Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that will set a new course for the Forest Service in determining fees for forest lots on which families and individuals have been authorized to build cabins for seasonal recreation since the early part of this century. I am pleased to have Senators Mike Crapo, Craig Thomas, and Conrad Burns joining me in sponsoring this legislation, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3327, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman George Nethercutt. In 1915, under the Term Permit Act, Congress set up a program to give families the opportunity to recreate on our public lands through the so-called recreation residence program. Today, 15,000 of these forest cabins remain, providing generation after generation of families and their friends a respite from urban living and an opportunity to use our public lands. These cabins stand in sharp contrast to many aspects of modern outdoor recreation, yet are an important aspect of the mix recreation opportunities for the American public. While many of us enjoy fast, off-road machines and watercraft or hiking to the backcountry with high-tech gear, others enjoy a relaxing weekend at their cabin in the woods with their family and friends. The recreation residence programs allows families all across the country an opportunity to use our national forests. This quiet, somewhat uneventful program continues to produce close bonds and remarkable memories for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but in order to secure the future of the cabin program, this Congress needs to reexamine the basis on which fees are now being determined. Roughly 20 years ago, the Forest Service saw the need to modernize the regulations under which the cabin program is administered. Acknowledging that the competition for access and use of forest resources has increased dramatically since 1915, both the cabin owners and the agency wanted a formal understanding about the rights and obligations of using and maintaining these structures. New rules that resulted nearly a decade later reaffirmed the cabins as a valid recreational use of forest land. At the same time, the new policy reflected numerous limitations on use that are felt to be appropriate in order to keep areas of the forest where cabins are located open for recreational use by other forest visitors. Commercial use of the cabins is prohibited, as is year-round occupancy by the owner. Owners are restricted in the size, shape, paint color and presence of other structures or installations on the cabin lot. The only portion of a lot that is controlled by the cabin owner is that portion of the lot that directly underlies the footprint of the cabin itself. At some locations, the agency has determined a need to remove cabins for a variety of reasons related to ``higher public purposes'' and cabin owners wanted to be certain in the writing of new regulations that a fair process would guide any future decisions about cabin removal. At other locations, some cabins have been destroyed by fire, avalanche or falling trees, and a more reliable process of determining whether such cabins might be rebuilt or relocated was needed. It was determined, therefore, that this recreational program would be tied more closely to the forest planning process. The question of an appropriate fee to be paid for the opportunity of constructing and maintaining a cabin in the woods was also addressed at that time. Although the agency's policies for administration of the cabin program have, overall, held up well over time, the portion dealing with periodic redetermination of fees proved in the last few years to be a failure. A base fee was determined 20 years ago by an appraisal of sales of comparable undeveloped lots in the real estate market adjacent to the national forest where a cabin was located. The new policy called for reappraisal of the value of the lot 20 years later--a trigger that led to initiation of the reappraisal process in 1995. In the meantime, according to the policy, annual adjustments to the base fee would be tracked by the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), which proved to be a faulty mechanism for this purpose. Annual adjustments to the fee based on movements of the IPD failed entirely to keep track of the booming land values associated with recreation development. As the results of actual reappraisals on the ground began reaching my office in 1997, it became clear that far more than the inoperative IPD was out of alignment in determining fees for the cabin owners. At the Pettit Lake tract in Idaho's Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the new base fees skyrocketed into alarming five-digit amounts-- so high that a single annual fee was nearly enough money to buy raw land outside the forest and construct a cabin. Meanwhile, the agency's appraisal methodology was resulting in new base fees in South Dakota, in Florida, and in some locations in Colorado that were actually lower than the previous fee. Very generally speaking, the value of the use of the forest lot is approximately the same for any cabin owner, whether they are tucked into what has become in recent years the Sawtooth National Recreation Area of Idaho, or high in the Sierra Mountain range of California, or in the lowland forests of the southeastern States. Yet Idaho cabin owners are now expected to pay a new average fee of $9,221 each year, while cabin owners in Kentucky will be paying a new average fee of $140. At the request of the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture in 1998, the cabin owners named a coalition of leaders of their various national and State cabin owner associations to examine the methodology being used by the Forest Service to determine fees. It became obvious to these laymen that analysis of appraisal methodology and the determination of fees was beyond their grasp, and a prestigious consulting appraiser was retained to guide the cabin owners through their task. The report and recommendations of the coalition's consulting appraiser is available from my office for those who might wish to examine the details. At the bottom line, it was learned that the Forest Service--contrary to its own policy--was appraising and affixing value to the lots being provided to cabin owners as if this land were fully developed, legally subdivided, fee simple residential land. In other words, the agency has been capturing the values associated with a variety of structures and services that the homeowners themselves (not the agency) provide. The Forest Service, in setting fees on this basis, has been capturing incremental values assigned by a developer at various stages of development for risk, expectations of profit and other factors. My goal is to see that the cabin program remains affordable for American families. Consistent with the recommendations of the coalition's consulting appraiser, the methodology for determining fees is directed toward the value of the use to the cabin owner--not what the market would bear, should the Forest Service decide to sell off its assets. This is highly technical legislation. Its purpose is to send a clear set of instructions to appraisers in the field and a clear set of instructions to forest managers to respect the results of appraisals undertaken to place value on the raw land being offered cabin owners. I intend to hold hearings on this legislation early in the next session. I urge each of my colleagues to be in contact with cabin owners in their State during the congressional recess. There are more than 15,000 families out there who fear that the long tradition of cabin-based forest recreation is nearing an end because the agencies fee mechanism has made the program unaffordable for all but the wealthy. These cabin owners and I would wholeheartedly welcome the support and cosponsorship of all Senators for this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that will set a new course for the Forest Service in determining fees for forest lots on which families and individuals have been authorized to build cabins for seasonal recreation since the early part of this century. I am pleased to have Senators Mike Crapo, Craig Thomas, and Conrad Burns joining me in sponsoring this legislation, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3327, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman George Nethercutt. In 1915, under the Term Permit