Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I chose not to offer an amendment on VA- HUD, and I thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for the tremendous work that they have done. For a few moments, if I can have the attention of the Senate, Madam President, I want to speak to an issue that is not unlike what the Senator from Nebraska spoke to last evening, a very real concern of mine and the Idaho congressional delegation and the citizens of our State. This is an issue that particularly affects north Idaho, the beautiful lakes and the mountains that we are so proud of in my State and that many of you have come to enjoy. As I said, I was prepared to offer an amendment that would assure the Environmental Protection Agency would participate in the mediation process that is currently underway in my State over the issue of the Coeur d'Alene Basin. On May 4 of 1998, U.S. News & World Report published an article dealing with supposed pollution in the Coeur d'Alene Lake and Basin. I read the article with near disbelief. For the first 2\1/2\ pages, I read of a land fouled by pollution, of poisoned fish and dying wildlife, and the Idaho congressional delegation ``scrambling'' to block the creation of a Superfund site of over 1,500--let me repeat--a Superfund site proposed of over 1,500 square miles in my State stretching into the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest. I read the article and said, could this be the land that I know and love, a land of beautiful forests, mountains, lakes, rivers, the Coeur d'Alene area, ``considered to be one of the most beautiful mountain lakes in the world''? I have put this in quotes because it is a direct quote from the web site of the Coeur d'Alene Basin Indians. The Coeur d'Alene Indians talk about the beauty of the land, and yet the Coeur d'Alene Tribe has also filed a lawsuit asking for a Superfund natural resource damage settlement in the basin that could be up to $1 billion. One would believe that another study is needed to understand the horrible pollution that is described in the beginning of that article. But then I arrived on page 3 of the U.S. News & World Report article and read about the lake, this beautiful lake that I have just spoken of, a lake that meets Federal drinking water standards and that the sediments in the lake are not known to be causing problems. Indeed, thousands of people swim in this lake every year. They boat in its waters; they fish, they camp and recreate along its shores. Over the Fourth of July break, just a few weeks ago, 40,000 to 100,000 people came to recreate in and around Lake Coeur d'Alene. Several communities draw their drinking water from the river below the lake. The water they consume continually meets tough Federal drinking water standards. A recently completed statistical validation study by the State of Idaho, with assistance from the Coeur d'Alene tribe and a toxicologist at the Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, with data analysis from the Federal Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, have said and found no contaminated fish in the waters of this lake. The Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agencies have spent millions of dollars from the public coffers to study the situation. Lawyers are litigating and making hundreds of thousands of dollars and building beautiful homes along the lake's shore from the money they make from this lawsuit as they describe the poisonous sediments of this lake. Now, remember, this is the lake that I just said meets Federal drinking water standards. What is going on up there? Well, it is not unlike what the Senator from Nebraska talked about last night--an EPA that just keeps on running and keeps on moving and pushing the regulations when there is no basis under Federal law and tests for that. Looks like they have just got to have something to do. Should we be looking for ways to address the problem rather than pursuing study after study that appears to lead to more studies? Well, I think the answer is yes. That is why the Idaho congressional delegation has introduced legislation to improve cleanup efforts rather than to fuel more lawsuits and spend more taxpayers' dollars studying the already well-defined problem. This legislation has been approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. This is what we need to do in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. We need to stop EPA and work to resolve the issue instead of spreading it to a 1,500-square-mile area. It is impossible to believe that when we created the Superfund law that we were intending EPA to even reasonably think about an area of 1,500 square miles. That is bigger than some States here on the east coast. I have not offered the amendment because EPA is now beginning to negotiate with the State of Idaho. I hope they can continue to work together to resolve this issue and not expand a Superfund site beyond the limited one we have that is now being well addressed and properly cared for. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Bond, for being reasonable and working with us on this issue. But EPA ought to get the message, and the Justice Department ought to get the message: Politics is one thing, but spending America's taxpayer money--millions and millions of dollars--to play the political game is yet another thing. To tie up the beautiful Lake Coeur d'Alene and the city of Coeur d'Alene, one of the No. 1 destination sites in the Nation for tourism and recreation, an area that you can walk out into the lake and swim in the lake and drink the water, and yet EPA is suggesting, and the Coeur d'Alene Indians are suggesting, that this should be a Superfund site? I would hope not. In fact, I hope this Congress would wake up to the games that have been played in the EPW Committee not to allow Superfund reauthorization out because somehow it does not fit the politics of the current administration. It does not make a lot of sense, certainly does not make any sense in Idaho. I hope EPA will continue to negotiate with our State to resolve this issue. If not, the Idaho congressional delegation will be forced to take quick action to resolve the issue here. I think finally we are going to get the understanding of our colleagues because of their recognizing that Superfund does not work anymore. It just means a lot of lawsuits and a lot of politics. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Well, I would like to address that process and the actions of the New Mexico Environment Department for a moment. Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that the State of New Mexico is using an unprecedented process in issuing the RCRA Part B. If the current draft is finalized, the permit would require that each site which seeks to ship mixed waste to WIPP go through a modification of the Part B Permit. This could delay already stalled shipments from sites in New Mexico, Colorado and Idaho because of procedural impediments put in place by the State of New Mexico. This needless delay would likely cause the Department of Energy to violate their agreement regarding the disposal of nuclear waste from Idaho. Mr. Chairman, my point is this: The reason that the State of New Mexico is involved in this process is that the Environmental Protection Agency has delegated its authority over materials regulated by RCRA to the State of New Mexico. However, delegating authority does not, I believe, relieve EPA from its responsibility to ensure that the permitting of the WIPP facility is done within the intent of Congress in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and RCRA. As a matter of fact, it is tasked with ensuring that the State acts within the intent of federal law. Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Protection Agency has recently certified that WIPP can accept transuranic waste. However, it sits idly by as the State works to ensure that WIPP is not opened in a timely manner. The EPA should provide adequate oversight of the State of New Mexico to assure WIPP's timely opening.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Chairman on his leadership and hard work on his bill. He and the Subcommittee have had to make hard decisions about scarce resources and have labored to do so fairly. I also appreciate the Chairman's diligence in pursuing needed, aggressive oversight of some large agencies that, at times, have been sluggish in responding. He and the Subcommittee have made real efforts to make sure the taxpayer's hard-earned dollar is spent effectively and efficiently. I have seen first-hand, and appreciate, the Chairman's dedication to the integrity of this process. I request that the distinguished Chairman and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy. As the Chairman knows, the City of McCall, Idaho, is faced with the absolutely critical need to make significant improvements to its water system. McCall faces a potential cost of $6 million because of federal mandates for water purification. However, as much of 85 to 90 percent of these capital costs might be saved by installing a new, prototype, filtration technology. The City only recently received a proposal for a prototype filtration system. In what ought to be a prototype for voluntary private-public partnerships, the cost of research and development of the system would be borne by the contractor. That leaves the City with the need for $253,000 toward installation, start-up, and initial testing of the system. Through no fault on anyone's part, the proposal was not ready for the City to review, and could not be submitted to the Subcommittee, in time for consideration during the markup of this bill. I would ask the Chairman if he could work with us in conference to evaluate this request, with an eye toward inclusion in the conference report. This investment of $253,000 would not only save the community of McCall possibly more than $5 million, it would be a demonstration project that could help countless other communities, as well as the federal government, save millions of the taxpayers dollars in the future. I believe such a project would be consistent with the missions of either the EPA Science and Technology program or EPA State and Tribal Grants.

Mr. CRAIG. Is the Senator aware that the New Mexico Environment Department is in the process of issuing a RCRA Part B Permit to have mixed waste shipped to and stored at the site?

Mr. CRAIG. As the Senator is aware, I have worked extensively on assuring the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, a site in New Mexico to store low-level, transuranic waste, is open to dispose of nuclear waste.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for purposes of a colloquy?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. That is also my understanding and intent. I thank the Senator for his clarification.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator and I have been working together on the Meat Labeling Act of 1998 for some time. Might I ask, what is the Senator's understanding of the Act's impact on meat prepared and served by a restaurant?

