Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, first of all, for being on the floor this morning to discuss what I think is a very important issue. For any of us who were listening to the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Massachusetts, let me see if I can get this together. If you are for the Gore prescription drug health plan, then you are going to have a major premium increase, and you may get the plan in 8 years. It will be a Government plan, and it will be a major Government takeover of health care for the seniors in this country. And it will be limited to no choice. If you accept what Governor Bush is proposing, then you have a substantially greater choice. The plan is back to the States, where doctors and nurses and local health care delivery systems deliver it, and you do not move toward a major federalization of health care. We had this debate in 1992 and 1993. About 70 percent of the citizens of the country said: We don't want the Federal Government as the deliverer of health care and health care components, including prescription drugs. Is there a difference in the debate today? Not at all. Do the seniors of America want the Federal Government to control their health care or do they want to control it themselves with optimum choices, similar to what we as employees of the Federal Government have today? The Federal Government doesn't control our health care. We choose. We pay some premium, obviously, to offset the costs, and we have choice in the marketplace. I think as the debate goes on through September and October, the clear differences will come out, and they will be very simple. I think it is important that we think of it that way. It is called ``Gore and the Federal Government and health care,'' or ``George W. Bush and you and your choice at the local level delivering health care for yourselves with optimum choices and flexibility.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I ask where we currently are in the order?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with my colleague, Senator Crapo a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the Bureau of Reclamation's interests in portions of the Ridenbaugh Canal system of the Boise River to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The public comment period for the National Environmental Policy Act process has not been completed, and it is my intent to request a Committee hearing to discuss any issues concerning this transfer. Thus, any parties interested in this matter will have ample opportunity to express their concerns related to title transfer. The transfer of title is not a new idea. Authority to transfer title to the All American Canal is contained in section 7 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. General authority is contained in the 1955 Distribution Systems Loan Act. Recently, Congress passed legislation dealing with a transfer to the Minidoka Irrigation Project and the Burley Irrigation District. The Nampa Meridian Irrigation District diverts water from the Boise River into a system of canals and laterals known as the Ridenbaugh Canal system for delivery to lands in the district and provides drainage for district lands. Since 1878 when the Ridenbaugh Canal was first constructed, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has been responsible for operating and maintaining the delivery and drainage system, and all project costs have been paid to the federal government. Reclamation's interests consist of only five percent (5%) of the canals, laterals and drains and associated fee title and easements in their delivery and drainage systems. These segments were constructed for the delivery and drainage of irrigation water. The purposes and uses of Reclamation's interests in these segments are to access, operate, maintain, and repair Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's irrigation and drainage systems. Reclamation has never operated or maintained any portion of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's delivery or drainage systems. This project is a perfect example of the federal government maintaining only a bare title, and that title should now be transferred to the project recipients who have paid for the facilities and interests of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have to respond to something that was in today's USA Today paper, September 8. I know the Presiding Officer is a member of our leadership. Let me, for a few moments, tell you what he and I are going to expect in the final month of this Congress. I am quoting now an article about Senate minority leader Tom Daschle. It is reported here that they have a simple strategy; the Democrats have a simple strategy for winning the final negotiations over spending. In other words, they want to spend more of your money than we are proposing to be spent by some billions of dollars. Here is their strategy, and he admitted it: Stall until the Republicans have to cave in because they can't wait any longer to recess. That means shut the Congress down and get out on the campaign trail. Why? Well, because 18 of the 29 Senators seeking reelection are Republicans this year and 11 are Democrats, and there are a lot of vulnerable Republicans, according to Senator Daschle. He says, ``We only have one vulnerable Democrat, and he happens to be just across the river.'' I think he was probably referring to Senator Chuck Robb. Well, if that is the strategy of the Democrats, let me repeat it because that is what they have been doing for 3 long months: Stall, stall, stall. Yet they turn around and tell our friends in the press it is a ``do-nothing Congress.'' I don't see how the press can mix that one up as much as they have. You have the minority leader of the Senate admitting that their strategy for the balance of September will be to stall until the Republicans cave. Thank you, Mr. Daschle, for telling us your plan. We will attempt to offset those by working as hard as we can. It probably means we will be working late into the night so that we can get the work of the Congress done, get our appropriations bills finished, deal with the most important trade issue that is on the floor--PNTR--and that is, of course, permanent normal trade relation status for China.