Act, Congress set up a program to give families the opportunity to recreate on our public lands through the so-called recreation residence program. Today, 15,000 of these forest cabins remain, providing generation after generation of families and their friends a respite from urban living and an opportunity to use our public lands. These cabins stand in sharp contrast to many aspects of modern outdoor recreation, yet are an important aspect of the mix recreation opportunities for the American public. While many of us enjoy fast, off-road machines and watercraft or hiking to the backcountry with high-tech gear, others enjoy a relaxing weekend at their cabin in the woods with their family and friends. The recreation residence programs allows families all across the country an opportunity to use our national forests. This quiet, somewhat uneventful program continues to produce close bonds and remarkable memories for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but in order to secure the future of the cabin program, this Congress needs to reexamine the basis on which fees are now being determined. Roughly 20 years ago, the Forest Service saw the need to modernize the regulations under which the cabin program is administered. Acknowledging that the competition for access and use of forest resources has increased dramatically since 1915, both the cabin owners and the agency wanted a formal understanding about the rights and obligations of using and maintaining these structures. New rules that resulted nearly a decade later reaffirmed the cabins as a valid recreational use of forest land. At the same time, the new policy reflected numerous limitations on use that are felt to be appropriate in order to keep areas of the forest where cabins are located open for recreational use by other forest visitors. Commercial use of the cabins is prohibited, as is year-round occupancy by the owner. Owners are restricted in the size, shape, paint color and presence of other structures or installations on the cabin lot. The only portion of a lot that is controlled by the cabin owner is that portion of the lot that directly underlies the footprint of the cabin itself. At some locations, the agency has determined a need to remove cabins for a variety of reasons related to ``higher public purposes'' and cabin owners wanted to be certain in the writing of new regulations that a fair process would guide any future decisions about cabin removal. At other locations, some cabins have been destroyed by fire, avalanche or falling trees, and a more reliable process of determining whether such cabins might be rebuilt or relocated was needed. It was determined, therefore, that this recreational program would be tied more closely to the forest planning process. The question of an appropriate fee to be paid for the opportunity of constructing and maintaining a cabin in the woods was also addressed at that time. Although the agency's policies for administration of the cabin program have, overall, held up well over time, the portion dealing with periodic redetermination of fees proved in the last few years to be a failure. A base fee was determined 20 years ago by an appraisal of sales of comparable undeveloped lots in the real estate market adjacent to the national forest where a cabin was located. The new policy called for reappraisal of the value of the lot 20 years later--a trigger that led to initiation of the reappraisal process in 1995. In the meantime, according to the policy, annual adjustments to the base fee would be tracked by the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), which proved to be a faulty mechanism for this purpose. Annual adjustments to the fee based on movements of the IPD failed entirely to keep track of the booming land values associated with recreation development. As the results of actual reappraisals on the ground began reaching my office in 1997, it became clear that far more than the inoperative IPD was out of alignment in determining fees for the cabin owners. At the Pettit Lake tract in Idaho's Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the new base fees skyrocketed into alarming five-digit amounts-- so high that a single annual fee was nearly enough money to buy raw land outside the forest and construct a cabin. Meanwhile, the agency's appraisal methodology was resulting in new base fees in South Dakota, in Florida, and in some locations in Colorado that were actually lower than the previous fee. Very generally speaking, the value of the use of the forest lot is approximately the same for any cabin owner, whether they are tucked into what has become in recent years the Sawtooth National Recreation Area of Idaho, or high in the Sierra Mountain range of California, or in the lowland forests of the southeastern States. Yet Idaho cabin owners are now expected to pay a new average fee of $9,221 each year, while cabin owners in Kentucky will be paying a new average fee of $140. At the request of the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture in 1998, the cabin owners named a coalition of leaders of their various national and State cabin owner associations to examine the methodology being used by the Forest Service to determine fees. It became obvious to these laymen that analysis of appraisal methodology and the determination of fees was beyond their grasp, and a prestigious consulting appraiser was retained to guide the cabin owners through their task. The report and recommendations of the coalition's consulting appraiser is available from my office for those who might wish to examine the details. At the bottom line, it was learned that the Forest Service--contrary to its own policy--was appraising and affixing value to the lots being provided to cabin owners as if this land were fully developed, legally subdivided, fee simple residential land. In other words, the agency has been capturing the values associated with a variety of structures and services that the homeowners themselves (not the agency) provide. The Forest Service, in setting fees on this basis, has been capturing incremental values assigned by a developer at various stages of development for risk, expectations of profit and other factors. My goal is to see that the cabin program remains affordable for American families. Consistent with the recommendations of the coalition's consulting appraiser, the methodology for determining fees is directed toward the value of the use to the cabin owner--not what the market would bear, should the Forest Service decide to sell off its assets. This is highly technical legislation. Its purpose is to send a clear set of instructions to appraisers in the field and a clear set of instructions to forest managers to respect the results of appraisals undertaken to place value on the raw land being offered cabin owners. I intend to hold hearings on this legislation early in the next session. I urge each of my colleagues to be in contact with cabin owners in their State during the congressional recess. There are more than 15,000 families out there who fear that the long tradition of cabin-based forest recreation is nearing an end because the agencies fee mechanism has made the program unaffordable for all but the wealthy. These cabin owners and I would wholeheartedly welcome the support and cosponsorship of all Senators for this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, every year the President's Service Award honors volunteers for their efforts directed at solving critical social problems facing today's communities. This year, Hewlett Packard's Hispanic Student Outreach program, based in Boise, ID, has been named one of 21 honorees. This unparalleled distinction is the highest honor given annually by the President of the United States for volunteerism. The award is sponsored by the Points of Light Foundation and the Corporation for National Service. As a 1999 honoree, program representatives traveled to Washington, DC, to participate in awards festivities October 13-15. This trip included a Capitol Hill Reception, an awards dinner and the participation in 1999 President's Service Awards Ceremony. In 1995, Hewlett Packard employees in Boise, ID, started the Hispanic Student Outreach Program (HSOP) because they were concerned about the alarming 60 to 70 percent high school dropout rate among Hispanic youths. Based on the adopt-a-school concept, the program matches Hewlett Packard employees with teachers