Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a hearing on Interstate Alcohol Sales and the 21st Amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, to conduct a hearing on the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friends and colleagues Senators Roberts and Kerrey as a cosponsor of legislation being introduced today to reform the Federal agricultural crop insurance program. I am proud to stand with these leaders in purposing sweeping legislation to bring back some normalcy to our Nation's farm economy and expand the risk management tools available to our farm and ranch families. The bill addresses several concerns farmers from my state and I have about the current crop insurance program. Specifically, I am pleased that the legislation includes provisions to establish an APH history adjustment for beginning farmers and multi-year disasters. In addition, removing the exclusion for livestock coverage is long overdue. By cosponsoring this legislation today, I do not wish to imply that our search for meaningful crop insurance reform ideas has been completed. Just the contrary--I see this bill as a reasonable and appropriate first step toward our long-term goal of providing real risk management tools to our farmers and ranchers. While I am pleased that the bill includes provisions that allow the Risk Management Agency to develop policies for ``speciality'' or ``minor'' crops and for crops in under-served areas, I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop even stronger and more beneficial risk management tools for these producers. Idaho's great agricultural economy is based on minor and nontraditional crops. We lead the nation in the production of such crops as potatoes, winter peas, and trout. Idaho is second in the production of seed peas, lentils, sugar beets, barley and mint. Furthermore, we are in the top five states in the production of hops, onions, plums, sweet cherries, alfalfa, and American cheese. The needs of these producers are just as important as those of more traditional farm commodities. I want to assure my colleagues that I will continue to work for the resolution of this and other matters as our effort to reform Federal crop insurance progresses.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friends and colleagues Senators Roberts and Kerrey as a cosponsor of legislation being introduced today to reform the Federal agricultural crop insurance program. I am proud to stand with these leaders in purposing sweeping legislation to bring back some normalcy to our Nation's farm economy and expand the risk management tools available to our farm and ranch families. The bill addresses several concerns farmers from my state and I have about the current crop insurance program. Specifically, I am pleased that the legislation includes provisions to establish an APH history adjustment for beginning farmers and multi-year disasters. In addition, removing the exclusion for livestock coverage is long overdue. By cosponsoring this legislation today, I do not wish to imply that our search for meaningful crop insurance reform ideas has been completed. Just the contrary--I see this bill as a reasonable and appropriate first step toward our long-term goal of providing real risk management tools to our farmers and ranchers. While I am pleased that the bill includes provisions that allow the Risk Management Agency to develop policies for ``speciality'' or ``minor'' crops and for crops in under-served areas, I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop even stronger and more beneficial risk management tools for these producers. Idaho's great agricultural economy is based on minor and nontraditional crops. We lead the nation in the production of such crops as potatoes, winter peas, and trout. Idaho is second in the production of seed peas, lentils, sugar beets, barley and mint. Furthermore, we are in the top five states in the production of hops, onions, plums, sweet cherries, alfalfa, and American cheese. The needs of these producers are just as important as those of more traditional farm commodities. I want to assure my colleagues that I will continue to work for the resolution of this and other matters as our effort to reform Federal crop insurance progresses.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my distinct privilege to rise today to thank Brigadier General Randall M. ``Mark'' Schmidt for his service as commander of the 366th Wing, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. General Schmidt has been at Mountain Home since August of 1997, and will soon move on to reassignment as commander, Joint Task Force, Southwest Asia. I have long been proud of the 366th Wing. The Wing's motto is, ``Anywhere, anytime,'' Mountain Home is unique because it is the Air Force's only air intervention composite wing. The 366th is ready to deploy on a moment's notice with its own integrated command, control, communications, and intelligence capabilities. The Wing is a composite force already built and trained, ready to fight and intervene anytime, any where. However, it is clear that the reason this concept has been a success is because of the dedicated patriots who have had the privilege to serve at Mountain Home. Commander Schmidt has exemplified that tradition. By all accounts, General Schmidt's service has been nothing short of extraordinary. He has made the goal of ``one community'' a reality at Mountain Home. He has integrated every airman, regardless of rank, to be part of the 366th team. He puts his words into action. The biggest testiment to his talent is the fine work of men and women who are part of the 366th. Indeed, Mountain Home and Idaho have been fortunate to have him. However, Commander Schmidt's talents do not come as a surprise to me. As a Westerner, a former rancher, and a history buff, I have always been captivated by the pioneer spirit. It is that spirit which brought many of our ancestor to America, and some of them across America to settle in the West. It is that same spirit that isn't afraid of challenges, hardships or hard work, which can be measured and found throughout this great nation, and is at certainly home in the men and women of the United States Air Force. In addition to saying thank you, let me also take this opportunity to congratulate Commander Schmidt. Secretary Cohen has selected him to be one of a small, select group of Brigadier Generals nominated for promotion to Major General. As he prepares to leave for the desert to serve on joint command, I hope and believe that he will always consider himself an Idahoan. General Schmidt, thank you, congratulations, and godspeed.