management charges. ``(E) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of activities under the State component for any fiscal year shall not exceed 50 percent. ``(3) Education component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a geologic mapping education component for the training of geologic mappers, the objectives of which shall be-- ``(i) to provide for broad education in geologic mapping and field analysis through support of field studies; and ``(ii) to develop academic programs that teach students of earth science the fundamental principles of geologic mapping and field analysis. ``(B) Investigations.--The education component may include the conduct of investigations, which-- ``(i) shall be integrated with the Federal component and the State component; and ``(ii) shall respond to mapping priorities identified for the Federal component and the State component. ``(C) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants under the education component shall not use more than 15.25 percent of the Federal funds made available under the education component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, servicing, or program management charges. ``(D) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of activities under the education component for any fiscal year shall not exceed 50 percent.''. SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Section 5 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31d) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``90 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``critique the draft implementation plan'' and inserting ``update the 5-year plan''; and (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``sections 4 through 7''. SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 6 (43 U.S.C. 31e) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN. ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, with the advice and review of the advisory committee, prepare a 5-year plan for the geologic mapping program. ``(b) Requirements.--The 5-year plan shall identify-- ``(1) overall priorities for the geologic mapping program; and ``(2) implementation of the overall management structure and operation of the geologic mapping program, including-- ``(A) the role of the Survey in the capacity of overall management lead, including the responsibility for developing the national geologic mapping program that meets Federal needs while fostering State needs; ``(B) the responsibilities of the State geological surveys, with emphasis on mechanisms that incorporate the needs, missions, capabilities, and requirements of the State geological surveys, into the nationwide geologic mapping program; ``(C) mechanisms for identifying short- and long-term priorities for each component of the geologic mapping program, including-- ``(i) for the Federal component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to-- ``(I) Federal mission requirements for geologic map information; ``(II) critical scientific problems that require geologic maps for their resolution; and ``(III) shared Federal and State needs for geologic maps, in which joint Federal-State geologic mapping projects are in the national interest; ``(ii) for the State component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to-- ``(I) specific intrastate needs for geologic map information; and ``(II) interstate needs shared by adjacent States that have common requirements; and ``(iii) for the education component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to requirements for geologic map information that are dictated by Federal and State mission requirements; [[Page S2654]] ``(D) a mechanism for adopting scientific and technical mapping standards for preparing and publishing general- and special-purpose geologic maps to-- ``(i) ensure uniformity of cartographic and scientific conventions; and ``(ii) provide a basis for assessing the comparability and quality of map products; and ``(E) a mechanism for monitoring the inventory of published and current mapping investigations nationwide to facilitate planning and information exchange and to avoid redundancy.''. SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE. Section 7 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31f) is amended by striking the section heading and all that follows through subsection (a) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE. ``(a) Establishment.-- ``(1) In general.--The Survey shall establish a national geologic map database. ``(2) Function.--The database shall serve as a national catalog and archive, distributed through links to Federal and State geologic map holdings, that includes-- ``(A) all maps developed under the Federal component and the education component; ``(B) the databases developed in connection with investigations under subclauses (III), (IV), and (V) of section 4(d)(1)(C)(ii); and ``(C) other maps and data that the Survey and the Association consider appropriate.''. SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 8 (43 U.S.C. 31g) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT. ``Not later 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999 and biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that-- ``(1) describes the status of the national geologic mapping program; ``(2) describes and evaluates the progress achieved during the preceding 2 years in developing the national geologic map database; and ``(3) includes any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or other action to achieve the purposes of sections 4 through 7.''. SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 9 (43 U.S.C. 31h) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act-- ``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; ``(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; ``(3) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; ``(4) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; ``(5) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; ``(6) $57,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and ``(7) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2005. ``(b) Allocation of Appropriations.--Of any amounts appropriated for any fiscal year in excess of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000-- ``(1) 48 percent shall be available for the State component; and ``(2) 2 percent shall be available for the education component.''. ______ By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Crapo): S. 608. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. nuclear waste policy act of 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Rod Grams to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. Once again, Congress must clarify its intention toward the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which passed with broad bipartisan support in this body last year, as did similar legislation in the other body. It is why I am an original cosponsor of the legislation this year. We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with disposing of nuclear materials. Congress must recognize its responsibility to set a clear and definitive nuclear material disposal policy. With the passage of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate expressed its will that Government fulfill its responsibilities. This legislation makes one significant change to the course we are currently on by directing that an interim storage facility for nuclear materials be constructed at area 25 at the Nevada test site and that the interim facility be prepared to accept nuclear materials by June 30, 2003. The President and the Vice President do not support this provision. They do not support an interim storage facility at one safe, secure location in the Nevada desert. What they do support, according to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, is an interim storage at 70 some sites spread across this Nation. They support storage near population centers and major bodies of water, but not at a site located right next to a permanent repository, a site where hundreds of nuclear explosions have already been detonated over the last 50 years. In an announcement last month, the administration proposes to federalize storage of spent fuel at commercial reactors around this country by having the Government come in and take responsibility for each site. But do not worry, folks, because they promise to come and pick up the waste eventually, or at least that is what they have been promising for a long, long while. Well, I have some experience with the DOE and its promises, as many of my colleagues have, especially in the area of nuclear waste over the last number of years. In 1995, the Secretary of Energy promised the State of Idaho, and signed a court enforceable agreement, that transuranic waste in Idaho would be headed out of the State to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant no later than next month. Now DOE says they can't meet that deadline. Why? The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is safe and ready to receive waste, but the State of New Mexico won't issue a permit for the disposal and that the court won't lift its injunction. Now, I do believe our Secretary of Energy is trying in good faith to honor his commitment to the State of Idaho in moving that waste, but, once again, on issues of this kind of political sensitivity, our Government has shown no willingness to lead on this issue, and this administration is the prime example of a government without leadership. I know something about the politics of nuclear waste. I know something about DOE's broken promises. I mentioned the example of WIPP as a misuse of environmental regulation to subvert the will of Congress. It is this kind of game playing that we must eliminate. I guess my bottom line advice to those living next to one of these commercial nuclear reactors is, when DOE says they will come in and take responsibility for spent fuel and move it later, do not be fooled. You need a centralized interim storage facility and you need this legislation to make it happen. This administration has said that interim storage in Nevada will prejudge the repository site investigation now going on at Yucca Mountain. I think it is important to note that this legislation calls for beginning operation of an interim storage facility in the year 2003, 2 years after DOE will have recommended the repository site to the President and 1 year after DOE will have submitted a license application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This can hardly be called rushing ahead recklessly on interim storage. What it is is sealing the deal, trying to build credibility with the American people on this Government's responsibility and dedication toward the appropriate handling of high-level nuclear waste. In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. This legislation will make good on the Government's commitment to the communities which agreed to host our defense laboratories--that cleanup of these sites will happen, that it will happen sooner rather than later, and that defense nuclear waste, our legacy from the cold war, will be disposed of responsibly. Just this past week, before the appropriate Appropriations Committee, I and Senator Domenici heard at length what this administration is doing to help Russia get rid of its cold war nuclear waste legacy. While we are going headlong to help them, it is ironic that we cannot help ourselves. This administration has promised and yet, in 6 years, has delivered nothing and finally gave up on its promises and found itself in a box canyon with a lot of lawyers lining up in lawsuits, because they are now out of compliance with an act that this Congress passed in the mid-1980s to deal with nuclear waste. [[Page S2655]] This bill will assure that the spent fuel from our nuclear fighting ships and submarines, currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, can be sent to the interim storage facility beginning in the year 2003. This is good news for both the Navy and for Idaho. Our nuclear Navy ought to be concerned that DOE is still playing games with the real hard fact that sooner, rather than later, they must have a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel coming from our Navy vessels. Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the agreed date of the year 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho Governor Batt, DOE and the Navy. This legislation will provide assurance that nuclear waste now in Idaho for permanent storage will eventually be disposed of at the repository. The tragedy here, of course, and we understand it, in the building of safe facilities, is the long lead time necessary. That is why this legislation is important now, to construct an interim storage facility ready to receive by the year 2003. Critics of this legislation will attempt to distract you over the issue of transportation. In just a few months we will hear on the floor of the Senate the term ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This is just so much politics or political statement. There is absolutely no fact or record behind that statement other than a scare tactic that some of my colleagues will attempt to use to support an absence of fact. The fact is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of spent fuel in the United States and that there has not been a single death or injury from the radioactivity nature of the cargo. In my State of Idaho, there have been over 600 shipments of naval fuel and over 4,000 other shipments of radioactive material. Again, there has been not one single injury related to the radioactive nature of these shipments. This is a phenomenal safety record, but it is a real safety record, because this Government has insisted that the appropriate handling of our spent nuclear fuels and waste long term be dealt with in the right way. The proof is in the reality and the responsibility that this country has taken for years in the transportation of its waste. Those are the facts as I have related them. I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of spent nuclear fuel disposal. Some of my colleagues are probably fatigued at the prospect of debating this issue once again in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, as long as this administration continues to stick its head in the sand, sand that is now going to cost millions of dollars in legal fees, my colleagues and I have no choice but to address this issue once again for the sake of our country, for the future of energy production in our country from radioactive materials, and just the tremendous responsibility we have in making sure to our public that all of it is done well and safely. As this legislative body sets policies for the Nation, the Congress cannot sit by and watch while key components of the energy security of this Nation, the source of 20 percent of this country's electricity-- and that is coming from nuclear powerplants--risk going down simply because we cannot manage our waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 will address what neither the 1982 nor the 1987 Act did, and that is to provide a cost-effective and safe means to store spent fuel in the near term while we continue to investigate and provide for the ultimate disposal. I thank you, Mr. President. I see my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, has joined me now on the floor. I yield my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a pleasant afternoon. I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, for his statement relative to the reality that 22 percent of the Nation's power is generated by nuclear energy. Here we are again today, Mr. President, with an obligation to fulfill a commitment. That obligation and that commitment was made to the ratepayers, the individuals all over America who depend on nuclear energy for their power. They paid $14 billion over the last 18 years. What have they paid for? They have pai

