Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I call for the yeas and nays on the VA-HUD appropriations conference report.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I join with my friend from the State of Montana in supporting this expectation that the states within the WRAP should not be precluded from any distribution of the $5,000,000 provided in this fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill. The State of Idaho has new requirements and responsibilities based upon this new regional haze rule. These new requirements require Idaho to develop new emissions data and programs which the state doesn't have now. So the State of Idaho must develop new internal capabilities to meet the new regulatory deadlines. The WRAP can assist the states in developing some of these capabilities, however, the states have their own unique roles and responsibilities beyond those of the WRAP. Thus, all states need additional funding beyond that provided to the WRAP.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies for his leadership in steering this bill and its many, diverse provisions successfully through the Senate and conference. One item is noteworthy both for its importance and its ready acceptance on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses. This is the language prohibiting EPA from spending funds to implement the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change, prior to ratification and Senate consent. The bill language on this subject is the same as last year's reiterating a strong congressional position. Also important is this year's Senate report language requiring greater accountability in the Administration's climate change proposals and initiatives. This language renews and reiterates directives in the managers' statement in last year's conference report. It also expresses disappointment in the late filing, earlier this year, of agency reports explaining the administration's programs, objectives, and performance measures. I would ask the Chairman if it is fair to say the committee's intent is to put the administration on notice that we fully expect such reports to be included, on a timely basis, as part of the President's fiscal year 2001 budget submission next year?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman also for this clarification. section 425

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has far reaching domestic and international security implications, and it deserves the most thorough and thoughtful consideration by the Senate. Like my colleagues, I have followed the CTBT, and have paid close attention to the number of hearings that have taken place in recent days, and over the last few years. Let me begin by saying that if I thought supporting this treaty would make the threat of nuclear war disappear, and give us all greater security from these lethal weapons, I would not hesitate in giving my support. Unfortunately, the facts do not demonstrate this; indeed, implementing this treaty will very likely increase danger to U.S. citizens and troops. For that reason, I am obligated to oppose ratification. Ratification of the CTBT would prohibit the United States from conducting explosive tests of nuclear weapons of any kind. In spite of CTBT's goal of curbing the proliferation and development of nuclear weapons by prohibiting their testing, it is a dangerous and flawed agreement that would undercut U.S. national security. American foreign policy must be based on decisions and actions that unquestionably enhance the national security interests of the United States, and nothing less. Our foreign policy cannot be based on a view of the world through rose colored glasses. Decisions must be made on the assessment of the clear and present dangers to the United States now and in the future. Let me reiterate some of those dangers confronting U.S. citizens today. There are twenty-five to thirty countries that have sought or are seeking and developing ballistic missiles. Last August, North Korea flight-tested a long-range missile over Japan, demonstrating its potential to strike Alaska or Hawaii in the near future. Although our decisive victory in the Gulf War demonstrated to many of our adversaries that a challenge on the battlefield would be foolish, hostile states now seek to offset our conventional force strength through the development of their own nuclear weapons programs. Does this Administration really believe that if the U.S. ceased to test, nations like North Korea, Libya, or Iran would end nuclear development? The dangers to the United States are very real and threats continue to grow. The center of U.S. defense policy is deterrence. Key to that deterrence is the credible threat of retaliation against those who would harm the U.S. and her citizens. This threat can only remain credible if our stockpile of weapons is reliable and modernized. CTBT runs counter to this objective. Nuclear tests are the only demonstrated way to assure confidence in the reliability and safety of our nuclear weapons. The CTBT will diminish our ability to fix problems within the nuclear stockpile and make safety improvements. We have long relied on testing these extremely complicated weapons to demonstrate both their safety and effectiveness. The Clinton Administration falsely claims that every Administration since Eisenhower has supported CTBT. What the President fails to say is that no other Administration has sought a test ban at zero yield like the current Administration. Frankly, this is a dangerous proposition for the reliability and safety of our arsenal. Former Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, explained the problem: * * * new components or components of slightly different materials must be integrated into weapon designs that we deployed earlier. As this process goes on over the years, a simple question arises: Will this design still work? That is why reliability testing is essential. As time passes, as the weapon is retrofitted, we must be absolutely