and students at a local middle school. The volunteers act as role models, motivating and encouraging the students to stay in school. The HSOP is the only program of its kind in Idaho. Through this program more than 250 Hewlett Packard volunteers have touched the lives of nearly 1,600 Hispanic students. The program includes many activities, one of which is Career Day. These educational field trips for 7th and 8th grade students include the students to Hewlett Packard offices for hands-on science experiments, job shadowing and computer lab sessions, local science center trips, and university campus talks and tours. The college campus trips have proven especially significant by allowing the Hispanic middle school students to interact with Hispanic college students. Another effective program is the after school math tutoring program which pays local college students to tutor younger students. Professionals are also brought into the schools monthly to talk about career opportunities and the importance of math, science and writing skills beyond middle school. Elena Tsuxton, the founder and Chairperson for the HSOP, commented that the ``program is absolutely thrilled to be receiving the President's Service Award.'' She saw it as a ``validation of our efforts that we are definitely meeting a critical need in our community and state. If we can help one more Hispanic student to finish school and go out to college, we will have met the HSOP program vision.'' The President's Service Awards were created as the President's Volunteer Action Award in 1982 to honor outstanding individuals and organizations engaged in volunteer service directed at solving critical social problems while calling public attention to the contributions made by the nation's 93 million volunteers. In 1999, more than 3,500 nominations were submitted and reviewed in four activity areas: human needs, environmental needs, educational improvement, and public safety. A select panel of distinguished Americans judged the nominations based on achievement, meeting community needs innovation and mobilizing others to serve. Mr. President, I congratulate this Idaho volunteer program for receiving this well deserved honor and thank them for their service to Idaho and its youth.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, one editorial is by Robert Levy, a senior fellow of constitutional studies at the CATO Institute. He starts his op-ed piece: Here's the lesson that high-tech companies can glean from Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings in the Microsoft case: If you're sufficiently ambitious, competent, and hard- working; if you're willing to risk your time and fortune; if you succeed at rising above your competition by serving customers with better products; then watch out, because our government will come down on your neck with the force and effect of a guillotine. The editorial in the Wall Street Journal probably sums it up best of all. There is no question my colleagues from the other side of the aisle--or should I say their political machinery as expressed by--I don't want to call them outbursts, but certainly the expressions of our Attorney General, Janet Reno, are best summed up when they discussed the Microsoft case this morning in the Wall Street Journal. Here is their concluding paragraph: But let's get to the real bottom line. Washington's crusade against Microsoft has fulfilled its purpose, serving as a great lever to pry open the wallets of the Silicon Valley. Where three years ago the technological plutocrats spent their surplus income on racing yachts and Ferraris and charity, now they patriotically send donations to Washington to support the fixer class and its retinue in the style to which it would like to become accustomed. Steve Case of AOL, who happens to be on the other side of this issue, recognizes the problem, though. He says the future of technology will be decided in the political arena rather than the marketplace. My guess is, if that is true, your computers will not be working as well tomorrow as they are working today. I came to the floor this morning to join with my colleague from Wyoming, not to discuss the Microsoft case; that is going to get played out over time, and I think we are going to have a Federal judge who will try to run the technology business of this country. Maybe we need to decide to start a new agency of our Federal Government called U.S. Department of Microsoft. If it is as profitable as Microsoft, maybe we can make a lot more money without taxing the American public to allow our Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle to spend it. Certainly Microsoft is now making as much as $1 billion a month in cash to spend. It is obvious somebody else wants their hands on that or wants to break up that very profitable business.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have listened to the Senator from New Hampshire speak in what I call the common sense of New Hampshire. I think all Members have been frustrated by this administration running a flag up the pole every morning at the White House to see which way the wind is blowing and then not only attempting to shift Government policy but oftentimes bringing Government to an entire halt until they can determine if the direction in which they are heading is the right direction. Another example of a misdirected effort by this administration was announced on Friday. I think all Members were paying attention to some degree and were anxious to hear how a Federal judge could decide to run the technological world in which we are living better than the marketplace itself. Sure enough, on Friday, Thomas Penfield Jackson, the judge down at the Justice Department who examined the ins and outs of Microsoft and the marketplace, has determined that Microsoft is a predatory monopoly. I am no expert in this field, and I am not going to hold myself out on the floor this morning to be so. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two editorials.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dorgan for outlining the intent of the effort underway by the Senator, myself, and 49 other colleagues. It was Senator Byron Dorgan who approached me on the idea of creating a WTO caucus to elevate the interests of agriculture in this up-and- coming round of the WTO planning session in Seattle in December. I thank him for that vision. It has been fun working with him as we have created what I think is--sometimes unique in the Congress--a bipartisan, bicameral effort where we are all standing together on a list of items and issues we know are key for American agriculture. The Senator has outlined those on which we came together in a consensus format that we think are critical, that we presented to our Trade ambassador and to our Secretary of Agriculture. Market access--we know how critically important that is; export subsidies and how they are used or used against us; State trading enterprises and their ability to mask the reality of subsidies from products that enter the marketplace in a nontransparent way; nontariff barriers that are used to block the movement we want to see in certain trade efforts. All of these are the issues we have presented and because of our effort collectively, we have caused the Secretary of Agriculture and the Trade ambassador to suggest that No. 1 on the agenda of America's negotiators at the WTO will be agricultural issues. Why are we concerned about it? Here is an example. Even after the Uruguay agreement which required tariff reductions of some 36 percent, the average bound agricultural tariff of WTO members is still 50 percent. In contrast the average U.S. tariff on agricultural imports is less than 10 percent--50 percent versus 10 percent on the average. Those are the kinds of relationships we have to see brought into balance and corrected. The United States spends less than 2 percent, $122 million a year, of what the European Union spends on export subsidies. They spend $7 billion a year, buying down the cost of their product to present it into a world market. In fact, the European Union accounts for 84 percent of the total agricultural export subsidy worldwide. Subsidized foreign competition has contributed to the nearly 20-percent decline in U.S. agricultural exports, as Senator Dorgan so clearly pointed out on his charts a few moments ago. That dramatic reduction in the agricultural trade surplus from a $27 billion surplus for