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Missouri and others who have spoken on the floor in relation to the legislation that we will begin to debate next Tuesday, I believe, Senate bill 280. We are calling it the Ed-Flex bill because of a demonstration project that has now gone on in 12 other States in our country where school districts have demonstrated that, given the flexibility to move dollars around, they can accomplish great things for the young people they are responsible for educating. So for the rest of our country, I think the Senator from Missouri and I want to see a similar kind of flexibility. What does it mean? It is very clear what it means. It means that when it comes to educating the young people of our country, we basically trust parents a great deal more than we trust bureaucrats. For a long time, we felt that the promotion of education in our country would come only if you could have a national department of education, and from that would flow all good things to the rest of the country, and they would serve as the leaders to project our States and our school districts into the dynamics of improving our public education system. We found out that while there is a department of education necessary on occasion, that the real energy comes from a local school district, or a State, or a group of parents who do not like what they see, or the direction their children's education is heading in, and they want to make changes. I am not at all opposed to public education. How could I be? I, my wife, and all of our children are the products of the public education system. And we are very proud of it. In Idaho we have a very good public education system that could be a great deal better. The Governor of the State of Idaho, former Senator here in this body, just elected, has recognized in our State that one of the greatest needs is in the area of reading. Should he be allowed, along with local school districts, to shift to more concentration on reading from the first grade through to the fourth or fifth grade? If that is what Idaho needs, that is what he should be allowed to do. Even within that context, in some school districts in our State reading has already been a higher priority, and those students are doing better. In the State of Texas, which has been able to operate under this demonstration project that we now want to send nationwide, the students there are outperforming others, because once again school districts are allowed to focus, to target, and on their standardized test scores they are moving up faster than they are in other States. In Maryland, students are receiving a one-on-one tutoring--again, a demonstration on the part of the school districts that in Maryland they needed to focus on reading. That one-on-one relationship might otherwise be denied under the concept that a one-size education program fits all which would not have allowed the students to do so. There are a good many stories out there. It is from those stories, those clear examples of understanding, that we bring S. 280 to the floor. I think it has the kind of dynamics we ought to be involved in. For some time we Republicans have recognized that bureaucracies just don't educate. They burn up a lot of money. They direct a lot of very well-meaning people sometimes in the wrong directions. Where it works is when the money gets to the local levels where parents, along with their educators, can determine what the needs are in a given area. That, of course, has always historically produced one of the most dynamic public systems in the Nation, in the world, and that is our public education system, stalled out in a good number of years simply because it did not have the flexibility to respond. At this level we are going to put more dollars into education. We believe that is a high national priority. Unlike those of the past where money should have come from the State and local units, we are committed in our opportunity of surplus years to put some of those dollars into education, and in so doing, we don't want them to get hung up here where 25 or 30 percent will be spun over into bureaucratic inertia. We want them to flow directly to our units of education at the local level. Ed-Flex, Senate bill 280, offers us that opportunity. We begin to debate it next week. I hope we can have strong bipartisan support in what is an extremely valuable initiative. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 11, 1999, at 2 p.m., in SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the FY2000 proposed budget for the U.S. Forest Service. 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 Amie Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 16, 1999, at 2 p.m., in SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the FY2000 proposed budget for the U.S. Forest Service. 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 Amie Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I promised to share with the people of Idaho and the nation what comments I made in the closed session of the Senate deliberating on the impeachment of President Clinton. What I told my colleagues as we deliberated was this: If we were in a church, the minister would admonish us from the pulpit to hate the sin and forgive the sinner. But we're not in a church. If we were in a court of law, the judge would tell us to hate the crime, and punish the criminal. But we're not in a court of law. We're part of a constitutionally-directed impeachment tribunal, and our job is to love the Constitution and protect the office of the president. Our decision should not be about saving or rejecting William Jefferson Clinton, but about protecting the office of the president and keeping our Constitution strong. I believe he committed the crimes and acts charged in the articles of impeachment, and I will vote to convict and remove him from office. That was my statement to the Senators in closed deliberations, and I stand by it today. But this statement was not the full explanation of my vote and my reasoning that I believe is owed to the people of Idaho and the nation. Therefore, let me take a few moments now to clarify why I voted to convict President Clinton on the articles of impeachment. First, I believe the House made its case on the facts. I was persuaded by what I saw, read, and heard that the president deliberately lied under oath in the case brought by Paula Jones to enforce her civil rights. I was also persuaded that he encouraged others to lie under oath and committed other acts designed to obstruct justice. In reaching these conclusions, it was important to me that the Senate is not bound to a specific constitutional or statutory standard in judging the evidence; instead, each Senator is left to his or her own experience and conscience. That is both the political and judicial nature of the impeachment process prescribed by the Constitution. However, reaching this conclusion about the facts does not trigger automatic conviction and removal of the president. A Senator must still resolve two questions: whether the acts committed were the kind of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' warranting removal from office, and whether the interests of the nation are served by removal. Impeachment by the House expresses that chamber's opinion on those two questions, but it is up to the Senate to render final judgment. And it is these two questions that have caused the most perplexity in this impeachment process--not to mention the most furious debate, hand wringing, and logical contortions. For example, we have heard much during these proceedings about proportionality--in other words, about ensuring that the punishment or sanction fits the crime. Some of our colleagues have suggested that while the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice