Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this week marked the 21st anniversary of the congressional passage of the 1976 National Forest Management Act. It is, therefore, a particularly appropriate time to discuss revisions to modernize NFMA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act also passed in 1976. Today, I am introducing a revised version draft of a legislative proposal I first circulated for comments and review last December. Actually, as I will explain shortly, I am introducing two bills today. The first bill, called the Public Lands Improvement Act of 1997, provides a series of reforms to the management programs of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The second bill, called the Federal Lands Management Adjustment Act of 1997, provides an opportunity for the States or other parties to seek certain management responsibilities for Federal, multiple-use lands. These two bills were bound together as one proposal in my December draft. But they have changed significantly as a consequence of six workshops sponsored by the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, as well as a foot-thick pile of comments provided by individuals and groups who took the time and effort to review the December proposal, offer us their views, and suggest many helpful changes. The proposal that I am introducing today has been shared with the Clinton administration. We reviewed the proposal with them earlier this week. In the very near future, we will hear their formal comments on the proposal. But I think it is fair to say that, at this point, the administration still embraces the proposition that no statutory changes are needed to the confusing and conflicting mandates that govern the Forest Service and BLM. A number of serious observers and students of these two agencies--most notably the General Accounting Office in a series of research efforts conducted on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski--disagree strongly. Nevertheless, the administration's present posture is to inveigh against any changes to the law. This position makes it very difficult for this bill, or any bill, to be introduced with the kind of bipartisan support that will be needed to eventually secure passage of legislation in this area. Consequently, I am introducing this bill alone, even though there are numerous Senators on our side of the aisle who would like to be cosponsors. I have asked the full committee chairman, Senator Murkowski, to join me. I point out this reality not to pick a fight with the administration. Rather, I want to make it clear that I am introducing it by myself-- without political cover--so that a spirit of bipartisan cooperation can have a chance to grow as we move into the formal hearings process. Any significant changes in this area of law will, by both design and necessity, be the product of bipartisan collaboration between the Congress and the administration. I not only accept this--I welcome it. At the same time, if you look closely at the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill reported by the Senate, you will see a number of instances where Senator Gorton and I have made it clear to the administration that--absent clarifying legislative changes to confusing and expensive statutory mandates--we are not prepared to continue to spend money to no particular end. At this point, we are sending good money after bad. These existing statutes--NFMA and FLPMA--are 21 years old. Their implementation today conjures the image of a sullen 21-year-old without a job, that's moved back home, is cleaning out the refrigerator and is draining cash without contributing much to the family. In my single year as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I have seen how many exceptionally worthy efforts are denied funds. I cannot, in good conscience, condone further spending for things like the RPA Program and NFMA plan revisions. I hope the administration takes the message here seriously, but constructively. That is the fashion in which is being sent. And, obviously I hope that they will review the proposal that we shared with them last week, and provide us their ideas on the statutory changes that should be made. With that, I would like to highlight a few of the changes that we made in response to reviewers that have provided us their comments since last December. First and foremost, as I indicated, I am introducing two bills today. We have separated title VI of the December draft and made it a separate bill dealing with increased opportunities for the State--and now others--to take on a larger role in Federal land management. I will treat this idea separately as we move through the hearing process. I'm doing this because a number of middle-of-the-road groups and thoughtful individuals suggested that it is impossible to focus on Federal land law reform if we are simultaneously, that is, in the same piece of legislation, looking at alternatives to Federal land management. Considering alternatives to Federal management of nationally owned lands is an intellectual ``bridge too far'' for many. It became an impediment to their participation and, I hope, ultimately their support for Federal land management reform. I can accept this, even though it does suggest a certain timidity of spirit. I will note that the most timid of spirit, by far, were those interest groups, which self-identified by their rhetoric, that vigorously opposed all discussion of this concept in any form. At the same time, I remain convinced that we ought to be looking at alternatives to Federal land management in a thoughtful and organized way. That is why I have introduced both bills today. We may take up the bills at somewhat different times as we move forward. But we will eventually pursue them both. The former Chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, and the General Accounting Office felt that both the BLM and the Forest Service need a much clearer statement of mission. Our December draft focused largely upon improved procedures. The GAO emphasized that any attempt to change resource management procedures would not, by itself, be sufficient to cut through the morass of confusion that currently infects Federal agency management. Therefore, we have included a discrete mission statement for both the BLM and the Forest Service in the new proposal. Additionally, over the past 9 months we have heard a lot from locally base, consensus groups working of Federal land management problems. I have become convinced that we ought to encourage these efforts. Therefore, this bill provides greater opportunity and encouragement to local consensus groups. Also, we provide a greater opportunity for the Forest Service and BLM to seek out local advice from interested elements of the public. I am optimistic that, if we can forge consensus at the local level, many of the national land management conflicts can be diminished in their intensity. In response to numerous comments, we have also made some significant changes to part B of title I dealing with administrative appeals and judicial review of Forest Service and BLM decisions. We still codify-- for the first time--an administrative appeals process for the Forest Service. The existing appeals process is without statutory basis, and could be eliminated by administrative fiat. We have, however, removed the provision allowing the executive agencies the opportunity to dismiss and penalize frivolous appeals. In the December draft, we tried to use existing jurisprudential standards for discouraging frivolous