Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) would each vote ``yes.''

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. The hearing will take place on July 22, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following general land exchange bills: S. 2136, a bill to provide for the exchange of certain land in the State of Washington; S. 2226, a bill to amend the Idaho Admission Act regarding the sale or lease of school land; H.R. 2886, a bill to provide for a demonstration project in the Stanislaus National Forest, California, under which a private contractor will perform multiple resource management activities for that unit of the National Forest System, and H.R. 3796, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the administrative site for the Rogue River National Forest and use the proceeds for the construction or improvement of offices and support buildings for the Rogue River National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management. 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 Amie Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President let me thank my colleague and chairman, Senator McConnell, for working so closely with so many of us to bring S. 2282 to the floor. It is important that we act now and that we act decisively to send a very clear message to our producers and to our markets, both nationally and around the world, that we recognize, although sometimes the action of Government does not appear to, that the American economy and American farmers live in a global economy, and that we have to be a good deal more sensitive to our actions as it relates to that and the impact that those actions can have on our producers. Cutting ourselves off through unilateral sanctions seldom benefits us as a nation and almost always hurts the producer. In this instance today, we are speaking of that producer being the American farmer. Many of us have recognized that for a long time and have tried to say in a clear way through different pieces of legislation that food should never be used as a tool of foreign policy. But we stumble into that on a regular basis. As a result of that, we damage significantly the producer, because in the business of trade, one of the things that American agriculture has been able to establish over the years is two very important items. First of all, they are able to let the world know they can deliver a quality product. The world knows that and appreciates it. But it is also important that the world knows we are a reliable supplier. We search and we allow our producers to find markets and work to build those markets, only to be snuffed out by a piece of legislation that may or may not have impact upon another nation. That is exactly what has happened in this instance and why it is so important we act today and in a timely way. Food should never be used as a tool of foreign policy for all the reasons that have been spoken to by myself and Senator McConnell and I am sure will be referenced here today. It is poor policy to require the farmer to bear the burden of a faulty foreign policy or undeterminable goals, faulty goals. In the bill we passed a year and a half ago, a new farm bill, we made a variety of promises to American agriculture producers. We promised, as we eliminated most price supports and ushered in a greater freedom to produce, that we would help open up world markets and that we would assure their openness and access to those markets, and that would become an important part of the marketplace. We promised less government intervention, and we promised to improve risk management options. The tragedy is, while we promised it, the action that was necessary to be taken under the Arms Export Control Act was a denial of that promise. Today, we are here on the floor reinstating that promise very clearly. I hope the task force that Senator McConnell and others are involved in, while they have looked at this and while Senator Roberts has been a leader in helping us focus on this issue, that we go well beyond this in this future, that we examine all of the things we are doing in the area of sanctions to see whether they really make sense or not. Maybe they would have in a world economy if we were the sole provider, if we had something nobody else had, if we had something that everybody else needed; maybe then we could force policy that was otherwise unpopular with some. That is not the case, certainly not the case with agricultural commodities. We must be a supplier of quality, and we must be a reliable supplier. Government needs to stay out of the way, only to help facilitate access to those markets, not in any way to deter them. This amendment today moves us again to deal with this issue in a forthright manner. I think it will go a long way toward sending the right signal to our markets. I thank Senator McConnell and others who have been involved. He mentioned a good number who have been involved with us on a regular basis over the last several months, both Democrat and Republican, in focusing on this issue. I am happy to have played some role in it but, most importantly, to help get this to the floor on a timely basis so we can impact markets and production and price in this country. I am convinced this action today will do so. I yield back any remaining time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief, but I did want to recognize the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member for the tremendous work they have done on this bill to reform the IRS. