Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, and I send it to the desk. Mr. President, the bill I introduce is the Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act of 1998. As its title suggests, the purpose of the bill is to improve the process by which hydroelectric projects are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under the existing law, non-federal dams that are constructed across navigable streams in the United States must be licensed by the FERC. In addition, under the present law, certain federal agencies, such as the United States Forest Service and the Departments of Commerce and Interior, have authority to mandate that FERC accept certain conditions in the license FERC ultimately issues. The Departments, for example, can impose conditions that address fish passage. The federal land agencies can impose conditions to protect federal land impacted by the project. FERC licenses, then, often contain conditions imposed by federal resource agencies. These agencies, however, through no fault of their own, are single issue agencies. The law limits their considerations to a narrow spectrum of concerns as they decide mandatory conditions. Experience shows by the use of this licensing process that these decisions that are made by these agencies are very narrow. You could say narrow minded. Why? Because they are single-issue agencies. And the law now dictates that they operate only in that realm in their decisionmaking. We do not have to settle for bad decisionmaking simply because oftentimes the information that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gets, or the information they are dictated to by these single-purpose agencies, would result in bad decisionmaking. By adjusting this law, we can, I believe, have a better decisionmaking process. I will say that this is clearly the intent of the legislation that I am introducing today. Now, Mr. President, these licenses for the dams can be for as little as 30 years and as much as 50 years. Decades ago, developers, both private ones such as investor owned utilities, and public ones such as municipal electric utilities or public utility districts, built hydroelectric projects and received original licenses for them from the FERC. Soon, many of those licenses will expire and the public and private license holders will seek new licenses from the FERC. Indeed, Mr. President, according to recent testimony of the National Hydropower Association before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, over the next fifteen years, the FERC will consider for relicense, about two-thirds of existing non-federal hydroelectric projects. Nearly 300 projects, representing about 28,917 megawatts of power, will have their present, original licenses expire before the year 2012. Mr. President, many of those projects will involve the federal resource agencies. The FERC will consider major projects in western states like California, and eastern states like New York. It will consider significant projects in northern states like Michigan and southern states like Alabama. We all are, and we all will be affected by the process by which the FERC relicenses these dams. Mr. President, this bill is extremely important in light of the foregoing. Hydroelectric power is essential to the welfare of our country. It is clean, renewable and cheap. And, most importantly, it is very inexpensive compared with the other forms of energy. We need to take any steps necessary to ensure that this invaluable source of power remains available to the many consumers that depend upon it for their quality of life. Such steps include the process reforms contained in this bill. Such reform is necessary because the unfortunate point is, in the last decade the licensing process was created that we now have. What did it do? The process didn't help the energy peaking capability of many of these projects. According to a September 1997 study of the U.S. Department of Energy, since 1987, of 52 peaking projects relicensing by FERC, 4 projects increased capability, and 48 decreased capacity. In other words, they were less productive as a result of the licensing than they were prior to that relicensing. Ninety-two percent of the peaking projects since 1987 lost capacity. Hydropower is at risk, and it is important that our country understand that. This is not only unfortunate, but it is bizarre. It is bizarre, Mr. President, because we live in a time when we are rightly sensitive to the environment in which we live. It is difficult to find a source of electric power more benign to the atmosphere than falling water. Yet, this benign power source is at risk. The process reforms I propose will help reverse this trend. It is critical, Mr. President, that I note what the bill does not do. The bill does not--repeat, does not--eliminate the authority of federal resource agencies to mandate fish passages as conditions of a FERC license. Also, it does not--repeat, does not--eliminate the authority of federal land agencies to mandate FERC license conditions to protect federal lands impact by the hydroelectric project. That is what the bill will not do. It is important to understand that, because there are many groups that would think I would restrict the ability of some of these single-purpose agencies to participate in the relicensing process. Quite the opposite: I want to spread their authority in a way that makes it more responsible. This is what the bill will do. The bill will reform the licensing process and improve the decisionmaking in that process in several ways. 1. It requires the federal resource agencies to consider a wider range of factors than they presently consider, as they decide what mandatory conditions to impose in a FERC license. It would require the agencies to examine factors such as: (a) economics; (b) air quality; (c) irrigation; (d) navigation; (e) flood control; (f) recreation; (g) generation capacity; and (h) drinking water supply. The present law does not obligate federal resource agencies to consider such factors. But, better decisions will result if they do. 2. The bill requires those agencies to document their consideration of these factors. Agencies make better decisions in the light and not in the dark, Mr. President. 3. The bill allows the license applicant to obtain expedited administrative review of the conditions proposed by the federal resource agencies for reasonableness. Some check, no matter how minuscule, on the agencies' decisions to impose mandatory conditions is needed. 4. It requires the federal resource agencies to base their conditions on appropriate scientific review, which means a review based on empirical or field tested data, and subject to peer review. Good data helps lead to good decisions. Mr. President, who can quarrel with federal resource agencies basing their decisions on sound science? Who can quarrel with federal resource agencies broadening the factors they consider as they decide mandatory conditions? Who can quarrel with giving the license applicant, who must bear the burden of mandatory conditions a right to appeal administratively, on an expedited basis, proposed mandatory conditions of the federal resource agencies? Mr. President, these reforms will make for better decisionmaking by the federal resource agencies. The bill has another significant facet, Mr. President. It gives the FERC authority, after a license application is filed, and after, therefore, the federal resource agencies have documented their expanded and scientific review of conditions for the license, to require that the federal resource agencies submit those conditions to the FERC by a certain deadline. Simple, but it makes sense, because today those agencies don't have to comply with a deadline, but yet they have almost veto power by their absence from the process if they simply say they are considering a mandatory condition and are not yet willing to submit it to FERC for its inclusion in a license. In this way, FERC will have before it at one time these various conditions of resource agencies, and, therefore, FERC should be able to efficiently and expeditiously bring about a license. This gives the licensee the opportunity of a quickee appeal. This is what the legislation does. It does not take away the authority of the agencies, it expands it. But it shapes it. It brings about a process that is definable and predictable. And that is exactly what does not occur today. Licensing today can take 8, 15, or 20 years when it ought take no more than 3 or 4 or 5 years. It is not reasonable or right that it should take that long. Simply what we are doing is reshaping what was a very important piece of legislation now that we have some field experience with it. We cannot afford to lose clean, renewable, abundant resources like hydroelectricity. In my State of Idaho, we are proud of our hydro base. It brings about inexpensive energy to my State, and to the State of the Presiding Officer. The whole Pacific Northwest is proud that it based its future on the past insight of developing its hydroelectricity. We shouldn't be required to lose it because of misguided law. That is what I hope my legislation will do, if it becomes law. In the ensuing year, and in the new Congress, we will hold hearing across the West, and certainly here in Washington, on the validity of this approach, to shape the process that is currently underway into a time- predicatble process that all can understand and that all can deal with.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Grams, for dealing with an issue that this Senate has to deal with, and in a very short time. Somehow there is this belief here in Washington that you can save Social Security, but you can't give tax relief. Well, I, like Senator Grams, believe we must and can do both, not only to keep the economy moving and growing, but also to recognize the importance that we have a surplus, thanks to our diligence over the last decade, and now we can use it to strengthen and reform Social Security, and we probably have the opportunity of a generation to do that. I hope that the Congress can and will do both.