may rise to the level of impeachable offenses, that conclusion is not inevitable on every set of facts. More to the point, they argue there is something in this particular case that diminishes the seriousness of the offense or renders it a private, as opposed to public, crime: perhaps the context of the misdeeds, or the subject matter of the perjury, or the motive behind the obstruction of justice. Yet considerations such as these have not prevented the government from prosecuting citizens who committed such crimes. Furthermore, while we are not bound by statutory definitions of crimes here, these arguments frustrate the very goal our Founders had in mind when they established the extraordinary remedy of impeachment: to protect the executive office and the nation from a lawless president. The Framers of the Constitution believed that governments are established in the first place to protect the rights of the governed. It follows that the most serious breach of duty in public office--the most serious threat to the order of society itself--is for the enforcers of the law to break the law. How much more grave that breach becomes when it is committed by the one individual in the nation who personifies the federal government: the president. How much more abhorrent it is when, in covering up his crimes, that president exploited the very public trust he betrayed. There is no question in my mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are the kind of public crimes that the Founders had in mind, and the House managers have demonstrated these crimes were committed by the president. As for the excuses being desperately sought by some to allow President Clinton to escape accountability, it seems to me that creating such loopholes would require tearing holes in the Constitution--something that cannot be justified to protect this president, or any president. This brings me to the final question: whether the public interest will be served by the president's removal from office. Let me say there are those in my State who have been seeking this result ever since the president was elected, because they simply don't agree with him. I, too, generally disagree--sometimes loudly--with President Clinton's approach to public policy. However, political and policy differences are emphatically not the focus of this question. Instead, the Founders intended us to focus on the safety of the nation. That is a very high threshold, appropriate to the serious impact of the vote we must case. In this case, many are arguing that our nation is not at risk; we're prosperous; the government is not collapsing; there is no immediate or external threat to the country. But I would submit that if a generation of young people are taught by our actions in this case that a lie carries no consequences, then the nation is at risk. If our citizens conclude that lawlessness in the highest office is acceptable, that their elected representatives are complicit in that corruption, and that nothing can be done to stop it, then the nation is at risk. If future presidents think they can go further in lying or obstruction of justice when they apply the ``Clinton Indicator,'' then the nation is at risk. If the Executive Office of the President is occupied by an individual who is generally believed to have lied and betrayed the public trust--if the symbol, the icon of the presidency is compromised, the nation is at risk. Some have suggested that removing this president from office would put the nation at risk. That is false argument and something no one should fear. Instead, we should place our faith in the Constitution and the wisdom of its Framers, who provided a roadmap for a peaceful, swift, and orderly transition of power to the vice president. That transition poses no threat to the nation. On the other hand, I believe exonerating President Clinton with a vote for acquittal does create a threat to our nation. In short, I am convinced that the nation is at risk today--not because of the possibility of the president's removal through the impeachment process, but because of the damage he has caused to the Executive office of the President, and the damage that continues to be done by his remaining in office. For all these reasons, I believe my vote to convict and remove this president from office is an appropriate response, a necessary response, a constitutionally-compelled response. I said at the beginning of this process that it would be my goal to ensure that we proceeded in a fair and constitutional manner. I believe we have done so--and managed along the way to generally rise above partisanship and the politics of the day. While I fundamentally disagree with many of my colleagues in the final result, I salute them for their sincerity and the seriousness of their purpose. No matter what the result, the Senate discharged its constitutional duty well. However, reluctant as I am to say it, I do not believe this sorry chapter in our history is closed. On the first day of this trial, as I watched the Chief Justice take the chair, I was angry--profoundly angry that this president had brought this nation to this point because of his own self-gratification, setting what was good for himself above what was good for the nation. It is unconscionable what the president has put the country through, continues to put the country through, and will continue to put the country through for his own personal and political ends. My differences with the president on this point transcend party or policy; I am saddened that this sorry chapter will continue, that the book will be open and the pages of this chapter will be turning as long as this president remains on office. Our young people, our citizens, our Constitution deserve a better end to a better story.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the leader. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chief Justice, will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. CRAIG. Is my understanding correct that your motion would keep this session of deliberations closed, except for those Senators who would choose to have their statements become a part of the Congressional Record, and that it would be the choice of the individual Senators, and that the deliberations of the closed session would remain closed unless otherwise specified by each individual Senator, specific to their statements; is that a fair understanding?