legal action. Many reviewers were, however, uncomfortable with the notion of providing this authority to the executive branch agencies under any standard. We also removed a provision in the December draft which stated that, upon injunction of a land and resource management plan, the previous plan would apply. As with frivolous actions, we will now leave to the judiciary the case-by-case determination of an appropriate course of action after the issuance of a broad-scale injunction. One of the more contentious issues in the December draft was whether the land managing agencies should assure their own compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Many groups were unwilling to trust the Forest Service and the BLM to do this on their own. Here, we were guided by the thoughtful comments of the Wildlife Management Institute. The Institute suggested that, with some review and certification of their program capabilities, the land managing agencies could be so trusted. Therefore, this provision has been modified to allow the land managing agencies to do their own section 7 compliance, but only after their programs have been certified by the Fish and Wildlife Service--in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service--as competent to carry out this responsibility. You may recall that, in title IV of the December draft, we created some new funding streams to increase land management activities. We received a number of comments that allowing resource managers to keep these funds locally could create perverse incentives that would result in more intensive land management--whether or not such management is appropriate in individual circumstances. At the same time, we heard from GAO and others that one of the most crying needs for additional funding is monitoring of plan implementation. The GAO emphasized that this is where the Forest Service and BLM often fall short. In response to both sets of concerns, we are retaining these new funding streams, but channeling any additional revenues into increased monitoring activity. It is our hope that, with better monitoring, we will get more effective plan implementation, and more projects accomplished on the ground. During the past few months as we have worked on this proposal, we have also been captivated by a separate discussion underway between the administration and groups who wish to bid on timber sales for the purpose of preserving--rather than harvesting--the trees. To date, the administration has correctly interpreted existing law as not providing the authority to entertain such bidders. Section 14(c) of the National Forest Management Act is specific that the purpose of timber sales is to promote the orderly harvesting of the timber. At the same time, where the sale is for the sole purpose of disposing of a commodity, we believe that the taxpayers should be afforded the best price--whether it is being offered by someone who wants to harvest, or someone who wants to preserve the trees. Therefore, we have added a provision in title IV of the bill which provides the administration authority which it now lacks, to allow nonharvesting bidders to participate in the auction of commodity timber sales that have no land stewardship function associated with them. Now let me spend a few moments on the second bill dealing with transfer of management responsibilities for Federal lands. As I indicated, this has been split into a separate bill to accommodate those who could not consider alternatives to Federal management at the same time they were proffering their views about how to make Federal management more effective. With regard to the State transfer bill, it is in many respects similar to title VI of our December draft. We do, however, clarify that nothing in the transfer of management responsibility is designed to infringe on Indian tribal or treaty rights. Additionally, we have been moved by the views of a number of free market environmentalists and scholars who have argued that there should be an opportunity for nonprofit trusts to assume a larger role in Federal land management. We have added this concept to the transfer bill. These are a few of the changes that we made. As I indicated, the changes are numerous and substantive. My staff indicated that, at last count, we had made some 80 changes in the December draft. It's now time to review these changes, and continue a constructive discussion on how this bill can be improved further. In that regard, I want to thank a number of individuals and groups who have been instrumental in providing us ideas for the improvements that we have already made. First and foremost, I want to thank former Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, for his advice and participation in our workshops. I also would like to thank a group of retired Forest Service Deputy Chiefs and Regional Foresters led by George Leonard for their thoughtful and detailed comments. I appreciate the assistance provided by a number of professional societies and other middle-of-the-road conservation groups who assisted us by forming committees made up of their members to review the bill and offer us formal comments. These groups include, among others, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Society of American Foresters, the National Association of State Foresters, and the Association of State Land Commissioners. In each case, their participation has been instrumental in guiding us toward some of the changes I have described. Now I suppose the next question is: where we will head from here? We will try to convene a first hearing before we recess this session of Congress. At this hearing, I hope to hear from those groups that have taken the extra step of forming committees of their members to review the December proposal. I would like to hear from them how responsive they think we have been to their constructive suggestions. Then, when we reconvene next year I will hold additional hearings to receive testimony from national interest groups, as well as from the administration. I will endeavor to be as inclusive as possible in soliciting testimony from as wide a range of groups as are interested. I hope that, by early next year, the administration will see its way clear to sit down with us and suggest constructive changes to this proposal. I would welcome the opportunity to work with them to see if there is a list of changes that we can agree are necessary and meaningful to pursue. With or without the administration's cooperation, I will nevertheless endeavor to produce a third version of this bill to have ready for committee markup sometime next spring. I urge all groups involved in reviewing this legislation to take the time to: first, read it; second, reflect on it; third, come in and discuss it with us if they wish; and fourth, commit themselves to moving forward to work with us to develop a land management planning process that is equitable, efficient, and sensitive to environmental, economic, and fiscal concerns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this week marked the 21st anniversary of the congressional passage of the 1976 National Forest Management Act. It is, therefore, a particularly appropriate time to discuss revisions to modernize NFMA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act also passed in 1976. Today, I am introducing a revised version draft of a legislative proposal I first circulated for comments and review last December. Actually, as I will explain shortly, I am introducing two bills today. The first bill, called the Public Lands