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - March 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2648-S2678] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. HOLLINGS: S. 605. A bill to solidify the off-budget status of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act and to protect program assets; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one committee reports, the committee have 30 days to report or be discharged. [[Page S2649]] social security fiscal protection act of 1999 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on tomorrow afternoon, we begin to mark up the budget. That is, when I say we, I mean that the Budget Committee on the Senate side meets to mark up the budget for the year 2000 commencing October 1 this year, and immediately we will hear the cry, ``Surplus.'' I am constrained to say--as in the earliest days of the Republic when Patrick Henry said, ``Peace, Peace, everywhere men cry peace,'' and there was no peace--``surplus, surplus, everywhere men cry surplus,'' but there is no surplus. The fact is that we are spending $100 billion more than we are taking in already this fiscal year, and under current policy the deficit for next year will be right at $90 billion. Also, Mr. President, another thing to note is the fact that you are going to hear the cry, ``Saving Social Security.'' I can tell you categorically that neither the Republican plan, policy or approach nor the Democratic White House plan, policy or approach will save Social Security. Both spend 100 percent of the Social Security moneys coming in the fiscal year 2000, as is the case already this year. And otherwise, all the wonderful talk about paying down the debt is nothing more than fancy rhetoric for a flawed policy that has got us into a situation of fiscal cancer. Now let me go right to the meaning of ``Surplus.'' Yes, we are making progress on the budget and the deficit. At a news conference earlier today I was asked about this and when did we ever expect to get some results. Well, I see that we are beginning to understand that there is no surplus. Most of the nation's astute commentators on the budget see this, too. Allan Sloan of Newsweek said, of course, that the President's plan was double accounting. Paul Samuelson talks about when they said ``surplus,'' it was ``surplus in the sky.'' The Concord Coalition, made up of our former colleagues, Senators Rudman and Nunn, with whom I have had an on-going engagement, finally says there is no surplus. And only two weeks ago Barron's, the conservative financial newspaper--which I hold it here--said: ``Hey, Guys, There is no Budget Surplus.'' But be that as it may, the White House and many members of Congress are going to start dealing around the so-called surplus, nonexistent that it is, for education, Medicare, tax cuts, anything and everything--everything but saving Social Security. It has been a constant charade on messages of the party caucuses on both sides since January, even during the impeachment days; we have got to get our message out. Unfortunately, most of the media falls right in line with the message. They don't look into the actual fact or the reality. On the matter of the so-called surplus and the $100 billion that we are spending now: mind you me, Mr. President, we set spending caps year before last, and last year we broke the caps by $12 billion, and we have already broken the cap in this year's budget by $21 billion, which would mean in marking up 2000's budget we would immediately have to cut spending $33 billion to conform to the fiscal year 2000 budget cap. Instead of doing that, we have already met in unison, almost like a chorus singing ``Whoopee for the military,'' and we have spent $18 billion on the military, money which is unaccounted for. Instead of cutting back, the Senate has already exceeded the agreed-to caps by $18 billion. Unless, of course, they intend to cut $18 billion in domestic programs or cut $18 billion in operation, maintenance and readiness within the defense budget. We are going in the wrong direction. No one should think that Social Security has a surplus. This fiscal year, we have a surplus of the amount required to be paid out, but since we have been spending it each year there is a $730 billion deficit due and owing. Social Security is in the red. So there are no surpluses. Even trying to get around that to try to get something to politic on for this year and next year, the Campaign 2000, they say, ``Well, wait a minute; we will start our tax cuts in the year 2002 when there is one document to the effect there might be a slight surplus in Social Security, over and above the Social Security amount or otherwise we can spend it on Medicare beginning in 2000''-- anything for the Campaign 2000. They talk in the Chamber about the Chinese. Come, come, come. It is not the Chinese. It is not the baby boomers in the next generation. It is the adults in Congress who are looting the Social Security trust fund. Each one of these particular plans spends 100 percent of the Social Security so-called surplus. How do I say that? Well, it is easy. You go back into the original law--and I have a copy of the law itself--section 201. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H.R. 7260] Title II--Federal Old-Age Benefits Old-Age Reserve Account Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required under this title, such amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate of the appropriations to be made to the Account. (b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest- bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired (1) on original issue at par, or (2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum. (c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest. (d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account. (e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title. (f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will send that momentarily to the desk, section 201 of the Social Security Act. Under section 201 of Social Security, we required at this moment--and have been doing so for years--under law to invest only and immediately in T-bills, Treasury bills, these special securities of the Federal Government. Once we do that, of course, we get a bond or IOU; the Government gets the money, and immediately all of those moneys are transferred to the Government account and it is spent, allocated, or used to pay down the so-called public debt. The one way to stop that is a bill, which I will send to the desk and for which I request proper referral. Mr. President, this bill simply says, amongst other things--and I will read section 5--that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day of each month. Advisedly, Mr. President, this was worked out by none other than my Social Security friends. At one time, I had the distinction of being the chairman of the Budget Committee. We had an outstanding staffer then named Ken Apfel. He is now the Social Security Administrator. I called over there and I said: Let's stop this roundabout dance [[Page S2650]] about surpluses and spending all the money and everything else; I want you to write a provision whereby we can do exactly what we said when Congress passed the Social Security Act. Remember old John Mitchell, under the Nixon administration? He said, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' I am afraid on budget matters we have arrived exactly at that point. But, in any event, to do what we say, we have prepared this bill and now it has been introduced and, if passed by the Congress, yes, we will save Social Security. Immediately, one of the distinguished Senators said, ``Wait a minute. Is the money going to just sit there?'' No. Mr. President, that money will be invested in T-bills, just as it has been all these years. Or, if there is an additional plan, like the Kerrey-Moynihan plan, like our Thrift Savings Plan--a certain percentage invested in the market in order to make more money but take on more risk--we can debate that. What this particular bill really does is save Social Security. Social Security funds will not be spent, save and excepting on Social Security purposes. This is exactly what was intended by Mr. Greenspan when he headed the Greenspan Commission in 1983. In 1983, section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report said to take Social Security outside of the unified budget, outside of the unified deficit, and set it aside in trust. I struggled from 1983 until 1990 to translate Chairman Greenspan's recommendations into law. I thought we had done it in 1990, when we passed the Budget Act by a vote of 98 Senators here on the floor of the Senate and almost an equal majority, overwhelming as it was, over on the House side. President Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed the bill into law, including section 13301 of the Budget Act, which stated Congress could not spend Social Security moneys on anything other than the Social Security program; you had it outside of the unified budget and the deficit. Unfortunately, Mr. President, that has been ignored. That is why I have to reword it this way. But the contemplation at the particular time, the law itself, the policy of the U.S. Government with respect to corporate America--we passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994 saying: Thou shalt not, in corporate America, spend your pension fund to pay off the company debt. The most interesting and ironic thing is, when Denny McLain, the former great pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, became the head of a corporation and paid off its debt with the pension fund, he was sent to jail for 8 years. If you can find what jail poor Denny is in, say to him, ``Denny, next time, run for the U.S. Senate. Instead of a jail term, they will give you the good government award.'' That is exactly what we are doing. We violate our own policy. We pay off the debt with the Social Security Trust Fund and have been doing it for 15 years. That gets me immediately to the point of so-called paying off the public debt. You know, they have these euphemisms and different expressions that come around budget time and make you think you have a real policy on board. That has been the policy. Admittedly, if you had a stagnant economy, if you had a dormant stock market, you could welcome paying off the public debt to get the economy and the stock market moving and everything else. But to do it, not over just a year or 2, but to do it for the last 15 years to the tune of in excess of $100 billion, what it has really done is given us fiscal cancer. We have gone up, up, and away with the national debt, and the interest costs are killing us. Let me dwell a minute on the interest costs on the national debt. The interest cost, when President Lyndon Johnson last balanced the budget, was $16 billion. Today the interest cost is projected to be $357 billion, almost a billion dollars a day. What it says to me is, this year I have to spend--and next year I have to spend--$357 billion for nothing. If I had been fiscally prudent, I could have had $80 billion for tax cuts plus $80 billion for spending increases plus $80 billion to pay down the debt plus $80 billion to save Social Security. That is $320 billion. I would have had $37 billion for you to have a party out here on the west front when I jump off the Capitol dome. Since 1995, I have been telling Chairman Domenici, trying to bring sense to this entire budget debate by talking in the extreme, that by the year 2002, if he had a balanced budget, truly balanced--if we were paying out less than what we were bringing in or just at that amount--I would jump off the Capitol dome. And I reiterate the pledge. Let's make the bets--``Get old Hollings to jump off the dome.'' Because under current policies, no one can possibly balance the budget while exceeding revenue by over $100 billion. Nobody is cutting $100 billion. They are spending $18 billion more unaccounted for, breaking the caps. Nobody is spending less than $90 billion. So we know with all of this spending for tax cuts, Medicare, education, housing, and everything else of that kind, that we are in deep trouble. We have fiscal cancer. What we really should do, probably, as Mr. Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, finally came around to saying, is do nothing: take this year's budget for next year. I did that as the Governor of South Carolina. I capped the debt. By the way, that would bring truth in budgeting to this crowd, if they are right. Let's plead guilty: They are right, I am wrong, there is a surplus and we are going to pay down the debt. If that occurs, we can cap the debt as of October 1 of this year, the beginning of the next fiscal year. Whatever it is, since there is a surplus and since we are going to pay down the debt, let's cap it so it does not exceed that particular amount. You cannot get the White House--I faced them down in one of these briefings--to go along with it. I will make the motion and we will see how many people vote for that. I am trying to bring truth to our federal budget. I am trying to avoid the fiscal cancer. The Republicans talk about an $80 billion across-the-board tax cut. I want a $357 billion tax cut this year, next year, and right along the line. I want, in that 10-year period, $3.5 trillion in tax cuts, not just this $800 billion tax cut. I want to get rid of this waste in Government. I served on the Grace Commission to Eliminate Waste. I know what waste is. I speak advisedly. Before long, if those interest rates go up, instead of $357 billion, we will be up around $500 billion in interest costs. It is the largest item in the domestic budget for spending at this minute. What we ought to do is get a hold of ourselves, start talking sense to each other, work out a plan to take care of the needs of Government, but quit using the Social Security surplus and trust fund as a political slush fund for any and every idea on the media message. And the media are going along with this nonsense and act like we actually are doing it. My particular bill will bring sobriety to the entire process and debate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 605 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Fiscal Protection Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. OFF BUDGET STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of-- (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FROM SURPLUS AND DEFICIT TOTALS. The receipts and disbursements of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act and the revenues under sections 86, 1401, 3101, and 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 related to such program shall not be included in any surplus or deficit totals required under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code. SEC. 4. CONFORMITY OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS. Any official statement issued by the Office of Management and Budget or by the Congressional Budget Office of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President [[Page S2651]] or of the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional budget, and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any official publication or material issued by either of such Offices, shall exclude all receipts and disbursements under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act and the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (including the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old- Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund). SEC. 5. REPOSITORY REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of the Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day of such month. ______ By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Mack, and Mrs. Feinstein): S. 606. A bill for the relief of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation), and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. private relief bill Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 606 for Senator Mack, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and myself. This bill is intended to resolve litigation between the federal government and Kerr- McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation) and Global Exploration and Development Corporation. This legislation embodies an agreement that has been reviewed and accepted by the Hearing Officer and a three judge reviewing panel. The Department of Justice has no objection to this legislation. In addition, this legislation would also make it a criminal act to distribute certain information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. This bill was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary in this form during the 105th Congress. As background to this relief for Kerr-McGee and Global Exploration, in 1964, they first filed applications for phosphate prospecting permits in Osceola National Forest. Under Sec. 211(a) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, the Secretary can only grant prospecting permit applications following a determination that the public interest will be served by doing so. The U.S. Forest Service must also consent to the issuance of the prospecting permits. The permits were granted, and the plaintiffs subsequently discovered phosphate deposits. The plaintiffs then filed applications with the Department of Interior for leases to mine the deposits in January of 1969. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to leases is governed by the Mineral Lands Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. sec. 181 et. seq.) which requires the Secretary of Interior to issue leases to a permittee that has discovered a ``valuable deposit'' of mineral. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines and the Office of Minerals Policy Department all confirmed that valuable deposits had in fact been discovered (valued at $100 to $300 million in 1970's dollars). Kerr-McGee filed suit in 1973 and Global filed suit in 1978 seeking the immediate issuance of the leases. In 1981, the U.S. Forest Service began setting out the requirements for reclamation. The Department of Interior concluded the reclamation technology did not exist based on an Environmental Assessment (``EA'') prepared by Interior and issued in January of 1983. Based on that conclusion, the plaintiffs' applications for leases to mine the deposits were rejected. Agency personnel had told plaintiffs that they would be able to comment on the EA findings before their final issuance. By law, the government was required to permit the applicants to participate in the EA process by submitting comments and expert analysis on the feasibility of reclamation. Plaintiffs were never given a chance to participate in the EA process, to show feasibility of reclamation, or to comment on the draft EA. In 1984, the Florida Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 98-430, 98 Stat. 1665) was enacted which prevented the issuance of phosphate mining leases in Osceola, effectively foreclosing a legal remedy since plaintiffs could no longer ask for reversal of the prior decision or for relief for damages incurred. The House Committee Report accompanying the Act stated that ``in the event the courts ultimately determined that applicants have established lease rights, [the Act] provides that leases will not be issued. The applicants would instead be compensated as required in accordance with constitutional principles.'' H. Rpt. 98- 102 Part I, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., at 7. The plaintiffs pursued their case in federal district court and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the suit as moot in light of Florida Wilderness Act. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims then questioned whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the case, leaving plaintiffs without a forum to be heard. Under 28 U.S.C. 2509, a congressional reference empowers a judge of the Court of Federal Claims to sit as a Hearing Officer, hold a hearing and determine the facts of the case. The Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions are then reviewed by a three-judge panel. The panel then adopts or modifies the findings and conclusions and submits its report to the Chief Judge who then transmits the recommendations to the house of Congress which referred the case. On Jan. 10, 1991, H. Res. 29 and H.R. 477 were introduced during the 102nd Congress to refer the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in order to compensate plaintiffs for any damages incurred on account of the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to grant and permit mining operations pursuant to phosphate leases in the Osceola National Forest. On July 10, 1991, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations held hearings on H.R. 477 and H. Res. 29. On October 3, 1991, the Subcommittee reported the resolution, with a technical amendment, to full Committee. On July 21, 1992, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 29, referring H.R. 477 to Court of Claims. The formal Congressional reference confirmed jurisdiction for the plaintiffs' suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In the Court of Federal Claims, the Government moved for summary judgement. The Court ruled that plaintiffs did not have a legal claim but did have an equitable claim since the government failed to comply with the legal requirement of the EA. The court ruled that the Secretary of Interior had made an error in denying phosphate mining leases on the basis of an EA without allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to comment. The court concluded that the error was not harmless. Remaining was the question of fact whether reclamation was feasible, according to Forest Service standards as of January of 1983. A 6 week evidentiary hearing was held on that issue from October 13 to December 14, 1995. Plaintiffs presented leading experts in reclamation who showed they could have successfully reclaimed the land, that the analysis in the EA was scientifically incorrect, and that EA members who concluded successful reclamation had their conclusions omitted. Before the court issued its opinion, the parties agreed to a joint stipulation of settlement and submitted this stipulation to the Court: Global is to received $9.5 million; Kerr-McGee is to receive $10 million, which it will return to the government as partial payment for a Superfund cleanup site in Louisiana; and Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC is to receive $0. Global, Kerr-McGee and the Department of Justice accepted the report of the Hearing Officer, dated November 18, 1996, and the Review Panel endorsed the decision. On November 18, 1996, the court published its recommendations to Congress that the disputes be settled for the amounts set forth in the joint stipulation of settlement. The court's recommendation was based on a finding that the settlement was fair, just, equitable and supported by the evidence. As noted in the Hearing Officer's report, ``if the case were to proceed to final disposition and plaintiffs to prevail, then the Government would face a potential liability substantially in excess of the proposed settlement amounts. Conversely, however, a victory for the Government would not assure it of protection against all future liability.'' [[Page S2652]] This legislation would implement this settlement, and we urge its prompt consideration and approval by the Senate. For the information of all Senators, I have included the House Committee Report from the 105th Congress which provides a very clear background and the need for this provision. In addition, the bill includes language related to the prohibition of distribution of information related to destructive devices, explosives, and weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of a violent crime. This language was added to this legislation during markup of H.R. 1211 during the 105th Congress in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Feinstein and is a reasonable resolution of an issue pushed by Senator Feinstein for several years. I urge quick consideration and passage of this overdue and important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 606 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. (a) Payment of Claims.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of money not otherwise appropriated-- (1) to the Global Exploration and Development Corporation, a Florida corporation incorporated in Delaware, $9,500,000; (2) to Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation incorporated in Delaware, $10,000,000; and (3) to Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, $0. (b) Condition of Payment.-- (1) Global exploration and development corporation.--The payment authorized by subsection (a)(1) is in settlement and compromise of all claims of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, as described in the recommendations of the United States Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776. (2) Kerr-mcgee corporation and kerr-mcgee chemical, llc.-- The payment authorized by subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) are in settlement and compromise of all claims of Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, as described in the recommendations of the United States Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776. SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PROHIBITION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. (a) Unlawful Conduct.--Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(p) Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.-- ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection-- ``(A) the term `destructive device' has the same meaning as in section 921(a)(4); ``(B) the term `explosive' has the same meaning as in section 844(j); and ``(C) the term `weapon of mass destruction' has the same meaning as in section 2332a(c)(2). ``(2) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person-- ``(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or ``(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.''. (b) Penalties.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``person who violates any of subsections'' and inserting the following: ``person who-- ``(1) violates any of subsections''; (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(2) violates subsection (p)(2) of section 842, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.''; and (4) in subsection (j), by striking ``and (i)'' and inserting ``(i), and (p)''. ______ By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Murkowski): S. 607. A bill reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing along with Senator Murkowski, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act (NCGMA) was originally signed into law in 1992. The purpose of this geologic mapping program is to provide the nation with urgently needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, geology essential for all types of land use planning, as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMA contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the state geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the states submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each federal dollar be matched one-for-one with state funds. Each participating state has a StateMap Advisory Committee to insure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs. The success of this program insured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. According to a recent poll conducted by the Association of American State Geologists, the 50 states have produced over 1,900 new geologic maps since the program authorized by this legislation started. There are an additional 300 maps currently being completed. Also, the states have digitized 650 existing geologic maps (1:24,000 scale) so they can be used as a computer data base. All of these maps have been submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey for inclusion in a national geologic map database. One of the purposes of this database is to eventually provide a digital geologic map of the entire nation at a scale of 1:100,000. This national database will assure that future maps will be easy to use by anyone. The Edmap and Fedmap sections of the legislation support mapping projects led by Universities and regional mapping projects that address needs for geologic information to deal with land, water, mineral resource, natural hazard mitigation and environmental protection issues. Fed map projects are coordinated with State and university mapping portions of the program, through regional meetings, liaison groups and national reviews of ongoing projects. Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate and usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so better and safer resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. Thank you, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 607 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Section 2(a) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31a(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (10); (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following: ``(8) geologic map information is required for the sustainable and balanced development of natural resources of all types, including energy, minerals, land, water, and biological resources; ``(9) advances in digital technology and geographical information system science [[Page S2653]] have made geologic map databases increasingly important as decision support tools for land and resource management; and''; and (4) in paragraph (10) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by inserting ``of surficial and bedrock deposits'' after ``geologic mapping''. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. Section 3 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31b) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (10), respectively; (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: ``(4) Education component.--The term `education component' means the education component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(3). ``(5) Federal component.--The term `Federal component' means the Federal component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(1).''; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) the following: ``(9) State component.--The term `State component' means the State component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(2).''. SEC. 4. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM. Section 4 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31c) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(1)-- (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``priorities'' and inserting ``national priorities and standards for''; (B) in subparagraph (A)-- (i) by striking ``develop a geologic mapping program implementation plan'' and inserting ``develop a 5-year strategic plan for the geologic mapping program''; and (ii) by striking ``within 300 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``within 90 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and (D) in subparagraph (C)-- (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``within 210 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999, and biennially thereafter''; (ii) in clause (i), by striking ``will coordinate'' and inserting ``are coordinating''; (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``will establish'' and inserting ``establish''; and (iv) in clause (iii), by striking ``will lead to'' and inserting ``affect''; and (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following: ``(d) Program Components-- ``(1) Federal component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a Federal geologic mapping component, the objective of which shall be to determine the geologic framework of areas determined to be vital to the economic, social, environmental, or scientific welfare of the United States. ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the Federal component, mapping priorities-- ``(i) shall be described in the 5-year plan under section 6; and ``(ii) shall be based on-- ``(I) national requirements for geologic map information in areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single- issue need; and ``(II) national requirements for geologic map information in areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth science problems. ``(C) Interdisciplinary studies.-- ``(i) In general.--The Federal component shall include interdisciplinary studies that add value to geologic mapping. ``(ii) Representative categories.--Interdisciplinary studies under clause (i) may include-- ``(I) establishment of a national geologic map database under section 7; ``(II) studies that lead to the implementation of cost- effective digital methods for the acquisition, compilation, analysis, cartographic production, and dissemination of geologic map information; ``(III) paleontologic, geochrono-logic, and isotopic investigations that provide information critical to understanding the age and history of geologic map units; ``(IV) geophysical investigations that assist in delineating and mapping the physical characteristics and 3- dimensional distribution of geologic materials and geologic structures; and ``(V) geochemical investigations and analytical operations that characterize the composition of geologic map units. ``(iii) Use of results.--The results of investigations under clause (ii) shall be contributed to national databases. ``(2) State component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a State geologic mapping component, the objective of which shall be to establish the geologic framework of areas determined to be vital to the economic, social, environmental, or scientific welfare of individual States. ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the State component, mapping priorities-- ``(i) shall be determined by State panels representing a broad range of users of geologic maps; and ``(ii) shall be based on-- ``(I) State requirements for geologic map information in areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single- issue need; and ``(II) State requirements for geologic map information in areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth science problems. ``(C) Integration of federal and state priorities.--A national panel including representatives of the Survey shall integrate the State mapping priorities under this paragraph with the Federal mapping priorities under paragraph (1). ``(D) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants under the State component shall not use more than 15.25 percent of the Federal funds made available under the State component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, servicing, or program management charges. ``(E) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of activities under the State component for any fiscal year shall not exceed 50 percent. ``(3) Education component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a geologic mapping education component for the training of geologic mappers, the objectives of which shall be-- ``(i) to provide for broad education in geologic mapping and field analysis through support of field studies; and ``(ii) to develop academic programs that teach students of earth science the fundamental principles of geologic mapping and field analysis. ``(B) Investigations.--The education component may include the conduct of investigations, which-- ``(i) shall be integrated with the Federal component and the State component; and ``(ii) shall respond to mapping priorities identified for the Federal component and the State component. ``(C) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants under the education component shall not use more than 15.25 percent of the Federal funds made available under the education component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, servicing, or program management charges. ``(D) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of activities under the education component for any fiscal year shall not exceed 50 percent.''. SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Section 5 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31d) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``90 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``critique the draft implementation plan'' and inserting ``update the 5-year plan''; and (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``sections 4 through 7''. SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 6 (43 U.S.C. 31e) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN. ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, with the advice and review of the advisory committee, prepare a 5-year plan for the geologic mapping program. ``(b) Requirements.--The 5-year plan shall identify-- ``(1) overall priorities for the geologic mapping program; and ``(2) implementation of the overall management structure and operation of the geologic mapping program, including-- ``(A) the role of the Survey in the capacity of overall management lead, including the responsibility for developing the national geologic mapping program that meets Federal needs while fostering State needs; ``(B) the responsibilities of the State geological surveys, with emphasis on mechanisms that incorporate the needs, missions, capabilities, and requirements of the State geological surveys, into the nationwide geologic mapping program; ``(C) mechanisms for identifying short- and long-term priorities for each component of the geologic mapping program, including-- ``(i) for the Federal component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to-- ``(I) Federal mission requirements for geologic map information; ``(II) critical scientific problems that require geologic maps for their resolution; and ``(III) shared Federal and State needs for geologic maps, in which joint Federal-State geologic mapping projects are in the national interest; ``(ii) for the State component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to-- ``(I) specific intrastate needs for geologic map information; and ``(II) interstate needs shared by adjacent States that have common requirements; and ``(iii) for the education component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to requirements for geologic map information that are dictated by Federal and State mission requirements; [[Page S2654]] ``(D) a mechanism for adopting scientific and technical mapping standards for preparing and publishing general- and special-purpose geologic maps to-- ``(i) ensure uniformity of cartographic and scientific conventions; and ``(ii) provide a basis for assessing the comparability and quality of map products; and ``(E) a mechanism for monitoring the inventory of published and current mapping investigations nationwide to facilitate planning and information exchange and to avoid redundancy.''. SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE. Section 7 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31f) is amended by striking the section heading and all that follows through subsection (a) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE. ``(a) Establishment.-- ``(1) In general.--The Survey shall establish a national geologic map database. ``(2) Function.--The database shall serve as a national catalog and archive, distributed through links to Federal and State geologic map holdings, that includes-- ``(A) all maps developed under the Federal component and the education component; ``(B) the databases developed in connection with investigations under subclauses (III), (IV), and (V) of section 4(d)(1)(C)(ii); and ``(C) other maps and data that the Survey and the Association consider appropriate.''. SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 8 (43 U.S.C. 31g) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT. ``Not later 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999 and biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that-- ``(1) describes the status of the national geologic mapping program; ``(2) describes and evaluates the progress achieved during the preceding 2 years in developing the national geologic map database; and ``(3) includes any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or other action to achieve the purposes of sections 4 through 7.''. SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 9 (43 U.S.C. 31h) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act-- ``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; ``(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; ``(3) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; ``(4) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; ``(5) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; ``(6) $57,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and ``(7) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2005. ``(b) Allocation of Appropriations.--Of any amounts appropriated for any fiscal year in excess of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000-- ``(1) 48 percent shall be available for the State component; and ``(2) 2 percent shall be available for the education component.''. ______ By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Crapo): S. 608. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. nuclear waste policy act of 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Rod Grams to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. Once again, Congress must clarify its intention toward the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which passed with broad bipartisan support in this body last year, as did similar legislation in the other body. It is why I am an original cosponsor of the legislation this year. We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with disposing of nuclear materials. Congress must recognize its responsibility to set a clear and definitive nuclear material disposal policy. With the passage of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate expressed its will that Government fulfill its responsibilities. This legislation makes one significant change to the course we are currently on by directing that an interim storage facility for nuclear materials be constructed at area 25 at the Nevada test site and that the interim facility be prepared to accept nuclear materials by June 30, 2003. The President and the Vice President do not support this provision. They do not support an interim storage facility at one safe, secure location in the Nevada desert. What they do support, according to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, is an interim storage at 70 some sites spread across this Nation. They support storage near population centers and major bodies of water, but not at a site located right next to a permanent repository, a site where hundreds of nuclear explosions have already been detonated over the last 50 years. In an announcement last month, the administration proposes to federalize storage of spent fuel at commercial reactors around this country by having the Government come in and take responsibility for each site. But do not worry, folks, because they promise to come and pick up the waste eventually, or at least that is what they have been promising for a long, long while. Well, I have some experience with the DOE and its promises, as many of my colleagues have, especially in the area of nuclear waste over the last number of years. In 1995, the Secretary of Energy promised the State of Idaho, and signed a court enforceable agreement, that transuranic waste in Idaho would be headed out of the State to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant no later than next month. Now DOE says they can't meet that deadline. Why? The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is safe and ready to receive waste, but the State of New Mexico won't issue a permit for the disposal and that the court won't lift its injunction. Now, I do believe our Secretary of Energy is trying in good faith to honor his commitment to the State of Idaho in moving that waste, but, once again, on issues of this kind of political sensitivity, our Government has shown no willingness to lead on this issue, and this administration is the prime example of a government without leadership. I know something about the politics of nuclear waste. I know something about DOE's broken promises. I mentioned the example of WIPP as a misuse of environmental regulation to subvert the will of Congress. It is this kind of game playing that we must eliminate. I guess my bottom line advice to those living next to one of these commercial nuclear reactors is, when DOE says they will come in and take responsibility for spent fuel and move it later, do not be fooled. You need a centralized interim storage facility and you need this legislation to make it happen. This administration has said that interim storage in Nevada will prejudge the repository site investigation now going on at Yucca Mountain. I think it is important to note that this legislation calls for beginning operation of an interim storage facility in the year 2003, 2 years after DOE will have recommended the repository site to the President and 1 year after DOE will have submitted a license application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This can hardly be called rushing ahead recklessly on interim storage. What it is is sealing the deal, trying to build credibility with the American people on this Government's responsibility and dedication toward the appropriate handling of high-level nuclear waste. In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. This legislation will make good on the Government's commitment to the communities which agreed to host our defense laboratories--that cleanup of these sites will happen, that it will happen sooner rather than later, and that defense nuclear waste, our legacy from the cold war, will be disposed of responsibly. Just this past week, before the appropriate Appropriations Committee, I and Senator Domenici heard at length what this administration is doing to help Russia get rid of its cold war nuclear waste legacy. While we are going headlong to help them, it is ironic that we cannot help ourselves. This administration has promised and yet, in 6 years, has delivered nothing and finally gave up on its promises and found itself in a box canyon with a lot of lawyers lining up in lawsuits, because they are now out of compliance with an act that this Congress passed in the mid-1980s to deal with nuclear waste. [[Page S2655]] This bill will assure that the spent fuel from our nuclear fighting ships and submarines, currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, can be sent to the interim storage facility beginning in the year 2003. This is good news for both the Navy and for Idaho. Our nuclear Navy ought to be concerned that DOE is still playing games with the real hard fact that sooner, rather than later, they must have a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel coming from our Navy vessels. Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the agreed date of the year 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho Governor Batt, DOE and the Navy. This legislation will provide assurance that nuclear waste now in Idaho for permanent storage will eventually be disposed of at the repository. The tragedy here, of course, and we understand it, in the building of safe facilities, is the long lead time necessary. That is why this legislation is important now, to construct an interim storage facility ready to receive by the year 2003. Critics of this legislation will attempt to distract you over the issue of transportation. In just a few months we will hear on the floor of the Senate the term ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This is just so much politics or political statement. There is absolutely no fact or record behind that statement other than a scare tactic that some of my colleagues will attempt to use to support an absence of fact. The fact is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of spent fuel in the United States and that there has not been a single death or injury from the radioactivity nature of the cargo. In my State of Idaho, there have been over 600 shipments of naval fuel and over 4,000 other shipments of radioactive material. Again, there has been not one single injury related to the radioactive nature of these shipments. This is a phenomenal safety record, but it is a real safety record, because this Government has insisted that the appropriate handling of our spent nuclear fuels and waste long term be dealt with in the right way. The proof is in the reality and the responsibility that this country has taken for years in the transportation of its waste. Those are the facts as I have related them. I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of spent nuclear fuel disposal. Some of my colleagues are probably fatigued at the prospect of debating this issue once again in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, as long as this administration continues to stick its head in the sand, sand that is now going to cost millions of dollars in legal fees, my colleagues and I have no choice but to address this issue once again for the sake of our country, for the future of energy production in our country from radioactive materials, and just the tremendous responsibility we have in making sure to our public that all of it is done well and safely. As this legislative body sets policies for the Nation, the Congress cannot sit by and watch while key components of the energy security of this Nation, the source of 20 percent of this country's electricity-- and that is coming from nuclear powerplants--risk going down simply because we cannot manage our waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 will address what neither the 1982 nor the 1987 Act did, and that is to provide a cost-effective and safe means to store spent fuel in the near term while we continue to investigate and provide for the ultimate disposal. I thank you, Mr. President. I see my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, has joined me now on the floor. I yield my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a pleasant afternoon. I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, for his statement relative to the reality that 22 percent of the Nation's power is generated by nuclear energy. Here we are again today, Mr. President, with an obligation to fulfill a commitment. That obligation and that commitment was made to the ratepayers, the individuals all over America who depend on nuclear energy for their power. They paid $14 billion over the last 18 years. What h

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - March 15, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2648-S2678] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. HOLLINGS: S. 605. A bill to solidify the off-budget status of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act and to protect program assets; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one committee reports, the committee have 30 days to report or be discharged. [[Page S2649]] social security fiscal protection act of 1999 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on tomorrow afternoon, we begin to mark up the budget. That is, when I say we, I mean that the Budget Committee on the Senate side meets to mark up the budget for the year 2000 commencing October 1 this year, and immediately we will hear the cry, ``Surplus.'' I am constrained to say--as in the earliest days of the Republic when Patrick Henry said, ``Peace, Peace, everywhere men cry peace,'' and there was no peace--``surplus, surplus, everywhere men cry surplus,'' but there is no surplus. The fact is that we are spending $100 billion more than we are taking in already this fiscal year, and under current policy the deficit for next year will be right at $90 billion. Also, Mr. President, another thing to note is the fact that you are going to hear the cry, ``Saving Social Security.'' I can tell you categorically that neither the Republican plan, policy or approach nor the Democratic White House plan, policy or approach will save Social Security. Both spend 100 percent of the Social Security moneys coming in the fiscal year 2000, as is the case already this year. And otherwise, all the wonderful talk about paying down the debt is nothing more than fancy rhetoric for a flawed policy that has got us into a situation of fiscal cancer. Now let me go right to the meaning of ``Surplus.'' Yes, we are making progress on the budget and the deficit. At a news conference earlier today I was asked about this and when did we ever expect to get some results. Well, I see that we are beginning to understand that there is no surplus. Most of the nation's astute commentators on the budget see this, too. Allan Sloan of Newsweek said, of course, that the President's plan was double accounting. Paul Samuelson talks about when they said ``surplus,'' it was ``surplus in the sky.'' The Concord Coalition, made up of our former colleagues, Senators Rudman and Nunn, with whom I have had an on-going engagement, finally says there is no surplus. And only two weeks ago Barron's, the conservative financial newspaper--which I hold it here--said: ``Hey, Guys, There is no Budget Surplus.'' But be that as it may, the White House and many members of Congress are going to start dealing around the so-called surplus, nonexistent that it is, for education, Medicare, tax cuts, anything and everything--everything but saving Social Security. It has been a constant charade on messages of the party caucuses on both sides since January, even during the impeachment days; we have got to get our message out. Unfortunately, most of the media falls right in line with the message. They don't look into the actual fact or the reality. On the matter of the so-called surplus and the $100 billion that we are spending now: mind you me, Mr. President, we set spending caps year before last, and last year we broke the caps by $12 billion, and we have already broken the cap in this year's budget by $21 billion, which would mean in marking up 2000's budget we would immediately have to cut spending $33 billion to conform to the fiscal year 2000 budget cap. Instead of doing that, we have already met in unison, almost like a chorus singing ``Whoopee for the military,'' and we have spent $18 billion on the military, money which is unaccounted for. Instead of cutting back, the Senate has already exceeded the agreed-to caps by $18 billion. Unless, of course, they intend to cut $18 billion in domestic programs or cut $18 billion in operation, maintenance and readiness within the defense budget. We are going in the wrong direction. No one should think that Social Security has a surplus. This fiscal year, we have a surplus of the amount required to be paid out, but since we have been spending it each year there is a $730 billion deficit due and owing. Social Security is in the red. So there are no surpluses. Even trying to get around that to try to get something to politic on for this year and next year, the Campaign 2000, they say, ``Well, wait a minute; we will start our tax cuts in the year 2002 when there is one document to the effect there might be a slight surplus in Social Security, over and above the Social Security amount or otherwise we can spend it on Medicare beginning in 2000''-- anything for the Campaign 2000. They talk in the Chamber about the Chinese. Come, come, come. It is not the Chinese. It is not the baby boomers in the next generation. It is the adults in Congress who are looting the Social Security trust fund. Each one of these particular plans spends 100 percent of the Social Security so-called surplus. How do I say that? Well, it is easy. You go back into the original law--and I have a copy of the law itself--section 201. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H.R. 7260] Title II--Federal Old-Age Benefits Old-Age Reserve Account Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required under this title, such amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate of the appropriations to be made to the Account. (b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest- bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired (1) on original issue at par, or (2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum. (c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest. (d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account. (e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title. (f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will send that momentarily to the desk, section 201 of the Social Security Act. Under section 201 of Social Security, we required at this moment--and have been doing so for years--under law to invest only and immediately in T-bills, Treasury bills, these special securities of the Federal Government. Once we do that, of course, we get a bond or IOU; the Government gets the money, and immediately all of those moneys are transferred to the Government account and it is spent, allocated, or used to pay down the so-called public debt. The one way to stop that is a bill, which I will send to the desk and for which I request proper referral. Mr. President, this bill simply says, amongst other things--and I will read section 5--that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day of each month. Advisedly, Mr. President, this was worked out by none other than my Social Security friends. At one time, I had the distinction of being the chairman of the Budget Committee. We had an outstanding staffer then named Ken Apfel. He is now the Social Security Administrator. I called over there and I said: Let's stop this roundabout dance [[Page S2650]] about surpluses and spending all the money and everything else; I want you to write a provision whereby we can do exactly what we said when Congress passed the Social Security Act. Remember old John Mitchell, under the Nixon administration? He said, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' I am afraid on budget matters we have arrived exactly at that point. But, in any event, to do what we say, we have prepared this bill and now it has been introduced and, if passed by the Congress, yes, we will save Social Security. Immediately, one of the distinguished Senators said, ``Wait a minute. Is the money going to just sit there?'' No. Mr. President, that money will be invested in T-bills, just as it has been all these years. Or, if there is an additional plan, like the Kerrey-Moynihan plan, like our Thrift Savings Plan--a certain percentage invested in the market in order to make more money but take on more risk--we can debate that. What this particular bill really does is save Social Security. Social Security funds will not be spent, save and excepting on Social Security purposes. This is exactly what was intended by Mr. Greenspan when he headed the Greenspan Commission in 1983. In 1983, section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report said to take Social Security outside of the unified budget, outside of the unified deficit, and set it aside in trust. I struggled from 1983 until 1990 to translate Chairman Greenspan's recommendations into law. I thought we had done it in 1990, when we passed the Budget Act by a vote of 98 Senators here on the floor of the Senate and almost an equal majority, overwhelming as it was, over on the House side. President Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed the bill into law, including section 13301 of the Budget Act, which stated Congress could not spend Social Security moneys on anything other than the Social Security program; you had it outside of the unified budget and the deficit. Unfortunately, Mr. President, that has been ignored. That is why I have to reword it this way. But the contemplation at the particular time, the law itself, the policy of the U.S. Government with respect to corporate America--we passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994 saying: Thou shalt not, in corporate America, spend your pension fund to pay off the company debt. The most interesting and ironic thing is, when Denny McLain, the former great pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, became the head of a corporation and paid off its debt with the pension fund, he was sent to jail for 8 years. If you can find what jail poor Denny is in, say to him, ``Denny, next time, run for the U.S. Senate. Instead of a jail term, they will give you the good government award.'' That is exactly what we are doing. We violate our own policy. We pay off the debt with the Social Security Trust Fund and have been doing it for 15 years. That gets me immediately to the point of so-called paying off the public debt. You know, they have these euphemisms and different expressions that come around budget time and make you think you have a real policy on board. That has been the policy. Admittedly, if you had a stagnant economy, if you had a dormant stock market, you could welcome paying off the public debt to get the economy and the stock market moving and everything else. But to do it, not over just a year or 2, but to do it for the last 15 years to the tune of in excess of $100 billion, what it has really done is given us fiscal cancer. We have gone up, up, and away with the national debt, and the interest costs are killing us. Let me dwell a minute on the interest costs on the national debt. The interest cost, when President Lyndon Johnson last balanced the budget, was $16 billion. Today the interest cost is projected to be $357 billion, almost a billion dollars a day. What it says to me is, this year I have to spend--and next year I have to spend--$357 billion for nothing. If I had been fiscally prudent, I could have had $80 billion for tax cuts plus $80 billion for spending increases plus $80 billion to pay down the debt plus $80 billion to save Social Security. That is $320 billion. I would have had $37 billion for you to have a party out here on the west front when I jump off the Capitol dome. Since 1995, I have been telling Chairman Domenici, trying to bring sense to this entire budget debate by talking in the extreme, that by the year 2002, if he had a balanced budget, truly balanced--if we were paying out less than what we were bringing in or just at that amount--I would jump off the Capitol dome. And I reiterate the pledge. Let's make the bets--``Get old Hollings to jump off the dome.'' Because under current policies, no one can possibly balance the budget while exceeding revenue by over $100 billion. Nobody is cutting $100 billion. They are spending $18 billion more unaccounted for, breaking the caps. Nobody is spending less than $90 billion. So we know with all of this spending for tax cuts, Medicare, education, housing, and everything else of that kind, that we are in deep trouble. We have fiscal cancer. What we really should do, probably, as Mr. Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, finally came around to saying, is do nothing: take this year's budget for next year. I did that as the Governor of South Carolina. I capped the debt. By the way, that would bring truth in budgeting to this crowd, if they are right. Let's plead guilty: They are right, I am wrong, there is a surplus and we are going to pay down the debt. If that occurs, we can cap the debt as of October 1 of this year, the beginning of the next fiscal year. Whatever it is, since there is a surplus and since we are going to pay down the debt, let's cap it so it does not exceed that particular amount. You cannot get the White House--I faced them down in one of these briefings--to go along with it. I will make the motion and we will see how many people vote for that. I am trying to bring truth to our federal budget. I am trying to avoid the fiscal cancer. The Republicans talk about an $80 billion across-the-board tax cut. I want a $357 billion tax cut this year, next year, and right along the line. I want, in that 10-year period, $3.5 trillion in tax cuts, not just this $800 billion tax cut. I want to get rid of this waste in Government. I served on the Grace Commission to Eliminate Waste. I know what waste is. I speak advisedly. Before long, if those interest rates go up, instead of $357 billion, we will be up around $500 billion in interest costs. It is the largest item in the domestic budget for spending at this minute. What we ought to do is get a hold of ourselves, start talking sense to each other, work out a plan to take care of the needs of Government, but quit using the Social Security surplus and trust fund as a political slush fund for any and every idea on the media message. And the media are going along with this nonsense and act like we actually are doing it. My particular bill will bring sobriety to the entire process and debate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 605 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Fiscal Protection Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. OFF BUDGET STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of-- (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FROM SURPLUS AND DEFICIT TOTALS. The receipts and disbursements of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act and the revenues under sections 86, 1401, 3101, and 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 related to such program shall not be included in any surplus or deficit totals required under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code. SEC. 4. CONFORMITY OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS. Any official statement issued by the Office of Management and Budget or by the Congressional Budget Office of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President [[Page S2651]] or of the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional budget, and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any official publication or material issued by either of such Offices, shall exclude all receipts and disbursements under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act and the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (including the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old- Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund). SEC. 5. REPOSITORY REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of the Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day of such month. ______ By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Mack, and Mrs. Feinstein): S. 606. A bill for the relief of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation), and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. private relief bill Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 606 for Senator Mack, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and myself. This bill is intended to resolve litigation between the federal government and Kerr- McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation) and Global Exploration and Development Corporation. This legislation embodies an agreement that has been reviewed and accepted by the Hearing Officer and a three judge reviewing panel. The Department of Justice has no objection to this legislation. In addition, this legislation would also make it a criminal act to distribute certain information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. This bill was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary in this form during the 105th Congress. As background to this relief for Kerr-McGee and Global Exploration, in 1964, they first filed applications for phosphate prospecting permits in Osceola National Forest. Under Sec. 211(a) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, the Secretary can only grant prospecting permit applications following a determination that the public interest will be served by doing so. The U.S. Forest Service must also consent to the issuance of the prospecting permits. The permits were granted, and the plaintiffs subsequently discovered phosphate deposits. The plaintiffs then filed applications with the Department of Interior for leases to mine the deposits in January of 1969. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to leases is governed by the Mineral Lands Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. sec. 181 et. seq.) which requires the Secretary of Interior to issue leases to a permittee that has discovered a ``valuable deposit'' of mineral. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines and the Office of Minerals Policy Department all confirmed that valuable deposits had in fact been discovered (valued at $100 to $300 million in 1970's dollars). Kerr-McGee filed suit in 1973 and Global filed suit in 1978 seeking the immediate issuance of the leases. In 1981, the U.S. Forest Service began setting out the requirements for reclamation. The Department of Interior concluded the reclamation technology did not exist based on an Environmental Assessment (``EA'') prepared by Interior and issued in January of 1983. Based on that conclusion, the plaintiffs' applications for leases to mine the deposits were rejected. Agency personnel had told plaintiffs that they would be able to comment on the EA findings before their final issuance. By law, the government was required to permit the applicants to participate in the EA process by submitting comments and expert analysis on the feasibility of reclamation. Plaintiffs were never given a chance to participate in the EA process, to show feasibility of reclamation, or to comment on the draft EA. In 1984, the Florida Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 98-430, 98 Stat. 1665) was enacted which prevented the issuance of phosphate mining leases in Osceola, effectively foreclosing a legal remedy since plaintiffs could no longer ask for reversal of the prior decision or for relief for damages incurred. The House Committee Report accompanying the Act stated that ``in the event the courts ultimately determined that applicants have established lease rights, [the Act] provides that leases will not be issued. The applicants would instead be compensated as required in accordance with constitutional principles.'' H. Rpt. 98- 102 Part I, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., at 7. The plaintiffs pursued their case in federal district court and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the suit as moot in light of Florida Wilderness Act. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims then questioned whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the case, leaving plaintiffs without a forum to be heard. Under 28 U.S.C. 2509, a congressional reference empowers a judge of the Court of Federal Claims to sit as a Hearing Officer, hold a hearing and determine the facts of the case. The Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions are then reviewed by a three-judge panel. The panel then adopts or modifies the findings and conclusions and submits its report to the Chief Judge who then transmits the recommendations to the house of Congress which referred the case. On Jan. 10, 1991, H. Res. 29 and H.R. 477 were introduced during the 102nd Congress to refer the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in order to compensate plaintiffs for any damages incurred on account of the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to grant and permit mining operations pursuant to phosphate leases in the Osceola National Forest. On July 10, 1991, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations held hearings on H.R. 477 and H. Res. 29. On October 3, 1991, the Subcommittee reported the resolution, with a technical amendment, to full Committee. On July 21, 1992, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 29, referring H.R. 477 to Court of Claims. The formal Congressional reference confirmed jurisdiction for the plaintiffs' suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In the Court of Federal Claims, the Government moved for summary judgement. The Court ruled that plaintiffs did not have a legal claim but did have an equitable claim since the government failed to comply with the legal requirement of the EA. The court ruled that the Secretary of Interior had made an error in denying phosphate mining leases on the basis of an EA without allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to comment. The court concluded that the error was not harmless. Remaining was the question of fact whether reclamation was feasible, according to Forest Service standards as of January of 1983. A 6 week evidentiary hearing was held on that issue from October 13 to December 14, 1995. Plaintiffs presented leading experts in reclamation who showed they could have successfully reclaimed the land, that the analysis in the EA was scientifically incorrect, and that EA members who concluded successful reclamation had their conclusions omitted. Before the court issued its opinion, the parties agreed to a joint stipulation of settlement and submitted this stipulation to the Court: Global is to received $9.5 million; Kerr-McGee is to receive $10 million, which it will return to the government as partial payment for a Superfund cleanup site in Louisiana; and Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC is to receive $0. Global, Kerr-McGee and the Department of Justice accepted the report of the Hearing Officer, dated November 18, 1996, and the Review Panel endorsed the decision. On November 18, 1996, the court published its recommendations to Congress that the disputes be settled for the amounts set forth in the joint stipulation of settlement. The court's recommendation was based on a finding that the settlement was fair, just, equitable and supported by the evidence. As noted in the Hearing Officer's report, ``if the case were to proceed to final disposition and plaintiffs to prevail, then the Government would face a potential liability substantially in excess of the proposed settlement amounts. Conversely, however, a victory for the Government would not assure it of protection against all future liability.'' [[Page S2652]] This legislation would implement this settlement, and we urge its prompt consideration and approval by the Senate. For the information of all Senators, I have included the House Committee Report from the 105th Congress which provides a very clear background and the need for this provision. In addition, the bill includes language related to the prohibition of distribution of information related to destructive devices, explosives, and weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of a violent crime. This language was added to this legislation during markup of H.R. 1211 during the 105th Congress in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Feinstein and is a reasonable resolution of an issue pushed by Senator Feinstein for several years. I urge quick consideration and passage of this overdue and important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 606 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. (a) Payment of Claims.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of money not otherwise appropriated-- (1) to the Global Exploration and Development Corporation, a Florida corporation incorporated in Delaware, $9,500,000; (2) to Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation incorporated in Delaware, $10,000,000; and (3) to Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, $0. (b) Condition of Payment.-- (1) Global exploration and development corporation.--The payment authorized by subsection (a)(1) is in settlement and compromise of all claims of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, as described in the recommendations of the United States Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776. (2) Kerr-mcgee corporation and kerr-mcgee chemical, llc.-- The payment authorized by subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) are in settlement and compromise of all claims of Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, as described in the recommendations of the United States Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776. SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PROHIBITION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. (a) Unlawful Conduct.--Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(p) Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.-- ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection-- ``(A) the term `destructive device' has the same meaning as in section 921(a)(4); ``(B) the term `explosive' has the same meaning as in section 844(j); and ``(C) the term `weapon of mass destruction' has the same meaning as in section 2332a(c)(2). ``(2) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person-- ``(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or ``(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.''. (b) Penalties.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``person who violates any of subsections'' and inserting the following: ``person who-- ``(1) violates any of subsections''; (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(2) violates subsection (p)(2) of section 842, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.''; and (4) in subsection (j), by striking ``and (i)'' and inserting ``(i), and (p)''. ______ By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Murkowski): S. 607. A bill reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing along with Senator Murkowski, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act (NCGMA) was originally signed into law in 1992. The purpose of this geologic mapping program is to provide the nation with urgently needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, geology essential for all types of land use planning, as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMA contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the state geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the states submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each federal dollar be matched one-for-one with state funds. Each participating state has a StateMap Advisory Committee to insure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs. The success of this program insured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. According to a recent poll conducted by the Association of American State Geologists, the 50 states have produced over 1,900 new geologic maps since the program authorized by this legislation started. There are an additional 300 maps currently being completed. Also, the states have digitized 650 existing geologic maps (1:24,000 scale) so they can be used as a computer data base. All of these maps have been submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey for inclusion in a national geologic map database. One of the purposes of this database is to eventually provide a digital geologic map of the entire nation at a scale of 1:100,000. This national database will assure that future maps will be easy to use by anyone. The Edmap and Fedmap sections of the legislation support mapping projects led by Universities and regional mapping projects that address needs for geologic information to deal with land, water, mineral resource, natural hazard mitigation and environmental protection issues. Fed map projects are coordinated with State and university mapping portions of the program, through regional meetings, liaison groups and national reviews of ongoing projects. Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate and usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so better and safer resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. Thank you, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 607 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Section 2(a) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31a(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (10); (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following: ``(8) geologic map information is required for the sustainable and balanced development of natural resources of all types, including energy, minerals, land, water, and biological resources; ``(9) advances in digital technology and geographical information system science [[Page S2653]] have made geologic map databases increasingly important as decision support tools for land and resource management; and''; and (4) in paragraph (10) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by inserting ``of surficial and bedrock deposits'' after ``geologic mapping''. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. Section 3 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31b) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (10), respectively; (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: ``(4) Education component.--The term `education component' means the education component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(3). ``(5) Federal component.--The term `Federal component' means the Federal component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(1).''; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) the following: ``(9) State component.--The term `State component' means the State component of the geologic mapping program described in section 6(d)(2).''. SEC. 4. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM. Section 4 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31c) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(1)-- (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``priorities'' and inserting ``national priorities and standards for''; (B) in subparagraph (A)-- (i) by striking ``develop a geologic mapping program implementation plan'' and inserting ``develop a 5-year strategic plan for the geologic mapping program''; and (ii) by striking ``within 300 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``within 90 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and (D) in subparagraph (C)-- (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``within 210 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999, and biennially thereafter''; (ii) in clause (i), by striking ``will coordinate'' and inserting ``are coordinating''; (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``will establish'' and inserting ``establish''; and (iv) in clause (iii), by striking ``will lead to'' and inserting ``affect''; and (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following: ``(d) Program Components-- ``(1) Federal component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a Federal geologic mapping component, the objective of which shall be to determine the geologic framework of areas determined to be vital to the economic, social, environmental, or scientific welfare of the United States. ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the Federal component, mapping priorities-- ``(i) shall be described in the 5-year plan under section 6; and ``(ii) shall be based on-- ``(I) national requirements for geologic map information in areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single- issue need; and ``(II) national requirements for geologic map information in areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth science problems. ``(C) Interdisciplinary studies.-- ``(i) In general.--The Federal component shall include interdisciplinary studies that add value to geologic mapping. ``(ii) Representative categories.--Interdisciplinary studies under clause (i) may include-- ``(I) establishment of a national geologic map database under section 7; ``(II) studies that lead to the implementation of cost- effective digital methods for the acquisition, compilation, analysis, cartographic production, and dissemination of geologic map information; ``(III) paleontologic, geochrono-logic, and isotopic investigations that provide information critical to understanding the age and history of geologic map units; ``(IV) geophysical investigations that assist in delineating and mapping the physical characteristics and 3- dimensional distribution of geologic materials and geologic structures; and ``(V) geochemical investigations and analytical operations that characterize the composition of geologic map units. ``(iii) Use of results.--The results of investigations under clause (ii) shall be contributed to national databases. ``(2) State component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a State geologic mapping component, the objective of which shall be to establish the geologic framework of areas determined to be vital to the economic, social, environmental, or scientific welfare of individual States. ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the State component, mapping priorities-- ``(i) shall be determined by State panels representing a broad range of users of geologic maps; and ``(ii) shall be based on-- ``(I) State requirements for geologic map information in areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single- issue need; and ``(II) State requirements for geologic map information in areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth science problems. ``(C) Integration of federal and state priorities.--A national panel including representatives of the Survey shall integrate the State mapping priorities under this paragraph with the Federal mapping priorities under paragraph (1). ``(D) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants under the State component shall not use more than 15.25 percent of the Federal funds made available under the State component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, servicing, or program management charges. ``(E) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of activities under the State component for any fiscal year shall not exceed 50 percent. ``(3) Education component.-- ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall include a geologic mapping education component for the training of geologic mappers, the objectives of which shall be-- ``(i) to provide for broad education in geologic mapping and field analysis through support of field studies; and ``(ii) to develop academic programs that teach students of earth science the fundamental principles of geologic mapping and field analysis. ``(B) Investigations.--The education component may include the conduct of investigations, which-- ``(i) shall be integrated with the Federal component and the State component; and ``(ii) shall respond to mapping priorities identified for the Federal component and the State component. ``(C) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants under the education component shall not use more than 15.25 percent of the Federal funds made available under the education component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, servicing, or program management charges. ``(D) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of activities under the education component for any fiscal year shall not exceed 50 percent.''. SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Section 5 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31d) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``90 days after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``critique the draft implementation plan'' and inserting ``update the 5-year plan''; and (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``sections 4 through 7''. SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 6 (43 U.S.C. 31e) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN. ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, with the advice and review of the advisory committee, prepare a 5-year plan for the geologic mapping program. ``(b) Requirements.--The 5-year plan shall identify-- ``(1) overall priorities for the geologic mapping program; and ``(2) implementation of the overall management structure and operation of the geologic mapping program, including-- ``(A) the role of the Survey in the capacity of overall management lead, including the responsibility for developing the national geologic mapping program that meets Federal needs while fostering State needs; ``(B) the responsibilities of the State geological surveys, with emphasis on mechanisms that incorporate the needs, missions, capabilities, and requirements of the State geological surveys, into the nationwide geologic mapping program; ``(C) mechanisms for identifying short- and long-term priorities for each component of the geologic mapping program, including-- ``(i) for the Federal component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to-- ``(I) Federal mission requirements for geologic map information; ``(II) critical scientific problems that require geologic maps for their resolution; and ``(III) shared Federal and State needs for geologic maps, in which joint Federal-State geologic mapping projects are in the national interest; ``(ii) for the State component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to-- ``(I) specific intrastate needs for geologic map information; and ``(II) interstate needs shared by adjacent States that have common requirements; and ``(iii) for the education component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to requirements for geologic map information that are dictated by Federal and State mission requirements; [[Page S2654]] ``(D) a mechanism for adopting scientific and technical mapping standards for preparing and publishing general- and special-purpose geologic maps to-- ``(i) ensure uniformity of cartographic and scientific conventions; and ``(ii) provide a basis for assessing the comparability and quality of map products; and ``(E) a mechanism for monitoring the inventory of published and current mapping investigations nationwide to facilitate planning and information exchange and to avoid redundancy.''. SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE. Section 7 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31f) is amended by striking the section heading and all that follows through subsection (a) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE. ``(a) Establishment.-- ``(1) In general.--The Survey shall establish a national geologic map database. ``(2) Function.--The database shall serve as a national catalog and archive, distributed through links to Federal and State geologic map holdings, that includes-- ``(A) all maps developed under the Federal component and the education component; ``(B) the databases developed in connection with investigations under subclauses (III), (IV), and (V) of section 4(d)(1)(C)(ii); and ``(C) other maps and data that the Survey and the Association consider appropriate.''. SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 8 (43 U.S.C. 31g) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT. ``Not later 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999 and biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that-- ``(1) describes the status of the national geologic mapping program; ``(2) describes and evaluates the progress achieved during the preceding 2 years in developing the national geologic map database; and ``(3) includes any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or other action to achieve the purposes of sections 4 through 7.''. SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 9 (43 U.S.C. 31h) and inserting the following: ``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act-- ``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; ``(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; ``(3) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; ``(4) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; ``(5) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; ``(6) $57,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and ``(7) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2005. ``(b) Allocation of Appropriations.--Of any amounts appropriated for any fiscal year in excess of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000-- ``(1) 48 percent shall be available for the State component; and ``(2) 2 percent shall be available for the education component.''. ______ By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Crapo): S. 608. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. nuclear waste policy act of 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Rod Grams to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. Once again, Congress must clarify its intention toward the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which passed with broad bipartisan support in this body last year, as did similar legislation in the other body. It is why I am an original cosponsor of the legislation this year. We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with disposing of nuclear materials. Congress must recognize its responsibility to set a clear and definitive nuclear material disposal policy. With the passage of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate expressed its will that Government fulfill its responsibilities. This legislation makes one significant change to the course we are currently on by directing that an interim storage facility for nuclear materials be constructed at area 25 at the Nevada test site and that the interim facility be prepared to accept nuclear materials by June 30, 2003. The President and the Vice President do not support this provision. They do not support an interim storage facility at one safe, secure location in the Nevada desert. What they do support, according to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, is an interim storage at 70 some sites spread across this Nation. They support storage near population centers and major bodies of water, but not at a site located right next to a permanent repository, a site where hundreds of nuclear explosions have already been detonated over the last 50 years. In an announcement last month, the administration proposes to federalize storage of spent fuel at commercial reactors around this country by having the Government come in and take responsibility for each site. But do not worry, folks, because they promise to come and pick up the waste eventually, or at least that is what they have been promising for a long, long while. Well, I have some experience with the DOE and its promises, as many of my colleagues have, especially in the area of nuclear waste over the last number of years. In 1995, the Secretary of Energy promised the State of Idaho, and signed a court enforceable agreement, that transuranic waste in Idaho would be headed out of the State to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant no later than next month. Now DOE says they can't meet that deadline. Why? The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is safe and ready to receive waste, but the State of New Mexico won't issue a permit for the disposal and that the court won't lift its injunction. Now, I do believe our Secretary of Energy is trying in good faith to honor his commitment to the State of Idaho in moving that waste, but, once again, on issues of this kind of political sensitivity, our Government has shown no willingness to lead on this issue, and this administration is the prime example of a government without leadership. I know something about the politics of nuclear waste. I know something about DOE's broken promises. I mentioned the example of WIPP as a misuse of environmental regulation to subvert the will of Congress. It is this kind of game playing that we must eliminate. I guess my bottom line advice to those living next to one of these commercial nuclear reactors is, when DOE says they will come in and take responsibility for spent fuel and move it later, do not be fooled. You need a centralized interim storage facility and you need this legislation to make it happen. This administration has said that interim storage in Nevada will prejudge the repository site investigation now going on at Yucca Mountain. I think it is important to note that this legislation calls for beginning operation of an interim storage facility in the year 2003, 2 years after DOE will have recommended the repository site to the President and 1 year after DOE will have submitted a license application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This can hardly be called rushing ahead recklessly on interim storage. What it is is sealing the deal, trying to build credibility with the American people on this Government's responsibility and dedication toward the appropriate handling of high-level nuclear waste. In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. This legislation will make good on the Government's commitment to the communities which agreed to host our defense laboratories--that cleanup of these sites will happen, that it will happen sooner rather than later, and that defense nuclear waste, our legacy from the cold war, will be disposed of responsibly. Just this past week, before the appropriate Appropriations Committee, I and Senator Domenici heard at length what this administration is doing to help Russia get rid of its cold war nuclear waste legacy. While we are going headlong to help them, it is ironic that we cannot help ourselves. This administration has promised and yet, in 6 years, has delivered nothing and finally gave up on its promises and found itself in a box canyon with a lot of lawyers lining up in lawsuits, because they are now out of compliance with an act that this Congress passed in the mid-1980s to deal with nuclear waste. [[Page S2655]] This bill will assure that the spent fuel from our nuclear fighting ships and submarines, currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, can be sent to the interim storage facility beginning in the year 2003. This is good news for both the Navy and for Idaho. Our nuclear Navy ought to be concerned that DOE is still playing games with the real hard fact that sooner, rather than later, they must have a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel coming from our Navy vessels. Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the agreed date of the year 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho Governor Batt, DOE and the Navy. This legislation will provide assurance that nuclear waste now in Idaho for permanent storage will eventually be disposed of at the repository. The tragedy here, of course, and we understand it, in the building of safe facilities, is the long lead time necessary. That is why this legislation is important now, to construct an interim storage facility ready to receive by the year 2003. Critics of this legislation will attempt to distract you over the issue of transportation. In just a few months we will hear on the floor of the Senate the term ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This is just so much politics or political statement. There is absolutely no fact or record behind that statement other than a scare tactic that some of my colleagues will attempt to use to support an absence of fact. The fact is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of spent fuel in the United States and that there has not been a single death or injury from the radioactivity nature of the cargo. In my State of Idaho, there have been over 600 shipments of naval fuel and over 4,000 other shipments of radioactive material. Again, there has been not one single injury related to the radioactive nature of these shipments. This is a phenomenal safety record, but it is a real safety record, because this Government has insisted that the appropriate handling of our spent nuclear fuels and waste long term be dealt with in the right way. The proof is in the reality and the responsibility that this country has taken for years in the transportation of its waste. Those are the facts as I have related them. I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of spent nuclear fuel disposal. Some of my colleagues are probably fatigued at the prospect of debating this issue once again in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, as long as this administration continues to stick its head in the sand, sand that is now going to cost millions of dollars in legal fees, my colleagues and I have no choice but to address this issue once again for the sake of our country, for the future of energy production in our country from radioactive materials, and just the tremendous responsibility we have in making sure to our public that all of it is done well and safely. As this legislative body sets policies for the Nation, the Congress cannot sit by and watch while key components of the energy security of this Nation, the source of 20 percent of this country's electricity-- and that is coming from nuclear powerplants--risk going down simply because we cannot manage our waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 will address what neither the 1982 nor the 1987 Act did, and that is to provide a cost-effective and safe means to store spent fuel in the near term while we continue to investigate and provide for the ultimate disposal. I thank you, Mr. President. I see my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, has joined me now on the floor. I yield my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a pleasant afternoon. I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, for his statement relative to the reality that 22 percent of the Nation's power is generated by nuclear energy. Here we are again today, Mr. President, with an obligation to fulfill a commitment. That obligation and that commitment was made to the ratepayers, the individuals all over America who depend on nuclear energy for their power. They paid $14 billion over the last 18 years. What have they paid for? They have pai