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from South Dakota yield for purposes of a colloquy?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to respond to a question.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for just a few moments I would like to agree with the Senator from North Dakota on a couple of points that he just made. But I would also like to disagree with him on a few other points. He, like I, voted against the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, and we both voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement because we felt they were not properly negotiated. We felt both agreements had loopholes in them. The Senator from North Dakota has pointed out some of those loopholes. What we disagree on is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that is before us now which clearly outlines what a lot of farm and commodity groups in this country feel they need this Congress and this administration to do to improve the situation down on the farm. The Senator from North Dakota is right. The situation down on the farm is not very good right now. There are a lot of farmers losing money. But the Government should not dictate rules to farmers, and the Government should not be the total safety net. In a free enterprise system, such as ours, there should be an element of risk. In the 1996 FAIR Act, Congress have offered farmers flexibility along with that risk. Today, the Senate must decide how to shape that flexibility in a way to assure that farmers can make a safe transition to Freedom to Farm. This is where the Senator from North Dakota and I disagree. Yesterday I talked to the Governor of North Dakota, the president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau, and representatives from the North Dakota Wheat Growers. I left that meeting with the impression that these folks from North Dakota don't agree with the Senator from North Dakota either. They told me North Dakotans don't want to see Freedom to Farm reversed. They don't want Congress to lurch back into the failed policies of the past. They don't want the Government to be the largest provider of income to American agriculture, to be the one that holds the hand of the farmer and tells the farmer what to farm, how to farm, and when to farm. They agree that these choices ought to be made by the individual, as a free person in a free market. Now, Government has a role. The Senator from North Dakota is right when he states that the Government has not been fulfilling that role well. However, that role is not to be a safety net. It is not to be a caretaker. The proper role of the Government is to be the force which opens the door at the border. Government is to be a facilitator. I agree with the Senator from North Dakota on that point. Our negotiators ought to put jerseys when they go into trade talks. I want it to be Team America working for America and America's farmers. But I don't want a government check to be the sole source of income to America's farmers. Past administrations tried it and farmers became victims of an agricultural system design by Government. It did not work. Now agriculture is in transition. Times are not easy. And all of us are trying to sort out what can be done to help agriculture through that transition. But a step back into the past is not the route to take. I believe what the resolution before us today is exactly what American agriculture is looking for. What I want to know is why was this administration asleep at the switch for 12 long months while commodity prices slid and never used the tools Congress have given them to make a difference? Was it politics or was it simply ignorance of what was going on? Did they not know what they could do and what they should have been doing? What we heard from the commodity groups is very simple: Keep Freedom to Farm. Give us the flexibility and trade, trade, trade. They don't want crops stored on the farm--not for 1 year, not for 2 years, not for 3. They do not need a huge surplus hanging over the market. Let's move the grain. Let's sell the product. Yet, what has this administration done? They haven't used one tool to make a difference, and they don't know how to do it. That is what is frustrating to me.

Mr. CRAIG. I can't yield. We have a time limitation. Let me close, and then the Senator from North Dakota can speak if he wishes, because there is a lot that we agree on but there is also a lot that we disagree on. I do not want to look into the past. I want to look into the future. I want American agriculture to modernize and develop the flexibility that it ought to have. I want to help them when they need help. That is what we are on the floor discussing. The Senator from North Dakota talks about trade deficit. Trade deficits have occurred, and I do not like it either. But I have also watched our ability to trade expand with every agreement that we have struck. We know that in American agriculture today, if you don't sell 40 percent of the crop you raise in a foreign market, you are in trouble financially. That is why they are in trouble financially today--because this Government, this administration, this USDA, didn't help them sell the product at a time when markets were collapsing and other governments were aggressively pursuing those markets. So there are things we can do, but I hope this Senate will not step backwards into a dark age of government programs, farming controlled by Government, forcing farmers to live with a government check arriving in the mailbox as their only source of income. My farmers don't want that. Most farm groups don't want that. That is what this resolution is about--to craft a sense of the Senate in the area of trade, in the area that deals with taxes, to offer farmers the flexibility so that they won't be injured like they where when a Democrat controlled Congress in 1986 rolled back the ability of farmers to use income averaging. Congress ought not make those same mistakes again. I don't think we will. So let me conclude by saying this. There is a lot that the Senator from North Dakota and I agree on. We agree on the Government's inability to negotiate good trade agreements. Our trade negotiators need to be out there, working for agriculture. I voted yesterday and I will vote today and probably again next week for programs to help American agriculture out during this transition, but they have to be compatible with Freedom to Farm. We can't go back to all kinds of on-farm programs that store the wheat and store it and store it and store it for another year. Let's sell it, move it through the market, so we can get on with the business of transition. That is what I think this resolution represents. I hope the Senate will support it. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN 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. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleagues from North Dakota for the sincere effort they have made and the willingness of the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to review this and help them shape it and accept it. Certainly, as we get to conference, there is going to be every effort made by this Senator and others to provide what can be provided, and to resolve, as best we can, this impending farm crisis. We clearly understand the problem, the growing problem, and we know that certain actions here can be very, very helpful. I am pleased to be a participant in this, to be supportive of it. I am sure we will be looking at other packages that we will want to bring together in a total effort to help agriculture during this time. Let me say in my closing comments that our actions here on the floor have consequences. Every Senator who is on the floor now joined with us were active participants last Thursday when the Senate of the United States voted 98-0 to drop the sanctions against Pakistan and India. The Presiding Officer at this moment, the Senator from Kansas, led that dramatic effort to show that this country would stand united and not use food as a tool of foreign policy. Just moments ago the Senator from Kansas and I had calls from the Ambassador of Pakistan. They have tendered an offer now of over a 100- million-ton purchase from the United States. It is my understanding that they will make an effort at a nearly 300,000-tons purchase within the next several months. That is significant, and those tonnages will be purchased from the United States. Our actions here have consequences. If we want to be players in the world market, with and for our producers, we cannot throw up the artificial barrier of politics. We tore that down last Thursday in this instance, and the nations involved are responding. I thank my colleagues. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I agree. With the rapid expansion of the ``super highway'' and Internet commerce, it is crucial we bring encryption legislation to the forefront. A secure, private and trusted national global information infrastructure is essential to promote citizens' privacy and economic growth.