Improvement Act of 1997, provides a series of reforms to the management programs of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The second bill, called the Federal Lands Management Adjustment Act of 1997, provides an opportunity for the States or other parties to seek certain management responsibilities for Federal, multiple-use lands. These two bills were bound together as one proposal in my December draft. But they have changed significantly as a consequence of six workshops sponsored by the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, as well as a foot-thick pile of comments provided by individuals and groups who took the time and effort to review the December proposal, offer us their views, and suggest many helpful changes. The proposal that I am introducing today has been shared with the Clinton administration. We reviewed the proposal with them earlier this week. In the very near future, we will hear their formal comments on the proposal. But I think it is fair to say that, at this point, the administration still embraces the proposition that no statutory changes are needed to the confusing and conflicting mandates that govern the Forest Service and BLM. A number of serious observers and students of these two agencies--most notably the General Accounting Office in a series of research efforts conducted on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski--disagree strongly. Nevertheless, the administration's present posture is to inveigh against any changes to the law. This position makes it very difficult for this bill, or any bill, to be introduced with the kind of bipartisan support that will be needed to eventually secure passage of legislation in this area. Consequently, I am introducing this bill alone, even though there are numerous Senators on our side of the aisle who would like to be cosponsors. I have asked the full committee chairman, Senator Murkowski, to join me. I point out this reality not to pick a fight with the administration. Rather, I want to make it clear that I am introducing it by myself-- without political cover--so that a spirit of bipartisan cooperation can have a chance to grow as we move into the formal hearings process. Any significant changes in this area of law will, by both design and necessity, be the product of bipartisan collaboration between the Congress and the administration. I not only accept this--I welcome it. At the same time, if you look closely at the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill reported by the Senate, you will see a number of instances where Senator Gorton and I have made it clear to the administration that--absent clarifying legislative changes to confusing and expensive statutory mandates--we are not prepared to continue to spend money to no particular end. At this point, we are sending good money after bad. These existing statutes--NFMA and FLPMA--are 21 years old. Their implementation today conjures the image of a sullen 21-year-old without a job, that's moved back home, is cleaning out the refrigerator and is draining cash without contributing much to the family. In my single year as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I have seen how many exceptionally worthy efforts are denied funds. I cannot, in good conscience, condone further spending for things like the RPA Program and NFMA plan revisions. I hope the administration takes the message here seriously, but constructively. That is the fashion in which is being sent. And, obviously I hope that they will review the proposal that we shared with them last week, and provide us their ideas on the statutory changes that should be made. With that, I would like to highlight a few of the changes that we made in response to reviewers that have provided us their comments since last December. First and foremost, as I indicated, I am introducing two bills today. We have separated title VI of the December draft and made it a separate bill dealing with increased opportunities for the State--and now others--to take on a larger role in Federal land management. I will treat this idea separately as we move through the hearing process. I'm doing this because a number of middle-of-the-road groups and thoughtful individuals suggested that it is impossible to focus on Federal land law reform if we are simultaneously, that is, in the same piece of legislation, looking at alternatives to Federal land management. Considering alternatives to Federal management of nationally owned lands is an intellectual ``bridge too far'' for many. It became an impediment to their participation and, I hope, ultimately their support for Federal land management reform. I can accept this, even though it does suggest a certain timidity of spirit. I will note that the most timid of spirit, by far, were those interest groups, which self-identified by their rhetoric, that vigorously opposed all discussion of this concept in any form. At the same time, I remain convinced that we ought to be looking at alternatives to Federal land management in a thoughtful and organized way. That is why I have introduced both bills today. We may take up the bills at somewhat different times as we move forward. But we will eventually pursue them both. The former Chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, and the General Accounting Office felt that both the BLM and the Forest Service need a much clearer statement of mission. Our December draft focused largely upon improved procedures. The GAO emphasized that any attempt to change resource management procedures would not, by itself, be sufficient to cut through the morass of confusion that currently infects Federal agency management. Therefore, we have included a discrete mission statement for both the BLM and the Forest Service in the new proposal. Additionally, over the past 9 months we have heard a lot from locally base, consensus groups working of Federal land management problems. I have become convinced that we ought to encourage these efforts. Therefore, this bill provides greater opportunity and encouragement to local consensus groups. Also, we provide a greater opportunity for the Forest Service and BLM to seek out local advice from interested elements of the public. I am optimistic that, if we can forge consensus at the local level, many of the national land management conflicts can be diminished in their intensity. In response to numerous comments, we have also made some significant changes to part B of title I dealing with administrative appeals and judicial review of Forest Service and BLM decisions. We still codify-- for the first time--an administrative appeals process for the Forest Service. The existing appeals process is without statutory basis, and could be eliminated by administrative fiat. We have, however, removed the provision allowing the executive agencies the opportunity to dismiss and penalize frivolous appeals. In the December draft, we tried to use existing jurisprudential standards for discouraging frivolous legal action. Many reviewers were, however, uncomfortable with the notion of providing this authority to the executive branch agencies under any standard. We also removed a provision in the December draft which stated that, upon injunction of a land and resource management plan, the previous plan would apply. As with frivolous actions, we will now leave to the judiciary the case-by-case determination of an appropriate course of action after the issuance of a broad-scale injunction. One of the more contentious issues in the December draft was whether the land managing