confident that this modified device will still induce the proper nuclear reaction. That is why non-nuclear testing, as valuable as it is, is insufficient. It is why talk of a test ban with zero nuclear yield is irresponsible. Mr. Schlesinger's point is well taken. Make no mistake, the effects of a zero yield test ban will be catastrophic for U.S. security interests. The CTBT would also make it very extremely difficult to meet new weapons requirements. Throughout American military history, advances in air defense and anti-submarine warfare have created a need for new weapons, and testing has saved the lives of U.S. airmen. For example, nuclear testing was required to make the B83 bomb of the B-1B aircraft to allow the plane to drop its payload at a low altitude and high speed and escape the pending explosion. The bottom line is a test ban would harm modernization efforts, and jeopardize the lives of our men and women in uniform. Furthermore, the CTBT will do nothing to stop proliferation, even if testing is thwarted. This treaty is based on the flawed assumption that prohibiting nuclear testing will stop rogue nations from developing nuclear weapons. However, this assumption fails to acknowledge that rogue nations could likely be satisfied with crude devices that may or may not hit intended targets. Killing innocent civilians does not seem to be a concern of leaders like Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Kim Jong-Il of North Korea. The only thing predictable about rogue nations is their unpredictability. Lack of testing is not a security guarantee. South Africa and Pakistan long maintained an untested arsenal, in spite of bold nuclear aspirations. To presume that absence of nuclear test equals enhanced security is dangerous proposition. It is also very disturbing that ratification of this treaty would abandon a fundamental arms control principle that has been insisted upon for the last two decades--that the United States must be able to ``effectively verify'' compliance with the terms of the treaty. Verification has meant that the United States intelligence is able to detect a breach in an arms control agreement in time to respond appropriately and assure preservation of our national security interests. Because the CTBT bans nuclear test explosions no matter how small their yield, it is impossible to verify. Low-yield underground tests are very difficult to detect with seismic monitors. In previous Administrations, CTBT negotiations focused on agreements that allowed explosions below a certain threshold because it is impossible to verify below those levels. As the CTBT is impossible to verify, cheating will occur, and U.S. security will be undermined. Mr. President, I stand with all Americans today in expressing concern about the growing nuclear threat across the globe. The real question before us is whether ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will increase our own national security. Unfortunately, the answer is no. The sad truth about the CTBT is that it would be counterproductive and dangerous to America's national security. Moreover, I think the Senate must recognize that the implications of ratification of the CTBT is ultimate nuclear disarmament of the United States. If the U.S. cannot maintain a safe and reliable stockpile, and is barred from testing them, disarmament will be the de facto policy. The United States cannot afford this dangerous consequence. Nuclear deterrence has protected America's national and security interests in the midst of a very hostile world. I urge my colleagues to vote against this treaty.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FY2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. This important piece of legislation provides a total of $60.3 billion. While a large portion of this funding goes toward food stamps and nutrition programs, this bill also contains funding for agriculture research, conservation, rural development and direct assistance for our farmers to get through these tough times. Farmers across the board are facing difficult times. Prices are the lowest this decade and exports are decreasing while imports are increasing. For most commodities, the cost of production exceeds the revenue received. It doesn't take long to go out of business when your costs are more than what you can get for your end product. The problem is price, not the farm bill or farmers. Because of the Asian flu and depression of other world markets, our farmers are suffering. Simple economics tells you when supply is above demand, prices will drop. Ag commodity prices will increase as our world markets come back, but we don't expect that to happen this year or next. If we want our farmers to stay in business, we must help them in the short term until commodities can be sold on a world market. Something must be done to help the American farmer through these tough times, which is why I support this bill's $8.7 billion in farmer aid. The emergency aid includes $5.54 billion in additional agriculture market transition payments, which represent a 100 percent increase in a producer's 1999 payment. This is a direct payment that our farmers could receive before Thanksgiving if the President signs the bill into law. This is the immediate assistance our farmers and farm groups ask for in hearings in the Agriculture Committee and elsewhere. The conference report includes assistance for crop insurance premium write-downs to maintain the 1999 level, which is essential if we want farmers to keep using the program. I am also pleased to see assistance to certain specialty crop producers. These are just a few of the provisions that I supported in this bill. The conference report also contains mandatory livestock price reporting legislation. I supported this price reporting legislation when it was voted out of the Agriculture Committee and I am pleased to see it is moving forward. There needs to be greater transparency within the livestock industry. Our producers need information on which to base their marketing decisions, and this legislation will provide that. As others have noted, this conference report does not include sanctions reform language that passed by wide margin on the floor of the Senate. However, I understand legislation to exempt agricultural commodities from unilateral economic sanctions will come before the Senate before we adjourn, and it is something we ought to pass this year. In order to insure the long term survival of the Agriculture industry in the United States we must work on trade and sanctions reform to enable U.S. producers to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world. Mr. President, I hope the Senate adopts the conference report today and the President signs it into law so that the hard working farmers across the country can get the assistance we have promised them and that they so deserve.