Larry Craig

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, March 2, 2000 at 2:30 p.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 the United States Forest Service's proposed revisions to the regulations governing National Forest Planning. 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 (202) 224- 2878.

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 Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 2:30 p.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 the White River National Forest Plan. 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 (202) 224- 2878. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer from Kansas for recognizing the Senator from Idaho. Mr. President, I said yesterday--and I meant it most sincerely--that I am very respectful of the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Utah who have tried to reshape bankruptcy law in this country to be fair and equitable and representative of those who find themselves in desperate straits as a result of debt and the need to reorganize and reshape that and, in some instances, to discharge it altogether. We have said historically that those who willfully, maliciously, or recklessly cause endangerment cannot do that. That has been the standard, and that ought to remain the standard. Today, there is an attempt by the Senator from Michigan to use the bankruptcy code to be politically correct, to be more political than substantive as it relates to the law; that is, to single out an industry and that industry's legal distributors as somehow being separate, special, and unique and, therefore, not being allowed to use the bankruptcy law. It is a great mistake for the Senate to begin to play that kind of game. That is raw politics, and we have not done that in the past. I am not sure we should ever do it for any reason other than the ones we have already said: a willful, malicious kind of action. They say this is for gun manufacturers, those folks whom they attempt to paint as a very evil group who produce a legal and legitimate product and sell it through federally licensed dealers. Somehow they are all wrong now because the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from New Jersey say the American people sweepingly demand that we change. The American people do not sweepingly demand this change; they demand that the Justice Department enforce the laws, which we know they have not, and, as a result, some misuse of firearms has certainly gone on in our country. The issue is not with the Kmarts, it is not with the Wal-Marts, it is not with the local hardware dealer, and it should not be with the manufacturer. But for some reason today, for political correctness in this Chamber, that is exactly what they are attempting to do. I hope my colleagues understand and recognize that we are not shielding somebody who acts willfully and maliciously but who acts knowing their action endangers others. They are not going to be exempt because they are not now and they will not be later. The Senator from Alabama is right; judges are already dismissing these kinds of frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits, and they will keep filing them hoping someday they can find a judge on whom they can hang it and he will say OK. If that happens, then what happens? If a company that finds itself in this situation is not allowed to use chapter 11 to reorganize, then they will use chapter 7. What does that mean? It means they will go bankrupt, they will liquidate, they will go overseas, if they need to, to manufacture their product, and jobs on Main Street in a lot of our communities can and will be lost. Is this a jobs issue? It can be when you straitjacket the law, when you pick winners and losers, when you want to play the politically correct game against someone who, by their judgment, has fallen out of favor with the American people. I hope we do not use bankruptcy law or any other part of the Federal code of this country for that kind of political gamesmanship. Last year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle worked overtime trying to make guns an issue, and they failed. The reason they failed is that the American people said: Wait a moment; there are tragedies being perpetrated out there and guns being used in those tragedies, and there are 60,000 gun laws in America and the Justice Department is not enforcing them. Somehow we just stack more laws up and the world becomes safer? No. The American people are way ahead of us by last year's polling and this year's current polling. They say: Don't do that. More laws do not a safer world make unless the laws are effectively enforced and administered against the criminal element of our society or those who would misuse their rights. Here the Senator from Michigan is deciding who is going to be criminal and who is going to be malicious by standing in this Chamber and saying: I think I will find these people less than popular in my judgment because back home it might be politically correct with my base of support. That is not good policy. It may be good politics. We have already found even that politics is not working very well. I ask my colleagues to join in a motion to table. We should not mess up the bankruptcy law. It ought to be used for the purposes it is being used, and those who find themselves misusing the laws of our land or acting in a reckless, willful, malicious way are going to be treated appropriately within the law; that is, to not discharge their debt or their liability if they find themselves in this kind of an environment. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, and let me also thank the Senator from Iowa for bringing what I think is necessary to bring to this debate as it applies to the Levin amendment, and that is common sense. Is, in fact, this amendment the kind of legislation we want to see? If you support the bedrock policy of bankruptcy law, I do not know how you can support the Levin amendment because it undermines basically all of those policies. The bankruptcy code establishes a structure that ensures everyone who is owed money by the debtor will be treated fairly when the debtor is given, in essence, a fresh start under the law. The main purpose of the bankruptcy reform measures we are working on is to get more debtors to pay back more of the debts they owe to more of their creditors. That is a rather simple principle before this Senate. This issue has been with us. The Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Utah and others have struggled with it mightily for the last good number of years, to bring fairness and equity in it, but also to say to debtors there is a credibility here and a responsibility you owe to your creditors. There needs to be a greater sense of fairness and balance brought. I think the fundamental underlying bill offers that. The Levin amendment is a carve-out, and I think it flies in the face of those general policies. The supporters of the Levin amendment say they are trying to prevent firearm manufacturers from escaping accountability for bad acts that result in a civil judgment against them. That is rather straightforward. It is not only manufacturers; it is retailers and it is corporations. So it is a broad brush. While they would like, I am sure, to create the image that there is a manufacturer out there who produces a firearm and somehow it is evil, are Wal-Mart and Kmart and hardware stores that sell legitimately as federally licensed firearms dealers evil? In the eyes of some, they probably are. That is not the debate, nor is that the issue. Let's look at what the