Mr. CRAIG. With those considerations and the bill introduced, I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, and I send it to the desk. Mr. President, the bill I introduce is the Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act of 1998. As its title suggests, the purpose of the bill is to improve the process by which hydroelectric projects are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under the existing law, non-federal dams that are constructed across navigable streams in the United States must be licensed by the FERC. In addition, under the present law, certain federal agencies, such as the United States Forest Service and the Departments of Commerce and Interior, have authority to mandate that FERC accept certain conditions in the license FERC ultimately issues. The Departments, for example, can impose conditions that address fish passage. The federal land agencies can impose conditions to protect federal land impacted by the project. FERC licenses, then, often contain conditions imposed by federal resource agencies. These agencies, however, through no fault of their own, are single issue agencies. The law limits their considerations to a narrow spectrum of concerns as they decide mandatory conditions. Experience shows by the use of this licensing process that these decisions that are made by these agencies are very narrow. You could say narrow minded. Why? Because they are single-issue agencies. And the law now dictates that they operate only in that realm in their decisionmaking. We do not have to settle for bad decisionmaking simply because oftentimes the information that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gets, or the information they are dictated to by these single-purpose agencies, would result in bad decisionmaking. By adjusting this law, we can, I believe, have a better decisionmaking process. I will say that this is clearly the intent of the legislation that I am introducing today. Now, Mr. President, these licenses for the dams can be for as little as 30 years and as much as 50 years. Decades ago, developers, both private ones such as investor owned utilities, and public ones such as municipal electric utilities or public utility districts, built hydroelectric projects and received original licenses for them from the FERC. Soon, many of those licenses will expire and the public and private license holders will seek new licenses from the FERC. Indeed, Mr. President, according to recent testimony of the National Hydropower Association before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, over the next fifteen years, the FERC will consider for relicense, about two-thirds of existing non-federal hydroelectric projects. Nearly 300 projects, representing about 28,917 megawatts of power, will have their present, original licenses expire before the year 2012. Mr. President, many of those projects will involve the federal resource agencies. The FERC will consider major projects in western states like California, and eastern states like New York. It will consider significant projects in northern states like Michigan and southern states like Alabama. We all are, and we all will be affected by the process by which the FERC relicenses these dams. Mr. President, this bill is extremely important in light of the foregoing. Hydroelectric power is essential to the welfare of our country. It is clean, renewable and cheap. And, most importantly, it is very inexpensive compared with the other forms of energy. We need to take any steps necessary to ensure that this invaluable source of power remains available to the many consumers that depend upon it for their quality of life. Such steps include the process reforms contained in this bill. Such reform is necessary because the unfortunate point is, in the last decade the licensing process was created that we now have. What did it do? The process didn't help the energy peaking capability of many of these projects. According to a September 1997 study of the U.S. Department of Energy, since 1987, of 52 peaking projects relicensing by FERC, 4 projects increased capability, and 48 decreased capacity. In other words, they were less productive as a result of the licensing than they were prior to that relicensing. Ninety-two percent of the peaking projects since 1987 lost capacity. Hydropower is at risk, and it is important that our country understand that. This is not only unfortunate, but it is bizarre. It is bizarre, Mr. President, because we live in a time when we are rightly sensitive to the environment in which we live. It is difficult to find a source of electric power more benign to the atmosphere than falling water. Yet, this benign power source is at risk. The process reforms I propose will help reverse this trend. It is critical, Mr. President, that I note what the bill does not do. The bill does not--repeat, does not--eliminate the authority of federal resource agencies to mandate fish passages as conditions of a FERC license. Also, it does not--repeat, does not--eliminate the authority of federal land agencies to mandate FERC license conditions to protect federal lands impact by the hydroelectric project. That is what the bill will not do. It is important to understand that, because there are many groups that would think I would restrict the ability of some of these single-purpose agencies to participate in the relicensing process. Quite the opposite: I want to spread their authority in a way that makes it more responsible. This is what the bill will do. The bill will reform the licensing process and improve the decisionmaking in that process in several ways. 1. It requires the federal resource agencies to consider a wider range of factors than they presently consider, as they decide what mandatory conditions to impose in a FERC license. It would require the agencies to examine factors such as: (a) economics; (b) air quality; (c) irrigation; (d) navigation; (e) flood control; (f) recreation; (g) generation capacity; and (h) drinking water supply. The present law does not obligate federal resource agencies to consider such factors. But, better decisions will result if they do. 2. The bill requires those agencies to document their consideration of these factors. Agencies make better decisions in the light and not in the dark, Mr. President. 3. The bill allows the license applicant to obtain expedited administrative review of the conditions proposed by the federal resource agencies for reasonableness. Some check, no matter how minuscule, on the agencies' decisions to impose mandatory conditions is needed. 