us in 1996 to just $11.5 billion this year says it very clearly. We have to do something on behalf of American agriculture to allow them a much fairer access to world markets. Those are the issues we think are so critical as we deal with our world traders in Seattle. Nontariff barriers have become the protectionist weapon of choice particularly for the products derived from new technologies, as Customs tariffs are lowered. U.S. negotiators should prevent our trading partners from making crops and other foods produced with genetically modified organisms into second-class food products. Yes, we have to do a better job of convincing the world of our tremendous scientific capability. At the same time, they cannot arbitrarily be used as a target for nontariff barriers, as will be argued or debated in Seattle. That is a collection of many of the issues with which we are going to be dealing. It is so important America recognizes the abundance of its agriculture and the unique situation we find ourselves in a world market today where we have had the privilege, through the productivity of America's farmers, to lead the world. We now do not lead when it comes to agricultural exports but we will search to cause it to happen, through the openness of the marketplace, through the fairness of competition we know American agriculture, given that opportunity, can offer. Again, I thank Senator Dorgan for his cooperativeness and the ability to work together with our colleagues Mike Simpson and Earl Pomeroy from the House and, as Senator Dorgan mentioned, the Senator from Wyoming who is presiding at this moment. All of these are tremendously important and critical issues for our home States and for America at large. The abundance, the productivity of American agriculture hangs in the balance. To the consumer who walks in front of a supermarket shelf every day to see such phenomenal abundance, that in itself could decline if we are not allowed the world marketplace in which to sell the goods and services of American agriculture. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record agricultural trade priorities for the WTO Conference.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator is absolutely correct. When we came out of the Uruguay Round, when the round was heralded to have significant improvements in overall tariff levels, the problem was that most tariffs in the world were very high and ours were very low. So we negotiated everybody down equally. We took a reduction in tariff. They, the European community, and others, took a reduction in tariff, which brought the average, other than the tariffs of the United States, down to 50 percent; and ours were down in the 10-percent-or- less range. So it was this kind of gradual slide. I do not call that fair or balanced. It would have been different if the rest of the world had come down to a 20-percent-or-less range or properly on parity with the United States at 10 percent or less. That really is the way we should negotiate. Thank goodness our Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, agrees with us now and has agreed they will not negotiate from that position in Seattle, that clearly the European community and others have to bring that down to a near level area.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator is absolutely correct. In fact, let me give an example of the disadvantage we were in that caused great frustration. The Senator's State and my State produce a variety of grains. And we produce them at high rates of yield. They are high-quality grains. Yet we found shiploads of grains, barley in some instances, from foreign countries sitting at our docks, being sold into our markets at below our production costs. How did that come about? That came about because the government of the producing country that sent the boatload of grain to the Port of Portland subsidized it down to a level that they could actually enter our market and compete against our producers who were getting 1950 prices for their 1998 barley crop. How do you pay for a brand new tractor or a brand new combine with 1950 dollars in 1998? You do not. You run the old combine, you fix it up, or you go bankrupt. But that is exactly what was happening because our negotiators did not do the effective job of bringing down export subsidies in a way that would disallow the greatest grain-producing country in the world to accept grain at its ports from foreign nations at below our cost of production. That is the best example I can give.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator is absolutely right. When he speaks of State trading enterprises, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Australian Wheat Board control over one third of the world's wheat and wheat flour trade. As the Senator just explained, those negotiations are kept secret. Those trading enterprises buy the grain from farmers at the going market price. Then when they sell it, they do not report it. If they are to sell it well below the cost of the market, to get it into another country for purposes of sale, they sell it, and they are subsidized accordingly. If they can make money, they make money. But the point is, those kinds of transactions are not transparent. They are not reported. In my State of Idaho, you can get a truckload of barley out of Canada to an elevator in Idaho cheaper than the farmer can bring it from across the street out of his field to that elevator. Why? Because that was a sale conducted by that particular trading enterprise, and it was sold well below the market, and, of course, that was not reported. You do not have marketplace competition. You cannot even understand it and compare figures, if you have no transparency in the marketplace. State trading enterprises are known for that, and we have asked our Secretary of Agriculture and our trade ambassador to go directly at this issue. Even the farmer of Canada now recognizes that this is also disadvantaging the producer in Canada, to have this kind of a monopolistic power controlling the grain trade of the world.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for allowing me time this morning.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what I came to the floor to talk about is a combination of issues that come together in the issue of violence. We watched the great tragedy as a fellow entered a workplace in Hawaii the week before last and killed some of his coworkers. Last week in Seattle, another man went into a business and shot and killed individuals. All of us, as Americans, are tremendously frustrated by this expression of violence or people seeming to want to solve their personal problems by acting in a very violent fashion. The Washington Post poll on Sunday showed that the No. 2 issue among Republicans was violence in the schools; the No. 4 issue among Democrats, violence in the schools; the No. 2 issue among Independents in America was violence, violence in the schools. Our President last week suggested we live in a very violent society, when in fact violence is down substantially in our country. It is true that it is. We have come off a very violent year, but over the last 7 years the average rate of acts of violence is dropping, in the broad sense. Yet we have had some of these tremendously public-attention- gathering events that caused the American public to be concerned, as they are. Of course, the issue I want to speak briefly about this morning is the question of how we fix this violent expression in our society. Last week, the President, Janet Reno, and Al Gore said there is a quick and easy way to fix it: We just need to pass a few more laws; gun laws, that is. We need to add to the 25,000 to 30,000 gun laws that are already on the books. If we do that, we will make America a safer place in which to live. Or at least we will say, politically, to meet the polls the Washington Post presented to us on Sunday, that if we pass the laws, the public at least will think America is a safer place in which to live. By that, we will be able to curry their political favor in the next election. If gun laws make America a safer place, then what happened in Hawaii should not have happened; what happened in Seattle should not have happened; what happened in Littleton, CO, at Columbine High School, should not have happened--because there are laws to stop that. Mr. President, 13 laws were violated, tragically, by those two young men who