agencies should assure their own compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Many groups were unwilling to trust the Forest Service and the BLM to do this on their own. Here, we were guided by the thoughtful comments of the Wildlife Management Institute. The Institute suggested that, with some review and certification of their program capabilities, the land managing agencies could be so trusted. Therefore, this provision has been modified to allow the land managing agencies to do their own section 7 compliance, but only after their programs have been certified by the Fish and Wildlife Service--in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service--as competent to carry out this responsibility. You may recall that, in title IV of the December draft, we created some new funding streams to increase land management activities. We received a number of comments that allowing resource managers to keep these funds locally could create perverse incentives that would result in more intensive land management--whether or not such management is appropriate in individual circumstances. At the same time, we heard from GAO and others that one of the most crying needs for additional funding is monitoring of plan implementation. The GAO emphasized that this is where the Forest Service and BLM often fall short. In response to both sets of concerns, we are retaining these new funding streams, but channeling any additional revenues into increased monitoring activity. It is our hope that, with better monitoring, we will get more effective plan implementation, and more projects accomplished on the ground. During the past few months as we have worked on this proposal, we have also been captivated by a separate discussion underway between the administration and groups who wish to bid on timber sales for the purpose of preserving--rather than harvesting--the trees. To date, the administration has correctly interpreted existing law as not providing the authority to entertain such bidders. Section 14(c) of the National Forest Management Act is specific that the purpose of timber sales is to promote the orderly harvesting of the timber. At the same time, where the sale is for the sole purpose of disposing of a commodity, we believe that the taxpayers should be afforded the best price--whether it is being offered by someone who wants to harvest, or someone who wants to preserve the trees. Therefore, we have added a provision in title IV of the bill which provides the administration authority which it now lacks, to allow nonharvesting bidders to participate in the auction of commodity timber sales that have no land stewardship function associated with them. Now let me spend a few moments on the second bill dealing with transfer of management responsibilities for Federal lands. As I indicated, this has been split into a separate bill to accommodate those who could not consider alternatives to Federal management at the same time they were proffering their views about how to make Federal management more effective. With regard to the State transfer bill, it is in many respects similar to title VI of our December draft. We do, however, clarify that nothing in the transfer of management responsibility is designed to infringe on Indian tribal or treaty rights. Additionally, we have been moved by the views of a number of free market environmentalists and scholars who have argued that there should be an opportunity for nonprofit trusts to assume a larger role in Federal land management. We have added this concept to the transfer bill. These are a few of the changes that we made. As I indicated, the changes are numerous and substantive. My staff indicated that, at last count, we had made some 80 changes in the December draft. It's now time to review these changes, and continue a constructive discussion on how this bill can be improved further. In that regard, I want to thank a number of individuals and groups who have been instrumental in providing us ideas for the improvements that we have already made. First and foremost, I want to thank former Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, for his advice and participation in our workshops. I also would like to thank a group of retired Forest Service Deputy Chiefs and Regional Foresters led by George Leonard for their thoughtful and detailed comments. I appreciate the assistance provided by a number of professional societies and other middle-of-the-road conservation groups who assisted us by forming committees made up of their members to review the bill and offer us formal comments. These groups include, among others, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Society of American Foresters, the National Association of State Foresters, and the Association of State Land Commissioners. In each case, their participation has been instrumental in guiding us toward some of the changes I have described. Now I suppose the next question is: where we will head from here? We will try to convene a first hearing before we recess this session of Congress. At this hearing, I hope to hear from those groups that have taken the extra step of forming committees of their members to review the December proposal. I would like to hear from them how responsive they think we have been to their constructive suggestions. Then, when we reconvene next year I will hold additional hearings to receive testimony from national interest groups, as well as from the administration. I will endeavor to be as inclusive as possible in soliciting testimony from as wide a range of groups as are interested. I hope that, by early next year, the administration will see its way clear to sit down with us and suggest constructive changes to this proposal. I would welcome the opportunity to work with them to see if there is a list of changes that we can agree are necessary and meaningful to pursue. With or without the administration's cooperation, I will nevertheless endeavor to produce a third version of this bill to have ready for committee markup sometime next spring. I urge all groups involved in reviewing this legislation to take the time to: first, read it; second, reflect on it; third, come in and discuss it with us if they wish; and fourth, commit themselves to moving forward to work with us to develop a land management planning process that is equitable, efficient, and sensitive to environmental, economic, and fiscal concerns. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I send to the desk for appropriate reference a measure to expand the use and availability of the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956. The Small Reclamation Projects Act has provided important benefits throughout the Reclamation West in the 40 years since it was first established. Over the past several years there have been various discussions on ways to expand the benefits of the program. Last Congress I introduced two measures that included some of the suggestions that have been made. Neither of the measures would have affected ongoing projects. One of the measures, S. 1564, dealt with financing. At the present time, the Secretary is limited to grants and loans to fulfill the objectives of the act. That legislation would have expanded the authority of the Secretary to include the use of loan guarantees as a way of stretching the limited federal resources. The other measure, S. 1565, revised existing law to expand the purposes for which assistance can be received from the Federal Government. Irrigation would have remained an authorized purpose, but it would no longer be a required component. The purposes would now include the augmentation and management of local water supplies, conservation of water and energy, fish and wildlife conservation, supplemental water for existing supplies, water quality improvements, and flood control. The legislation would have limited the application of interest on any loans to those features which are currently reimbursable with interest under reclamation law. On September 5, 1996, I conducted a hearing on these, and several other reclamation measures, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. Based on the comments that I received at the hearing, and subsequent conversations that I have had with individuals and groups interested in the potential of the Small Reclamation Program, I have combined the two measures and made several changes in the sustance. I am introducing the measure today and plan to request that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources add this measure to its scheduled hearing on October 7, 1997. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that once the administration has the opportunity to read this measure and reflect on our hearing last year, they will change their minds and support this legislation. Quite frankly, I do not understand the reasons for the almost knee-jerk opposition of the administration to this proposal or their persistent efforts to terminate not only the Small Reclamation Project Act, but programs such as the Rehabilitation and Betterment loan activity. An administration that trumpets its concern for the environment should understand that one of the best ways of providing additional water supplies for instream uses, as well as for additional consumptive uses, is to repair old leaky systems. It may simple be that these programs either directly or indirectly help farmers, but I would submit, Mr. President, that they also benefit the environment and the economy.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I send to the desk for appropriate reference a measure to expand the use and availability of the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956. The Small Reclamation Projects Act has provided important benefits throughout the Reclamation West in the 40 years since it was first established. Over the past several years there have been various discussions on ways to expand the benefits of the program. Last Congress I introduced two measures that included some of the suggestions that have been made. Neither of the measures would have affected ongoing projects. One of the measures, S. 1564, dealt with financing. At the present time, the Secretary is limited to grants and loans to fulfill the objectives of the act. That legislation would have expanded the authority of the Secretary to include the use of loan guarantees as a way of stretching the limited federal resources. The other measure, S. 1565, revised existing law to expand the purposes for which assistance can be received from the Federal Government. Irrigation would have remained an authorized purpose, but it would no longer be a required component. The purposes would now include the augmentation and management of local water supplies, conservation of water and energy, fish and wildlife conservation, supplemental water for existing supplies, water quality improvements, and flood control. The legislation would have limited the application of interest on any loans to those features which are currently reimbursable with interest under reclamation law. On September 5, 1996, I conducted a hearing on these, and several other reclamation measures, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. Based on the comments that I received at the hearing, and subsequent conversations that I have had with individuals and groups interested in the potential of the Small Reclamation Program, I have combined the two measures and made several changes in the sustance. I am introducing the measure today and plan to request that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources add this measure to its scheduled hearing on October 7, 1997. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that once the administration has the opportunity to read this measure and reflect on our hearing last year, they will change their minds and support this legislation. Quite frankly, I do not understand the reasons for the almost knee-jerk opposition of the administration to this proposal or their persistent efforts to terminate not only the Small Reclamation Project Act, but programs such as the Rehabilitation and Betterment loan activity. An administration that trumpets its concern for the environment should understand that one of the best ways of providing additional water supplies for instream uses, as well as for additional consumptive uses, is to repair old leaky systems. It may simple be that these programs either directly or indirectly help farmers, but I would submit, Mr. President, that they also benefit the environment and the economy.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding. I have been sitting here for the last 35 or 40 minutes listening to what is a truly sincere statement by the Senator from Massachusetts as it relates to the state and the condition of the D.C. school system. He has left up a chart that recognizes seven categories of dilapidation that have resulted in the D.C. schools not opening on time this year. If you were to look at that chart, and all of the statistics of the D.C. school system separate from the rest of the country, you would say, ``My goodness, what happened? Why didn't we give them the money to fix the doors, the windows, the electrical, the plumbing, the physical structures of the school system? What happened?'' Mr. President, they had the money. They were given the money. I do not know what happened other than to say, they blew the money, they failed. By every measurement, the D.C. public school system is at the bottom. And that is a tragedy. You can defend the status quo and argue you have to pour more money in. But even the Senator from Massachusetts agrees, it isn't necessarily a money issue. Well, then for goodness sakes, what is it? Is it a new program, a special program, a great idea, an infusion of a new concept that will turn this public school system around? Many examples have been cited in one school system or another across this country by the Senator from Massachusetts over the last 40 minutes; and yet he condemns a program or an idea that is embodied in this amendment. It tries to do something very important to a failed system--inject it with a competitive idea that forces a new thinking that must be allowed to happen. I must tell you, if the schools of Idaho had the kind of money that the schools of the District of Columbia have, because we provide--and I do not say this with any pride--nearly $2,500 less per student than the District schools get here, and if we had the measurement of the standards and the failures of this school system, the Idaho system would have been changed dramatically years ago. You have heard the comparisons I am referencing. Last year, 72 percent of D.C.'s eighth graders in public school scored below the basic proficiencies in math, and 29 percent failed to meet basic proficiencies in reading; and yet they got $2,500 more per student than the Idaho students, and our scores are among the top in the country. I do not mean to be pounding my chest about Idaho schools. I want to see our educators get more money and I want to see more money put into Idaho schools. But it is fair and it is