Mr. CRAIG. In order to pass legislation in a timely manner it is important that it be in a clean bill with only the most essential language related to encryption; language that seeks to protect individual privacy, while at the same time addressing national security and law enforcement concerns.

Mr. CRAIG. From an economic standpoint, foreign companies are winning an increasing number of contracts because consumers are unwilling to buy products that ensure third party access or require that keys be stored with government certified or operated facilities. This is particularly true since they can buy stronger encryption overseas from either foreign-owned companies or American owned companies on foreign soil. We must act quickly and prudently in addressing this problem.

Mr. CRAIG. The recent announcement by several leading companies in the computer industry makes it clear that, in addressing both economic and law enforcement concerns, it is important to find a balance between the two. We must create legislation that addresses consumer demand for encrypted products while also meeting the needs of law enforcement-- legislation that fosters a global marketplace dominated by U.S. encryption products. Those products, of course, will be a great benefit to our national security.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association does not represent the feeders. It represents the rank and file rancher, large and small, across our Nation. This letter says they oppose the amendment. It is very clearly, very clearly stated. We developed a futures market not only to look at current but future prices. Most of the livestock industry today effectively operates off of that and the market trends. Would I like to see more transparency? We all would like to see it. Does a government system and new government regulations dictating it cause it? The marketplace causes it. But this is a pilot program. Like it or not, it is new regulations in the process. As a former rancher, as a former cattle feeder, I will tell you this is a new set of Government regulations that may resolve the question for a very small number of operators. But for the industry itself-- large, small, packer, feeder, producer, cow-calf operator--this is not for what they are asking. I don't believe it is the effective way to do it. I hope you would support a motion to table. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the previously announced hearing by the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for July 21, 1998 has been postponed. The hearing was scheduled to take place Tuesday, July 21, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. to receive testimony on S. 1964, the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Land Transfer Act. For further information, please call Amie Brown or Mike Menge (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I congratulate Chairman Hatch for bringing the Senate this important reform measure to safeguard Americans' property rights. The concept of property is at the root of civilization as we know it. The right of the individual to acquire, possess and use property is one of the natural rights that does not depend on government for its existence; on the contrary, governments were formed in part to protect that right. Our Founders also saw the right to private property as the key to spurring individuals initiative and productivity that would ensure national prosperity and security. For that reason, the concept of property and the importance of its protection permeates the Constitution--there are references to it throughout the document, in addition to the fifth amendment's prohibition against the taking of private property for the public good, without just compensation. Unfortunately, however, all these rights aren't worth the paper they are printed on, unless they can be enforced. That principle applies even to the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers may have thought the fifth amendment would shield the people of this country from government taking their property without just compensation. But for all too many Americans the shield has no substance, the promise of protection is hollow, the Constitution's guarantee is an empty one--all because they cannot enforce it against government encroachment. This is not an isolated problem for a few wealthy Americans. In communities across the nation it is ruining family businesses, devaluing property of all kinds, preventing people from building homes and sometimes even from cleaning up pollution or hazards. In short, it is depriving citizens of all incomes from every state of one of the most prized basic human liberties. There are many aspects of the erosion of private property rights protection and many ways to attack the problem. Chairman Hatch and I and others have tried in the past to enact a comprehensive solution. Unfortunately, that effort ran headlong into another political agenda, and for that reason, we have put it aside for the near term. Meanwhile, however, it makes sense to push ahead on a more limited--but still important--part of the solution. The bill before us today, the Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998, focuses on the judicial side of the equation. Currently, people trying to vindicate their constitutionally guaranteed property rights face a procedural catch-22. They are forced to jump endless hurdles on the way to court, and then are bounced from court to court to obtain relief. At every step, the system is biased to the benefit of government and against the citizen. The costs are often staggering. If it were this difficult to enforce any