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Montana, Mr. Baucus, today to introduce the Congressional Award Reauthorization Act of 1999--a bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award program for another five years. The Congressional Award program was first authorized and signed into law in 1979. Since then it has received the support of Congress and Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton for one very simple reason--it helps encourage and recognize excellence among America's young people. The program is non-competitive; participants challenge only themselves. Young people from all walks of life and levels of ability can work to earn a Congressional Award. Participants range from the academically and physically gifted, to those with severe physical, mental, and socio-economic challenges. The Congressional Award is an earned award; young people are not selected for it. Participants strive for either a Bronze, Silver, or Gold Award. At each level, 50% of the required minimum hours to earn the Award are in Volunteer Service (a minimum of 100 hours for Bronze, 200 for Silver, and 400 for Gold). Since the inception of the program, the minimum number of volunteer hours for recipients has exceeded one million hours. All of this time was spent improving individual's lives and each of our communities. Congressional Award recipients receive no material reward through the program for their efforts except for the medal and certificate which are presented to them in recognition of, and thanks for, what they have done. There are currently around 2000 young people from across the country pursing the award, with more entering the program each day. Each of these young people exemplify the qualities of commitment to service and citizenship that our country embodies, and which we promote through our own service in Congress. We believe the least we can do for them is encourage them in their efforts and recognize their achievements through the Congressional Award program. The program is one of the best investments Congress can make. It requires no annual appropriation--all of its funding is raised from private sources--yet it does so much for so many people. The authorization for the Congressional Award program expires this year. The bill I introduce today will reauthorize the program for five years and make two minor changes in the way the program is administered. I encourage each one of my colleagues to show their support for every young person who has received or is working on a Congressional Award by supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Montana, Mr. Baucus, today to introduce the Congressional Award Reauthorization Act of 1999--a bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award program for another five years. The Congressional Award program was first authorized and signed into law in 1979. Since then it has received the support of Congress and Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton for one very simple reason--it helps encourage and recognize excellence among America's young people. The program is non-competitive; participants challenge only themselves. Young people from all walks of life and levels of ability can work to earn a Congressional Award. Participants range from the academically and physically gifted, to those with severe physical, mental, and socio-economic challenges. The Congressional Award is an earned award; young people are not selected for it. Participants strive for either a Bronze, Silver, or Gold Award. At each level, 50% of the required minimum hours to earn the Award are in Volunteer Service (a minimum of 100 hours for Bronze, 200 for Silver, and 400 for Gold). Since the inception of the program, the minimum number of volunteer hours for recipients has exceeded one million hours. All of this time was spent improving individual's lives and each of our communities. Congressional Award recipients receive no material reward through the program for their efforts except for the medal and certificate which are presented to them in recognition of, and thanks for, what they have done. There are currently around 2000 young people from across the country pursing the award, with more entering the program each day. Each of these young people exemplify the qualities of commitment to service and citizenship that our country embodies, and which we promote through our own service in Congress. We believe the least we can do for them is encourage them in their efforts and recognize their achievements through the Congressional Award program. The program is one of the best investments Congress can make. It requires no annual appropriation--all of its funding is raised from private sources--yet it does so much for so many people. The authorization for the Congressional Award program expires this year. The bill I introduce today will reauthorize the program for five years and make two minor changes in the way the program is administered. I encourage each one of my colleagues to show their support for every young person who has received or is working on a Congressional Award by supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hope for Children Act, which is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Congressman Tom Bliley of Virginia. I think all of us--no matter what party or philosophy--share the hope that every child in the world has a loving, permanent home. The Hope for Children Act is aimed at making that hope a reality for more children, by making it possible for more families to open their homes and hearts to a child through adoption. In the past few years, Congress has taken a number of steps to promote adoption in this country. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers for their dedication to this effort. As an adoptive father myself, and co-chair of the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I've been pleased to see more and more American families formed through adoption, and I sincerely believe the work of Congress has been a contributing factor. However, we have some unfinished business to take care of, and that's what I'm here to talk about today. Many of my colleagues will remember back in 1996, we succeeded in enacting a tax credit for adoption expenses. We did so, because we realized that adopting families face extraordinary challenges: not only must they forge a new family unit while navigating a labyrinth of legal or regulatory requirements, but they also have financial challenges above and beyond the usual expenses of caring for and raising children. The cost of adoption can easily push into the tens of thousands of dollars, counting legal fees, travel, medical bills and other expenses. All too often, it is the financial challenge that becomes an insurmountable obstacle to bringing a child who is alone in the world together with a loving family. We knew the adoption tax credit wouldn't eliminate the expense of adoption outright, but would only allow eligible adoptive families to keep a bit more of their own hard-earned income to devote to those expenses. As a result, adoptive parents may be eligible to receive a tax credit of $5000 to help cover out-of-pocket expenses related to each adoption, or a $6000 tax credit for the adoption of a ``special needs'' child. If the comments I've been hearing from families across the nation are any gauge, the credit has helped make adoption a reality for a lot of children. As more individuals explore the adoption option, they are finding the credit a small but significant cushion against the financial impact. Even so, I've received a number of constructive suggestions from families as to how the adoption tax credit could be improved, to make it more effective in promoting adoption in the United States. Furthermore, back in 1996 when we originally debated this matter, there were political and fiscal considerations that caused Congress to include a sunset provision for the adoption tax credit. Unless we act soon to extend this enormously helpful tool, it