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor today to speak about the reforms embodied in H.R. 2676. While the House moved very rapidly, the Senate engaged in a more deliberative process, appropriately, and reviewed in greater depth, in great detail, the changes we believed would be necessary. We did not want to make symbolic changes in the IRS, but wanted to change the very culture, the very thinking of the IRS, the way it functions, the way it treats the taxpayers of this country. I have been in the Congress of the United States now a few years. And not by my vote, but by the collective vote of past Congresses, we have seen the Internal Revenue Code expand and expand and become more complicated. And every time the government decided it needed more money, it hired more IRS agents. Control spending? No. Demand a leaner, more efficient bureaucracy? No. Review policies and repeal or reform uneconomic ones? No. Raise taxes and encourage the tax collector to squeeze the taxpayer harder--that was the way 40 years of liberal Congresses claimed they were addressing the fiscal problems of our country. So the IRS was an agency that Congress created and allowed to grow. And as the Tax Code became more complicated, the agency became larger, and by its very character it became a much more complicated and demanding agency. Times have changed. I believe we are able to bring about reform of the IRS today for a variety of reasons, not just because we discovered abuses, but also because this Congress is committed to downsizing, to right-sizing, Government. For the first time, we are talking, not about budget deficits, but about surpluses. For the first time, we are succeeding in our efforts to create a less intrusive IRS. In fact, we are talking about tax reform, not in some symbolic way, but fundamentally changing the way we tax the American people are asked to pay for the Government services and programs for which they ask. That is why we are able to be here today in a bipartisan mode, to talk about the changes that are embodied in this very, very significant document. So, I honor my chairman and ranking member here today, and my colleagues, who have stood forthright on this issue. When a citizen of our country, a taxpayer, receives a letter from the IRS, and it goes on the dinner table, with the family fearful to open it because they do not know what is inside, they are fearful there may be an audit announced, or that somehow they failed to comply with the code that is so complicated that they and their tax accountant, or even a tax attorney, cannot understand it. It is wrong for Americans to live in fear of their government like that. That bleak day is ending. The Congress well ought to have responded long ago to sense of dread on the part of American families. Some of us tried to. Because no American citizen, no taxpayer ought to fear their Government. Without question, taxpayers have feared the IRS. Some of that will now change as the reforms embodied in this conference report are implemented and become functional, and as they are carried out in the regulation and enforcement process. Two hundred twenty-two years ago, the American Revolution began, in large part, over an oppressive tax system. Today, for the first time in two hundred years, the Congress is taking significant power away from the tax collector and giving it back to the taxpayer. Today we reverse direction on a two hundred-year trend. Today we keep faith with the spirit that has been at the core American values and traditions from the start. Today, the Congress is taking long-overdue action to restore some of the liberty that an insatiable government has spent years eroding. But the day of change is not over, nor should it be. I, like others, believe we should move now to significantly change our country's Internal Revenue Code. The tax laws of our country should not be used for social engineering, nor should they be designed in such a way to tempt and enable legislators and bureaucrats to manipulate social policy in this country, to decide for the taxpayers what is good for them, and to use the tax code and the IRS to force them to behave accordingly. That impulse for social engineering, directed from a Washington, DC, that thought it was all-knowing, is what grew the tax code and gave the IRS its power. Decades of tax-and-spend Congress empowered and encouraged the tax collector to step outside the due process Americans expect in every other encounter with their government, and went about structuring social policy through tax law; and they gained power and they gained control. Today, we make a first step. This reform bill is an important symbol, but it is more than symbolic. It is the first installment on our commitment to do more. I believe if we restructure the tax code by reforming it in a significant way, by simplifying it and restoring a sense of freedom and fairness, we can come back to the very agency we are changing today and restructure it once again, because: As goes the code, so goes the character of the tax collector. So once again, I stand, like many of my colleagues do today, ready to vote for this conference report as a major first step in doing what the American taxpayer has said needs to be done for a long while and maybe lessening the fear that the taxpayer has of their Government and of the IRS just a little bit. I hope that we will return next year--in the very next year--not only to review the work we have done here but to reform the tax code in a more significant way and once again improve the tax collecting agency of our country, the Internal Revenue Service. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I make comments on trade, let me only say to the Senator from Massachusetts, long before the Senate decided to put down the very ill-conceived piece of legislation, the Speaker of the House was saying that the House would address teenage smoking problems. So, whether the Senator from Massachusetts decides to characterize it today as a figleaf or Johnny-come-lately, that was clearly the intent of the House all along. Obviously, the Speaker is now honoring his commitment by stepping forward with a proposal. I hope in the end we can address this issue and not allow teenagers to be the figleaf of big taxes and big government, and find a real solution to this problem.