amendment does. It is unfair because it picks out a specific industry and it restricts the bankruptcy relief available to that industry. In other words, if we in the Senate have now decided we are going to pick winners and losers who are politically correct or politically incorrect based on your particular philosophy or point of view, that is what the Levin amendment, the Levin carve-out does. Is this Senate going to start picking winners and losers amongst businesses in our country? We never have. We created certain conditions or certain things that are special within the law but never politically have we said: You are a winner, you are safe under the law; you are a loser, you lose. That is not what we do. We let the marketplace generally do that, and we let consumers generally do that. Today it is the firearm manufacturers and tomorrow is it an industry that produces alcohol; or a fatty product, and we have decided in our society that fat consumption is no longer good for the American consumer, even though as free citizens they ought to have a right to choose. ``That sounds silly, Senator Craig. You ought not be saying things like that.'' When I watched the trial lawyers organize and convince the attorneys general that going after the tobacco companies was good because the tobacco companies had fallen out of favor and it was a politically correct thing to do, I said, ``And next will be firearms.'' There were some who chuckled. Of course, guess what. Next were the firearm manufacturers. That is what is going on out there today. Municipalities that do not enforce the law but, most important, municipalities that arrest people who illegally use firearms do not have a Justice Department that backs them up. The Clinton administration ran from enforcement for 7 years. Of course, just this year they got a new religion out there because they have seen the polls and they have seen what the American people have said: Enforce the laws, Mr. President. I wonder how my friends across the aisle would react if I proposed a similar amendment making bankruptcy relief unavailable to former Presidents of the United States? ``That would be foolish, Larry. You should not do something such as that.'' That spells the intent of this amendment. I think the Senator from Iowa was a little kinder than I am, suggesting maybe there was an ulterior motive and it was probably more political than it was legally substantive. I think he is right. It is also unfair because it would have the effect of putting the interests of some creditors ahead of others. The lawsuits we are talking about are not claims for real injuries resulting from somebody's bad acts. Instead, they are treasure hunts. We saw the hundreds of millions of dollars the trial attorneys made, and now States are getting, from the settlements from the tobacco industry. The treasure hunt resulted; the treasures were found. They are looking for multimillion-dollar verdicts or settlements to go to the trial lawyers and municipal governments they represent. If there are legitimate creditors out there in a bankruptcy settlement, they are no longer protected because we have taken those companies out and they simply fall away. The effect of the Levin amendment would be that lawyers and government bureaucrats get paid first. Remember that: Lawyers and government bureaucrats get paid first. If there is anything left in this kind of bankruptcy of these multimillion-dollar verdicts, then and only then will a creditor get a dime. The Levin amendment would also hurt the very people it claims to help because it would make it unlikely that more than a fraction of the judgments, if that much, would ever get paid off. This is because it would prevent more companies from taking a reorganization bankruptcy. Instead, it would simply, in all reality, force them into liquidation, where the creditors get nothing. Is that the intent of the Levin amendment? My guess is, if it is not the intent, it clearly is the result. What is the practical effect of all of this? It means instead of a company continuing to exist, a company being allowed to stay in business, to reorganize, to keep its employees intact, they close their doors, they lay off their employees, and their creditors go wanting. Not only are the creditors not going to be there to get the benefit of it, the jobs are lost. It means there will be no business-generating income to continue to pay the debts it created. Whatever you can squeeze out of a business today is all you are going to get. That is the result of this amendment. Maybe that is the intent of the amendment. If it is, why don't we be honest with ourselves? This amendment is not substantively charged, it is politically charged. I think all of us understand that. My guess is that is how the vote breaks out on an issue such as this. In short, the amendment turns bankruptcy policy on its head. It is designed to destroy legitimate and law-abiding businesses. It injures consumers, and it destroys jobs. The Levin amendment is clear and simply bad policy for this country, and I hope the Senate will choose to defeat it. We should not mix that kind of politics with this kind of constructive policy change that these Senators have worked to bring to the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield time to the Senator from Idaho?

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 Tuesday, February 22, 2000 at 3:00 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 S. 1722, a bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to increase the maximum acreage of Federal leases for sodium that may be held by an entity in any 1 State, and for other purposes; and it's companion bill H.R. 3063, a bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to increase the maximum acreage of Federal leases for sodium that may be held by an entity in any one State, and for other purposes; and S. 1950, a bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to ensure the orderly development of coal, coalbed methane, natural gas, and oil in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana, 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.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague Senator Harry Reid, and Senators Ashcroft, Bennett, Breaux, Crapo, Grassley, Murray, Roberts, Robb, and Sarbanes to recognize January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month. It is fitting that in the first month of this new year, at the start of a new century, we look to biotechnology as our greatest hope for the future. Mapping the human genome, for example, is ahead of schedule and nearly complete. That achievement, begun 10 years ago, will rank as one of the most significant advances in health care by accelerating the biotechnology industry's discovery of new therapies and cures for our most life-threatening diseases. Biotechnology not only is using genetic research to create new medicines, but also to improve agriculture, industrial manufacturing and environmental management. The United States leads the world in biotechnology innovation. There are approximately 1,300 biotech companies in the United States, employing more than 150,000 people. The industry spent nearly $10 billion on research and development in 1998. Although revenues totaled $18.4 billion, the industry recorded a net loss of $5 billion because of the expensive nature of drug development. In 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved more than 20 biotechnology drugs, vaccines and new indications for existing medicines, pushing the number of marketed biotech drugs and vaccines to more than 90. Total