4. It requires the federal resource agencies to base their conditions on appropriate scientific review, which means a review based on empirical or field tested data, and subject to peer review. Good data helps lead to good decisions. Mr. President, who can quarrel with federal resource agencies basing their decisions on sound science? Who can quarrel with federal resource agencies broadening the factors they consider as they decide mandatory conditions? Who can quarrel with giving the license applicant, who must bear the burden of mandatory conditions a right to appeal administratively, on an expedited basis, proposed mandatory conditions of the federal resource agencies? Mr. President, these reforms will make for better decisionmaking by the federal resource agencies. The bill has another significant facet, Mr. President. It gives the FERC authority, after a license application is filed, and after, therefore, the federal resource agencies have documented their expanded and scientific review of conditions for the license, to require that the federal resource agencies submit those conditions to the FERC by a certain deadline. Simple, but it makes sense, because today those agencies don't have to comply with a deadline, but yet they have almost veto power by their absence from the process if they simply say they are considering a mandatory condition and are not yet willing to submit it to FERC for its inclusion in a license. In this way, FERC will have before it at one time these various conditions of resource agencies, and, therefore, FERC should be able to efficiently and expeditiously bring about a license. This gives the licensee the opportunity of a quickee appeal. This is what the legislation does. It does not take away the authority of the agencies, it expands it. But it shapes it. It brings about a process that is definable and predictable. And that is exactly what does not occur today. Licensing today can take 8, 15, or 20 years when it ought take no more than 3 or 4 or 5 years. It is not reasonable or right that it should take that long. Simply what we are doing is reshaping what was a very important piece of legislation now that we have some field experience with it. We cannot afford to lose clean, renewable, abundant resources like hydroelectricity. In my State of Idaho, we are proud of our hydro base. It brings about inexpensive energy to my State, and to the State of the Presiding Officer. The whole Pacific Northwest is proud that it based its future on the past insight of developing its hydroelectricity. We shouldn't be required to lose it because of misguided law. That is what I hope my legislation will do, if it becomes law. In the ensuing year, and in the new Congress, we will hold hearing across the West, and certainly here in Washington, on the validity of this approach, to shape the process that is currently underway into a time- predicatble process that all can understand and that all can deal with.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to share with the Senate a story about some fine young Idahoans who saved a family stranded in the wilderness. While hiking in the Idaho wilderness, Boy Scouts from Troops 44 and 74 saved a family of seven who had become lost, were severely dehydrated, and disoriented. With the skills that they developed through their Boy Scout training, they successfully guided the family to a point where they were met by rescue workers. In order to reach the family, the Scouts were forced to descend treacherous canyon walls, shale slides, boulder falls, and cliff areas. During the climb out of the canyon, the Scouts used ropes to physically support the exhausted family members. The performance of these fine young men goes far beyond commendable. Their flawless performance saved the lives of this family. In a day and age when we are bombarded by reports of how troubled and misguided today's youth are, it is truly refreshing to hear the story of these young men who have done something so outstanding. One can't help but respect their unselfish display of courage and resourcefulness. Perhaps their act, and the acts of other outstanding youths like them across the nation, will help us to restore our faith in them and in their future. It is my personal hope that by recognizing young men such as these, we can begin to refocus the lens through which we view society, in order to see, more clearly, the typical American youth--not as a delinquent or a burden, but a contributing member of society deserving our respect and our praise. It is my pleasure to recognize Kody Haney, Brian Wanstrom, Alan Wanstrom, Kyle Hestag, Eric Williams, Dustin Moss, Brandon Moss, Alex Davies, Darian King, Cayd Brunson, Dustin Hymas, Chris Mendenhal, and leaders Darrell Wheeler, Jeremiah Burnett, and Marie Burnett. On behalf of the State of Idaho and the United States Senate, allow me to thank you--for your courage, unselfishness, determination, and most important for being shining representatives of American youth.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an outstanding individual from the State of Idaho who is deserving of not only our praise, but our wholehearted respect. In the turmoil of daily life, it is easy to get so caught up in our own affairs that we forget those less fortunate around us. Cindy Georger is not one of those people. She has unselfishly dedicated her time and energy to one of the most important battles raging in our nation today--the fight against illiteracy. Although this struggle continues even during our high-tech entry into the 21st Century, small battles are being won every day by people like Cindy. Mrs. Georger, a Boise resident, has volunteered at ``Learning Lab, Inc.'' since 1994. This is a non-profit organization providing literacy programs in three sectors: Adult Basic Skills, English as a Second Language, and Family Literacy. She has assisted with children ages 3 to 5 who have at least one functionally illiterate parent. In volunteering with these children, Mrs. Georger is serving two equally important purposes. She is both tutoring children--undoubtedly one of the noblest of causes--and inspiring the parents of those children. By helping the parents, she is not only promoting literacy, but also family values, by encouraging them to take the time to sit down and read with their children. What a gift to give to a child--what a gift to give to a family. In a nation facing an unparalleled struggle to maintain family values, and plagued with reports of the American family as increasingly apathetic, it is easy to get disheartened, but through people like Cindy Georger it is possible to look to the future with hope--hope for a time when people care about others, when family returns to the top of everyone's agenda, and when every American knows how to read. I would like to thank Cindy Georger for her time, dedication, and efforts to promote and teach literacy. Her services, and the services of volunteers like Cindy throughout Idaho and the nation, are the instruments through which the battle of illiteracy can and will be won.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that S. 2513, a bill to transfer administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land located within or adjacent to Rogue River National Forest and to clarify the authority of the Bureau of Land Management to sell and exchange other Federal land in Oregon; S. 2413, a bill to provide for the development of a management plan for the Woodland Lake Park tract in Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in the State of Arizona reflecting the current use of the tract as a public park; and S. 2402, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands in San Juan County, New Mexico, to San Juan College has been added to the agenda of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management hearing on the Forest Service cabin fees which is scheduled for Thursday, October 1 at 2:30 p.m. in SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please call Amie Brown or Bill Lange at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that S. 2503, a bill to establish a Presidential Commission to determine the validity of certain land claims arising out of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848, has been added to the agenda of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management field hearing scheduled in Espanola, New Mexico on September 26, 1998. For further information, please call Mike Menge at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. With that, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for that excellent speech. In my opinion, he is right on about the effective use of a surplus to grant tax relief and to shore up the Social Security system to reform it. Clearly, we have to hold down on the issue of supplemental spending. With that, I now yield to my colleague from Colorado, Senator Allard, to wrap up this special order with his observations as to welfare reform--truly one of the great successes of our Republican Congress.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority side be allowed to continue until 1:10.