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. It is also my understanding that the Department of Energy is currently of the opinion that no further legislation would be needed in order for BPA to actually participate in a Northwest regional transmission organization. However, issues may arise as a result of the October filing, or otherwise, that would necessitate further legislation before BPA participates in the Northwest regional transmission organization. If such legislation is necessary, would the Chairman and the Senator from Washington be willing to work with me to enact it expeditiously, so as to not delay the actual operation of the Northwest regional transmission organization?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, one of the Power Marketing Administrations, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is working with other transmission-owning electric utilities to file a document with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in October evidencing an intent to form a regional transmission organization in the Northwest. It is my understanding that this language would give BPA the authority to engage in the activities necessary to making that filing. Is that correct?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senators. channel deepening

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee and the senior Senator from Washington to clarify the intent of legislative language in Section 319 of H.R. 4733.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Friday, September 15, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on Federal agency preparedness for the Summer 2000 wildfires. 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 Mark Rey at (202) 224- 6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate this afternoon to discuss a motion to proceed on what many of us believe to be a very important issue, and that is Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China. While this issue has been a long time in coming to the floor of the Senate, its time has come. Our Nation, for a good number of years, has pursued a relationship with mainland China to improve the trade and commerce flows that are critical to this country. The agreement that we are here to ultimately get to final debate and passage on, is an agreement that allows an unprecedented access to the China market. I support PNTR for China because it will seal the deal on the U.S.- China Bilateral Agreement and finally allow U.S. business and farmers the access to Chinese markets that the Chinese have to our market. In other words, America has had a relatively open market to China while China's market has been, for all intents and purposes, closed--except by category and by definition. Passage of PNTR will help pave the way for China's eventual membership in the World Trade Organization. I think, as you would probably agree, all of these are critical in our relationship to this very large country and the role that it will inevitably play in our future world. This deal cuts the barriers to trade that U.S. farmers and businesses have unfairly encountered for decades. It serves Idaho because it slashes tariffs on exports critical to Idaho's economy. Let me give a couple of examples. On U.S. priority industry products, tariffs will fall to 7.1 percent. Tariffs will fall on several products that are critical to my State, including wood and paper, which are critical to my State; chemicals, a growing industry in my State; and capital and medical equipment. In information technology--now a very important part of Idaho's economy--the tariff on products, such as computers, semiconductors, and all Internet-related equipment will fall from an average of 13 percent to zero by the year 2005. On U.S. priority agricultural products, tariffs will be reduced from an average of 35.1 percent to 14 percent by January of 2004, at the latest. It will also expand market access for U.S. corn, cotton, wheat, rice, barley, soybeans, meat, and other products. I think we all know the current state of the agricultural economy, and while we will set policy, to hopefully help production agriculture, we have always known that knocking down trade barriers and expanding the world marketplace for our producers in agricultural products remains critical. We have long since passed the day when we are the consumers of all that we produce. Now, well over 50 percent of everything a farmer or rancher produces on his or her property has to be sold in world markets to maintain current economies and to improve the profitability of those individual operations. China, without question, is struggling today to determine what it will do in agriculture. Without question, it will want to feed itself and to continue to do so. Any nation worth its own gravity wants to provide food and fiber for its own citizens. But as that economy improves--and it is improving--the ability of disposable income in the hands of the mainland Chinese means that they will want to buy more of a variety of products that our tremendous agricultural economy produces. This is merely a step, and that is why I say dropping tariffs from 31.5 percent to 14.5 percent by the year 2004 is significant. As we work with them, those tariffs could actually drop more rapidly in that area with additional agreements. There is no question that future Administrations in this country will continue to pressure the Chinese to move in the direction of even lower tariffs, but that significant drop of over 15 percent will rapidly enhance agricultural opportunities for sales to China. The United States needs this deal. We are the strongest economy in the world and, as a Senator, would I stand here