FDA biotech approvals from 1982 through 1999 reach more than 140 when adding clearances for new indications of existing medicines. The vast majority of new biotech drugs were approved in the second half of the 1990s, demonstrating the biotechnology industry's surging proficiency at finding new medicines to treat our most life- threatening illnesses. Biotechnology is revolutionizing every facet of medicine from diagnosis to treatment of all diseases. It is detailing life at the molecular level and someday will take much of the guesswork out of disease management and treatment. The implications for health care are as great as any milestone in medical history. We expect to see great strides early in this century. A devastating disease that has stolen many of our loved ones, neighbors and friends is cancer. Biotechnology already has made significant strides in battling certain cancers. This is only the beginning. The first biotechnology cancer medicines have been used with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation to enhance their effectiveness, lessen adverse effects and reduce chances of cancer recurrence. Newer biotech cancer drugs target the underlying molecular causes of the disease. Biotech cancer treatments under development, such as vaccines that prevent abnormal cell growth, may make traditional treatments obsolete. In addition, gene therapy is being studied as a way to battle cancer by starving tumor cells to death. Many biotech drugs are designed to treat our most devastating and intractable illnesses. In many cases these medicines are the first ever therapies for those diseases. For example, advancements in research have yielded first-of-a-kind drugs to treat multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis as well as cancer. Other medicines in clinical trials block the start of the molecular cascade that triggers inflammation's tissue damaging effects in numerous disease states. In diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's, clinical trials are under way to test a variety of cell therapies that generate healthy neurons to replace deteriorated ones. Recent breakthroughs in stem cell research have prompted experts to predict cures within 10 years for some diseases, such as Type I (Juvenile) Diabetes and Parkinson's. With more than 350 biotechnology medicines in late-stage clinical trials for illnesses, such as heart ailments, cancer, neurological diseases and infections, biotechnology innovation will be the foundation not only for improving our health and quality of life, but also lowering health care costs. In the past 2 years Congress has increased funding for the National Institutes of Health's basic research programs by 15 percent per year. We are 40 percent of the way toward doubling the NIH budget. Health- care research, however, is not one-sided. The public funds we provide are for basic research. The private sector takes this basic science and then spends many times more than what the government has contributed to create new drugs and get them to patients. In today's world, biotechnology companies are among the greatest innovators and risk takers. Biotechnology also is being used to improve agriculture, industrial manufacturing and environmental management. In manufacturing, the emphasis has shifted from the removal of toxic chemicals in production waste streams to replacement of those pollutants with biological processes that prevent the environment from being fouled. And because these biological processes are derived from renewable sources they also conserve a traditional energy resource. Industrial biotechnology companies are the innovators commercializing clean technologies and their progress is accelerating at an astonishing rate. In agricultural biotechnology, crops on the market have been modified to protect them from insect damage thus reducing pesticide use. Biotech crops that are herbicide tolerant enable farmers to control weeds without damaging the crops. This allows farmers flexibility in weed management and promotes conservation tillage. Other biotech crops are protected against viral disease with the plant equivalent of a vaccine. The number of acres worldwide planted with biotech crops soared from 4.3 million in 1996 to 100 million in 1999, of which 81 million acres were planted in the United States and Canada. Acceptance of these crops by farmers is one indication of the benefits they have for reducing farming costs and use of pesticides while increasing crop yields. Biotech crops in development include foods that will offer increased levels of nutrients and vitamins. Benefits range from helping developing nations meet basic dietary requirements to creating disease- fighting and health-promoting foods. Biotechnology is improving the lives of those in the U.S. and abroad. The designation of January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month is an indication to our constituents and their children that Congress recognizes the value and the promise of this technology. Biotechnology is a big word that means hope.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding. Let me also join him in his analysis, and certainly the hope that he speaks to as it relates to an agenda that the Congress might direct itself toward this year, away from, of course, the pitfalls of the kind of political rhetoric that I think we oftentimes find ourselves in especially in Presidential election years. We are now well into this Presidential year.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor as one who spent over 90 minutes on the floor of the House last week listening to the President's State of the Union Message. For a few moments, I would like to kind of analyze that State of the Union Address as seen through the eyes of this Senator reflective of what I believe to be, shall I say, self-evident truth. There is no question that our President is a gifted speaker. He waxed eloquently while spending our children's heritage and vastly increasing the size and the parental meddling of our Government by all of the new programs that he has proposed to create while claiming credit for virtually every good thing that has happened in the last century, including those things which were accomplished despite his opposition and his veto. I say: Lyndon Johnson, move over; you heard a speech the other night that would cause your ghost to shudder. You had the record as being the biggest spending Government creator since FDR. Let me propose that this President is now vying for first place. Let me start by analyzing his spending spree. In his speech, President Clinton called for continued fiscal discipline while at the same time suggesting that we do a lot of other things and buying down the Federal debt. I say, Mr. President, what hypocrisy. Until the Republican Congress imposed fiscal discipline, until the American people demanded fiscal discipline, the President consistently proposed budgets with spending and debt and deficits as far as the average person's eye could see and the greatest prognosticator of the Office of Management and Budget could look in his crystal ball and predict. He didn't refuse to stray from the path of fiscal discipline. He simply did it. We forced him to get to that path. That election occurred in 1994. We know the rest of that story. Yet what has he proposed in his last State of the Union Message? The Senate Budget Committee made a preliminary estimate of the new spending proposed by the President at about $343 billion. That is about $3.8 billion a minute for his 89-minute speech. Not bad spending, Mr. President--the most expensive