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 201, submitted earlier by Senators Coverdell and Cleland.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 13. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume debate on the conference report to accompany the Agriculture appropriations conference report as provided under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the Agriculture appropriations conference report at 9:30 a.m. By previous consent, there will be 6 hours of debate with a vote to occur at approximately 3:30 p.m., if all time is used. For the remainder of the day, the Senate will resume executive session to complete consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There are approximately 3 hours remaining for debate. Therefore, the vote is expected to occur prior to the adjournment on Wednesday. Also prior to the adjournment, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the campaign finance reform legislation or any conference reports available for action.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an Idaho native and his contributions to this nation. Early next week Sgt. John Feiler will be recognized here in Washington D.C. as Fort Hood's Noncommissioned Officer and Soldier of the third quarter of 1999. Let me to tell you a little about this wonderful Idahoan. John Feiler, a native of Burley, Idaho enlisted in the Army shortly after graduating from Burley High School. He began his training as a Combat Engineer in Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He was then assigned to the Engineer Battalion at Camp Eschborn in Germany. While in Germany he was an active participant in Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and Provide Comfort in Southwest Asia, for which he earned several awards and decorations. After the Persian Gulf War, John was reassigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia. While there, he was promoted to the rank of sergeant, and a short time later he attended the Staff Sergeant Selection Board. During his assignment in Fort Stewart, he was selected as the Commandant's Inspection Awardee, made the Commandant's list, was nominated as the 24th ID Engineer Brigade NCO of the Year for two consecutive years (`93 & `94), and nominated to represent the 24th ID as their NCO of the Year for the XVIII Airborne Corps NCO of the Year competition. In August of 1994 Sgt. Feiler pursued and completed the Army Recruiters Course. He served three years as a recruiter and was awarded the Gold Recruiter Badge as a permanent award. In December of 1997 he arrived in Fort Hood, Texas and was assigned to his current unit, A Company 299th Engineer Battalion. During the eighteen months that he has served in the battalion, he has been awarded the Army Commendation Medal, two Army Achievement medals, and was chosen as one of the ``Heroes of Battle'' during the battalion's 99-05 NTC rotation. He is currently serving as a squad leader there. His awards include the following: the Army Commendation Medal with four oak leaf clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with nine oak leaf clusters, the Army Good Conduct Medal (third award), the National Defense Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal (Saudi Arabia), and the Liberation of Kuwait Medal (Kuwait). Idaho and the nation are proud of the way in which Sgt. John Feiler has served our country. I am pleased to draw the Senate's attention to the outstanding contributions he has made and hope all my colleagues will join me in honoring him.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I am concerned about the funding level for Medicare contractors. The Senate Committee mark reduced the FY 2000 funding level by $30 million below the President's Budget recommendation. I want to be sure that this funding reduction will not adversely impact fee-for-service claims processing activities or the ability of contractors to provide critical beneficiary and providers services. In the recent past, we have seen the effect that inadequate funding levels can have on services. In 1998 payments were slowed down, and beneficiaries and providers were forced to deal with more voice mail rather than human beings when they called their contractors with questions about claims. Looking only at numbers, I see funding $21 million less than FY 1999 and $30 million less than the President's request. However, I understand this funding level reflects $30 million in savings from changes in the processing of dates. Therefore, am I correct in saying this would reflect efficiency and technological improvement, not a policy change in fee-for-service claims processing or beneficiaries and provider services? Furthermore, this $30 million in savings should not result in decreased funding to services for beneficiaries or providers, should it?