will expire. For all of those reasons, I am introducing the Hope for Children Act. It builds on the work done by our previous Congress, to improve and extend the adoption tax credit. Specifically, it would make the tax credit permanent, and adjust it for inflation. It would also exclude the credit from calculation of the alternative minimum tax. The full credit would be available for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes under $150,000; those with adjusted gross incomes between $150,000 and $190,000 would be able to take a reduced credit. No credit would be available to those with adjusted gross incomes of more than $190,000. I should say at this point that I do not think this bill is the final word on the subject. I intend to work with interested groups and individuals on additional legislation that will promote adoption-- perhaps most important, that will do more to promote the adoption of children with special needs. There are so many children in the United States and the world who can only hope for the loving, permanent home that should be their birthright--I invite all Senators to join me in supporting the Hope for Children Act to help make their dreams a reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in introducing the State and Local Government Participation Act. This legislation would amend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide the opportunity for State, local, and county agencies to participate in land management decisions by identifying them as cooperating agencies in the NEPA process. NEPA was passed in 1969 to, among other things, ``declare a national policy which will encourage harmony between man and his environment.'' I support the intent of NEPA, to protect our public resources from environmental degradation. However, in the last twenty years, the NEPA process has become a very time consuming and cumbersome public process. In almost every instance, an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment must be completed under NEPA before any action can take place on the public lands. My state, Idaho, is 63 percent federal land, and management of those lands is of vital importance, especially to the communities that are economically dependent on the public lands. In far too many instances, land management decisions are being made without allowing those most affected by a land management decision or in many cases, those most knowledgeable about the resource, to play a meaningful role in the NEPA process. In the Pacific Northwest, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are currently working on a comprehensive ecosystem management plan for the Columbia River Basin, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (ICBEMP). This plan, in the form of a draft EIS, has been in the works for four years at an expense of more than $40 Million. County governments and state officials in my state feel alienated by the process to date. The situation has gotten so bad that in last year's omnibus appropriations act, I worked to have report language encouraging the administration to include affected state and county governments in this process as cooperating agencies. I would submit that every western Senator has at least one horror story involving a public land managing agency that ran roughshod over the local government in the NEPA process. Rather than legislating that Federal agencies must work with the local governments on a case-by-case basis, this bill would provide the opportunity to fix a problem that has arisen with the original NEPA legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hope for Children Act, which is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Congressman Tom Bliley of Virginia. I think all of us--no matter what party or philosophy--share the hope that every child in the world has a loving, permanent home. The Hope for Children Act is aimed at making that hope a reality for more children, by making it possible for more families to open their homes and hearts to a child through adoption. In the past few years, Congress has taken a number of steps to promote adoption in this country. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers for their dedication to this effort. As an adoptive father myself, and co-chair of the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I've been pleased to see more and more American families formed through adoption, and I sincerely believe the work of Congress has been a contributing factor. However, we have some unfinished business to take care of, and that's what I'm here to talk about today. Many of my colleagues will remember back in 1996, we succeeded in enacting a tax credit for adoption expenses. We did so, because we realized that adopting families face extraordinary challenges: not only must they forge a new family unit while navigating a labyrinth of legal or regulatory requirements, but they also have financial challenges above and beyond the usual expenses of caring for and raising children. The cost of adoption can easily push into the tens of thousands of dollars, counting legal fees, travel, medical bills and other expenses. All too often, it is the financial challenge that becomes an insurmountable obstacle to bringing a child who is alone in the world together with a loving family. We knew the adoption tax credit wouldn't eliminate the expense of adoption outright, but would only allow eligible adoptive families to keep a bit more of their own hard-earned income to devote to those expenses. As a result, adoptive parents may be eligible to receive a tax credit of $5000 to help cover out-of-pocket expenses related to each adoption, or a $6000 tax credit for the adoption of a ``special needs'' child. If the comments I've been hearing from families across the nation are any gauge, the credit has helped make adoption a reality for a lot of children. As more individuals explore the adoption option, they are finding the credit a small but significant cushion against the financial impact. Even so, I've received a number of constructive suggestions from families as to how the adoption tax credit could be improved, to make it more effective in promoting adoption in the United States. Furthermore, back in 1996 when we originally debated this matter, there were political and fiscal considerations that caused Congress to include a sunset provision for the adoption tax credit. Unless we act soon to extend this enormously helpful tool, it will expire. For all of those reasons, I am introducing the Hope for Children Act. It builds on the work done by our previous Congress, to improve and extend the adoption tax credit. Specifically, it would make the tax credit permanent, and adjust it for inflation. It would also exclude the credit from calculation of the alternative minimum tax. The full credit would be available for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes under $150,000; those with adjusted gross incomes between $150,000 and $190,000 would be able to take a reduced credit. No credit would be available to those with adjusted gross incomes of more than $190,000. I should say at this point that I do not think this bill is the final word on the subject. I intend to work with