speech given in the history of this country, I suggest. If the Treasury can only print about $262 billion a year with the presses running nearly 24 hours a day, you even outspent, Mr. President, the ability of the U.S. Treasury to print it. What about the taxpayers whose earnings the President would spend so freely? Last week, the Congressional Budget Office, using its most pessimistic estimate, announced that there would be an $838 billion non-Social Security surplus over the next 10 years. That is phenomenal. That is wonderful for this country. Yet the Clinton speech mentioned he would give back only about $250 billion of it. That is less than 30 percent of the excessive income tax paid by the American people who that $838 billion represents. However, even this paltry $250 billion tax cut wasn't real. Much of it is disguised in new spending. Even the Washington Post, sometimes as difficult as it finds criticizing the President, said that he has artfully couched many of these new tax cuts in new spending programs. Thank you, Washington Post, for pointing that out. What is worse? This $343 billion in spending is just the tip of the iceberg, and the American taxpayers are riding on a potential Titanic. The Clinton version of government is not the end of big government as we know it. That is what he said a few years ago. But then again let's remember the source. It is Bill Clinton. More intrusive government? How about that. Less personal responsibility? I think that was the message our President spoke to so clearly last week. So let's talk about where he is, where I believe a Republican Congress is, and what I hope in the end we are able to do about it. The President says he wants to make schools accountable--but to the Federal Government. The Republicans want to make schools accountable-- but to the parents and to the young people who will be educated there. It takes Washington too long to realize the problems. Parents who deal with their children on a day-to-day basis know what the problem is very quickly. According to the Heritage Foundation, one-third of college freshmen take remedial classes because our elementary and secondary schools are failing to teach them some of the basics. Those are the students lucky enough to go on to college. These kids don't need the Princeton Review, as the President suggests. They need quality teachers who are accountable to parents and the local school board. What about health care? In 1994, President Clinton tried to remake a national health care system in this country in the image of the U.S. Post Office. Thanks to bipartisan opposition he failed. The world recognized it, and our public cheered. In 1996, he vowed to push for Government-run health care ``a step at a time until eventually we finish this.'' Those are his words. He would go after health care ``a step at a time''--that is Government-run health care--until ``eventually we finish this.'' ``This'' meaning, of course, his U.S. Post Office-style health care system. Now the President has renewed his commitment to Government-run health care with legislation that would cancel the private coverage of over 2 million Americans so he can push them a step at a time into an expensive Government-run program. Then there was that great but very soft and smooth Federal land grab statement he made the other evening. The President said: Tonight I propose creating a permanent conservation fund, to restore wildlife, protect our coastlines, save our national treasures. . . . What he wants to do is annually take several billion dollars of oil and gas royalties paid to the Federal Government and buy more land and make it Federal Government land. If he is successful, it means Congress will have to find $2 billion elsewhere to fund programs. But more importantly, the ratios of private versus public ownership would change. The Government already owns 1 out of every 4 acres of the landmass of this country, primarily in Western States; 63 percent of my State is owned by the Federal Government. Idahoans do not want Bill Clinton buying one more acre of Idaho. Why? That is the tax base that funds our local governments and funds our schools. So, Mr. President, we won't give you that money. We should not give you that money. If the environment needs protection, we can find the necessary resources without giving you a blank check to buy more Federal land. Mr. President, the very infrastructure of our National Park System is falling apart. How about putting some money there? That is where the American public wants to go recreate. Give our parks a chance to catch up with the traffic instead of shutting them down or closing people out of them. Let's let people into our parks. Let's invest in them. We don't need to buy more property; we need to take care of that which we have. The President said: The major security threat this country will face will come from enemies of the nation state: the narcotraffickers and the terrorists and the organized criminals. He boasts about ``agreements to restrain nuclear programs in North Korea''--a program for direct U.S. subsidies for one of the most vicious, anti-American, terrorist-supporting, drug-trafficking regimes in the world, responsible for deaths of millions of its own people? Mr. President, I don't quite understand your priorities. He is patting himself on the back for victory in Kosovo, a victory that means planting American troops in an alliance with what is known to be an organization of narcotrafficking terrorists and organized criminal cartels. Mr. President, I am not quite sure you have made yourself quite clear to the American people. I think you are saying one thing when your actions clearly demonstrate you are doing something else. The President highlights the needs for ``curbing the flow of lethal technology to Iran.'' The Republican Congress passed a bill that would have done just that, the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997, that is H.R. 2709. And what happened on June 23 of 1998? The President vetoed it. Remarkably, President Clinton continues to support paper agreements rather than U.S. actions to keep Americans secure. Although he outlined real threats from ballistic missile proliferation in his speech, President Clinton refuses to deploy a national ballistic missile defense system to protect Americans from ballistic missile attacks. He even signed legislation calling for the deployment of such a system, although, in typical Clinton fashion, he has found many excuses to reinterpret the straightforward language of that legislation. Instead of defending America against a clear and present danger, the President hides behind outdated, ineffective, and obsolete arms control treaties. Because of President Clinton, Americans remain defenseless against ballistic missile attack. It is interesting; the President is now calling for ``constructive bipartisan dialog'' on a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when the administration turned a deaf ear to the critical national security concerns being voiced by Republicans for the last good many months. Despite President Clinton's best efforts to underfund and overextend U.S. military forces, it has been a Republican Congress that has consistently sent the President bills to keep our forces well trained and well equipped and properly paid. It was a Republican Congress that initiated the bill to improve the quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and helped retain those who were leaving who had already gained the kind of special skills that are so necessary in our military. Hyperbole? Hypocrisy? Exaggeration? Shame