later took their lives at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, after they had killed so many of their classmates. But there was a law to stop them. Then why did it happen? I do not know the answer to why it happened. I do know they broke a lot of laws to cause it to happen. Yet our President last week, and the Vice President, and the Attorney General said give us more laws and the world will be a safer place. We have all been on this floor discussing, for well over a year, our frustrations with problems with our culture, problems with our public schools. People are acting out their frustrations in violent ways by taking other people's lives. My guess is, you cannot legislate a fix on that one. There are other problems within our society that have to be addressed. So let me focus for just a moment on Hawaii. There, we all know what happened. The fellow has been caught. We all know now he probably, during that act, was mentally incompetent, mentally in trouble, mentally deranged. But his actions cost lives. His actions happened in a unique environment, though. Hawaii has more gun laws, to control gun ownership and gun usage, than any other State in the United States. So would logic not follow, at least the logic of the President and the Vice President and the Attorney General, if that were so, Hawaii should have been a terribly safe place? Hawaii is the only State in the Nation where you not only register every gun you have with the local and State authorities, you also register the bullets-- you register the ammunition. Somehow, politicians in the State legislature in Hawaii thought that would make Hawaii a safe place--the only State in the Nation. It just so happens, Janet Reno and Al Gore and the President want us to do the same in this country. But it did not stop the individual who killed his colleagues in Hawaii. How about a permit to purchase? Of course, that is exactly what some of our colleagues would want here. Hawaii requires a permit to purchase any kind of gun--not just one permit for multiple purchases but a permit for every purchase--and a full background check, and the requirement that you must be at least 21 years of age to own a gun. What about assault pistols and Saturday night specials and all those kinds of buzzwords about guns that have become villains here on the floor for political purposes? All of those are outlawed in Hawaii. It is against the law to own them. It is against the law to have them. All of that is the law in Hawaii. The man who did the killings in Hawaii had met all of the requirements of the law. Yet the law did not protect the citizens whose families now mourn their death. How about high-capacity magazines? That was a fully debated issue here on the floor of the Senate this past year. I was on the floor with Senator Hatch and Senator Lautenberg on that issue after Littleton. It is against the law in Hawaii. Then there are the restrictions on places of possession, where you simply cannot have a gun: A business; you can't travel with one, only in the owner's home and in very restricted places; or if you are traveling from the home to the firing range or the pistol range for target practice, you may have a gun on your person. Those are tough laws in Hawaii. Yet people are dead. Of course, I mentioned transportation and the restriction on transportation. All of those are parts of the laws that guard citizens against the violent acts of others with the use of a firearm in the State of Hawaii. The President, the Vice President, and the Attorney General seem not to understand that or, if they do, they are finding another reason to express a need for greater gun control in this country. I am not sure what that need is. We all know our citizens are concerned about violence. We all know we have citizens in our country who act out their frustrations in violent ways. It is tragic that we believe we can simply turn to Congress that will pass a law and, therefore, the violence will go away. Are the President and the Vice President and the Attorney General trying to hide something? Are they trying to hide the fact that during the Clinton administration arrests and prosecutions of citizens who violate Federal firearms laws has dropped by over 70 percent? Is the President trying to mask the fact that the Puerto Rican terrorists to whom he offered clemency were violators of Federal firearms laws and they killed American citizens? Is this President, once again, trying to throw up a political smokescreen by simply saying we need more laws against the use of guns or the ownership of guns or the second amendment rights when he, the President, in my opinion, has violated the intent of the laws as they now stand? If you do not use the law, if you do not prosecute under the law, if you do not enforce the law, then the laws are no good. That is the message I send to Bill Clinton today: Mr. Clinton, look at your own record. Your own Attorney General has let it be known to U.S. attorneys around the country that it is not worth their time to go after violators of Federal firearms laws. There is a great program down in Richmond, VA, where a Federal prosecutor said to the local police: You arrest them and I will throw them away, I will put them behind bars if they use a gun in the commission of a crime. Crime dropped precipitously but, more important, crimes with a gun involved dropped dramatically. One fellow was arrested at a 7-Eleven with a stick, and after he was arrested, the local police said: Why are you robbing a 7-Eleven with a stick? He said: Because if I used a firearm, they will lock me up down here. Mr. President, Bill Clinton, don't you get the message now? We have plenty of laws on the books if we had an Attorney General who was a real cop, a supercop, a tough person who was saying to her U.S. attorneys: Let's put them behind bars if they use guns; let's throw those kids out of school who take a gun to school. They do not have the right to be in our schools if they are putting the rest of our kids in jeopardy. Last year that happened over 3,000 times and only 13 were prosecuted. Sorry, Mr. President, sorry, Mr. Vice President, sorry, Ms. Attorney General, passing laws does not a safer world make. Enforcing the ones we have, being concerned about the culture, being concerned about the kids, their parents, and their educators in a way that not only makes a safe school but makes a concerned citizen is going to drop violence in America. Do not give the American public a political placebo by simply passing another law. I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks in support of the 4-H postal stamp resolution. We must not fail to notice all the admirable efforts of youth today across the country. One fine example of young people joining together to make a positive impact in our country is the 4-H Youth Development Program. In the year 2002, 4-H will celebrate its 100th Anniversary. To recognize this national organization's achievements, I am submitting this resolution urging the U.S. Postal Service to create a stamp in honor of their centennial. 4-H is comprised of over 6 million youth, 45 million alumni, and over 600,000 volunteers. As the 4-H pledge states, they are working everyday to become positive members of ``their clubs, their communities, their country and their world.'' Although this program started at the turn of the century focusing on rural agriculture and homemaking, today it boasts a diverse group with nearly a quarter of its members coming from central cities. With programs in every state and 80 other countries, 4-H has demonstrated the importance of its ideals. Members follow the motto ``To make the best better.'' Their mission is to create supportive environments enabling youth and adults to reach their full potential. In this way they become capable, competent and caring citizens. As a result, participation in 4-H programs has helped reduce violence, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and unethical behavior in millions of youth. Every state has seen the benefits of 4-H membership. A recent report, ``Programs of Excellence'' demonstrates this. Published by the USDA, the report highlights noteworthy 4-H programs in various states from New Jersey to New Mexico. In my state of Idaho, 4-H achieved recognition for its programs in youth development and ethics in agriculture. Idaho's ``Know Your Government'' conferences were applauded for giving youth positive attitudes toward government and increasing civic involvement and government knowledge. This positive organization deserves our support and recognition. A centennial stamp issued by the U.S. Postal Service is the perfect way to honor and celebrate a job well done.