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Tuesday, July 21, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1964, a bill to provide for the sale of certain public land in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to the Clark County Department of Aviation, and S. 1509, a bill to authorize the Bureau of Land Management to use vegetation sales contracts in managing land at Fort Stanton and certain nearby acquired land along the Rio Bonita in Lincoln County, New Mexico. 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 Mike Menge (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to talk today briefly about an issue that affects hundreds of American companies and tens of thousands of American workers, and that is, of course, the proper enforcement of the 1996 U.S./Canadian Softwood Lumber Agreement. On several occasions I have stood before this body to express disappointment at our trading partners who are violating trade agreements with the United States. Generally, the problem arises abroad and requires aggressive efforts by the administration to insist on compliance by other countries to ensure that our products and our workers can compete on a level playing field. But the foremost problem for the Lumber Agreement is action by the U.S. Customs Service that is affirmatively undermining the current softwood agreement that I am speaking to. As many of us who are from lumber-producing States are so keenly aware, the 1996 Lumber Agreement is our largest sectorial trade agreement with our largest trading partner, Canada. It is a very moderate response to a massive Canadian subsidizing of lumber. Unlike United States lumber mills which must buy timber at market prices, Canadian mills are provided timber by the Provinces at prices that are oftentimes one-quarter to one-third the market value of real timber on the stump. Those subsidies amount to $4 billion Canadian dollars a year. Subsidized imports have cost the United States thousands of jobs and have injured and constrained a pivotal U.S. industry. In 1991, Canada unilaterally abrogated a 1986 settlement of that dispute. Canada's imports to the United States climbed from about 27 percent of market share to almost 37 percent. The compromise in the 1996 Agreement was intended to offset, in part, Canada's subsidies and bring Canada's share of our market back to around 33 percent to 34 percent. In February of 1997, however, a ruling by our own Customs Service enabled Canadian producers to evade the agreement merely by drilling holes in the lumber. Let me repeat that--by simply drilling holes in a 2X4 or a building stud, ostensibly, the argument was, for wires and pipes in construction purposes. Customs said this lumber with a hole was ``joinery or carpentry,'' like doors or window frames or buil-up truss. This was a ridiculous ruling, by almost everybody's evaluation. It is inconsistent with other classifications. It is inconsistent with common commercial understanding. Official guidance issued by the Commerce Department, the International Trade Commission, and the Customs Service all confirmed that drilled lumber is ``lumber'' for import classification purposes, not joinery or carpentry. The U.S. Trade Representative confirmed that this product was intended to be covered by the Agreement. Not surprisingly, though, once Customs opened the door, imports of ``joinery and carpentry'' rose from about $8-10 million a month to nearly $46 million a month in April. This loophole is allowing over $1 million a day--let me repeat that--$1 million a day of subsidized lumber to evade the Agreement and destroy the Agreement's intent of offsetting the subsidy. The U.S. industry is again experiencing widespread shutdowns, slowdowns, and job losses. In my State of Idaho, mills are closing or anticipating closure because of this flood of Canadian timber now hitting our market. Last September, Congress confirmed its intention that drilled lumber be considered ``lumber.'' But while Customs promised a quick reassessment of the February 1997 ruling, our report was ignored. Customs finally requested formal comments on the ruling by late October, but then gave a 60-day comment period rather than its normal 30-day comment period. You almost have to say, ``U.S. Customs, whose side are you on?'' Customs delayed its response until April 15--that is from a February ruling of the year before--when it acknowledged its mistake, but again failed to take action. Instead, even though it had thoroughly reviewed extensive public comment, it asked for more comment, but this time referenced a statute with a deadline for formal action by June 15. Now we are almost a year and a half into the process. After 17\1/2\ months of review, the agency failed to meet that statutory deadline. Highly subsidized drilled lumber continues to pour over the border, damaging the agreement and destroying jobs in my State and in every other timber-producing State in the Nation. Now, some are arguing that even if Customs finally corrects the error, it will take another 60 days for implementation, at the cost of more than $70 million in U.S. sales. I have to say --and I use this word, but I would like to find a stronger word -- ``Customs, how ridiculous can you get?'' Importers were warned by Customs in the October 27, 1997 Federal Register notice that they could not rely on the old ruling. Once Customs decides that this product is properly covered by the United States-Canadian Lumber Agreement, further invasion should be stopped. By its terms, the international agreement will cover this lumber. What is particularly shocking about this loophole is that before the Agreement was signed, the administration expressly committed to the U.S. lumber industry that USTR, Commerce, and Customs would work aggressively at full and effective enforcement. Now, I do not