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the Castle Rocks Ranch/Hagerman Fossil Beds Land Exchange in my home state of Idaho. Mr. President, in Idaho we have one of the foremost rock climbing destination sites in the world. It is called the City of Rocks National Reserve and is located in South Central Idaho. Most of the Reserve is owned by the National Park Service with parts of it being owned by the State of Idaho, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and private landowners. The State of Idaho runs the Reserve with a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service. The Reserve has unique geologic features--essentially, large rock formations jut out of the ground. I can't give it justice with my description--it is really something that must be seen, so I invite everyone to come to Idaho and visit the City of Rocks. Besides the rock formations, many of which are used extensively and known internationally for rock climbing, the site has unique historic significance. The California Trail, one of the major trails for Westward expansion during the 19th Century, passes through the Reserve. One of the Reserve's major attractions, Twin Sisters, was a landmark for this trail and is currently being protected for historic significance. Additionally, wagon trains often stopped in the area to maintain their wagons. During these stops, pioneers wrote their names on the rocks with wagon grease. Many of these names are still visible on the rocks today and serve as a record of our ancestors who passed through the area. Near the Reserve exists the Castle Rock Ranch, an approximately 1,240 acre ranch containing similar rock formations, which are ideal for fork climbing. Additionally, the Ranch contains irrigated pasture land. The Ranch was recently purchased by The Conservation Fund and other conservation groups in order to put it into the public domain for recreation. It is currently being operated as a working ranch. However, the State of Idaho would like to acquire this Ranch to make it into a state park. They would open up the rock formations for rock climbing, provide for camping and hiking, and, where irrigated pasture land exists, trade that irrigated land for dry land inholdings within the Reserve. This would help local ranchers acquire irrigated land, which is more valuable than gold in Southern Idaho, and allow the state to consolidate inholdings within the Reserve. A couple of counties to the West and across the mighty Snake River exists the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument. This National Monument contains the Hagerman Fossil Beds, which is important because it contains the world's most important fossil deposits from a time period known as the late Pliocene epoch, 3.5 million years ago. They represent the last glimpse of time before the Ice Age. Additionally, the beds contain the largest concentration of Hagerman Horse fossils in North America. While the State of Idaho owns the actual fossil beds, the National Park Service runs and maintains the facility. The State of Idaho wants to divest its interest in the fossil beds and acquire the Castle Rock Ranch. Additionally, the National Park Service wants to acquire the Fossil Beds. This would make it easier for everyone to work to protect the resources we have and open up opportunities for recreation. Consequently, I am introducing this legislation. In brief, the legislation would authorize the National Park Service to acquire the Castle Rock Ranch, exchange the Ranch with the State of Idaho for the Hagerman Fossil Beds, and mandate that the State exchange land within the Ranch for inholdings within the City of Rocks. In the end, the National Park Service would run and own the Hagerman Fossil Beds, the State of Idaho would own and run a state park in part of the Castle Rock Ranch, and voluntary inholders in the City of Rocks would be able to trade their inholdings for irrigated land on the Castle Rock Ranch. The only concern I have is the existence of an easement on the Hagerman Fossil Beds for the local irrigation company. This is the only way for farmers in the local area to get water to their farms--a necessity in that region. Section 4(e) of this legislation was included to ensure that this easement will continue to exist. It is vital to the existence of family farms in the area, and, for the record, it is not my intent to harm--and I will do all in my power to prevent this legislation from harming--this easement or the irrigation in the local area. Mr. President, this is a unique proposal that makes fiscal sense for taxpayers and has garnered the support of the National Park Service, the State of Idaho, The Conservation Fund, The Access Fund (a national climbing group), other conservation groups, local legislators, and many local residents. I hope that my colleagues will recognize the importance of this legislation and work for its enactment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize the Castle Rocks Ranch/Hagerman Fossil Beds Land Exchange in my home state of Idaho. Mr. President, in Idaho we have one of the foremost rock climbing destination sites in the world. It is called the City of Rocks National Reserve and is located in South Central Idaho. Most of the Reserve is owned by the National Park Service with parts of it being owned by the State of Idaho, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and private landowners. The State of Idaho runs the Reserve with a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service. The Reserve has unique geologic features--essentially, large rock formations jut out of the ground. I can't give it justice with my description--it is really something that must be seen, so I invite everyone to come to Idaho and visit the City of Rocks. Besides the rock formations, many of which are used extensively and known internationally for rock climbing, the site has unique historic significance. The California Trail, one of the major trails for Westward expansion during the 19th Century, passes through the Reserve. One of the Reserve's major attractions, Twin Sisters, was a landmark for this trail and is currently being protected for historic significance. Additionally, wagon trains often stopped in the area to maintain their wagons. During these stops, pioneers wrote their names on the rocks with wagon grease. Many