important that we compare a failed system with a performing system and the dollars and cents involved, and to argue, as we must, that it is not a money issue. And it isn't. And we know that. And this voucher amendment isn't to do with money. It is to do with the ability of parents to be able to decide what is best for their children and to have the flexibility to move on that decision. Why has education, Mr. President, been nearly every person in this country's No. 1 choice in the public polling of our country over the last decade when asked, ``What's the most important issue on your mind?'' Not because it is so good--we are oftentimes reminded of quite the opposite. It is because the public school systems of our country are in trouble. Parents are concerned about the quality of education our children get, their children get and their futures. When you can't guarantee safety--and the District schools can't; when you can't guarantee discipline--and the District schools can't; when you can't guarantee high standards--and the District schools can't; you fail. If there were an opportunity for the children of the District to go somewhere else, there would be one of the greatest educational exoduses in the history of this country. That is not going to happen. But what this voucher amendment offers is some reasonable understanding that we ought to try to make a difference. It isn't some grand experiment, not at all. It is, without question, an idea whose time has come, an idea to inject a competitive environment into a monopolistic system that at the very best creates the lowest common denominator. That is not good enough for the young people of this District, and it is not good enough for any young person anywhere in this country. The good side about the District schools not opening happened in my office over the last 3 weeks. A young lady who is a junior at Eastern High School here in the District came to intern in my office, Kimberly, a delightful young lady. We learned a lot from her; and I think she learned a lot from us. But she did say this to me as she left to go back to school. ``Senator Craig, I think I've learned more here in 3 weeks than I'll learn in a full semester in my school.'' She was being kind, but the problem is, I look at the statistics of the school she attends and she's right, she's accurate. This young lady deserves every opportunity possible that the public school system should offer her and yet it does not. She said, ``Can I come back to your office? Can I be a part of your office, because I know that I can learn a great deal? And I'll do extra time so I can do that.'' And we are going to see if we can make that happen. School choice--that is what we are talking about today--transfers power over basic education away from the bureaucrat and to the parent. I suggest that the failures of the District system are a clear reflection of the bureaucrats having had that opportunity. Nobody dare defend a school system where 40 percent of ninth graders drop out or leave before graduation or where only 50 percent of education expenditures go toward instruction, compared to 62 percent nationally. Mr. President, we wouldn't tolerate failures such as this in my State, and we shouldn't except them in the Nation's capital. Allowing for school choice is a viable solution to the woes of the District's schools. This amendment is a reasonable and appropriate answer to this crisis. This measure would provide scholarships to over 2,000 public school students, the poorest of the city's poor. These scholarships could be spent to attend any private or public school in the District or the neighboring counties of Maryland and Virginia. Most importantly, scholarships would be targeted to the poorest students, those living below or near the poverty line. Opponents of the measure make one argument: school choice diverts money away from public schools for the benefit of a few students. However, nothing could be further from the truth. This measure would not cost the public school system anything--not $1 would leave the public school system. The funding is entirely new money--taken from an increase in the Federal Government's contribution to the city's debt. Mr. President, today the Senate is being asked to make a choice between the status quo and real reform. I thank Senator Coats, Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, Senator Landrieu for offering us this opportunity to debate school choice. This is not a partisan issue. This is all about kids and a failing system and the responsibility of this country and its policymakers to make the difference, because it is a public educational school system. We are not going to worry about the private system. It competes. It has to be good or it will not get the kids. But the public school system does not have to be good because the kids that cannot afford to get out of it have to go to it. We should not sit here and pound our chests and talk about all the good things because we need to correct the bad things. And that way a very important public education system will be better. It is good in a lot of places around the country. It is bad here in the District of Columbia, and we ought not hold anybody prisoner to that idea. Let's give parents and students a fighting chance--let's give them a choice and a future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate what the Senator from Massachusetts said. I think all of us are extremely excited about what we hope will happen here in the District. And, of course, you and I have both used the figures that demonstrate the failure of this system. What I think we offer today is an enhancement and an accelerated opportunity to assist in what is underway. I appreciate what the Senator is saying.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. What I understand is we have a 100-year-old mine where we are trying to take today's science and, looking at it based on your argument, move it back 100 years. We should be intent on solving today's problems and not arguing 100 years later.

Mr. CRAIG. Does the Senator know about the new science that comes out of the study of the Superfund site in Silver Valley, ID? Does he understand also that mediation on the Superfund is now tied up in the courts--conducted by the State of Idaho--that has really produced more cleanup and prevented more heavy metals from going into the water system, and the value of that? Does he also recognize that the suit filed by the Attorney General was more politics and less substance?

Mr. CRAIG. I believe that is a fact. Thank you.

Mr. CRAIG. If you would yield only briefly again--I do appreciate your courtesy--there is not a $1 billion price tag. That is a figment of the imagination of some of our environmental friends. There is no basis for that argument. There isn't a reasonable scientist who doesn't recognize that for a couple hundred million dollars of well-placed money, that problem goes away. But, as you know, when you involve the Federal Government, you multiply it by at least five. That is exactly what has gone on here. I will tell you that for literally tens of millions of dollars, the State of Idaho, managing a trust fund, has shut down more abandoned mines, closed off the mouths of those mines, and stopped the leaking of heavy metal waters into the Kootenay River, and into the Coeur d'Alene, and done so much more productively, and it has not cost $1 billion. Nobody in Idaho, including our State government, puts a $1 billion price tag on this. This is great rhetoric, but it is phony economics.