know if you call stumbling through the darkness of statutes for 17 months an aggressive effort. Mr. President, this ``ain't'' aggressive. Mr. President, the Customs Service handled this issue in what I would have to say is the most outrageous of ways. U.S. mills and workers should be able to expect their Government, their President, to work for them by enforcing trade agreements. Heaven knows, they should be able to expect their Government not to affirmatively undermine trade agreements and cause them to be defenseless against unfair imports. That Customs would continue to do so in violation of a direct statutory requirement and blithely ignoring this Congress' report is beyond the pale. Of course, now with the Asian flu, we have Indonesian dimensional lumber beginning to hit the west coast at even well below our cost of production. In the strongest terms, I urge Customs to begin doing the job that it is commanded to do by U.S. law and for which U.S. taxpayers are paying. Customs must immediately issue a definitive, corrected ruling on drilled lumber and implement the ruling at once--not 30 days, not 60 days, not 17 months--but at once. It must also correct related miscalculations regarding notched lumber that are also undermining the lumber agreement. Reported efforts by the administration to clarify with Canada the Agreement's treatment of drilled and notched lumber do not affect Customs' obligation to act in accordance with U.S. law and policy. In fact, if Customs fails to act properly and reclassify this product, we can only expect more delay and more efforts at evasion in the future. More broadly, the agency must vigorously enforce the agreement and help the U.S. lumber industry realize that full subsidy offset is exactly what they deserve. Failure by Customs to proceed in conformity with U.S. law and policy could have grave implications for other trade agreement programs. Just at a time when this country must awaken to not only the fairness of trade, but the importance of trade, and the balance of it, the administration is apparently moving in the other direction by ignoring it and allowing the flow of subsidized imports. The administration promised full and vigorous enforcement. With this loophole, it is not living up to that commitment. Trade agreements serve U.S. interests only if they are effective. If the American people cannot trust the administration to maintain the integrity or much less enforce such agreements, the administration cannot expect a continued mandate to pursue trade agreements. Here we are trying to, struggling to, get this administration the ability to deal in trade, and they are simply doing the slow waltz at a time when it is costing this country hundreds of jobs, if not thousands. Customs' mishandling of this important issue could also have budgetary implications. The taxpayers should not be expected to fund activities that actually worsen their position. Moreover, Congress should reconsider who has authority to make and implement classification decisions which can undermine our international trade agreements. In the context of countervailing duty and antidumping duty cases, the Commerce Department has direct authority to prevent these types of evasion. Perhaps we need to give USTR direct authority--and a mandate--to stop Customs from the twiddling of their fingers and their willy-nilly attitude toward obeying and enforcing the law. ``Customs, I'm sorry, 17 months doesn't cut it.'' Mr. President, this is truly one of those situations that makes most Americans outside the beltway just shake their heads in disbelief at our Government. I, and I know others in Congress, will demand drastic actions if this problem is not rectified in a prompt manner. I am sending a copy of this to Secretary Rubin, and I am going to ask other senior Treasury officials to report to Congress immediately about the agency's intentions on this matter. At a time when trade is of utmost importance to the producers in our country, we must recognize that balance is what really counts, and not allow industry or certain industries to die simply by arbitrary decision or inaction on the part of Customs and other agencies of our Federal Government. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent due to a death in the family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today with my friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, introduce a bill to amend the Idaho Admission Act of July 3, 1890, to provide for the better management of school lands within our state. In doing so, I note that our Idaho colleagues Congressmen Chenoweth and Crapo will offer identical legislation in the House of Representatives today. Mr. President, this piece of legislation is simple, straightforward, and of vital importance to my state. It brings federal statute into line with amendments to the Idaho Constitution passed by the Idaho State Legislature earlier this year and has but one goal: to bring about the better management of state lands to the financial benefit of our public schools. The legislation, along with that passed by the Legislature, were developed to implement the recommendations of a special committee of state leaders who sought to secure financial security for Idaho's schools. This legislation accomplishes the goal with only a few changes to current statute. First, it allows the Board of Land Commissioners to exercise its fiduciary responsibility as managers of the state endowments by treating both land and fiscal assets as one trust. Second, the proposal creates an earnings reserve account that will serve as a ``shock absorber'' to allow the endowments to provide a more predictable income stream. Third, it provides increased and stable funding for public education by allowing investments in assets that will provide higher rates of return. The state committee projected that through this single change, public