and say we need this deal? Yes, because we do. The U.S. trade deficit with China is large and continuing to widen. The deficit surged from $6.2 billion in 1989 to nearly $57 billion in 1998. And it continues to rise. That statement alone is proof that our economy has been a largely open economy and theirs has been a relatively closed economy. This agreement, however, rapidly moves them toward a much more open economy and, therefore, spells in very simple language an opportunity for American business and industry and America's working men and women to expand the products they produce to sell into the Chinese markets. In addition to reducing barriers to trade, it will also force China to play by the rules. There is, I guess, a bit of a saying that when you deal with the Chinese on the mainland, you sign the contract, and then you begin to negotiate. In this country, when you sign the contract, you have made the agreement. The negotiation is complete. That is why bringing them on line with PNTR and into WTO means that not only will they have to ultimately play by the rules, but there will be a learning process for them as well. In working with the dispute mechanisms of the WTO they will obviously learn that as they move more aggressively into world markets, there is a rule of law that we have all trading nations of the world play by; that is, a rule of fair trade based on the standards established and negotiated within the agreements. Let me give you an example of the problems we face today. Idaho is known for its beautiful orchards. Of course, the State of Washington--our neighbor--is known for more orchards and that fine red apple that many of us see on the shelves of the produce markets and supermarkets of our country. Today, many of those orchards that produce those marvelous apples in Idaho and Washington are being pulled out and replaced by other crops. Why? Because the Chinese have flooded the United States market with concentrated apple juice--that when you buy apple juice in the marketplace, the apple juice could well be produced from a Chinese concentrate shipped into our markets, then processed and bottled and sold into the American market. The only way we can control the Chinese flow of concentrated apple juice into our market today would be to either openly threaten or close down our markets--close down our borders to the Chinese. That makes very little sense when you are working to expand markets because they then would counter by closing down access to another portion of their markets only to hurt another segment of our agriculture. If they were in the WTO--if we accept this agreement--then they come under entirely new standards so that they have to regulate the flow of their concentrated apple juice into our markets, and without question, substantially improve the overall economy of the fresh fruit industry of this Nation and of the State of Idaho, and the State of Washington. PNTR also means better opportunity for Idaho business-people and for the Idaho workforce. For several years now Idaho has exported to China on a growing basis. We are 1.2 million strong in the State of Idaho. We are not a large State--at least population-wise. In 1993, my State exported just about $2 million worth of goods and services to China. But by just 2 years ago, in 1998, that number had grown to $25 million. That is a 1,000-percent increase in the flow of goods and services leaving Idaho and going to mainland China, which just shows you the tremendous expansiveness in the marketplace that still remains relatively closed. This agreement rapidly opens that market and allows us greater access. This last year, in December of 1999, I had the opportunity to lead an Idaho trade mission to China. I asked 13 different businesses and industries to go along with me and my wife, Suzanne, and some of our staff. Representatives from agricultural companies and building material companies and the high-tech community went along with us. We were all united, not only in our recognition of the importance of China's entry into the WTO, but all of these companies that went along went to look for opportunities to expand the marketplace of products built in Idaho for expanding the economy of my State and expanding the workforce and the job opportunities that exist in my State. While we were there, we had the distinct privilege of meeting with President Jiang Zemin. President Jiang gave us the courtesy of nearly an hour of his time in a direct discussion with myself and the trade delegation. During that time, he talked about China's future and he expressed it this way. He said China is serious about a transition to a more market-based economy, although the President made it very clear that China was not going to fall for the Russian model. In other words, they weren't going to throw out the old and assume that the new would just naturally take its place. What they recognized and what they are doing at this moment is a progressive step-by-step approach for greater access in the marketplace, greater flexibility in the marketplace, without collapsing their economy, and without destroying the job base they currently have. There is no question that China is eager to gain the economic benefit and the political prestige of a WTO membership. During that tour, we also went to an area and a province to the coastal city of Xiamen. There you can see firsthand what happens when an economy that was once guarded, protected, and limited by state-owned companies and by political control is turned, relatively, loose to join the world economy. Xiamen is one of six free-trade zones in China that was created by Premier Deng Xiaoping a good number of years ago. Their gross domestic product is phenomenal with average GDP of 20 percent, and job creation of the kind that is tremendously significant in giving the workforce of China the kind of upward mobility that all of us seek for all peoples of the world. While we were there, we toured a brand new Kodak plant that was