interested groups and individuals on additional legislation that will promote adoption-- perhaps most important, that will do more to promote the adoption of children with special needs. There are so many children in the United States and the world who can only hope for the loving, permanent home that should be their birthright--I invite all Senators to join me in supporting the Hope for Children Act to help make their dreams a reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you. And let me thank Senator Coverdell for chairing the special order today to talk about a very important debate which this country is now just beginning to engage in; and that is, the debate over the Federal budget for the next fiscal year and for the near future of the next 10 years. The reason I say it is an important debate--and I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire--if not the most important debate we will become involved in in this decade is that it is long term. What we do in this budget sets a trend line, clearly establishes a standard of performance for how Government operates and how taxpayers are treated in our country. So for the next few moments I am going to dwell on that, because I can't deal with the specifics of this budget yet, not in the detail that the Senator from New Mexico, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee, is going to in a few moments. He is the expert. He teaches me what is in this budget. And I listen very closely. But let me tell you, there are some fundamentals that I hope the public will come to recognize as this debate goes on, that within the budget surplus there are two surpluses. About 62 percent of that surplus is generated by Social Security tax, Social Security tax revenue. And that 62 percent the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States agree ought to be dedicated to reforming and strengthening the Social Security system. So if you will, that is surplus I. There is a second surplus, and that is a surplus that is generated by other taxes, including the taxpayers' income tax. And that represents about 38 percent of the Federal budget. It is on that percentage that this Republican Senate at this moment is proposing, amongst other things, a significant tax cut for the taxpayers of the country. I am very proud to stand on the floor, along with a lot of my colleagues, and say that a decade and a half ago we began an argument to force our Government to balance its budget. We were told at that time, in the early 1980s, that wasn't going to happen, just wasn't going to happen in my lifetime. In fact, I had an elder statesman in the House--I was serving in the House --after I delivered this House speech on balancing the budget on the floor, tap me on the shoulder, and he said, ``Kid, you ain't gonna live long enough to see a federally balanced budget.'' And then he went on to say, ``Why would you want to do it? Look what you can do with Government spending to expand the economy, to create all these neat things.'' And I looked at him and smiled and said, ``To reassure your reelection.'' Well, that was less than 20 years ago. In fact, that was about 14 years ago when that statement was made. And today the budget is balanced. Today we are now arguing over how to spend the potential trillions of dollars of surplus that will be generated by that budget. When I was arguing the balanced budget idea in the early 1980s, along with a lot of my colleagues, there were some fundamental reasons why we were doing it: No. 1, to control Government. Because we saw an all- increasingly expanding, powerful Federal Government as a damper on the rights and freedoms of the citizens of our country. More Government, less freedom; more programs, less control, less opportunity on the part of the average citizen. So that was one of the reasons. The other reason was to turn this economy on. In all fairness, Mr. President, I don't think any of us ever knew how much you could turn the economy of this country on if you did just two things: If you balanced the Federal budget, that is called fiscal policy, and if you kept monetary policy in line with it; and if you rewarded the workers by allowing them to keep more of their own money called taxes. We have been able to do all of those things in combination. And what happened? We turned this economy on. We fueled it in a way that was really beyond our imagination. In fact, a lot of us are looking at this strong economy today and saying, how can it last? Why is it so strong even in light of all the things that are going on around us in a world economy that is dragging it down to some extent. The reason it is strong is because the Federal budget is balanced, because monetary policy is in line with the Federal Reserve. Now the next step is to keep it strong and even stronger and to take overtaxed American taxpayers and make sure that they keep an ever larger part of their hard-earned money. That is the real difference between what the President proposes and what we are talking about. Oh, yes, we have the fundamental disagreements on Social Security reform that the Senator from New Hampshire, who is now presiding, has just talked about, and those are fundamental differences. But with that 38 percent that is left, the President plans to spend it all in one form or another. In fact, if you listened to his State of the Union in his budget message, he was like somebody handing out gifts in the form of government programs. A little here and a little there, going to benefit this, going to benefit that, going to expand here, and in the end, the world is going to be a happier place, and the President is going to be a more popular guy. Or so it went. What he didn't say was that he actually was growing the potential of a Federal debt and deficit in combination again and that he was not offering substantive reform in the long term that would really benefit Social Security recipients, and most importantly, the young people of our country. There is another premise with Social Security: No matter what we do we are going to protect the elderly. But what we have to do is assure that the young people of our country have a good investment in the future because Social Security today for a young person entering the work force is a lousy investment. There is very little returned for their money. So those are some of the dynamics of the debate at hand. Mr. President, let me close with this thought--and I believe it sincerely, as somebody who has fought for a balanced budget, as somebody who is proud to see a balanced budget gained, and as somebody who has been very surprised over the strength of an economy that can be generated by the balanced budget and good, sound, monetary policy. It is simply this: I believe the President squanders the reward of a balanced budget. I believe the President squanders the hard work that we have done here to assure that the taxpayers of our country can have back even more of their hard-earned money. He not only squanders it in bad ideas, he squanders it by simply creating a greater liability on future earnings of our government or future taxes by our citizens. We are standing at the threshold of a unique time in our Nation's history, a true opportunity to fix Social Security, to reform it, and to change it into a positive investment for the young people of our country while still continuing to hold safe and reward the elderly of our country for their hard-earned days, but also to assure long-term economic growth in our country that keeps our work forces working, that keeps our taxpayers happy, and that strengthens our country among other nations in the world. That is an opportunity that can be accomplished with this budget. That is why I think what we are standing for today is the right direction and course for this country to take. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in introducing the State and Local Government Participation Act. This legislation would amend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide the opportunity for State, local, and county agencies to participate in land management decisions by identifying them as cooperating agencies in the NEPA process. NEPA was passed in 1969 to, among other things, ``declare a national policy which will encourage harmony between man and his environment.'' I support the intent of NEPA, to protect our public resources from environmental degradation. However, in the last twenty years, the NEPA process has become a very time consuming and cumbersome public process. In almost every instance, an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment must be completed under NEPA before any action can take place on the public lands. My state, Idaho, is 63 percent federal land, and management of those lands is of vital importance, especially to the communities that are economically dependent on the public lands. In far too many instances, land management decisions are being made without allowing those most affected by a land management decision or in many cases, those most knowledgeable about the resource, to play a meaningful role in the NEPA process. In the Pacific Northwest, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are currently working on a comprehensive ecosystem management plan for the Columbia River Basin, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (ICBEMP). This plan, in the form of a draft EIS, has been in the works for four years at an expense of more than $40 Million. County governments and state officials in my state feel alienated by the process to date. The situation has gotten so bad that in last year's omnibus appropriations act, I worked to have report language encouraging the administration to include affected state and county governments in this process as cooperating agencies. I would submit that every western Senator has at least one horror story involving a public land managing agency that ran roughshod over the local government in the NEPA process. Rather than legislating that Federal agencies must work with the local governments on a case-by-case basis, this bill would provide the opportunity to fix a problem that has arisen with the original NEPA legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Plant Protection Act of 1999''--a comprehensive bill which will focus the effort of federal agencies in fighting noxious weeds and other plant pests. Noxious weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands across the nation. They are particularly troublesome in the West where much of our land is entrusted to the management of the federal government. A ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their livelihoods--including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others. The bill I introduce today will focus the efforts of the federal government to better fight this wildfire. It organizes and expands the functions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and appoints it as the lead government agency in this fight. The bill was drafted with the assistance and advice of APHIS as well as several national agriculture organizations such as the American Nursery and Landscape Association, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Christmas Tree Association, National Potato Council, and American Farm Bureau Federation. The Idaho Department of Agriculture and many concerned citizens from my state have also helped me shape the bill I introduce today. Similar legislation will be introduced in the House of Representatives some time next month by Representative Canady of Florida. The two bills have only one difference. The bill I introduce today lacks the section on federal preemption included in Mr. Canady's legislation. This is an issue that will have to be addressed during the legislative process. I will admit that APHIS will not endorse the legislation without the preemption section. However, I am confident that, working together with all of those interested in fighting noxious weeds at the federal and state levels, we can resolve this matter in a way we might all agree to. Working together is what this entire effort is about. Along that same vein, I know of several Senators with an interest in this issue, including Senator Akaka who introduced legislation on this matter earlier this month, and I hope we can work together in finding a solution we can all support. In addition, I might mention that it is my understanding that the President and the Secretary of the Interior have expressed interest in noxious weeds and may be planning their own announcement. I invite them--indeed, I invite everyone interested in this matter--to work with me to find an approach which confronts this problem head on. Mr. President, I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands of these noxious weeds and plant pests. We must reclaim the rangeland for natural species. We must return the acres of lost farmland to production. Doing so will require the combined efforts of the federal government, state governments, local weed control boards, and private land owners. I believe the ``Plant Protection Act of 1999'' is the first step in this process. Mr. President, I ask unaminous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Plant Protection Act of 1999''--a comprehensive bill which will focus the effort of federal agencies in fighting noxious weeds and other plant pests. Noxious weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands across the nation. They are particularly troublesome in the West where much of our land is entrusted to the management of the federal government. A ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their livelihoods--including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others. The bill I introduce today will focus the efforts of the federal government to better fight this wildfire. It organizes and expands the functions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and appoints it as the lead government agency in this fight. The bill was drafted with the assistance and advice of APHIS as well as several national agriculture organizations such as the American Nursery and Landscape Association, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Christmas Tree Association, National Potato Council, and American Farm Bureau Federation. The Idaho Department of Agriculture and many concerned citizens from my state have also helped me shape the bill I introduce today. Similar legislation