education in our state could receive up to $20 million or more annually without raising taxes. Fourth, it establishes a land bank account for proceeds from the sale of endowment lands. The account gives the Board of Land Commissioners the flexibility to re-invest in other real property for the land trust. Mr. President, the legislation we introduce today is supported by the Idaho State Legislature and was written in compliance with the Joint Memorial passed by the Legislature and sent to us earlier this year. It is vitally important to our Governor, the Board of Land Commissioners, and all those involved in public education in our state. Like most western states, certain lands within Idaho were reserved for the benefit of public education upon admission to the Union. These lands are spread throughout the state and are managed for the financial benefit of our children. The Idaho Admission Act is very specific in how these lands are to be administered. And while these specifications worked well in 1890, they have now become outdated. These century old regulations have severely limited the state's efforts to maximize funding for public schools. The legislation we introduce today brings the management of endowment lands into modern times and employs modern financial tools to the benefits of Idaho children. Mr. President, I implore my colleagues to act on this measure in a timely matter and hope they might all join me in this important endeavor to help Idaho public education and the children it serves.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am here on the floor this afternoon to join my colleague from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, to reinforce what this Senate agreed to yesterday, agreed to in a unanimous environment. What they really agreed to, once the two Senators from Idaho and the Idaho congressional delegation had spent over 2\1/2\ years ensuring that the public process was fulfilled, they agreed--you agreed, the Senate agreed--that the Senators from Idaho, having worked the process, deserved to do what was necessary to do to ensure the long-term stability of Mountain Home Air Force Base and its expanded mission. What did we do? What did Idaho do to ensure that the public lands were held in the appropriate esteem, that Native Americans involved in this were appropriately addressed, that the mission was fulfilled by the expansion of range to the necessary amount? We met twice with the BLM and the Air Force and all of the agencies involved to assure that they did their homework and that they did it right, because several years ago they had not done it right and Idahoans reacted, in part, by saying, while we need this training range, the process has to be corrected. The process is now complete and the process is correct, by every participant's evaluation. There are some, like Senator Kempthorne has just spoken to, who do not agree with it. But they agree with nothing. They oppose everything. Even though they are hard-pressed to admit that there were any failures to the process because they were involved, there were, I believe, some 16 public hearings in the State, a full outreach by the BLM and the Air Force, to make sure that this reallocating of land was the right thing to do. The Duck Valley Indian Reservation--I believe there were 20-plus meetings. Let me read a letter that was sent on January 29 by the entire congressional delegation to the Shoshone-Paiute tribes of Duck Valley Reservation. James Paiva, the tribal chairman: Dear Chairman Paiva: Today we received the Air Force's final Environmental Impact Statement . . . regarding the Enhanced Training in Idaho . . . project. We also had a meeting with senior Department of Defense, Air Force, Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management officials regarding the future steps necessary to develop the ETI. Knowing of the tribes' previous concerns regarding the ETI [or the Enhanced Training in Idaho] project, at our meeting today we especially asked about the tribes' position regarding the final EIS. We were assured the Air Force and BLM have made great efforts to accommodate the concerns of the Tribe. We want to thank you for your excellent cooperation on this very important project. We urge you to continue to work with the Air Force to develop cooperative solutions to training issues. We look forward to working with you in the future on the many areas of mutual interests we share. Sincerely, Senator Craig. Senator Kempthorne. Congressman Crapo. Congresswoman Chenoweth. The outreach has gone on. The outreach has been complete. I cannot stand here today and tell you that all members of the Shoshone-Paiute tribe at Duck Valley are satisfied. But we believe that their questions and their concerns have been answered and that they agree in general that is the case. Let me address the environment for just a moment. The Owyhee will not be devastated. Neither Senator Craig nor Senator Kempthorne would stand or tolerate that, and any suggestion of that is bunk. It is a false allegation at the very best. We value our lands and we value their beauty--and they are beautiful. As Senator Kempthorne has said, where there was once a 100-foot level of flight over areas, which may be demonstrated in the pictures standing by the Senator from Nevada, there is now 1,000 feet of protection. Where there was an ability to continually fly over areas where there are California sheep, there is now a limitation during the lambing period. There really isn't anything we have not thought of, because we have been consulting for 2\1/2\ years with every stakeholder and every interest in this area. I am at a loss today to try to understand why the Senator from Nevada would want to strike this because we have talked with him. We felt we had talked and worked with his people adequately enough to assure that all of the concerns were met. Claims that this range is only here to BRAC-proof Mountain Home simply are false because Mountain Home was never on the list. Why? For a lot of the reasons that Nevada bases have not been on lists, because they are away from population centers and they have great air time and they are the kinds of bases that the Air Force wants for optimum flying. That is why. But, for new training missions, looking out into the future, knowing how difficult it is to reallocate public lands, Mountain Home and the Air Force thought it was time to expand the necessary training ranges. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to fly longer distances to train simply because of the consumptive necessities of these large aircraft. The closer that range, the easier to train, the less need to schedule timing and do all of that type of thing. And that is exactly why we worked with the Air Force to do that. I hope my colleagues will join with us today in not supporting a motion to strike, because I believe the two Senators from Idaho, certainly, Senator Kempthorne and myself, have spoken to this issue. We knew that there would always be concern about the reallocation of public lands and that the process had to be unquestionable. We have tracked it. We have detailed it, day to day, week to week, month to month, for 2\1/2\ years. Now the administration is in full support of it. The administration put it in their budget. The Department of the Interior signed off on it. The Air Force signed off on it. The BLM has signed off on it. It is in full support. So why, today, a motion to strike is beyond me and very frustrating. We had hoped this would not have to occur, but apparently it is necessary that the Senator from Nevada do this. For that, I am disappointed, that it has to happen, because the people of Idaho have been addressed in this issue and all of the parties concerned have been worked with in a complete manner. We believe it is important that we proceed. Let me add just one additional thing. The Senator from Nevada expressed concern about the compensation issue for a rancher. I said it yesterday. The Senator from Nevada was not on the floor. Let me repeat it again today. There is no compensation for this individual rancher. There is an assurance, as we require him to move to a new range, that the moneys are there to build the pipelines and the water systems and the cross-fences to make the new range as productive as the old range that is being taken away from him. This rancher and the Three Creeks Grazing Association that I am very familiar with--I have been out on that range numerous times. I know the canyonlands that the Senator from Nevada talks about. I have been there. I have been in them over the last good number of decades. But the Three Creeks Grazing Association-- this rancher and others--have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money and time over the last many, many years to make this one of the best grazing areas in the State of Idaho. Why? Because they can manage their cattle and because they have adequate water systems to move from pasture to pasture without overgrazing. As a result, these lands have become increasingly productive. Something else happens when lands for grazing become increasingly productive because of water and because of rest/rotation management through effective cross-fencing. The abundance of wildlife increases, and there is clear documentation to prove it. Upland game birds, deer, and now in Idaho, open range elk have increased in phenomenal numbers-- not because of the absence of management but because of the presence of management and because of the kinds of investment that many of these ranchers have worked with BLM to make over the years. That is the intention we are talking about. Not the full misrepresentation in the newspapers that somehow somebody was getting paid off. That is simply not the case. I don't think the administration would be involved in that kind of a tactic. It is their budget that we are dealing with here and the moneys they put in for the purposes of these kinds of transitions. That is what we are talking about today. We have been fully aboveboard on this with numerous public hearings addressing all of the issues. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Kempthorne and myself in a motion to table this motion to strike. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, first of all, I thank my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, for the tremendous diligence with which he has approached this issue for national defense and for the citizens of the State of Idaho. What we are talking about this evening in the amendment that we bring before you is an issue of national defense and the appropriate allocation of natural resources, natural public resources in our country. There is no question that it has been determined by the Air Force that Mountain Home Air Force Base needs additional capacity to train, to train the 366th Wing, the Composite Wing that my colleague has just spoken about--not only current training but future training. And of course out West, where the skies are blue and the horizons seem to be endless, you would think this would be an easy process. There is all of this public land. In fact, 63 percent of the State of Idaho is owned by the Federal Government. And you can just go anywhere and fly anywhere and train anywhere. That is not the case. We know that is not the case. And it should not be the case, because that public land is a valuable natural resources allocated for a variety of uses. It is most important that where the Air Force should train, that training should be specific, well defined, and that is exactly what we are attempting to do. The Senator has outlined the process--well over 2\1/2\ years, 16 public hearings, thousands of inputs from the citizens of our State and from around the country for and against the expansion or the development