Mr. CRAIG. My guess is that the State of Idaho with some limited assistance would champion that cause. I have introduced legislation that would create a base of authority. We believe it would cost the Federal Government less than $100 million. The State would work with some matching moneys. They would bring in the mining companies and force them to the table to establish the liability. Guess what would happen, Senator. We would be out of the courts. Lawyers would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. And we would be cleaning up Superfund sites that have been in litigation for a decade, by your own admission and argument.

Mr. CRAIG. But the countersuit says that based on today's science, if we had known it then, which we didn't--you didn't, I didn't, and no scientist understood it--then we could have done something different. But as of now this is not an issue for mining law; this is an issue of a Superfund law that doesn't work, that promotes litigation. That is why the arguments you make are really not against mining law reform, which you and I support in some form. What you are really taking is a Superfund law that is tied up in the committees of this Senate, is nonfunctional, and produces lawsuits.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield specifically to his last comment?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Chairman yield for purposes of a colloquy?

Mr. CRAIG. I do not know if the Chairman is familiar with the problem faced by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe of Idaho regarding the contamination of the groundwater on the Fort Hall Reservation where the Tribe is located? Mr. Gorton. I am.

Mr. CRAIG. Then the Chairman knows that since the 1970's a deadly poison named ethylene dibromide, or EDB, has been used as a pesticide on the reservation. Over time, EDB has leached into the groundwater at unsafe levels. Currently, approximately 1,500 people, both on and off the Fort Hall Reservation, are at risk. Most of those living on the reservation are served by one of two existing drinking water systems-- one operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the other by Indian Health Service.

Mr. CRAIG. I would also like to bring to the Chairman's attention that the Bureau of Reclamation has prepared a needs assessment on the EDB problem. This assessment concluded that the preferred alternative is the incorporation of the existing Indian Health Service water supply system into a new, larger drinking water system. Such a project would involve the drilling of new public wells outside the contaminated area and piping the water to the residents whose wells are unsafe.

Mr. CRAIG. I too would like to thank the Chairman. Seeing this project started as quickly as possible has become a high priority for myself and my fellow Idahoans. We are committed to getting this project completed and will be working over the coming months and years to see that all necessary funds are appropriated for the project's construction. Beginning the education phase now, through the Indian Health Service, will save valuable time and help relieve the threat of continued harm. fossil energy r&d account: Coal mine methane program

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Arizona. Idaho has experienced similar problems with implementation of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in this first season of operation. My colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, has identified a serious problem: use of Fee Demo authority to put the government into direct competition with the private sector. It has happened in Idaho under Fee Demo this summer, and I appreciate the gentleman's effort to bring this unfortunate development in the implementation of the Fee Demo program to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate. It was on the Wild and Scenic section of Idaho's Snake River in Hell's Canyon that the Forest Service conducted a pilot Heritage Expedition trip in July. The Heritage Expedition element of the Fee Demo program will be conducted regionwide next year in the Pacific Northwest and in the Southwest Regions of the Forest Service, and I'm told that the concept may be adopted nationally in the very near future. Essentially, the new Heritage Expedition initiative puts the Forest Service into direct competition with an adventure travel industry that is already highly competitive. Dozens of these businesses compete with each other at every primary tourist destination in the country. Thousands more have invested private capital to create and sustain unique market niches on the fringes of the National Park System, or tucked away in some remote corner of the National Forest. At Hells Canyon, the demand for access to the river and along trails and limited camping facilities is very competitive and increasingly difficult for resource managers to resolve. Environmentalists hold strong views that the river corridor is being trampled by boaters and hikers. Boaters cling tenaciously to levels of float boat and jetboat use that have increased steadily over decades. The Forest Service has to date been entirely unable to reduce conflicts between these various users groups, let alone soften the shrill cry from those who would radically reduce use altogether. Congress has stepped in to arbitrate a portion of these issues, and the situation is now the subject of rather heated congressional hearings. In pricing and advertising a whitewater Heritage Expedition through Hells Canyon last July, the Forest Service executed an extraordinary piece of business. It advertised a ``deluxe, fully catered'' whitewater and camping trip in which the fourth night would be spent ``in the luxury of'' a historic lodge. The four-day trip was offered, and I understand fully booked, for the ``fee'' (the agency's term of choice) of $1,740. The Forest Service did use the services of a river outfitter in conducting this trip and spent the final night at a commercial inn. There may have been other director costs not evident from the agency's advertisment of this trip in the Internet. But, I do not believe that this is what we contemplated when we approved the Fee Demonstration. It's important to note that a commercial operator in Hells Canyon would not be allowed by Forest Service river managers to charge the public such an exorbitant fee, no matter what amenities were tacked onto the basic outdoor experience. It was advertised by the Forest Service that a portion of its fee would directly fund ``preservation, protection, and future management of Hells Canyon's irreplaceable heritage resources.'' When the job of analyzing this initial pilot Demo Fee program is complete, it be important to know how much agency staff time and support costs were diverted from normal responsibilities in order to plan, package, market and conduct this trip. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Arizona. Such activities as running expeditions were not what was intended when we approved the Fee Demonstration Program.