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I'm pleased to have joined Senators Gordon Smith, Bob Graham, Max Cleland, and several other colleagues this week in introducing S. 1814. This bill is a new, improved version of the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--or, as we call it, the ``AgJOBS'' bill. We are facing a growing crisis--for both farm workers and growers. We want and need a stable, predictable, legal work force in American agriculture. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for available jobs with fair, market wages. We want all workers to receive decent treatment and equal protection under the law. Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a government that works. Yet Americans are being threatened on all these counts, because of a growing labor shortage in agriculture, while the only program currently in place to respond, the H-2A Guest Worker Program, is profoundly broken. Last year, the Senate adopted meaningful H-2A reform, on a bipartisan vote of 68-31. Unfortunately, that bipartisan floor amendment did not survive the last round of negotiations over the omnibus appropriations bill last year. This year, the problem is only growing worse. Therefore, we are introducing a new, improved bill. The name of the bill says it all-- ``AgJOBS''. Mr. President, our farm workers need this reform bill. There is no debate about whether many--or most--farm wokers are aliens. They are. And they will be, for the foreseeable future. The question is whether they will be here legally or illegally. Immigrants not legally authorized to work in this country know they must work in hiding. They cannot even claim basic legal rights and protections. They are vulnerable to predation and exploitation. They sometimes have been stuffed inhumanly into dangerously enclosed truck trailers and car trunks, in order to be transported, hidden from the view of the law. In fact, they have been known to pay ``coyotes''--labor smugglers-- $1,000 and more to be smuggled into this country. In contrast, legal workers have legal protections. They can assert wage, safety, and other legal protections. They can bargain openly and join unions. H-2A workers, in fact, are even guaranteed housing and transportation. Clearly, the status quo is broken. Domestic American workers simply are not being found to fill agricultural jobs. Our own General Accounting Office has estimated that 600,000 farm workers--37 percent of the total 1.6 million agricultural work force-- are not legally authorized to work in this country. That estimate is low; it's based on self-disclosure by illegal workers to government interviewers. Some actually have suggested that there is no labor shortage, because there are plenty of illegal workers. This is not an acceptable answer. Congress has shown its commitment over the past few years to improve the security of our borders, both in the 1996 immigration law and in subsequent appropriations. Between computerized checking by the Social Security Administration and audits and raids by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, more and more employers are discovering they have undocumented employees; and more and more workers here illegally are being discovered and evicted from their jobs. Outside of H-2A, employers have no reliable assurance that their employees are legal. It's worse than a Catch-22--the law actually punishes the employer who could be called ``too diligent'' in inquiring into the identification documents of prospective workers. The H-2A status quo is slow, bureaucratic, and inflexible. It does nothing to recognize the uncertainties farmers face, from changes in the weather to global market demands. The H-2A status quo is complicated and legalistic. DOL's compliance manual alone is 325 pages. The current H-2A process is so hard to use, it will place only 34,000 legal guest workers this year--2 percent of the total agricultural work force. Finally, the grower can't even count on his or her government to do its job. The GAO has found that, in more than 40 percent of the cases in which employers filed H-2A applications at least 60 days before the date of need, the DOL missed statutory deadlines in processing them. The solution we need is the AgJOBS Act of 1999. Our new, improved AgJOBS bill includes three main parts: First, it would create a national AgJOBS registry. This new program would match willing workers anywhere in the U.S. with available farm work. Workers would be free to work where they want and for whom they want. Domestic American workers would be given first preference in job referrals. Once no domestic worker is available for a job, an ``adjusting'' worker could receive a referral. If no domestic or adjusting worker is available, an employer could then use the H-2A program. This is essentially the same job registry as in last year's bill, expanded to accommodate the new category of adjusting workers. Second, it includes much-needed reforms to the H-2A program. Currently, red tape, regulation, and bureaucracy has rendered the H- 2A program almost completely ineffective. Our reformed H-2A program would expedite the process and more closely reflect market reality. Current red tape, delays, and paperwork would be reduced or eliminated. Growers would be assured of the timely availability of workers. Employers still would be required to provide transportation in out of the U.S., as under the current H-2A program. Employers must provide either a housing allowance or actual housing to H-2A workers. After 3 years, actual housing would be required, unless the governor of a state certified a housing shortage. This is a more stringent housing requirement than last year's bill. The premium wage guaranteed to H-2A workers--called the Adverse Economic Wage Rate or ``AEWR''--would be based more accurately on prevailing wage paid to similar workers in that area. This is similar to current law, but other jobs, those not closely related, would be excluded from the calculation of the AEWR. This simply would ensure that the AEWR more closely reflected prevailing wages for that particular type of work. In the case of low-wage jobs, a premium would be added to the wage. This would still mean H-2A wages higher than virtually all non-H-2A farm worker wages. In other words, current H-2A workers would still have significant wage protection, and virtually all new H-2A workers would get a raise. Third, the bill creates a one-time-only new Category called ``Adjusting'' Workers. Experienced farm workers who are already in the U.S. would be allowed to stay if: --They have worked at least 150 days in agriculture in the 12 months before the October 27 introduction of this bill; --They agree to work at least 180 days a year, only in agriculture, for at least 5 of the next 7 years; during this 5-7 year adjustment period, they would be in a temproary, non-immigrant status; --They return to their home country at least 2 months a year (during the 5-7 year adjustment period. Those with U.S.-born children--i.e., children who were already U.S. citizens--could stay year-round, but must agree to work in agriculture 240 days/year. ``Adjusting'' workers would be earning the right to keep their jobs or move to other agricultural jobs. Eventually, they could earn the right to a so-called ``green card''--in other words, permanent residency. For one moment, I want to mention, and then dispose of, the ``A- Word": This bill is not about amnesty, for several reasons. I have always been opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. If this were an amnesty bill, I'd be against it. This bill is about workers who are already here, for employers who need them and value their services, earning a right to stay. Amnesty is a gift; this bill is about earning a right. Amnesty means one is home free; this bill is about stabilizing the agricultural work force and conditions residency on a 5-7 year agreement to continue in farm work. The level of documentation required to prove a worker already has been working in the U.S. is much stricter than for any past amnesty law. In closing, Mr. President, this is win-win legislation. It will elevate and protect the rights, working conditions, and safety of workers. It will help workers--first domestic American workers, then other workers already here, then foreign guest workers-- find the jobs they want and need. It will assure growers of a stable, legal supply of workers, within a program that recognizes market realities. The adjusted-worker provisions also will give growers one-time assistance in adjusting to the new labor market realities of the 21st Century. It will assure all Americans of a safe, consistent, affordable food supply. The nation needs the Smith-Graham-Craig-Cleland AgJOBS bill. I invite the rest of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors; and I urge the Senate and the House to act promptly to enact this legislation into law.