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have requested to speak in morning business to talk about our President's policies, to talk about this administration and the policies that impact all Americans. As we know, the Senate has convened at a very interesting, unique, if not sad, day in the history of this Nation's Presidency. I will not dwell on that. It would be very inappropriate for me to do so. What I do want to talk about is an agenda that we have attempted to handle appropriately on the floor for the last several weeks; that is, to do the business of this Congress and to do the business of Government, to move the appropriations bills in an orderly fashion as our public and as the citizens of this Nation expect of us. For the last 2 weeks, we have attempted to deal with an appropriations bill appropriating money to the Interior Department and to its ancillary agencies, to in large part administer policy and manage the public land resources of this country. But anyone watching, and certainly the majority leader, who just left the floor, knows how frustrating it has been in an attempt to responsibly move this legislation, only to have our colleagues on the other side of the aisle largely oppose it. Oppose it because within the bill are corrective measures that reflect an attempt to adjust the misguided policies of this administration as it deals with our public land resources. We have made proposed changes. Why? Because the people of the public land West are saying, ``No longer does this administration reflect our interests or our concerns or our economies.'' Why am I speaking uniquely to the West? The appropriations bill largely deals with western public land and States' interests. But in my State of Idaho, where 63 percent of the land base is owned by and managed by the Federal Government, public land policy is critical, and mine is only a 63-percent ownership. In other States, like Nevada, it is much higher. So goes the Federal Government, so manages the land, so goes the economy and the lifestyles and the character of those States. I would like to spend the next few minutes discussing those policies and our concern about the attitude of this administration as it has impacted our policies. The provisions that I am talking about in the appropriations bill, if we can ever get back to it, are necessary, in my view, and appropriate, because many of us feel this administration has gone around Congress, the States and the local officials in an effort to place broad restrictions on the use of public lands for productive economic use, such as mining and forest products and grazing and even recreation. Recreation, a relatively benign use of the public land, is now being shaped, directed and oftentimes characterized by new policies of this administration. We believe strongly that the provisions that we have placed in the Interior appropriations bill are necessary, as I mentioned earlier, to block the administration's arrogant abuse of power and its failure to acknowledge that our States ought to have a say in the use of our natural resource bases. During the past 175 years, the United States has undergone an astonishing period of physical and economic growth. We acquired the Louisiana territory, bought Alaska from the Russians, and fought a war with Mexico over the Southwest and California. During that time, Americans moved westward, pursuing dreams of economic independence and the opportunity to raise their families in a new land. Our Government encouraged the westward movement of these hardy people by creating opportunity through the Homestead Act or the Timber and Stone Act or the mining law of 1872. These statutes, and others, were designed to encourage people to seek a new life, to build the wealth of a nation by developing its vast store of natural resources. And the effort was successful beyond any nation or any people's wildest dreams and imaginations. Thousands of American farmers and shopkeepers and clerks and grocers and professionals took up the challenge and moved West. They busted the sod of the central plains and established an agricultural wonder, the breadbasket of the world, never known before by man. They established enormous cattle and livestock operations from Texas to Kansas and Montana and throughout the Rocky Mountain States, including my State of Idaho. Thousands of prospectors fanned out across the West in search of gold, silver and other minerals. What these early miners found at Sutter's Mill in California or at Telluride in Colorado or at Silver City in Nevada or in the Boise Basin of Idaho, and hundreds of other boomtowns across the West, galvanized the Nation. Thousands more ordinary Americans got caught up in the gold rush, too. Most were not successful in finding their bonanza. Instead, they formed the backbone of the new West because they brought other skills and talents with them. These are the people who built the great cities of Denver, Salt Lake City, Boise, Helena, Houston and San Francisco. They became the merchants, the bankers, the doctors, and the educators who helped ensure the success of the intermountain and the coastal west. These Americans built the great transcontinental railroad to bring additional settlers into the growing cities and towns and to move the exploding basket of western-produced goods to the markets of the East. Throughout the balance of the 19th century, as well as the 20th century, both Federal and private lands in the West contributed mightily to the economic success of our great Nation. In addition to gold and silver, deposits of lead, nickel, molybdenum, iron, and other minerals were discovered and developed. In the 1920s and 1930s, oil and natural gas deposits were found in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah and New Mexico. And, of course, the forest products and the livestock industries continued to grow and to prosper providing building materials and food for our growing Nation. These achievements were not realized by the U.S. Government but by the women and the men who accepted the challenge who had the vision and who had the courage. They took enormous risks. And with their lives and with their fortunes they built new businesses, opened mines, started ranches and farms, and began new lives and created a new culture, a tradition, a western culture tradition, based on wise and sustainable use of the land and its resources. Mr. President, I can talk about this firsthand. My own family is a part of that tradition of independence and determination. One hundred years ago next year, my grandfather set foot in Idaho and took advantage of the Homestead Act and began to build a ranching operation that flourished and raised a family with that ranching operation to be passed on to a future generation. The western tradition recognized the value of land and its resources and the need to husband those resources carefully and sustainably. No one can honestly believe that we who live on and depend on these precious lands would seek to strip them of all of their values and deny their use and their beauty to the rest of Americans. You see, my granddad taught my father that tradition; and my father taught me that the land was a sacred resource that should be managed wisely. Indeed, with forest products, mining, oil and gas production, and other forms of resource-intensive multiple uses in place, recreational opportunities began to flourish, began to increase. More and more Americans are coming to enjoy the natural beauty and the resources of the intermountain West. They come to enjoy our hunting and our fishing, our sightseeing, our camping, our mountain climbing, and to just be plain quiet; in other words, to search for and find solitude. These opportunities were once available only to those of us who lived in these great States of the West--the Idahos and the Wyomings and the Montanas and other Rocky Mountain and Pacific States--or to the wealthy who could afford the time and expense associated with recreational journeys to our States. Now our recreational-based economies have grown greatly and are supplementing our traditional economies devoted to forest products harvest, mining and agriculture. In fact, last year about 8.1 million visitors came to my State of Idaho alone. That is more than six times my State's population of 1.2 million. Federal law acknowledges and encourages the diverse activities that take place on the lands about which I have talked. It has formalized the concept in a policy called multiple-use which was defined in the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 to mean managing the natural resources in our public forests for the combination of uses that best meet the needs of the American people. It has long been recognized that multiple-use policy is in the best public interest because it enables the resources to continue to produce benefits while conserving the value of that resource. Mr. President, while all of this suggests the western public land States are enjoying a life of beauty and economic success, I want to let my colleagues and the rest of America know that we in the West are facing a terrific threat. Unfortunately, that threat is our own Federal Government and the policies of this administration. When the current administration took office, the Federal agencies responsible for managing Federal lands began an all-out assault on the concept of multiple-use in favor of preservation and limited use. They have relentlessly pursued a philosophy of returning these lands to something they call ``presettlement conditions.'' They have shut out local governments from land use planning decisions. They have reduced Federal land managers to messengers delivering land use policy decisions from Washington, DC, down