will be introduced in the House of Representatives some time next month by Representative Canady of Florida. The two bills have only one difference. The bill I introduce today lacks the section on federal preemption included in Mr. Canady's legislation. This is an issue that will have to be addressed during the legislative process. I will admit that APHIS will not endorse the legislation without the preemption section. However, I am confident that, working together with all of those interested in fighting noxious weeds at the federal and state levels, we can resolve this matter in a way we might all agree to. Working together is what this entire effort is about. Along that same vein, I know of several Senators with an interest in this issue, including Senator Akaka who introduced legislation on this matter earlier this month, and I hope we can work together in finding a solution we can all support. In addition, I might mention that it is my understanding that the President and the Secretary of the Interior have expressed interest in noxious weeds and may be planning their own announcement. I invite them--indeed, I invite everyone interested in this matter--to work with me to find an approach which confronts this problem head on. Mr. President, I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands of these noxious weeds and plant pests. We must reclaim the rangeland for natural species. We must return the acres of lost farmland to production. Doing so will require the combined efforts of the federal government, state governments, local weed control boards, and private land owners. I believe the ``Plant Protection Act of 1999'' is the first step in this process. Mr. President, I ask unaminous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today, Senate Republicans are responding to America's number one health care concern: the high cost of health insurance and medical care. By granting all Americans access to tax-free medical savings accounts; by allowing self-employed Americans to deduct 100 percent of the cost of their health insurance premiums; and by allowing workers with flexible savings accounts to keep some of the money in those accounts, our ``Patients' Bill of Rights--Plus'' will tear down the barriers that government has put in the way of affordable health coverage and care. Our proposal stands in stark contrast to those offered by others in Congress. With millions of Americans unable to afford insurance because of the unfairness of the federal tax code, some members of Congress want to force consumers to buy government-prescribed benefits-- including many that are giveaways to special interests--even if it causes millions more to lose their health coverage. While other so-called ``patients' rights'' bills contain nothing but expensive mandates, hidden taxes and costly lawsuits, our bill will deliver quality health insurance to millions of Americans. Our bill will make a down payment on serious health care reform that puts patients first--not doctors, not lawyers, not insurance companies, and certainly not government bureaucrats. Rather than support a patients' bill of rights minus access, I urge my colleagues to take a step forward by making health insurance accessible instead of taking a step backward by making it more expensive.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today, Senate Republicans are responding to America's number one health care concern: the high cost of health insurance and medical care. By granting all Americans access to tax-free medical savings accounts; by allowing self-employed Americans to deduct 100 percent of the cost of their health insurance premiums; and by allowing workers with flexible savings accounts to keep some of the money in those accounts, our ``Patients' Bill of Rights--Plus'' will tear down the barriers that government has put in the way of affordable health coverage and care. Our proposal stands in stark contrast to those offered by others in Congress. With millions of Americans unable to afford insurance because of the unfairness of the federal tax code, some members of Congress want to force consumers to buy government-prescribed benefits-- including many that are giveaways to special interests--even if it causes millions more to lose their health coverage. While other so-called ``patients' rights'' bills contain nothing but expensive mandates, hidden taxes and costly lawsuits, our bill will deliver quality health insurance to millions of Americans. Our bill will make a down payment on serious health care reform that puts patients first--not doctors, not lawyers, not insurance companies, and certainly not government bureaucrats. Rather than support a patients' bill of rights minus access, I urge my colleagues to take a step forward by making health insurance accessible instead of taking a step backward by making it more expensive.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I appreciate that. I wanted to add for the Record some of the analysis we are now doing about what the President said last night and, more importantly, how he proposes to spend the taxpayers' money. The surplus that he projects, and that I think we generally agree with, based on the vibrancy of our economy today, is about $4.35 trillion over the next 15 years. That is rough, give or take 1 percent, depending on who is doing the calculation. In that context, here is what the President proposes to do: He proposes to spend 62 percent of it for Social Security, about $2.7 trillion. Probably we would not want to disagree with that, because about 60 percent of the surplus is generated by Social Security taxes, and it ought to go into Social Security and it ought to go into strengthening it and saving it and, hopefully, reforming it. The President laid out a plan last night that we are looking at now, but at least he opened the door for reform--and I am glad he has--and will create some flexibility, because we are going to guarantee that the current recipients and immediate future recipients of Social Security are going to have their Social Security. What I am worried about are the young people who are entering the workforce today and beginning to invest in Social Security and finding that the worst investment they have ever made. That is wrong, and we know how to correct it. We have an opportunity to so. He has done something else that is very interesting. He is saying that about 15 percent ought to go into Medicare. That would be the first time that general fund taxes would ever go to Medicare. That represents about a 20-percent increase in the current payroll tax that is going into Medicare--general fund dollars into Medicare, first time in history that would happen. That is a rather bold new break in his approach. USA retirement accounts, 11 percent; new spending, about 11 percent, $479 billion. He also includes a substantial tax increase to get there. That is a little bit of the economic analysis. Here is a President who says we have a balanced budget, and he slides into major new tax increases and creates a huge new approach toward Federal spending. We are going to work with him, but we are not going to spend that kind of money, that is for sure.

Mr. CRAIG. That is about right.