built on about 19 acres of ground. It was once a rice paddy for water buffalo and cobra snake. In just 19 months, this rice paddy was transformed into a very modern company that met all of the building codes, standards, and safety requirements as if they were built in my backyard, or in your backyard, or anywhere in this Nation. It was the home of thousands of workers, working for a much higher wage given the kind of power that a higher wage gives, and even given the opportunity to buy and own their own apartment. If we really want to see China change, we must help give their workforce this kind of an economy, give them more money in their pockets, a chance to own private property, and then we will watch, over the years, a political change that will take place. PNTR for China will improve the standard of living for many Chinese who have endured very poor standards of living. PNTR isn't just a good deal for the farmers of Idaho, or the business men and women of Idaho. It is a good deal for the Chinese people who have suffered poverty beyond compare, and who are now beginning to experience through the marketplace, the opportunity of upward mobility, and the opportunity of private property ownership that truly begins to transform the political base and the landscape of a country. Over the last year, as this issue developed and certainly over the last 6 months as we have known and as the Nation has known that we would ultimately debate the issue of permanent trade status for China and debate their entry into the WTO, I have received a multitude of letters from Idaho from all kinds of constituents who for one reason or another see the issue of permanent trade status the same way I do. While we agree that some of the human rights issues in China, and some of the other kind of concerns that we have are important, we also agree that our Nation must be continually engaged with the Chinese to change the world and to change their role in the world. Building a wall or turning our backs on this huge population base is no way to gain those kinds of ultimate changes or benefits. These letters, and letters from my Governor, Dirk Kempthorne, I think note, at least for the moment, that I share them with you. Let me give you a couple of examples. Here is one from David Sparrow, of Boise, ID. He writes: Dear Senator: As a constituent and a member of the agricultural community, I continue to urge your strong support of PNTR legislation with China. He goes on to say: PNTR for China is vital to the farmers and other agricultural interests in our district. Your vote is critical. Another one is just a simple one-liner from a gentleman in America Falls, when he said: Support trade with China. Nothing to lose except a market to other countries. That is exactly right. If we don't compete effectively, then our producers and our American workforce will be the loser as other economies of the world continue to increasingly engage the Chinese marketplace in their bid for consumer products and a role in the world markets. Doug Garrity from Blackfoot, ID, wrote this Senator: Dear Senator: As your constituent, I urge you to vote in favor of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Congress must approve PNTR this year in order to secure unprecedented access to world markets for my company and others across America. He was talking about a company in American Falls, ID, that is an agriculture-based company. When the Idaho trade delegation and I met with President Jiang Zemin it was very clear from what he was saying that they believed this time, it was their turn to make the concessions. He openly talked about why they had made these concessions, why they were lowering their trade barriers, why they would phase them in over a period of time, and openly discussed even freer markets than the kind that are proposed in the current agreement Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky negotiated in late October and early November. President Jiang Zemin recognizes that the strength of his country in the future is not going to be based on the strength of a government but the strength of an economy and the right of his people to share in that economy, both individually and collectively as a country. He spoke very openly about that. It was an amazing experience to visit for well over an hour with a man who had walked behind Mao in the great revolution. He did not mention that once, but instead talked in terms of open and free markets and talked about China's role in a world economy and our role and our companies' roles and our national economy's influence over them and their economy. It was a dialog I would not expect to have. Yet it is a dialog that is now pursued nearly every day of the week in China by U.S. companies who are openly and actively gaining a piece of that market. Another letter from Marlene Sanderlin of Lewiston, ID, which is a forest products and agricultural town. It is the location of our seaport where ocean-going barges come all the way up the Columbia and Snake Rivers into the heart of Idaho to take out Montana and Idaho grain, forest products, paper, and coal from Montana. All of that is moving out to the Pacific rim and some of it ultimately going to China. The vitality of that seaport, in the heart of Idaho, is in large part connected to the vitality of our trade in the Pacific rim and China. And China's economic growth, without question, is an opportunity for that seaport and for every seaport in the United States and the men and women who work in the maritime industries. As your constituent, I urge you to support PNTR legislation for China. This legislation benefits real people: Me, my family, and my country. It guarantees economic growth for America and promotes the growth of democracy in China. She speaks from my experience and my limited exposure in China, and the absolute truth when she says it addresses the growth of the democracy or the democratic actions within China itself. Potlatch Corporation happens to be