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 225 and S. 400 be sequentially referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I further ask consent that if these bills are not reported out of the Banking Committee by November 2, the bills then be automatically discharged from the committee and placed on the calendar.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Senator Lott relative to the two bills, S. 225 and S. 400, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 341, H.R. 2112.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of listening tonight to both you and the Senator from Florida discuss the introduction of what we call ag jobs. I must tell you that I am pleased to join with you as a shaper and an original cosponsor of this legislation because both you and Senator Graham have so clearly outlined a fundamental human problem in our country that the Department of Labor refuses to look at with any creative form of resolution and for which America's agricultural base pleads for a resolution. In the mid-1960s, I had the great privilege of serving as a national officer of the Future Farmers of America. During that year, I traveled the length and the breadth of America in behalf of American agriculture. From the beautiful green pea fields of eastern Oregon to the San Joaquin Valley of California where cotton was in abundance to the orange groves of Florida just at the time they were blooming, the one thing that was constantly present was a migrant farm labor force, working with those in production agriculture to pollinate, to weed, to thin, and, most important, to harvest the abundance of American agriculture. During that year when I was traveling, I often gave speeches that said the American farmer produces enough for himself or herself and 55 other Americans. We, as Americans, were tremendously proud of that statistic. Today, if I were making the same trip, I would say that the American farmer produces enough for himself or herself and 155 Americans and another 100 foreign mouths. Oh, we are so tremendously proud of America's productive capability. One of the reasons we are proud is not only are we unique in what we do, but we are tremendously efficient in how we do it. We have always been labor intensive. It is the character of the industry, and we have chosen that labor from where it was available. We have paid them good wages, but we must have them and we need them for the American consumer, for the abundance of the market shelf, and for the productivity of production agriculture. It is all a part of a total picture. Starting several decades ago, we began to run into problems. We did not have a Department of Labor that would work collectively and productively with American agriculture to deal with a very significant part of the equation that I have just outlined, and that was the labor side. We have a H-2A program, and Senator Graham has already outlined it. We recognize about 34,000 people are registered in that program on an annual basis and those are the ``foreign guest workers.'' Yet we have nearly 600,000 foreign illegal aliens in the agricultural job market. What is wrong here? What is wrong is a phenomenally complicated process and, Mr. President, you held the book up tonight--thousands of pages of procedure, controls, regulations, and phenomenal forms for oftentimes illiterate people to fill out to identify with the job market that is clearly in this country. They fall victim to a term we call ``the coyote,'' that exploiter of human beings, the one who takes the opportunity to say: Ah, but for $1,000, I can get you across the border and into the farm fields of eastern Oregon or southwestern Idaho; pay me the money and I will find you the job. Weeks later, they are oftentimes rounded up by the Immigration Service and whisked back across the border, and they are treated as less than human. Oftentimes, they are crammed into vehicles like sardines in a can. We hear the story almost every year about the vehicle that overturns and splits and spills open, and oftentimes these innocent people are killed. That is one side of the story we are trying to solve, and I say to the Department of Labor: Why can't you work with us to solve this problem? Why can't we develop a national registry of domestic workers and from that point move to a system that allows workers into our country as foreign guest workers under an H-2A program and a system that recognizes those who are already here, 600,000-plus? That is what we offer tonight in ag jobs. We think it is tremendously straightforward and it is honest. Yes, there will be opposition, to which the Senator from Oregon who is presiding at this moment, has spoken. I say to those who oppose, they oppose for all of the wrong reasons. They ought to sit down with us to see where we can work out our differences. I have spoken to the human side of the equation, but I talk tonight about the whole picture of agriculture. There is the other side. There is the agricultural producer who should be allowed to have access to a stable, reliable, and available workforce. The Department of Labor says today: If you need a job, advertise for it. So the onion farmer in southwestern Idaho advertises in Wisconsin, or New York, or Florida that he has a 2- or 3-week field job? I doubt it. It does not happen; it will not happen. But that is basically what the law of the day requires, and that is why there are 600,000-plus illegal aliens in our country because the current law isn't working, it is denying the farmer his or her reliable workforce, and it is literally opening the doors of our borders and saying: Come in, illegals. The jobs are here for you. As a sovereign nation, that is something we should not tolerate; and that is our inability and our unwillingness to control a border environment. And we do that if we have a reasonable and easily accessible system so foreign guest workers can find their way into it and find the jobs they seek. That is what our bill offers to that workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has just come out with an interesting figure that says, in the next 15 years, at today's current economic growth rates, there will be a deficit of at least 20 percent in our workforce. If we take all of the humans in America, all of the willing and available workers, all of those capable of working, and find them jobs, in this economy, there will still be a deficit of 20 percent. What does that say? That if we are to maintain our productivity and our growth rates in this country, and our economic level of opportunity, that we have to find a legal, responsible, and easily accessible way of allowing foreign guest workers into our country to work at the jobs that will be there; and then for them to be able to return to their homes, having had a positive experience in this country and having allowed our country to grow and to prosper, as it should. That is what our legislation is about, only it is for agriculture specifically. So we hope our colleagues will look at this legislation and join with us in it. As we move into next year's session, we will, obviously, be holding the necessary and appropriate hearings on it to address what is a very real problem in my State, in Oregon, in Florida, in every other agricultural State in the Nation, and that includes nearly all of the lower 48, and certainly even the State of Hawaii. So I hope that is the story that comes from the introduction of our legislation tonight. It is one that I think is critically important for us.