on me for even suggesting that. The President claimed credit in his speech for most of the good news in America for the past several decades--the healthy economy, welfare reform, falling crime rates, balanced budgets, a cleaner environment, smaller Federal workforces, and social progress. Anybody who sits in the Presidency and possesses the bully pulpit when times are good can make claim and take credit, but just for a few moments let me talk about how it got done. Mr. President, you are entitled to take credit but you can't steal Republican principles, Republican ideas, and the kind of work that went on in the Congress to make it happen. The President claimed that he ended welfare as we know it--after he vetoed it twice. Shame on you, Mr. President. It was a Republican Congress but, more importantly, it was Republican Governors out in the States who reformed welfare. We copied them. We didn't have the genius here. We were stuck in the old bureaucracy. We wanted to talk about reform but we took the ideas of the States, implemented them into the Federal program, and it worked. So, yes, you can take credit for it but you didn't do it. You vetoed the bills, you kept vetoing the bills, and on the very day that you signed them, you said we will be back to change them because we don't like this. But, of course, it was an election year. You knew you had to sign it, and you took credit for it while at the same time you were criticizing it. I am sorry, Mr. President; I happen to read history and I happen to remember what you said. Shame on me. On the environment, the President said: . . . one of the things I am grateful for is the opportunity that the Vice President and I have had to finally put to rest the bogus idea that you cannot grow the economy and the environment at the same time. He said: . . . we have rid more than 500 neighborhoods of toxic waste, ensured cleaner air and water for millions of people. In the past 3 months alone, we have preserved over 40 million roadless acres in the national forests. . . .'' Mr. President, here is the rest of the truth. Those 500 neighborhoods you claim are a product of the Superfund laws that were passed long before you got here. Also, you are taking credit for cleaner air and water. Congress passed the Clean Air Act and Congress passed the Clean Water Act under Republican direction, and subsequently amendments to change that in a way that would make it more operative--and it has worked. But you are the one who ruined regulation, through ozone and particulate matter rules, for example, that have tried to pull it down and make it less operative. Mr. President, why don't we both take credit for the environment: past Congresses, current Congress, past administrations, current administration. We have worked together and our environment is cleaner, and we are proud of that. In 1995, President Clinton said balancing the budget was a bad idea. Let me repeat that. In 1995, Mr. President, you said balancing the budget was a bad idea, it was bad for the economy. Going into 1996 and faced with poll data that indicated the American people were demanding a balanced budget, you decided to surrender on principle and argue about the details later. The size of our economic boom today is because Bill Clinton reluctantly went along with the core principles that swept Republicans into control of the Congress in 1994. That balanced budget did not happen until there was a Republican Congress shaping it and, Mr. President, you know it. Social Security taxes today are being locked up and protected to secure Social Security and, Mr. President, that was not your idea. In fact, you wanted to spend a big chunk of that money last year, and we simply would not let you do it. President Clinton's greatest success story--the continued economic boom--is a direct result of the Republican fiscal policies enacted over the consistent objections of the President and his Democratic colleagues in the Congress. No, we will stand toe to toe on that debate. You cannot hide from your rhetoric and your actions of the past. Those were your policies before the American people said: We have gone too far; let's bring our Government under control. President Clinton is a President who claims he wants to protect Social Security, but in 8 years, he has failed to submit a serious Social Security protection plan. And President Clinton is a President who claims he wants to protect Medicare, and yet, last year--we all know it--he whispered in the ears of those he put on that conference and said: Don't vote for it. That was a bipartisan proposal, and that is the way reform of Medicare must come. Why didn't he want them to support it and to get it all wrapped up and finished in an election year? Because one could go out and point fingers and politicize Medicare and prescription drugs. Shame on you, Mr. President. Come back and work with us on that. Let's reinstitute the bipartisan agreement on which Democrats and Republicans stood. We will vote for it and you ought to sign it, Mr. President. And if you do, that could be your legacy. On that I would give you some credit. We have reinvented Government, transforming it into a catalyst for new ideas. . . . With the smallest Federal workforce in 40 years, we turned record deficits into record surpluses. . . . I was quoting the President. Our record surpluses have little to do with the size of the Federal workforce. Record surpluses were created by hard-working Americans earning money and paying taxes and a highly productive economy. That is what has produced the surpluses, Mr. President, and it also produced record high taxes. Another area on which I want to comment is foster care. It was fascinating to me and frustrating when the President talked about foster care. I know how that happened. I know Republicans and Democrats have their differences. We came together and we worked on it in Congress. It was not in the White House nor was it the President's idea. But because it was a strong bipartisan effort here, we happened to pass it. Democrats and Republicans at the congressional level did that, and the President has ridden on it ever since. Why? Because it worked, because children are less in foster care today, and we are finding them permanent, loving homes. No longer is the bureaucracy harboring them. Foster care is a good institution, but it is an institution that was reshaped. Mr. President, because you signed the bill, I am willing to give you some credit for it, but that is all you did and that is all you deserve. Then, of course, there is that issue of guns. Last June, the President said: I will not send up a licensure bill on guns because the Congress won't pass it. Even on less controlling issues, a Democratic vote in the House killed gun control ideas of this administration. So why did the President do it this time? For Bill and Al; that is Bill Bradley, of course, and Al Gore. They are out on the stump talking about it. His party failed to make guns a national issue, and the reason they failed is because the American people know there are over 40,000 gun control laws on the books today, and the American people have grown wise. If you do not enforce the laws, the criminal element still runs rampant and commits crimes with guns. The American people are not asking for more gun control laws. They are asking for a Justice Department that will prosecute those who violate the law. Mr. President, that is the message and, of course, that is what we will do as a Congress. We are not going to stack up more gun laws; we are going to cause the Justice Department to enforce them. There are