of these names are still visible on the rocks today and serve as a record of our ancestors who passed through the area. Near the Reserve exists the Castle Rock Ranch, an approximately 1,240 acre ranch containing similar rock formations, which are ideal for fork climbing. Additionally, the Ranch contains irrigated pasture land. The Ranch was recently purchased by The Conservation Fund and other conservation groups in order to put it into the public domain for recreation. It is currently being operated as a working ranch. However, the State of Idaho would like to acquire this Ranch to make it into a state park. They would open up the rock formations for rock climbing, provide for camping and hiking, and, where irrigated pasture land exists, trade that irrigated land for dry land inholdings within the Reserve. This would help local ranchers acquire irrigated land, which is more valuable than gold in Southern Idaho, and allow the state to consolidate inholdings within the Reserve. A couple of counties to the West and across the mighty Snake River exists the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument. This National Monument contains the Hagerman Fossil Beds, which is important because it contains the world's most important fossil deposits from a time period known as the late Pliocene epoch, 3.5 million years ago. They represent the last glimpse of time before the Ice Age. Additionally, the beds contain the largest concentration of Hagerman Horse fossils in North America. While the State of Idaho owns the actual fossil beds, the National Park Service runs and maintains the facility. The State of Idaho wants to divest its interest in the fossil beds and acquire the Castle Rock Ranch. Additionally, the National Park Service wants to acquire the Fossil Beds. This would make it easier for everyone to work to protect the resources we have and open up opportunities for recreation. Consequently, I am introducing this legislation. In brief, the legislation would authorize the National Park Service to acquire the Castle Rock Ranch, exchange the Ranch with the State of Idaho for the Hagerman Fossil Beds, and mandate that the State exchange land within the Ranch for inholdings within the City of Rocks. In the end, the National Park Service would run and own the Hagerman Fossil Beds, the State of Idaho would own and run a state park in part of the Castle Rock Ranch, and voluntary inholders in the City of Rocks would be able to trade their inholdings for irrigated land on the Castle Rock Ranch. The only concern I have is the existence of an easement on the Hagerman Fossil Beds for the local irrigation company. This is the only way for farmers in the local area to get water to their farms--a necessity in that region. Section 4(e) of this legislation was included to ensure that this easement will continue to exist. It is vital to the existence of family farms in the area, and, for the record, it is not my intent to harm--and I will do all in my power to prevent this legislation from harming--this easement or the irrigation in the local area. Mr. President, this is a unique proposal that makes fiscal sense for taxpayers and has garnered the support of the National Park Service, the State of Idaho, The Conservation Fund, The Access Fund (a national climbing group), other conservation groups, local legislators, and many local residents. I hope that my colleagues will recognize the importance of this legislation and work for its enactment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, given the recent creation of the Wilderness and Public Lands Caucus and the ongoing debate on public land management, I think that all views on this complicated and emotional issue are vital to the discussion. Therefore, I ask that a brief statement from the Wilderness Act Reform Coalition, a group from my home State of Idaho be printed in the Record for all Senators to read and consider. The article follows: The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition Why we are organizing September 3, 1999 marks the 35th anniversary of the passage of the Wilderness Act. During those 35 years, it has never been substantively amended. Yet, the history of the application of the Wilderness Act to the public's lands and resources provides overwhelming evidence that it must be significantly reformed if the public interest is to be served. September 3, 1999 also marks the launch of the Wilderness Act Reform Coalition (WARC), the first serious effort to reform this antiquated and poorly-conceived law. Much has changed since the Wilderness Act became law in 1964. Dozens of other laws have been passed since then to protect and responsibly-manage all of the public's lands and resources. Underpinning all of these laws--and guaranteeing their enforcement--is a public sensitivity and commitment to wise resource management which was not present two generations ago when the Wilderness Act was enacted. Over this same time period our knowledge and understanding of how to accomplish this kind of wise and responsible resource management has increased exponentially. The demand side of the public's interest in their lands and resources has also increased exponentially. Recreation demand, for example, has increased far beyond what anyone could have anticipated 35 years ago and it has done so in directions which could not have been foreseen in 1964. Demand for water, energy and minerals, timber and other resources continues to go up as well. All of this means that as the 21st Century dawns we find ourselves facing more complex natural resources realities and challenges than ever before in our history. Meeting these challenges while at the same time serving the broad public interest will require careful and thoughtful balancing of all resource values with other social goals. It will also require integrating them all into a comprehensive management approach which will provide the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans over the longest period of time. These lands