a company that is a large paper and fiber producer in Lewiston, ID. They write, asking that we support this. Why? Because of the thousands of workers they have at Potlatch and the products they can supply into the Pacific rim and into the Chinese market. I have a good many letters from Idaho. We have received thousands. I know that nearly every Senator has received phenomenal communiques from their State in support of this particular issue that is now before the Senate itself. Establishing a permanent trade relationship with China means establishing a permanent, but also growing and developing relationship with the most populated country in the world. Without question, it is a vast opportunity for the sale of our products, and for an ongoing and working relationship with those Chinese people that can do nothing but help improve the ongoing relationship. We will have some important tests in the coming days as other votes on other issues directly related to China come up. I will take a serious look at some of them because we need to make very clear, straightforward statements to our friends in China as to what we can and will expect and what we don't expect as it relates to their role in the world community and our role along with theirs. If PNTR were voted down, the real losers would be the American business person, the American farmer, and the American workforce. We have a vibrant economy today, and our economy is vibrant because we can sell in an ever-opening world market. It has not cost us jobs, it has continually improved and built a stronger economic base and a greater job opportunity for nearly every citizen in our country who seeks it. While that economy is strong, in the agricultural communities of Idaho and across the Nation, it is weak. It is weak because nearly 20 percent of the world market is off limits or in some way restricted to direct access for our production agriculture. This is a quantum leap forward to not only gaining greater access but improving the economy of hometown, smalltown America. Idaho, my State, has a good many of them. PNTR is a critical link in providing that business economy, jobs, and growth relationship with China and China's future. Rejecting permanent normal trade relations would, in my opinion, have a dramatic impact on the economy for all the opposite reasons I have expressed that passage would have a positive impact. Lastly, if we reject this, we largely freeze our relations with China. We can't afford to do that as a country. We can't afford to do that as a world leader. I, along with a lot of my colleagues, have been very stressed in the last several months with some of the utterances coming from China and some of what appear to be their activities here. Shame on us if we ignore this and if we ignore all of those other utterances. Full engagement is the only way we can deal with the Chinese. Full engagement economically, full engagement in trade, dealing with defense matters, openly stating our positions in unequivocal ways as to how we will deal with our friends, neighbors, and potential adversaries around the world. It is that kind of leadership that is incumbent upon this country, it is that kind of leadership that is asked for in the Senate now in the passage of a permanent normalizing trade relationship with mainland China. I hope as we move to this vote we can get there, pass it, pass it as cleanly as possible, and get it to the President for his signature. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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 of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 at 2:15 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 S. 2873, a bill to provide for all right, title, and interest in and to certain property in Washington County, Utah, to be vested in the United States; H.R. 3676, a bill to establish the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument in the State of California; and its companion S. 2784, a bill entitled ``Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act of 2000; S. 2865, a bill to designate certain land of the National Forest System located in the State of Virginia as wilderness; S. 2956 and its companion bill, H.R. 4275, a bill to establish the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, and for other purposes, and S. 2977, a bill to assist in the establishment of an interpretive center and museum in the vicinity of the Diamond Valley Lake in southern California to ensure the protection and interpretation of the paleontology discoveries made at the lake and to develop a trail system for the lake for use by pedestrians and nonmotorized vehicles. 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 Mike Menge at (202) 224-6170. subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on September 6, 2000, by the President of the United States: Convention for International Carriage by Air, Treaty Document No. 106-45. I also ask that the convention be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I asked for time in our schedule today so that I might be joined with other Western Senators and those Senators concerned about the catastrophic fires that have been sweeping across public lands in the West for the last month and a half. Coincidentally, today is the first day of school across our Nation. Many of our children in elementary schools are going to be asked by their teachers: What did you do during your summer vacation? For the next few moments, I will suggest to you that this is my opening speech following my summer vacation. Let me tell you what I did during my summer vacation. I went home to my beautiful State of Idaho and watched it burn-- hundreds of thousands of acres of timberland, grassland, wild habitat, and environmentally sensitive land burned with catastrophic fires that were too dangerous, too hot, and too powerful to put firefighters in the face of to try to stop them and protect these beautiful natural resources. In fact, I never thought I