myriad other points of discussion, but I wanted the public and the record to show there is a very real difference between what this President said in his State of the Union Address and what actually happened and what is happening because we do not stand with this President on a variety of his ideas, and Congress and the public have largely rejected them. Republicans will not stand for a Government-run health care system. We will pass a Patients' Bill of Rights this year. We will allow citizens to be in control of their health care and their health care delivery, and we will enhance education this year. We will send it back to the States and local communities to control. We will save Social Security, as the Senator from Wyoming said, and I hope we can deal with Medicare. Mr. President, what is important is that if you want to work with us to resolve these problems in the final hours of your administration, then let us sit down and begin to talk because the hour is late, and I believe you have already written your legacy. I do not think there are enough Federal dollars for you to buy a new one. The American people are going to remember Bill Clinton not for his big government ideas and his big spending but for something entirely different. Let us begin our work in this Congress in the last session of the 106th Congress to balance the budget and to secure Social Security. I hope we can deal with a Patients' Bill of Rights. I would like to see us deal with pharmaceutical drugs for our elderly. I hope we can also deal with our farm crisis and assure a strong military. I am not going to promise we can do all that Bill wants done and give tax cuts and buy down the debt because we cannot do all those things. Most important, we should not. I hope we can give a tax cut. We are buying down the debt. Most importantly, I say to the American people: We are not going to allow Government to grow in the image of Bill Clinton just for a legacy he would like to establish. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for the liberty he has allowed me in the use of time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand that my amendment, as modified, has been accepted on that side. I guess I am at risk, as we are anytime a Senator comes to the floor and says, ``This is a simple amendment'' But in fact that is exactly what this amendment is. It corrects a very small but very real problem. We are talking about property that is pawned by a debtor. This amendment deals with the question of when that pawned property is legally out of the reach of a debtor's bankruptcy estate. This amendment would allow pawned tangible personal property to be excluded from the bankruptcy estate, so long as the debtor has no legal obligation to repay the money or redeem or buy back the property and the contract or statutory redemption period has expired on the pawned property. And, of course, it is that expiration date that is clear and important as it relates to the period of redemption, and that is where the courts have found themselves in the last several years. This amendment incorporates the general position of the courts that pawnbrokers should be allowed to have complete and clear title to the pawned personal property of a person in bankruptcy once the redemption period has expired and the debtor or trustee has not exercised the right of redemption. This amendment allows the pawnbroker to sell the pawned property without burdening the courts with unnecessary actions seeking relief from the automatic stay provision of the bankruptcy code. Courts have found that unredeemed, pawned, tangible personal property cannot be treated as property of the bankruptcy estate because once the statutory redemption period has run, and the pawned goods have not been redeemed, the debtor forfeits all rights and title to the pawned property. The cutoff date for inclusion of the bankruptcy estate is the end of the redemption period. I am referencing Dunlap, a 1993 case in Maryland and Tennessee, 158 BR 724. In the circumstances outlined by this amendment, the property doesn't belong to the debtor anymore. Once that redemption period has run out and they have not exercised it, it is out of his possession and out of his right to control. It is only common sense that when it is no longer his property, it cannot be pulled into the bankruptcy estate. That is what the courts have said, and that is what this amendment says. All too often, however, pawnbrokers are pulled in and ultimately they have to go through the expense of hiring attorneys and doing all of those kinds of things even though it is very clear that the property redemption period has expired and the courts ultimately ruled in favor of the pawnbroker. So we are clarifying that with this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will accept it and be consistent in this law with what the courts have been saying now over the last period of years. Mr. President, I relinquish the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Senator, I also understand that Section 334 of the Interior Appropriations Bill was dropped, in part, because of concerns by the Administration that the measure would disrupt the negotiations that were underway, and could prevent the release of any of the enjoined timber sales. But, the settlement announced yesterday will not release any of the enjoined sales. To add insult to injury, Mr. Lyons is nevertheless claiming that the settlement he announced yesterday will, indeed, allow the sales to go forward. I understand that nothing could be further from the truth. These sales are still on hold while the Forest Service tries to figure out how to search for slugs, slime and salamanders. Most importantly, the Administration is not willing to commit to a time-frame to complete these surveys. I believe this is a wrong that must be corrected.

Mr. CRAIG. Senator Gorton, I have in my hand a copy of an August 27 order from Judge William Dwyer instructing the parties in a lawsuit over timber sales in the Pacific Northwest to negotiate a settlement regarding a requirement to survey for 77 species of mollusks, lichens, bryophytes, salamanders and slugs prior to conducting ground disturbing activities. This lawsuit has held up over one quarter of a billion board feet of federal timber sales. Let me read a single sentence from the Judge's order: Negotiations should now be resumed, should include the defendant-interveners, and should explore short-term solutions that would reduce the impact of injunctive relief on logging contractors and their employees while complying with the Northwest Forest Plan. I have been advised by media accounts that the settlement announced, with great fanfare, by Under Secretary Jim Lyons yesterday did not involve the ``defendant-interveners.'' Indeed, in his public comments Mr. Lyons indicates that, the defendant-interveners were excluded from discussions. Defendant-interveners have been unsuccessful in even securing basic information that the government currently has available about affected sales. Furthermore, the settlement did not ``reduce the impact of injunctive relief on logging contractors and their employees'' at all. Instead, it actually expanded the injunction by adding four more sales to the dozens that are already either enjoined by the Court, or not awarded by a decision of the Administration. Mr. Lyons gave the environmental plaintiffs more than what Judge Dwyer ordered in his original decision simply to settle the case and claim that his Northwest Forest Plan was ``back on track.'' This seems more like a capitulation, rather than a settlement.