and resources, after all, belong to all of the American people. They deserve to enjoy the maximum benefits from them. Yet, the Wilderness Act, with its outdated, inflexible, and anti-management requirements, presently locks away over 100 million acres of the public's lands and resources from this kind of intelligent and integrated resource management. The inevitable result is the numerous negative impacts and damage to other resource values which are becoming increasingly apparent on the public's lands. The Wilderness Act remains frozen in another era. Due to the exponential changes which have occurred since it was passed, that era lies much further in the past than a mere 35 year linear time line would suggest. Our goals and objectives The Wilderness Act Reform Coalition is being organized by members of citizen's groups and local government officials who have experienced firsthand the limitations and problems the Wilderness Act has caused. It has a simple mission: to reform the Wilderness Act. In carrying out that mission, the Coalition has identified two primary goals towards which it will initially work. The first goal is to make those changes in the wilderness law which are essential to mitigate the most serious resource and related problems it is causing. These problems range from prohibiting the application of sound resource management practices where needed to hampering important scientific research and jeopardizing our national defense. The second goal of the coalition is to use the failings of the Wilderness Act to help educate the public, the media and policy makers on the fundamentals of natural resource management. Most of the ``conventional wisdom'' about natural resource management to which most of them presently subscribe is simply wrong. It is essential that the public be better educated on the facts, the realities, the challenges and the options before there can be any responsible or useful policy debate on the most fundamental problems with the Wilderness Act or, for that matter, any of the other federal management laws and policies which also need to be reformed. That is why the Coalition has chosen a comparatively limited reform agenda for this opening round in what we recognize ultimately must be a broader and more comprehensive national policy debate. Our reform agenda The Coalition currently advocates the following reforms of the Wilderness Act: 1. Developing a mechanism to permit active resource management in wilderness areas to achieve a wide range of public benefits and to respond to local needs. The inability or unwillingness of managers to intervene actively within wilderness areas to deal with local resource management problems or goals has resulted in economic harm to local communities and damage to other important natural resource and related values and objectives. The Coalition supports the creation of committees composed of locally-based federal and state resource managers, local governments, local economic interests and local citizens which will initiate a process to override the basic non-management directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis. 2. Establishing a mechanism for appeal and override of local managers for scientific research. Wilderness advocates often tout the importance of wilderness designation to science. The reality, however, is that agency regulations make it difficult or impossible to conduct many scientific experiments in wilderness, particularly with modern and cost- effective scientific tools. Important scientific experiments have been opposed simply because they would take place within wilderness areas. A simple, quick and cheap appeal process must be created for scientists turned down by wilderness land managers. 3. Making it clear that such things as use of mechanized equipment and aircraft landings can occur in wilderness areas for search and rescue or law enforcement purposes. There have been incidents where these have been prevented by federal wilderness managers. 4. Requiring that federal managers use the most cost- effective management tools and technologies. These managers have largely imposed upon themselves a requirement that they use the ``least tool'' or the ``minimum tool'' to accomplish tasks such as noxious weed control, wildfire control or stabilization of historic sites. In practice, this means that hand tools are often used instead of power tools, horses are employed instead of helicopters and similar practices which waste tax dollars. 5. Clarifying that the prohibition on the use of mechanized transportation in wilderness areas refers only to intentional infractions. This would be, in effect, the ``Bobby Unser Amendment'' designed to prevent in the future the current situation in which he is being prosecuted by the federal government for possibly driving a snowmobile into a wilderness area in Colorado while lost in a life-threatening blizzard. 6. Pulling the boundaries of wilderness areas and wilderness study areas (WSA's) back from roads and prohibiting ``cherrystemming.'' In many cases, the boundaries of wilderness areas and WSA's come right to the very edge of a road. Lawsuits have been filed or threatened against counties for going literally only a few feet into a WSA when doing necessary road maintenance work. It is clearly impossible to have a wilderness recreational experience in close proximity of a road. When formal wilderness areas are designated, the current practice is to pull the boundaries back a short distance from roads, depending on how the roads are categorized. That distance should be standardized and extended, probably to at least a quarter of a mile. The practice of ``cherrystemming,'' or drawing wilderness boundaries right along both sides of a road to its end, sometimes for many miles, is a clear violation of the intent of the Wilderness Act that wilderness areas must first and foremost be roadless. It must be eliminated. 