would return to Washington, DC, in search of clean air. But it is true. The air is cleaner over our Nation's Capital today than it is in my beautiful State of Idaho, or Montana, or those Great Basin States of the West that are known for spaciousness, vistas, and clean air. This year's fire season may well prove to be the worst in half a century. All of our 11 Western States, as well as Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, are reporting very high and extreme fire danger levels today. As I speak, large fires are actively burning in California, Colorado, Florida--a little less so in Idaho today because it rained during the night, and it rained over the weekend. But it is true in Louisiana and Mississippi--a little less true in Montana because of that same rainstorm--Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. The map I have to my left demonstrates the character and the widespread nature of these fires. It isn't coincidental, nor is it unique, that most of these fires would be found on public lands--land managed by Federal land management agencies of this Government. As of last week, the National Interagency Fire Center reports that 81 large fires are burning presently, covering nearly 1.7 million acres of land. The acres burned year to date exceed 6.5 million acres nationwide. That is over twice the 10-year average to date. The reason I keep using the word ``to date'' is because we are now in the early days of September, and normal fire seasons will run late into September--and even later into October in California and other places down toward and including the Southwest. The total number of fires on public lands has surpassed 74,000. Let me repeat that: 74,000 fires on public lands. That is almost 13,000 fires higher than the 10-year average. Nationally, wildfires this year have burned an area larger than our neighboring State to the District, Maryland. In other words, envision the entire State of Maryland charred by fire. That is how many acres have been consumed by fire in our Nation this year. There are roughly 26,000 firefighters battling wildfires. We have run out of trained firefighters and are preparing 550 new Army troops to assist fire crews. This is in addition to over 2,000 soldiers already deployed to fire crews nationwide, as well as firefighters from 3 different foreign countries--Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. All of the personnel fighting fires deserve our heartfelt thanks for their efforts and their dedication. And yes, we have also lost lives of firefighters. Current estimates suggest that nearly $120 million was spent in August alone fighting wildfires. The National Interagency Fire Center in Boise reports it is spending $18 million a day on fire suppression and related efforts. Last week, the Federal Government reported that it has spent $626 million so far on suppression costs this year. The Forest Service budget director estimates that wildfire costs this year will exceed $1 billion in total. This estimate assumes that the fire season ends in the normal framework I have discussed. However, the fires that are currently burning probably will not be extinguishable by man. They will have to wait for the snow to fall this winter or late fall or for major storms to move in the normal winter cycle. It is hard to believe that to be a true statement, but it is a true statement that in the heartlands of our wilderness, our public lands where these fires will continue to smolder, to flare up during the hot days of the late fall, it will take a snowstorm in the heart of Idaho to put out these kinds of fires. On Wednesday, August 30, President Clinton granted Montana Governor Marc Racicot's request that Montana be declared a Federal disaster area. On Thursday of last week, my Governor, Dirk Kempthorne, asked President Clinton to declare Idaho a disaster area, and he has. And I expect likely declarations coming soon from others. In a fire season as bad as the one we are now experiencing, it is undeniable we would be seeing a significant area burn. Indeed, the General Accounting Office has warned in a series of reports that there are 39 million acres of Federal lands at risk right now of uncontrolled catastrophic wildfire. Therefore, the severity of this season should not have been a surprise to anyone, nor should we have stood by saying this is a natural situation. Ten years ago, a group of foresters and renowned national silviculturists met in Sun Valley, ID, to study the character of the forests of the Great Basin of the West. They said at that time that those forests were in severe need of active management because they were nearly dead or dying from disease and bug kill and that if we didn't pursue an active management policy, these forests would be at risk of catastrophic fire. That was 10 years ago. Since that time, I and others have asked the General Accounting Office to study the state of our forests, only to be reminded that what has happened this year would happen if we were not actively involved. However, over the last 3 weeks we have heard a series of news stories that call into question whether the Federal firefighting agencies have been adequately funded, staffed, and prepared to deal with the fire risk that we all knew existed and that will still exist after this year. Notwithstanding differences in land management policy--and there are differences between this administration and me and other Members of the Congress--there is no disagreement that the Federal land management agencies should be prepared to deal with fires when they occur. Nevertheless, 3 weeks ago, USA Today reported that the Bureau of Land Management fire preparedness budget request was reduced first by the Department of the Interior and then by the Office of Management and Budget. Current and former Bureau of Land Management employees complained in writing that the effect of these budget reductions would be to reduce fire preparedness dramatically. That story was followed by a