to the local level, as if Federal authorities here know best how to manage specific tracts of Federal forest or other Federal land units. This arrogant behavior is not occurring just in Idaho but it is represented and reflected across the public land States of the West. The Forest Service is proposing to limit boating experiences on the Snake River in Idaho. The Service is trying to remove from use thousands of acres of grazing land in Arizona and New Mexico through a concept and a contract with environmental groups, ignoring current permittees and State governments and the historic laws and policies formulated and passed by Congresses and by this Congress. Also, having been denied the opportunity to shut down the mining industry by Congress' refusal to accept punitive changes in the mining law of 1872, Secretary Babbitt has stopped new mining activities on public lands by slowing the permit process to a crawl. And when he must operate within the context of the current law, he hops on a soapbox on Wall Street and demagogues the very action that the laws require him to take. As a result, no new jobs are being created and no new revenues are coming to either the States or the Federal Treasury. Mr. President, some Federal use managers and national environmental groups also have stymied local efforts to resolve disputes over how to manage Federal lands. A group called the Quincy Library Group, encompassing forest product company employees and local authorities and environmentalists, developed a plan to protect roadless areas and old growth areas in the Plumas and Lassen National Forests in northern California while still allowing selective cutting on about 240 million board feet of forest products. The Forest Service dragged its feet, would have nothing to do with the concept or the idea. It had to be changed here by the legislative effort. And let me tell you how popular it was. It passed the House by a 429-1 vote. It is pending here in the Senate. The administration was dragged into it kicking and screaming because the public outcry for the support of this balanced policy was so great. Mr. President, another example of the arrogance of this administration's approach to land use policy is its decision to declare by proclamation a new unit in the protection category of Federal lands, the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. If you haven't heard about this, you haven't been listening to the cries coming from the West. The President unilaterally took 1.7 million acres of Federal and State land and included these acres in a new monument without consulting any of Utah's elected officials--not one, not Senator Bennett nor Senator Hatch nor Utah's three Members in the House, not Utah's Governor. In fact, no one--well, except a few local environmental groups--knew of the President's plan, the plan that we only heard about when he stood on the banks of the Grand Canyon to proclaim it on the eve of his last election. Now, as chairman of a Public Lands Subcommittee here in the Senate, I held hearings on a Utah wilderness bill. The State of Utah had worked to incorporate all interests, from the grassroots to the very highest levels of their Federal delegation, to try to preserve this area. They had been working on the way that public policy should appropriately be formed. Yet the President, with the sweep of a pen and the denial of local input, decided that he alone would lock up this land. At a hearing on May 1, 1997, on legislation introduced to make sure that the President keeps his promise he made to Senator Bennett, Louise Liston of Garfield County, UT, the local community elected commissioner said: We feel that the creation of this monument was deliberately fabricated behind closed doors without consulting or notifying any member of the Utah congressional delegation, the Governor, or any local official. I have no doubt that history will single it out as the best or perhaps I would say the worst example of the entire Clinton Presidency of irresponsible and indefensible policy making in the natural resource area. I certainly would hope that we do not see anything worse in the next 4 years. I could go on and on with examples, and there are many. However, several of our colleagues have now joined me. I know they have other topics to visit that demonstrate the misguided positions of this administration. Mr. President, I turn to Senator Sessions.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to tell Senator Sessions how well he serves the taxpayers of our country and this Congress for bringing these issues to the floor. We do not, at a time of fiscal austerity and attempting to balance the budget and stabilize Social Security and strengthen it for the future and give some tax cuts, need to be committing ourselves to the building of palaces. I appreciate him bringing that issue to the floor, again, in the theme that there are other practices of this administration that deserve to be brought to the forefront for the American people to understand. Let me turn to the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for those kind remarks. If it had not been for his leadership in the key areas he mentioned, we would not be dealing with them in the way this Congress is now and should be. These are the kind of programs that directly impact the lives of many of our citizens, and Congress should be aggressively pursuing many of the projects and pieces of legislation that the Senator from Ohio has discussed. I now turn to Senator Grams from Minnesota who, I understand, wants to talk to us about tax cuts.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for the examples he brings and the issue about which he speaks. There is no question that we are finding here the ideas that percolate from local and State governments which are really the laboratories of change that we have been able to bring and incorporate into public policy at this level, and welfare reform is the prime example. I am pleased that Senator Allard would speak to that this morning. I recognize his leadership in that area.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a field 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 be held in Espanola, New Mexico at the Mission Convento on Saturday, September 26, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. The Mission Convento is located at the Plaza de Espandola, Number 1 Calle de Espanola, New Mexico. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the issues surrounding the determination of the validity of certain land claims arising out of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848 and the two bills introduced to date on this subject, S. 2155 and H.R. 2538. The Subcommittee will invite witnesses representing a cross-section of views and organizations to testify at the hearing. Others who wish to testify may, as time permits, made a brief statement of not more than 2 minutes. Those wishing to testify please contact Tony Benavidec of Senator Domenici's office at (505) 988-6511 or Joe Ruiz of Senator Bingaman's office at (505) 988-6647. The deadline for signing up to testify is Thursday, September 24, 1998. Every attempt will be made to accommodate as many witnesses as possible, while ensuring that all views are represented. 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. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the Senator from New Jersey for authoring and bringing forth Senate Resolution 279. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it, along with the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski; for he and I have, can I say, labored mightily, along with the Senator from Florida, over the last good many months, first of all, to work on the issue of self- determination for Puerto Rico. I certainly thank all of my colleagues for the cosponsorship of S. 472, legislation that I introduced a year ago that I hoped, as does the Senator from Florida, that we could be voting on at this time--debating it, voting on it, and giving our Puerto Rican friends and fellow citizens the opportunity, a clear direction as it relates to self- determination. That is not going to be the case. Time has not allowed that. So I hope that by next year the record before the Senate might include the results of another plebiscite in Puerto Rico that the Senator from Florida has just mentioned. That is why the resolution before us today, I think, is very important. In accordance with their rights of self-determination, the citizens of this Nation--the people of Puerto Rico--acting through their constitutional process and elected representatives, have empowered themselves to conduct a vote based on the record created in the House and the Senate deliberations in the Congress since the 1993 vote. Since any act of self-determination in Puerto Rico is not self- executing, the resolution of Puerto Rico's political status is a Federal