other constitutional guarantee, we would have seen reform long ago. Even members of the judicial branch have acknowledged that clarification is seriously needed in this area. This bill would simplify the path to court and clarify the jurisdiction of the courts. It doesn't grant any new rights but only attempts to clean up the procedural quagmire that presently frustrates access to the courts. This is a precise and limited reform that would make a big difference to the citizens who are forced to litigate in order to protect their property rights. I know that local governments have been concerned that this legislation may interfere with their areas of jurisdiction. However, this bill does nothing to reduce the power of local governments to make decisions with regard to property. Furthermore, this legislation actually exempts localities from paying attorneys' fees if they lose a takings claim. If the case involves a critical question of state or local law that is unclear, that question will be sent back to a state court for decision before the federal case can continue. In short, the bill does nothing to take away power from state and local government, while it strengthens the protection of individual citizens' rights. Mr. President, the House has already passed similar legislation by an overwhelming vote. S. 2271 is an important reform, and I urge all Senators to support its passage. Let's most this bill to conference and then on to the President for enactment. In conclusion, Mr. President, I am pleased to stand with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee today in support of S. 2271, the Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998. We can talk about constitutional rights, and we should; we can talk about the very basic foundation of our economy, and we must. All of us are in favor of the environment, but some like to put the rights of the collective over the right of the individual. What we are trying to do here today is sort a little bit of that out, because, yes, people buy property for a variety of reasons. They buy it to hold as you would put money in a bank, hoping that some day in the future you might be able to use it as an investment purpose to retire. It reminds me of a lady I met from Texas not long ago. She and her husband had done so. They had bought a small piece of property a long ways out of Dallas 30 years ago, hoping that some day it might be of value. All of a sudden, the suburbs of Dallas reached the property. Her husband is dead, and this is her retirement. The Federal Government, in cooperation with the municipal government, said that property can now not be developed for a multitude of reasons. This lady only can go to court to redeem her values, but in this instance, she has no money. While this particular legislation would not address that example, it would go a long ways toward honoring our constitutional rights and, most assuredly, would have allowed this individual her day in court. That is one example. In my State of Idaho, where there are people who have held property for generations and like to continue to hold them for a variety of reasons--ranching or farming because it is their livelihood--only to have the Federal Government step in and determine that certain uses may not go on on that land or certain practices--or the land itself may be habitat for a particular species of plant, animal or bird, the value of that property is diminished because of the flexibility that the individual has to manage and operate that property, not for investment purposes, but as an income property. Yet, in those instances, and in most instances, the opportunity to recoup those kinds of losses are denied. There are a good many other examples, Mr. President, and my time is limited this afternoon. I stand in strong support of this legislation and hope that my colleagues will join with me in gaining cloture for the purpose of debating this issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 107, a resolution affirming the United States' continued commitment to Taiwan. During his recent visit to China, the President undermined long- standing U.S. policy regarding Taiwan. President Clinton said, I had a chance to reiterate our Taiwan policy, which is that we don't support independent for Taiwan, or two Chinas, or one Taiwan-one China. And we don't believe that Taiwan should be a member of any organization for which statehood is a requirement. The President's statement, in fact, represents a long standing departure from U.S. policy. This statement represents an abandonment of a balanced policy that has allowed the United States to conduct important relations with both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The United States has not taken, and should not take, a policy position on the outcome of the dispute between China and Taiwan. Neither should we endorse or oppose Taiwan's independence or reunification. However, we must continue to insist that any eventual resolution of this dispute must come through peaceful means and with the approval of the people of Taiwan. The President's remarks are not consistent with that goal. Let us not forget that May 1998 marked the second anniversary of the first fully democratic Presidential election in the 5,000-year history of the Chinese people. That election occurred on the island of Taiwan. Taiwan has evolved into a modern, democratic society, a major economic power, and an active partner in world affairs. Taiwan's continued achievement should deepen the longstanding friendship between our two democracies. Should the President disregard that responsibility, the Congress must fill that void.