Washington Times investigative piece that reported that the money taken from the fire preparedness budget was used to acquire new Federal lands as a part of this administration's current land legacy initiative. I am sure that at the time the President had money taken from these fire budgets he didn't understand that his land legacy would be millions of acres of charred trees and lost wildlife habitat. Mr. President, that is the permanent flame that you may well have as your legacy. At the same time, United Press International filed a story that the Forest Service fire preparedness budget was similarly reduced either at the Department of Agriculture or the Office of Management and Budget, or both. United Press International quoted representatives of the Forest Service Employees Union complaining that, in downsizing, the administration disproportionately reduced the number of lower grade GS 5's and 9's and put the money with GS 14's. What does that equate to? It said that it reduces people on the ground and puts them in the Washington, DC, office. Folks on the ground fight fires. People in the Washington office do not. Yet that is the kind of transition about which even the Forest Service Employees Union was talking. Those are amongst a lot of things that this Congress will have to deal with in the coming days. Last week, I had a good conversation with Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck. We agreed on a series of steps for the agency and the Congress to take over the next few weeks to address the situation currently at hand. We are not going to see major policy shifts this year, but we clearly ought to outline in the Congressional Record why we are where we are today and why 6.5 or 7 million acres of our public lands have been charred. Clearly, it is important that we develop an emergency budget not only to pay the bills of firefighting that we have incurred, but also the kind of environmental restoration that is critical now so we will not see continued catastrophic events occurring as a result of these fires, the kind that could destroy wildlife habitat and watersheds, because we were not able to move quickly in the kind of environmental restoration that is very necessary. We also have private lands at risk and private property owners who deserve to be compensated because of the way the Forest Service managed these fires in certain instances, or the character in which these fires burned. I will be working with my colleagues in the coming days to do just that. First, we will hold hearings in the coming weeks regarding: Was the Forest Service prepared this season to fight these fires? If they were not, why were they not? Then we will begin to examine the current policy and its impact on these 30-plus million acres at risk. I hope to take colleagues with me, as chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, to my State of Idaho and into Montana and the Great Basin area of the West in the next few weeks as we talk to the citizens on the ground who have experienced firsthand the risk of losing their homes, their property, and, yes, even their communities. We have already dealt with the urban wildland interface as a result of the catastrophic fires in Los Alamos. But even with that, we have not yet done enough. I hope the administration will bring forth a package in the coming days to work with us to develop a program of active management to try to save these environmentally sensitive areas, to improve the ability of these areas to deal with fire, and, most importantly, to improve the ability of our Federal lands management agencies to deal with fire in coming years. If we are truly in the kind of environment that I believe we are in, or if we are at a time and place of La Nina versus El Nino and ocean oscillations and seasonal changes in the environment, then next year could be every bit as great a fire year as this year. It is clearly important that we prepare now to do so. I have had several of my colleagues join me on the floor who wish to speak to this issue. Madam President, I ask how much time is left of the hour that I requested?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from New York for saying so. Yes, it is true that some of these ideas are new. Some of them have been building over the last decades as we have recognized the current state of the health of our forests. My time is up.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. CRAIG. At this time I yield to Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming for such time as he may consume.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl for what I think is a very clear explanation of what happens when you have this massive fuel- loading that has occurred on the floors of our public land forests in the Nation. When he talks about active management, he is not talking about wilderness areas. He is not talking about wildlife preserves. He is talking about the millions and millions of acres of land that we call multiple-use lands or lands that are classified within this roadless area that this administration is currently examining and is considering keeping roadless and undisturbed. The question becomes very clear. Can you do this kind of active management by righting the wrongs of past actions we have taken on our public lands to restore forest health and to allow fire then to be a participant in the ecosystem in a way that is not catastrophic or stand altering or wildlife destroying? Those are very real changes with which all of us have to grapple. We ought to start. I will start with hearings in the next few days that will deal with that. Some of our environmental friends recognize this. One of them happens to be from New Mexico. The Forest Guardian Group is quoted as saying that wildfires are getting bigger, burning hotter, and the effects are more devastating. It is clear that we will have to take mechanical steps to thin forests before we can use fire to restore these forests to their natural regimes.