matter that can only be fully and finally determined by an act of Congress. However, in the exercising of its powers in this regard, Congress must be informed by the freely expressed wishes of the citizens of Puerto Rico. Thus, this resolution recognizes that the coming vote will advance the process of self-determination within the framework of our great Nation's Constitution. Contrary to rumors in Puerto Rico, there was no great intrigue or political reaction to videotapes from the local status campaigns that prevented the Senate from moving forward with legislation at this time. Rather, faced with what we all understand is a very complicated schedule here in the final days before we adjourn, and concern on the part of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we have brought Senate Resolution 279 to the floor to express at this time, as the House has expressed, an opportunity for the Puerto Ricans to advance the cause of their self-determination. And I hope that the resolution and our vote on it tonight reflects that. Mr. President, today the Senate ends its prolonged silence on the question of Puerto Rico's political status. The 105th Congress will not end without a Senate response to the 1994 and 1997 petitions of the Legislature of Puerto Rico to Congress. By our action today, the Senate joins the House in responding to those petitions by recognizing the need for further self-determination in Puerto Rico. This is because the 1993 status vote in Puerto Rico did not resolve the status question. Indeed, no option won a majority in 1993. That is why I sponsored a bill to recognize the need for further self-determination. I thank my colleagues from both parties who joined me by cosponsoring S. 472. I also want to thank the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, for his assistance and leadership to establish a record to support action by the committee and the full Senate on this matter. I regret that the draft chairman's mark has not been acted on, but I applaud his commitment to move the self determination issue forward. It now appears that by next year the record before the Senate may include the results of another plebiscite in Puerto Rico. That is why the resolution before us today is so very important. In accordance with their right of self-determination, the people of Puerto Rico, acting through their constitutional process and elected representatives, have empowered themselves to conduct a vote based on the record created in the House and Senate deliberations in Congress since the 1993 vote. Since any act of self-determination in Puerto Rico is not self- executing, resolution of Puerto Rico's political status is a federal matter that can only be fully and finally determined by an act of Congress. However, in exercising its powers in this regard Congress must be informed by the freely expressed wishes of the residents of Puerto Rico. Thus, this resolution recognizes that the coming vote will advance the process of self-determination within the framework of our great Nation's Constitution. Contrary to rumors in Puerto Rico, there was no great intrigue or political reaction to videotapes from the local status campaigns that prevented the Senate from moving forward with legislation at this time. Rather, faced with the difficulty of completing a full Senate debate on the draft chairman's legislative mark, this body is doing the right thing by moving forward with a Resolution recognizing the need for further self-determination and recognizing the constraints placed upon it. I am proud of the Senate today, and I am proud of the people of Puerto Rico for seizing the moment and organizing an act of self- determination that is based upon the arguments heard in the Congressional process which will continue next year. This action is good for Puerto Rico and serves the interests of our entire Nation as we move forward together to seek to resolve the territorial status dilemma that began 100 years ago. I wish our fellow U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico well in exercising their God given right of self- determination. I hope they will join me in trusting that their voice will be heard and that Congress will answer. In America, we have no alternative to democracy and desire nothing more. I join with my colleagues from Florida, New Jersey--now the chairman of the full committee is here on the floor--to say to our friends and citizens of Puerto Rico that we ask them to go forward with their vote in December. We hope that that is an advanced expression of their desire to advance the cause of statehood, but most importantly to advance the cause of self-determination so that the Congress can have the kind of direction that we hope that vote will bring. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, first of all, for the leadership role he has taken over the last good number of years to try to bring reform to the 1872 mining laws. For some reason, the Senator from Arkansas would like to portray that mining is a rogue industry in our Nation that goes unregulated, outside environmental regulations, and he cited today 5-acre mine sites. They are not outside the environment, they are simply outside a plan of operation. My guess is, one could find piles of chicken manure in that State that violate environmental laws that are less than 5 acres that are not controlled. Does that sound silly and facetious on my part? Yes, it does, and I apologize to the Senator from Arkansas for saying it, but I want him to understand that when he makes a statement like ``5 acres, rogue, out of control,'' it is not true. It is not true in my State that has very tight environmental laws, and it is not true in other mining States. What the Senator from Arkansas would like to have you believe in his compassionate statements about mining is that somehow these impact his State. His State is not a mining State, per se. Mine is. The Senator from Alaska has a mining State. The Senators from Nevada have a mining State. Those States have had mining for over 100 years, and some of that mining they are not proud of, or I should say, were not proud of. In the sixties and the seventies and the eighties and the nineties, those States began to take control of their own environmental destiny, in part urged by the Senator from Arkansas, no question about it; in part, a product of the National Environmental Policy Act; in part a product of the Clean Air Act; in part a product of the Clean Water Act. All of those came together to shape plans of operation and new mining strategies for this country. I will tell you what it did in my State. It cleaned up a lot of messes, messes by the definition of today's environmental standards and ethics, not definitions by mining and environmental standards of 70 or 80 years ago. Why is the Senator standing up here this morning painting the world as if it were black, most importantly, painting the world of mining as if it were a disaster? The Senator from Arkansas knows it just ``ain't'' so, but this is one of his causes celebres which you and I have heard on this floor--and I serve with him on the committee--for a long, long while. What is the essence of this administration's attempt to rewrite the 3809 regulations? My guess is that Secretary Babbitt and Solicitor Leshy are creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, or more importantly, creating a solution that plays to their political base and hoping there is a problem out there to which they can attach it. I have a feeling that down underneath all of this, this is just about the whole of the problem that we are attempting to debate on the floor today. There is no question that this Senator, the Senator from Alaska and a good many other Senators want responsible mining law and we think, in large part, we have it, because the old 1872 mining law in one court case after another, after another, after another, after another, after another, piled up over 100-plus years, has transformed the world of mining in this country into not only the significant industry it is, but the environmental-sensitive industry that it is today. Yet, the Senator from Arkansas and others love to drag out 20-year- old pictures and 20-year-old stories as if they had just happened yesterday and say, ``Oh, look at these pictures and read this story; isn't it terrible what the world of mining is doing to the clear and pristine lakes and rivers of our country?'' Let me tell you the mining story, the pictures and the story today about those clear and pristine rivers. They were not once clear and pristine. Mining tailings were dumped into them, and the rivers in my State, in one instance, ran murky the year round. But today the Coeur d'Alene River, flowing down through the major mining district of my State, runs clean. Fish propagate in it. Kids swim in it. That wasn't true 20 years ago. It was a combination of Federal