Mr. CRAIG. Of course such a project would be expensive. However, this burden would be spread out over the several agencies from all levels of Government which would share responsibility for its completion. The Indian Health Service already has identified and suggested several areas where it might be of assistance during the education, public involvement, and coordination phase. These include providing further educational assistance and public information materials, the investigation of alternative water sources, assistance in the selection and implementation of appropriate treatment technologies, the design of ground water monitoring plans and schedules, and the coordination and sharing of data and analysis.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues in introducing PASS, the Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support for Abused and Neglected Children Act. Foster care was never intended to be anything more than a temporary refuge for children from troubled families. Yet all too often, ``temporary'' becomes ``permanent,'' and decisions made for children in the system are driven by considerations other than the child's own well-being. Tragically, it's the children who ultimately pay for the flaws in the system--sometimes with their very lives. The problem does not lie with the vast majority of foster parents, relatives, and caseworkers who work valiantly to provide the care needed by these children. Rather, the problem is the system itself, and incentives built into it, that frustrate the goal of moving children to permanent, safe, loving homes. PASS will fundamentally shift the foster care paradigm, without destroying what is good and necessary in the system. For the first time, a child's health and safety will have to be the paramount concerns in any decisions made by the State. for the first time, efforts to find an adoptive or other permanent home will not only be required but documented and rewarded. For the first time, steps will have to be taken to free a child for adoption or other permanent placement if the child has been languishing in foster care for a year or more. These are only some of the many critical reforms in Pass, designed to promote adoption, ensure the safety of abused and neglected children, accelerate permanent placement, and fix flaws in the system. The package, taken as a whole, will make an enormous difference in the lives of thousands of children. This comprehensive bill is the product of extensive discussion and negotiation among Senators representing a veritable universe of viewpoints on adoption and foster care reform. Although we may have come to the table from different perspectives, we agreed on a fundamental principle: that reforms are needed to ensure that a child's health, safety and permanency are paramount concerns of the foster care system. In the end, on behalf of the children, we came together and resolved our differences. PASS is the result, and I commend it to all our colleagues. Change is needed now; every day of delay is an eternity to a child unfairly bearing the burdens of the current system. I hope every Senator will take a careful look at PASS, and work with us to achieve true reforms in this area.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 25, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 799, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the personal representative of the estate of Fred Steffens of Big Horn County, Wyoming, certain land compromising the Steffens family property; S. 814, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to John R. and Margaret J. Lowe of Big Horn County, Wyoming, certain land so as to correct an error in the patent issued to their predecessors in interest; H.R. 960, a bill to validate certain conveyances in the City of Tulare, Tulare County, California, and for other purposes. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mike Menge at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues in introducing PASS, the Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support for Abused and Neglected Children Act. Foster care was never intended to be anything more than a temporary refuge for children from troubled families. Yet all too often, ``temporary'' becomes ``permanent,'' and decisions made for children in the system are driven by considerations other than the child's own well-being. Tragically, it's the children who ultimately pay for the flaws in the system--sometimes with their very lives. The problem does not lie with the vast majority of foster parents, relatives, and caseworkers who work valiantly to provide the care needed by these children. Rather, the problem is the system itself, and incentives built into it, that frustrate the goal of moving children to permanent, safe, loving homes. PASS will fundamentally shift the foster care paradigm, without destroying what is good and necessary in the system. For the first time, a child's health and safety will have to be the paramount concerns in any decisions made by the State. for the first time, efforts to find an adoptive or other permanent home will not only be required but documented and rewarded. For the first time, steps will have to be taken to free a child for adoption or other permanent placement if the child has been languishing in foster care for a year or more. These are only some of the many critical reforms in Pass, designed to promote adoption, ensure the safety of abused and neglected children, accelerate permanent placement, and fix flaws in the system. The package, taken as a whole, will make an enormous difference in the lives of thousands of children. This comprehensive bill is the product of extensive discussion and negotiation among Senators representing a veritable universe of viewpoints on adoption and foster care reform. Although we may have come to the table from different perspectives, we agreed on a fundamental principle: that reforms are needed to ensure that a child's health, safety and permanency are paramount concerns of the foster care system. In the end, on behalf of the children, we came together and resolved our differences. PASS is the result, and I commend it to all our colleagues. Change is needed now; every day of delay is an eternity to a child unfairly bearing the burdens of the current system. I hope every Senator will take a careful look at PASS, and work with us to achieve true reforms in this area.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I rise for a brief colloquy with the manager of the bill. First, I would like to commend the Senator from Washington for his hard work on title VI of this bill. Title VI, which includes the forest resources conservation and shortage relief provisions, represents a considerable amount of effort. The title is a thoughtful attempt to resolve a very complex issue in an equitable fashion. The title is necessary because of difficulties caused by the administration regulations restricting the movement of logs across different jurisdictions. However, because the provisions of the title are so complex and involve so many intensely disputed issues, I would hope we would use the next year as a time for testing the provisions in the title and securing additional comments from all interested parties. We can evaluate how successful the provisions are, and develop any necessary changes together with other interested Senators over the course of the next year. I ask my colleague from Washington whether he agrees that we should look at the following year as a test period for this measure so that we can together evaluate any needed changes.