Mr. CRAIG. Before I yield to the Senator from Arizona, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his most appropriate statement. He experienced this firsthand earlier in the year before Idaho and Montana experienced it--the kind and the character of truly intensive and catastrophic fires, burning thousands of degrees hotter than a normal fire in a normal forest setting. He is right. Over the course of the next several weeks, as chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, I am going to work very hard to come up with figures and amounts that we can build into an emergency package and hopefully include it in the Interior appropriations bill, which would fit the kind of environmental restoration necessary on the acres that have already burned, but also the kind of urban interface stewardship programs that will bring about the fuel reduction that our colleague from Arizona will speak to in a moment. He and people in his State have done some very interesting and extremely valuable pioneering work on the Ponderosa Forest of northern Arizona, which is important for this Congress, and hopefully this administration, to take into consideration as a part of the way we deal with these forest lands that now have literally tens of thousands of gallons of gasoline-equivalent fuel on the ground, which burns explosively under the right circumstances, as we have just experienced. Let me yield to my colleague from Arizona, Senator John Kyl, to speak to this issue and the experiments going on in his State. (Mr. ENZI assumed the chair.)

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Wyoming. Let me especially echo the point he made well just a few moments ago. We have had thousands of men and women out there on the fire lines risking their lives over the last month and a half. Clearly, a special thanks is needed to them for the work they have done. I think that is most appropriate as we assess now where we are and what we might be able to do, both short term and long term, in the packages that are put together and the policy changes that are made. The administration has said they will be coming forth with some proposals. We will take a very serious look at them as they come, to work with them in the immediate sense as we look at long term. Now, let me yield 10 minutes to the other Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Mike Enzi. I am pleased he joins us today to discuss this critical situation in the West.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments. He has made a very critical statement as it relates to some of the initiatives that are before us today, as it relates to roadless initiatives, roadless areas, accessibility to these areas, and the risk of catastrophic fire. Last week, I sent to the President a letter indicating we had discovered that the administration, in their roadless area initiative, was not using the current reports on catastrophic fire as it related to their initiative. We would ask them to go back and review that before they attempted, by regulation, to lock up another 10, 15, 20, 30 million acres of land. It ought to be examined against the current fuel-loading on that land and the risk of catastrophic fire. Now I will yield to the Senator from New Mexico who has just gone through a catastrophic fire in his State that nearly wiped out one of our great National Laboratories. It certainly wiped out a beautiful area in the mountains of New Mexico near Los Alamos where it took hundreds of homes and may well end up costing the taxpayers of this country over $1 billion to repair bad policy and bad decisionmaking coming together that created the Los Alamos fire. I yield to my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me conclude because the chairman of the Finance Committee has just brought a very critical issue to the floor. I appreciate the opportunity to kind of sandwich ourselves in between the opening remarks of the chairman and the opening remarks of the ranking member of the Finance Committee as it relates to China and PNTR, which is the most important issue before this Senate. But it is important that Senators be given an opportunity to hear the concerns that are now out there about our public lands and some remedial action that we can take in the short term as we look at long-term policies working with this administration and future administrations to resolve this kind of critical issue. I thank you very much for the time and the time my colleagues have used in joining me to bring out some of the necessary and important facts about the events that are occurring out there as we go through this most devastating fire season. Let me conclude once again with this thought. Six and one-half million acres of public land have now burned. For those who might be listening and who do not understand what 1 acre of land represents, or 1 square mile of land, let me suggest that it is the entire State of Maryland charred to the ground, with piles of ash, with snags of timber, standing dead trees, nothing left, with the risk of siltation and soot and ash moving into the watershed, into the streams, and into the valuable aquatic habitat. No wildlife can live there. Much of the wildlife having been destroyed, no trees can provide the productiveness to build a home and provide fiber for our country except in charred snags. An area the size of the State of Maryland has now burned. Thousands and thousands of acres continue to burn. I believe that is a national crisis. It is a crisis on which all Members must focus. If it had been a hurricane that just wiped out the State of Maryland, we would all be rushing to save that State. Fire, too, is a part of Mother Nature's disaster or catastrophic scheme. I hope our colleagues will work with us and that the Nation will begin to understand that active management on these timbered public lands in the appropriate and designated areas is not only critical; it is necessary to save our forests. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, thank you very much. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Moynihan follow me to make his opening statement on PNTR, and that he use such time as he may consume for that statement.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, September 5, 2000 from 2:15 p.m.-4:30 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

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 of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 7, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. This hearing was previously scheduled to take place on July 26, 2000. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on potential timber sale contract liability incurred by the government as a result of timber sale contract cancellations 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 Mark Rey at (202) 224- 6170. committee on Energy and Natural resources Subcommittee on water and power