and State effort that produced that. But most importantly, it was the ethics of the citizens and the government of the State of Idaho that said as a mining State, we have to do it right, and that is what Western Governors are saying today to this administration and to the Senator from Arkansas and to a lot of others who like to use this as their political base. Look at the politics of it, sure, but look at the reality of what we are doing. All of these States have very tight laws and regulations today. You heard it from the Senators from Nevada, one of the top mining States in the Nation today, employing tens of thousands of people and bringing hundreds of millions of dollars into our economy. They are doing it right. They are doing it under all of those environmental laws that were passed on this floor in the sixties and the seventies and the eighties, and they are not backing away from them or trying to shrink from those laws. They are trying to improve them and better them. So why is the Secretary of Interior and his Solicitor and the Senator from Arkansas looking for a solution to fit a problem that doesn't exist? I am not sure. I already suggested it does identify with their political base, but I am not so sure it identifies with the real world, especially if a former Governor, who talks about how his State has done so well, believes that States ought to have powers and rights in these areas. He and I have worked very closely together over the last several years to reform the 1872 mining law and to attempt to empower those States in cooperation with the Federal Government to assure that that relationship and those kind of dynamics continue. On that I don't disagree with the Senator from Arkansas, but I do disagree with the Federal Government and its heavy hand ignoring the States' Governors until we shove them into beginning dialog with them on the reform of these rules. Most of the Western Governors, however, who have problems, who are working well with respect to mining operations within their boundaries, want the BLM to do a couple of things with any modification in regulation; and yet most Governors say they have not been worked with well, they have not been listened to, and if you do not do major things, that it will not happen. Again, the heavy arm of the Federal Government will come down against States. Once again, we violate or at least we ignore the Constitution of our country, all in the name of a current political cause that does not seem to exist much more today because we addressed it a long time ago. That is the essence of the amendment to the Interior appropriations bill by the Senator from Arkansas. What did we do this year? Because of the difference between the Department of Interior and the Governors--the Western States Governors primarily--we have said, ``Let's get the National Academy of Sciences, an impartial group, to step in between and examine this solution looking for a problem.'' They are impartial. Both sides, I think, would respect their integrity. And let us see how much of a problem there is out there. Let us scope the magnitude of it before we bring down the heavy hand of Government and put thousands of people out of work or risk putting thousands of people out of work and destroying some significant economies in many of our Western States. That is really the essence of what we do here today. It isn't that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has not been diligent. The Senator from Arkansas has been diligent. We just cannot agree. We have fundamental disagreements. I want mining. I want it alive and well and creating jobs in my State--minerals and metals for the economy. And I am not so sure that that is what he wants. Or at least he wants it in a way that largely causes the investors in my State to go offshore to make those investments--under the same environmental standards that they would make in this country except they avoid the burdensome multiyear regulatory process of a Government that really does not care about the economies of investment and jobs because the cause they lift themselves to is a cause higher. That is the issue of this amendment. When you have a dispute between two concerned parties--and we do here; the Senator from Arkansas and I and others just fundamentally disagree--what is wrong with bringing an impartial body in between us to examine the problem that by my estimation does not exist and by the estimation of the Senator from Arkansas does exist? What is wrong with bringing an impartial body to the fore for that purpose? That is exactly what the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee thought ought to be done, in consultation with the chairman of the full authorizing committee, the Senator from Alaska. That is what we are doing. And that is why the Senator from Arkansas is trying to stop it, because it might bring about a solution that works. And it would deny this administration the right to slash and burn and destroy a mining industry that they did not like out there on the public lands to begin with. Secretary Babbitt has not been bashful. Every time he has to comply with the law, he gets on a soap box and degrades it and says that he is being forced to do certain things. Well, it is terrible when you are forced to abide by the law. Why should you shun it? But then again, I, as chairman of a subcommittee, the Senator of a full committee, and the Senator from Arkansas have invited Secretary Babbitt to the table for the last 6 years to work out these problems. And their answer is, ``No. It's to our advantage to have the politics of it, not the solution to it.'' That is the essence of the debate here on the floor. It really is, in my opinion, that clear and that simple. You cannot talk about modern mining today and use 20-year-old examples, because most of those were created 20 years before they became a problem. Yet, that is the basis of the argument. That is the strength of any argument that they attempt to produce. So I hope that my colleagues will stand with us today in opposing the Bumpers amendment--that we should table that amendment--because while it can be partisan at times, this is not a partisan issue. The Senators from Nevada are Democrats, and I am a Republican, and we are from neighboring States. Mining has been for 100 years a major part of our economy and yet today remains an important part of our economy. My State is touted as being one of the most beautiful, mountainous, high-desert States in the Nation, with clear flowing streams, pristine mountain meadows. And 100 years of a mining legacy? Yes. It seems like Idahoans did it right. Then while they were doing it right, they learned to do it better. And there is no question that the environmental laws we passed here in the 1960s and the 1970s and the 1980s helped them do it better. But just a few years ago our reclamation laws, our mining laws as a State, were the example for the rest of the Western States to follow, and many of them did. Many of my miners have received national environmental awards for their productions, for their operations, for their facilities, and they are very, very proud of it. So what is the advantage of standing here on the floor today and pounding the podium and talking about the evil mining industry and the environmental problems it creates? Well, if you are an echo of the past, maybe there is value there. Or if you are the politics of yesterday, maybe there is value there. But if you really want to work with our Western Governors, and solve a problem, and bring two divided sides together, then you do exactly what this bill does--you employ a neutral party, the National Academy of Sciences, to analyze at least the proposed problem that Messrs. Leshy and Babbitt suggest exists, and examine the solution that they have out there, searching for and coming up with a resolution. I am quite confident that if the National Academy of Sciences proposes, that we will take a very, very serious look at disposing with that. That is the issue here. Let us proceed in that manner. Let us not divide the Federal Government and State governments any more. Let us build a working partnership, as we have had in the past, that will project us, I think, into a productive future so that mining can remain a strong part of our economy, as it should, and, in my opinion, as it must if we are going to continue to have a free flow, an important flow, of minerals and metals to the critical economies of this country. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