Mr. CRAIG. I agree. It seems to me that, based upon the Administration's performance, Congress should reinstate Section 334 or some similar measure in the FY2000 Supplemental Appropriations bill and direct the Administration to release these sales immediately. The Administration's present course will keep this conflict alive interminably, and expose the taxpayers to the liability of damage claims from contract holders. Moreover, this consistent record of deceit and chicanery from the Administration must stop. We made a good faith effort to respond to the Administration's concerns over Section 334 based, in part, on its promise to negotiate a fair settlement of this legal dispute. Not only did they not do that, they now have the audacity to claim publicly that they did, and spin their announcement in the most shameful of ways. If truth is the coin of the realm, Mr. Lyons and his cohorts are hopelessly bankrupt.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my friends from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, and Nevada, Senator Reid, have worked hard to protect the mining jobs in their States and in mine, and I extend my thanks to them for working with me to keep the Department of Interior from mindlessly destroying jobs and lives by trying to rewrite the Mining Law. We want to make sure the intent of the provision on mill sites included in the Department of Interior portion of the appropriations bill is clear, and would like to ask your clarification on a few points.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee a problem that has come up in Twin Falls in my State of Idaho. In July 1998, the Bureau of Land Management's state office closed the tanker resupply base at the Twin Falls airport, after an internal inspection indicated unsafe conditions. At the time of that closing, the BLM Shoshone and state BLM offices expressed their interest in re-opening the facility as soon as possible. Over the following months, discussions between BLM and local officials included mention of re-opening as early as during fiscal year 2000. Then, approval and timing of the project appeared to enter a twilight zone somewhere between south Idaho and Washington, DC. In February of this year, a project data sheet was produced showing a request for FY 2001. Local officials in Twin Falls were told that this delay was the result of no prioritization decision being made at the national level, and that FY 2001 was going to be the earliest year for which the request could be made. Subsequently, local officials were told both, that no final decisions had been made, and that the project had slipped to a lower priority and would be delayed at least until FY 2002. Prompt replacement of this airtanker reload base is important for several reasons. It is the only such base within 100 miles of most of the Idaho-Nevada border and is therefore situated to provide the fastest possible response in the area during the fire season. Because of the location of the airport and its clear departure paths, it offers fast, safe turnaround times. Many customers in addition to BLM need a base in this area. If the base is not re-opened soon, it will hurt airport operations and hurt the local economy. I am not suggesting to the Chairman that anyone is acting inappropriately. But I do think it is important for us to look into the matter, find out more about the decisionmaking process and what it is producing, consider what the fairest, most prompt outcome should be, and engage with BLM to arrive at that solution.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 5:30 p.m.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my statement, Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia be allowed to speak.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from West Virginia has included our two colleagues from the State of Nevada. Today, Nevada is probably the lead mining State in our Nation as it relates to the production of gold. For the last hour you have heard probably some of the most eloquent statements spoken on this floor on the issue of coal mining. The Byrd amendment does not deal only with coal, although it is extremely important, and the public attention of the last week has been focused on a judge's opinion about coal, coal mining in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and up and down the Appalachia chain of this country. But the amendment also has something else in it that my colleague from West Virginia and I agreed to some time ago: When we talk on this floor about mining, when we talk about the economy of mining, the environment of mining, and the jobs of mining, we would stand together; that we would not allow our political differences to divide us. Because if you support the economy of this country, you have to stand together. I am absolutely amazed that the Speaker of the House or the senior Senator from West Virginia would get a letter from the White House of the kind to which both he and the Senator from Kentucky have referred. Lying? I hope not. Uninformed? I doubt it. Here is the reason I doubt their lack of information. For the last 7 years, this administration has been intent on changing current mining law. I am referring primarily to the law of 1872. I am referring primarily to hard-rock mining on public lands, because the laws that the Senator from West Virginia referred to that were passed in 1977, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, have become law, and established the principles and the policies under which we would mine the coal of America. Then, on top of that, came the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act--all of them setting a framework and a standard under which we could mine the minerals and the resources of this country and assure our citizens it would be done in a sound environmental way. As the laws of West Virginia, which are the laws of America, which are the laws this Senate passed, apply to coal mining, at least in the instances of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, they, too, apply to the mining of the west--to hard-rock mining, to gold mining, to silver mining, to lead and zinc mining, and to open-pit gravel operations of America. Yet there is an attorney--not a judge, not an elected U.S. Senator, but an attorney--who sits at a desk at the Department of Interior and upon his own volition 2 years ago decided he would rewrite the mining law of this country--a law that had been in place since 1872, tested in the courts hundreds of times, and that in every instance one principle stood out and was upheld. That was the principle of mill sites and how the operating agency, primarily the BLM, could, upon the request of a mining operation under a mining plan uniform with its processes, ask for additional properties under which to operate its mine. Consistently, for over 100 years, the Federal agencies of this country have granted those additional mill sites. The attorney I am referring to, prior to his job with the Secretary of Interior, was an environmental activist. In the late 1980s, he wrote a book. His book decried the tremendous environmental degradation that the mining industries of America were putting upon this planet. In that book, he said there is a simple way to bring the mining industry to its knees. ``If you can't pass laws to do it, you can do it through rule and regulation.'' Those are his words. He wrote it in the book, which was well read across America. When I asked that solicitor to come before the subcommittee I chair, which is the Mining Subcommittee, I quoted back to him his own words and said: If that is not what you said, then what are you doing now? He didn't say yes, but he didn't say no. Here is what he did say. He said: I have reached out to every State director of every BLM operation in this Nation, and I have asked them if the process I have overruled by my decision is a process that has been well used by the agency. He said they responded to him: Not so--very lightly used and only used in recent years. The tragedy of that statement is that it was a lie because the Freedom of Information Act shows that every State director wrote a letter to the solicitor a year before I asked him the question and every State director of every State office of the Bureau of Land Management said this is a practice in our manuals and has been used consistently since the 1872 law was implemented. What did solicitor John Leshy do before the Mining Subcommittee of the Senate? He perjured himself. That is what he did. And the Freedom of Information Act shows that. I would say to the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Kentucky, my guess is that the informational mind that wrote the letter that John Podesta sent to you came from an agency that had already perjured itself before the U.S. Senate. I know that as fact. I give that to you on my word and with my honor. Therefore, in the Byrd-McConnell amendment is a provision that said: Mr. Leshy, you cannot arbitrarily or capriciously overturn over 100 years of mining law. That is not your job. You are a hired attorney. You are not an elected Senator or a President. That is our job--to change public policy and to do it in a fair and sound environmental way. We are all environmentalists. The senior Senator from West Virginia said it so clearly. I say what I mean. And we all know as politicians and public people that none of our colleagues have ever run on the dirty air or the dirty water platform. We are all proud of our environmental records. We want the air and the water to be clean. But have you ever driven to the mountains of the west or the mountains of West Virginia? They are rugged and steep. We must craft unique policies and procedures to mine the wealth from underneath those mountains. It is a tough struggle. We know it. We have learned in the last decades to do it in a much better way than our forebears. That is called good environmental policy and good stewardship. Every one of us is an environmentalist. But we are not radical preservationists who would deny the thousands of working men and women in West Virginia and Kentucky no food for their table, no money in their pocket, or no education for their children. If you don't like the environment here, get in a car and drive down the road. To heck with your job and to heck with you. I understand the young person in urban America today sitting at his or her keyboard, working the high-tech economy of our country, saying to the Senator from Idaho, West Virginia, and Kentucky: What are you talking about? Does it make much sense? We want a clean environment. Save the mountains of West Virginia, Idaho, Nevada, and Kentucky, and the plains of Texas. Let me say to that marvelous young American sitting at his or her keyboard: As you touch that keyboard tonight, and it lights up for you and it energizes, it is the electricity generated by the coal of West Virginia that gave you the power to reach the Internet and to reach the stars beyond. That power surge through connections created of gold and silver came from the mines of Idaho, from the mines of Nevada, and from the Western States. Please, America, broaden your vision of what it takes to make the leading economy of the world work so well. It is our clean air, it is our clean water, and that we are proud of. But 60 percent of America's electricity is generated out of the coal mines of America, and the connections that create the fluidity of the flow of that electricity so there is less restriction is the gold and the silver of the West. That is what makes our country work so well. That is what makes our country the cleanest country in the world. Our leadership, our policy, our clean coal technology, our ability not to tear up the Earth anymore--but when we do, we replace it, we reshape it, we change it--that is our law that causes it to happen. That is the law that this Senate crafted. So, no, we cannot be extreme nor can we be radical. We have to offer balance and we will offer that in the context of the best environment we can create. I will not forget, when I asked Alan Greenspan to come before the Republican Policy Committee this spring to talk about surplus and how we handle them, afterwards I said: Mr. Greenspan, you watch our economy everyday; why is it so good? Why is it literally pulling the rest of the economy of the world with it? Last month, unemployment in this country was 4.1 percent; average wage, $13.39 an hour, the highest average wage ever and the lowest unemployment rate in 29 years. And we do it with the cleanest of the environments of the developed nations of the world. Why do we do it? Mr. Greenspan said it well: We just know how to do it better than anybody else. We know how to mine better than anybody else. We know how to create economies better than anybody else and, in almost every instance, we do it with the minimal form of government regulation. The Senator from West Virginia makes a very clear case. It isn't that West Virginia was trying to do it better. They were. It is that this White House won't support this effort. They have not chosen to follow the route of the environmental community. They have chosen to follow the word of a few radical preservationists who would ask young Americans to turn on their computers tonight to the light of a candle. If it is the light of a candle that will lead this world, computers will not turn on, the economy will not energize, and the men and women of West Virginia will go hungry. I support the Senator from West Virginia because he supports mining, as I do. It is time our Senate and the House bring balance to this issue. I hope they support attaching this critical amendment to the continuing resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today in conjunction with my colleagues Senator Murkowski and Senator Thomas the Outfitter Policy Act of 1999. This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in the past congress. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law many of the management practices by which federal land management agencies have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on National Forests, National Parks and other federal lands over many decades. The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a safe and pleasant journey through our forests and deserts and over the rivers and lakes that are the spectacular destinations for many visitors to our federal lands. The Outfitter Policy Act would assure the public continued opportunities for reasonable and safe access to the special areas found throughout our public lands. It establishes high standards that will be met for the health and welfare of visitors who choose outfitted services. It will help guarantee that quality professional services. It will help guarantee that will be available for their recreational and educational experiences on federal land. This legislation is needed because the management of outfitting and guiding services by this Administration had created problems that threaten to destabilize many of these typically small, independent outfitter and guide businesses. In addressing these problems, this legislation relies heavily on practices that have historically worked well for outfitters, visitors, and other users groups, as well as for federal land managers in the field. When the bill is enacted, it will assure that these past levels of service are continued and enhanced. Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. It allowed for the examination of the historical practices that have offered consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public. The legislation I am now introducing is a result of that process. I look forward to considering this legislation in the coming session of the 106th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today in conjunction with my colleagues Senator Murkowski and Senator Thomas the Outfitter Policy Act of 1999. This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in the past congress. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law many of the management practices by which federal land management agencies have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on National Forests, National Parks and other federal lands over many decades. The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a safe and pleasant journey through our forests and deserts and over the rivers and lakes that are the spectacular destinations for many visitors to our federal lands. The Outfitter Policy Act would assure the public continued opportunities for reasonable and safe access to the special areas found throughout our public lands. It establishes high standards that will be met for the health and welfare of visitors who choose outfitted services. It will help guarantee that quality professional services. It will help guarantee that will be available for their recreational and educational experiences on federal land. This legislation is needed because the management of outfitting and guiding services by this Administration had created problems that threaten to destabilize many of these typically small, independent outfitter and guide businesses. In addressing these problems, this legislation relies heavily on practices that have historically worked well for outfitters, visitors, and other users groups, as well as for federal land managers in the field. When the bill is enacted, it will assure that these past levels of service are continued and enhanced. Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. It allowed for the examination of the historical practices that have offered consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public. The legislation I am now introducing is a result of that process. I look forward to considering this legislation in the coming session of the 106th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

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