7. Permitting certain human-powered but non-motorized mechanized transport devices in wilderness areas. This would include mountain bikes and wheeled ``game carriers'' and similar devices. The explosion of mountain biking was not envisioned by the Congress when the Wilderness Act was passed. Opening up those wilderness areas which are suitable to mountain biking would provide a high quality recreation experience to more of the Americans who own these areas. Use of these human-powered conveyances would also reduce pressure on these areas in a number of ways, such as by dispersing recreation use over a wider area. At the same time opening these areas can also reduce the current or potential conflicts between various recreation uses on land outside of designated wilderness. The impact on the land from these types of mechanized recreation uses would be minimal to non-existent. Their presence in wilderness areas would not cause problems on aesthetic grounds for any but the most extreme wilderness purists and they represent only a tiny fraction of the Americans who own these lands. 8. Requiring that the resource potential in all WSA's and any other land proposed for wilderness be updated at least every ten years. For example, mineral surveys and estimates of oil and gas potential completed on many of the WSA's on BLM-managed land which have been recommended for wilderness designation are now 10 to 15 years old and in some cases even older. These reviews were often not very thorough even by the standards and technology available then, much less what is available now. Before any additional land is locked up in wilderness, Congress and the American people should at least have the best and most up-to-date information on which to weigh the resource trade offs and make decisions. 9. Stating clearly that wilderness designation or the presence of WSA's cannot interfere with military preparedness. In a number of instances, conflicts related to military overflights of designated or potential wilderness areas, or to the positioning of essential military equipment on the ground in these areas, poses a threat or a potential threat to our defense preparedness. The Coalition will push for clarification that when considering the impacts of any mission certified by the military as essential to the national defense, wilderness areas or WSA's will be treated exactly the same as any other land administered by that agency. 10. Clarifying that wilderness designation or WSA designation will not in and of itself result in any management or regulatory changes outside the wilderness or WSA boundaries. This change is essential to prohibit federal agencies or the courts from taking actions to impose any type of ``buffer zones'' around these areas, including such things as special management of ``viewsheds'' or asserting wilderness-based water rights.

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 Tuesday, October 19, 1999, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1608, a bill to provide annual payments to the States and counties from National Forest System lands managed by the Forest Service, and the revested Oregon and California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands managed predominately by the Bureau of Land Management, for use by the counties in which the lands are situated for the benefit of the public schools, roads, emergency and other public purposes; to encourage and provide a new mechanism for cooperation between counties and the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to make necessary investments in federal lands, and reaffirm the positive connection between Federal Lands counties and Federal Lands; 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, DC 20510. subcommittee on water and power

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 would like to announce for the public some changes to the agenda for the hearing that is scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, October 14, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. S. 1331, a bill to give Lincoln County, Nevada, the right to purchase at fair market value certain public land in the county, has been deleted from the agenda; S. 1343, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain National Forest land to Elko County, Nevada, for continued use as a cemetery, has been added to the agenda. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mike Menge at (202) 224- 6170.

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, October 14, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 610, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in Washakie County and Big Horn County, Wyoming, to the Westside Irrigation District, Wyoming, and for other purposes; S. 1218, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue to the Landusky School District, without consideration, a patent for the surface and mineral estates of certain lots, and for other purposes; S. 1331, a bill to give Lincoln County, Nevada, the right to purchase at fair market value certain public land in the county; S. 408, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a former Bureau of Land Management administrative site to the City of Carson City, Nevada, for use as a senior center; S. 1629, a bill to provide for the exchange of certain land in the State of Oregon; S. 1599, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange all or part of certain administrative sites and other land in the Black Hills National Forest and to use funds derived from the sale or exchange to acquire replacement sites and to acquire or construct administrative improvements in connection with Black Hills National Forest. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mike Menge at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. With that need in mind, I ask my colleague if he would be supportive of increased funding in the EM-50 account to assure that such research can be conducted?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy to discuss the importance of research as it relates to Environmental Management (EM) in the Department of Energy.