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of listening tonight to both you and the Senator from Florida discuss the introduction of what we call ag jobs. I must tell you that I am pleased to join with you as a shaper and an original cosponsor of this legislation because both you and Senator Graham have so clearly outlined a fundamental human problem in our country that the Department of Labor refuses to look at with any creative form of resolution and for which America's agricultural base pleads for a resolution. In the mid-1960s, I had the great privilege of serving as a national officer of the Future Farmers of America. During that year, I traveled the length and the breadth of America in behalf of American agriculture. From the beautiful green pea fields of eastern Oregon to the San Joaquin Valley of California where cotton was in abundance to the orange groves of Florida just at the time they were blooming, the one thing that was constantly present was a migrant farm labor force, working with those in production agriculture to pollinate, to weed, to thin, and, most important, to harvest the abundance of American agriculture. During that year when I was traveling, I often gave speeches that said the American farmer produces enough for himself or herself and 55 other Americans. We, as Americans, were tremendously proud of that statistic. Today, if I were making the same trip, I would say that the American farmer produces enough for himself or herself and 155 Americans and another 100 foreign mouths. Oh, we are so tremendously proud of America's productive capability. One of the reasons we are proud is not only are we unique in what we do, but we are tremendously efficient in how we do it. We have always been labor intensive. It is the character of the industry, and we have chosen that labor from where it was available. We have paid them good wages, but we must have them and we need them for the American consumer, for the abundance of the market shelf, and for the productivity of production agriculture. It is all a part of a total picture. Starting several decades ago, we began to run into problems. We did not have a Department of Labor that would work collectively and productively with American agriculture to deal with a very significant part of the equation that I have just outlined, and that was the labor side. We have a H-2A program, and Senator Graham has already outlined it. We recognize about 34,000 people are registered in that program on an annual basis and those are the ``foreign guest workers.'' Yet we have nearly 600,000 foreign illegal aliens in the agricultural job market. What is wrong here? What is wrong is a phenomenally complicated process and, Mr. President, you held the book up tonight--thousands of pages of procedure, controls, regulations, and phenomenal forms for oftentimes illiterate people to fill out to identify with the job market that is clearly in this country. They fall victim to a term we call ``the coyote,'' that exploiter of human beings, the one who takes the opportunity to say: Ah, but for $1,000, I can get you across the border and into the farm fields of eastern Oregon or southwestern Idaho; pay me the money and I will find you the job. Weeks later, they are oftentimes rounded up by the Immigration Service and whisked back across the border, and they are treated as less than human. Oftentimes, they are crammed into vehicles like sardines in a can. We hear the story almost every year about the vehicle that overturns and splits and spills open, and oftentimes these innocent people are killed. That is one side of the story we are trying to solve, and I say to the Department of Labor: Why can't you work with us to solve this problem? Why can't we develop a national registry of domestic workers and from that point move to a system that allows workers into our country as foreign guest workers under an H-2A program and a system that recognizes those who are already here, 600,000-plus? That is what we offer tonight in ag jobs. We think it is tremendously straightforward and it is honest. Yes, there will be opposition, to which the Senator from Oregon who is presiding at this moment, has spoken. I say to those who oppose, they oppose for all of the wrong reasons. They ought to sit down with us to see where we can work out our differences. I have spoken to the human side of the equation, but I talk tonight about the whole picture of agriculture. There is the other side. There is the agricultural producer who should be allowed to have access to a stable, reliable, and available workforce. The Department of Labor says today: If you need a job, advertise for it. So the onion farmer in southwestern Idaho advertises in Wisconsin, or New York, or Florida that he has a 2- or 3-week field job? I doubt it. It does not happen; it will not happen. But that is basically what the law of the day requires, and that is why there are 600,000-plus illegal aliens in our country because the current law isn't working, it is denying the farmer his or her reliable workforce, and it is literally opening the doors of our borders and saying: Come in, illegals. The jobs are here for you. As a sovereign nation, that is something we should not tolerate; and that is our inability and our unwillingness to control a border environment. And we do that if we have a reasonable and easily accessible system so foreign guest workers can find their way into it and find the jobs they seek. That is what our bill offers to that workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has just come out with an interesting figure that says, in the next 15 years, at today's current economic growth rates, there will be a deficit of at least 20 percent in our workforce. If we take all of the humans in America, all of the willing and available workers, all of those capable of working, and find them jobs, in this economy, there will still be a deficit of 20 percent. What does that say? That if we are to maintain our productivity and our growth rates in this country, and our economic level of opportunity, that we have to find a legal, responsible, and easily accessible way of allowing foreign guest workers into our country to work at the jobs that will be there; and then for them to be able to return to their homes, having had a positive experience in this country and having allowed our country to grow and to prosper, as it should. That is what our legislation is about, only it is for agriculture specifically. So we hope our colleagues will look at this legislation and join with us in it. As we move into next year's session, we will, obviously, be holding the necessary and appropriate hearings on it to address what is a very real problem in my State, in Oregon, in Florida, in every other agricultural State in the Nation, and that includes nearly all of the lower 48, and certainly even the State of Hawaii. So I hope that is the story that comes from the introduction of our legislation tonight. It is one that I think is critically important for us.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the African trade bill. As a reminder, cloture has been filed on the substitute amendment to the trade bill and, therefore, all first-degree amendments must be filed to the substitute by 1 p.m. tomorrow. Also, pursuant to rule XXII, that cloture vote will occur 1 hour after the Senate convenes on Friday, unless an agreement is made between the two leaders. Currently, Senator Ashcroft's amendment to establish the position of chief agriculture negotiator is pending. It is hoped that an agreement regarding further amendments can be made so the Senate can complete action on this important legislation. The Senate may also consider any legislative or executive items cleared for action during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I amend my unanimous consent request and ask unanimous consent that following the comments of the Senator from Oregon, Senator Murray from the State of Washington be allowed to speak, followed by the Senator from Florida, who would make the final remarks of the evening.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for acquiring this time to speak on these key issues. It is very important the American people see the difference. Politics should not be the business of hypocrisy. It ought to be the business of fact. Saying one thing and doing another should not stand. Yet we have had about 7 long years of it with this President. Mr. President, I say no to those kinds of attitudes and reactions, and I think it is important that some of us speak out on it. I yield the floor.