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, is there a farm problem? You bet there is. Is there a farm crisis? Yes. On most farms in America today, if you are below the cost of production, and you have a debt, you have a problem. The Senators on the other side of the aisle are absolutely true to what they speak. And I could have used every one of their charts this afternoon for the very same message. We have a crisis in American agriculture. Is it a result of Freedom to Farm? No. It is a combination of everything coming together, the loss of our markets in Asian countries and tremendous overproduction. Thank goodness, it is a blessing in most countries when agriculture overproduces; it is a crisis in ours because it shoves down the price of commodities. Yes, Mr. President, we have a crisis in farm country. Have we recognized it? Yes, we have. And we started doing something about it before we adjourned here in August. We passed and reauthorized the agriculture research title. We advanced the fiscal year 1999 transition payment. We revoked sanctions on India and Pakistan to try to move some of our product into the market. We approved significant reform in the farm labor program. We established a binational commission to examine the concern that we have with beef prices and with the flood of Canadian meat coming into our market. We required international programs to purchase American commodities. And we passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution encouraging USDA to use existing authorities to help wheat farmers. Did it raise the price of wheat at the farm bin? It did not. But it sets in motion a variety of opportunities to begin to move that. What further should we do? Frankly, Mr. President, there is a great deal more we should do. The chairman of the Ag Committee has announced he will reexamine much more thoroughly sanctions and trade reform to open up the 11 percent of the market that our farmers are now exempt from or cannot get to. We have talked about and we will do meaningful tax reform. Our colleague from Kansas has talked about making sure that crop insurance is the right kind of insurance so that the production agriculture buys it and uses it to insure their crops, to insure their income against disaster, against drought for an income purpose. We are working on that. We have to get that done next Congress, come heck or high water. And then let us look at a lost market compensation payment. The Senator from Iowa says that is so much money, just throw it out to the farmer. It is something we can buy and afford to buy. It is not a $7 billion program off-budget, no offsets--emergency spending proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Senators, this is a $7 billion program you are being asked to vote on tonight. Stop and think about it. We have not worked together. When we solve agricultural problems, we come together. All of those items that I mentioned we passed before the August recess, we did it in a bipartisan way. We did not open the farm bill. We did not open Freedom to Farm. I would hope you stand behind the chairman of the Senate Ag Committee tonight on a motion to table. Does that mean this issue is gone? Absolutely not. We are meeting now and we will meet tomorrow. I would hope, too, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would come down and sit with us and look at what we can do. Are we going to spend some money? Yes. We are going to spend some money so that agriculture does not go bankrupt. And we have got to do it. But I suggest that lifting a loan cap does not solve that problem on the short-term basis and the long-term basis. Then it becomes so easy to extend it, and then it is $8 or $10 billion or more. So this is not the last vote we are going to have tonight or tomorrow or before this Congress adjourns to deal with a real farm crisis, be you a grain producer, a hog farmer, a cattle rancher--soybeans, corn, you name it. They are not making money. They are losing millions. We ought to be sensitive to assuring that there is some kind of baseline out there this year so that the farmer can be in production next year. We will accomplish that here in the Senate, if we recognize that and come together to get it done. I do not believe this is a solution to the problem. I encourage all of our colleagues to stand with the chairman of the Ag Committee--vote to table this amendment. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Thursday, October 1, 1998, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the Forest Service cabin fees. 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 Bill Lange at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. Sometimes the wrong debate happens at the wrong time, and the debate that we have heard on this floor for the last several days, in my opinion, is the wrong debate for a lot of reasons. We shouldn't be talking about changing laws, but enforcing the very laws we have. I think all of us watched as the Congress decided to change campaign laws a good number of years ago to make them much tougher and tighter, to create reporting thresholds, and to make sure that the public was well aware what went on in the campaign business of our country and in the fundraising business of our country. Several of our colleagues have already spoken today about the ongoing investigations into campaign finance abuses. Those abuses didn't happen because the laws were inadequate. It doesn't mean that you are going to get character change all of a sudden because of a myriad of new laws that this Congress might pass. Now the spin machines are using the issue of campaign finance reform to suggest that the entire system is crooked and corrupt. Mr. President, and American citizens, that just ``ain't'' so. There are some people in the system who have chosen to corrupt it, but the campaign system we have today is alive and well, as it should be. Most of us play by the rules, and the rules are tough, and they are exacting. The reason they ought to be is to assure the right of all political candidates to speak out and to make sure that the American public can have, as they should have, the proper access to the political process. The votes that are going to occur on this floor in the next few moments are absolutely critical. I am frustrated by many of my colleagues who stand up and suggest that the political system that we have today is a corrupt system. It has been corrupted by some, and those who are corrupting it are under investigation today. But clearly it is a system that works--it works very well--reporting to the public, as we should, what is the right and responsible thing to do, particularly at a time in our history when confidence has been shaken in some of our institutions. It is absolutely imperative that we do not put new restrictions into the ability of the politician, the public person, to communicate with his or her constituents in an open and frank manner. Existing law allows that. I don't think we need to be tampering with our first amendment or suggesting in some way that we can make it a lot better. We just simply need those few who corrupt the system to abide by the laws as they are currently written and currently administered. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as America celebrated the Labor Day holiday this past weekend, it seems appropriate to take a moment to highlight the recent efforts to renew the partnership between the National Guard and Reserve forces and their community employers. Now, more than in any recent decade, the Guard and Reserve are key to maintaining our military commitments. More than a quarter million members served in Operation Desert Storm, and more than 17,000 have been called to active duty to support operations in Bosnia. The partnership between all employers, whether in the private or government sector, and the Reserve forces must extend beyond the 1994 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Communications and cooperation between employers and their employees who participate in the National Guard and Reserve must be maintained to support our military structure. Without employers' full support, it becomes much more difficult to maintain our military strength. In Idaho, we have more than 5,400 Guard and Reservists. These men and women not only serve to support our national security, but also carry out a wide range of domestic missions. Last year, Idaho lost two Reservists who were responding to flooding emergencies. We do not forget that they paid the ultimate price to protect our community during disaster. Although we may never be able to thank our Guard and Reserve forces enough for their efforts and commitment, we can ensure that they have flexibility to serve in their units and secure employment upon their return. This renewed partnership between employers and our Guard and Reserve will do just that. Labor Day is not just Labor's Day. It is a celebration of an all- American accomplishment and an all-American ethic. Here, the dignity of labor is not a matter of partisan politics, but civic pride. Public recognition of the partnership between individuals who serve their country and communities, and the employers who support them, is a true way to celebrate this Labor Day holiday.