of a new training range. We are now here, doing the necessary thing, and that is to reallocate public land, to take land which was once grazing land and wildlife habitat, but primarily used for grazing--it had been for well over 100 years --and saying no longer will this land be used for grazing, it will be used for training overflights. But for the person who grazed that land, the family who has had the right to graze that land under BLM permit for nearly 100 years, we are saying, ``You will no longer be able to graze there. We are going to take that land away from your use. We are going to allocate a new area, and you are going to be able to gain a permit to graze in the new area under the standard prescriptions of the BLM and the range management set forth by the Secretary of the Interior and the appropriate rules and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act.'' As the Senator has just spoken, ``You will be able to graze on your own range until such time as this agreement is worked out.'' There is no special treatment. There is a recognition that in this process, we have two demands, and we ought to be able to meet both of them. We have the demand for expanded training range capability of the 366th, and we have what I think is a reasonable approach toward land use, and that is grazing. If we did not grant this rancher an opportunity to graze in other areas, we would destroy a 100-year-old family business and put them out of business. It is that plain, and it is that simple. The Air Force understood that, BLM understood that, the President understands that, and through this give-and-take and negotiations, we have arrived at a settlement. Not everybody agrees with that settlement, but everybody has been treated fairly. The Duck Valley Indian Reservation, Shoshone Paiute Tribe, Native Americans with substantial rights in that area have been treated fairly, have been allowed to be at the table to negotiate, as we should have treated them, and all considerations have been made--overflight levels not to disturb their solitude and the character of their lands, all the corridors of flight, all of those have been considered, because those pictures that the Senator just showed us show huge expanses of public lands and no fences and no lines and no roads. You would think, well, my goodness, fly anywhere. Not the case. There are land rights out there. There is private land, there is Indian land, and that is private by character of a separate nation, and there are private inholdings of citizens, and then, of course, there is the public land. There is a criticism launched that somehow this particular rancher that we are dislodging from an area where he and his father and his grandfather grazed for over 100 years is getting special treatment. That is not the case. What we are saying to him as we take away from him the land under which he grazed, therefore, if we didn't offer new land to graze, under the standards of the current law, somehow we would be denying him his livelihood. We are saying there will be costs involved in bringing the new range into quality--quality grazing, availability of water, fences for rest rotation grazing, and that rancher should not have to sustain those costs. So there are costs in transition. There are mitigating costs, and that is why we have worked hard; that is why Senator Kempthorne has worked especially hard on his committee to make all of these things happen. He twice--at least twice, maybe three times--has hosted meetings in his office that I have attended with all of the parties at the table to assure that everybody was talking and the fullest public process was met; that every ``i'' was dotted and every ``t'' was crossed under the National Environmental Policy Act to make sure that no stakeholder was left out. There are some California sheep, wild sheep in the area of concern. There is money in here for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to monitor the character of that herd so that in no way do we damage the environment or the wildlife at hand. I think as a country, I hope that we as a Congress, have the ability to allocate resource and balance natural resource use and environmental needs along with our national defense. That is what this amendment does. It not only expands training range capability for Mountain Home Air Force Base and this new concept we call ``composite wing,'' but it assures long-term ability to do that kind of training. I say to my colleagues, you have just received a ``Dear Colleague'' letter from Senator Kempthorne and myself outlining the pros and cons of this. I must tell you that this is not without opposition. There are some who still prefer that nothing be done. But a majority of Idahoans believe something should be done, and certainly as those who are caretakers of the national defense--and that is what we as Senators are--it is important that we assure the long-term capability for our national defense and optimum training conditions for the men and women who fly the aircraft of our country. That is what we believe we are doing here. At the same time, we are assuring that the traditional and legally prescribed uses of our public lands for grazing purposes can continue to go on. I believe, Madam President, that what Senator Kempthorne and I offer tonight is a win-win proposition. The Air Force wins; American citizens win because of enhanced capability for national defense training; and our public land users and the environment win, because we are now expanding the capability of grazing by improving its conditions, and those grazing conditions also improve the conditions for wildlife because of additional water in areas where there may not currently be water and will be in the future. That is what we bring before you tonight. We appreciate your consideration of it. We hope you can agree with us, because, as Senator Kempthorne has said, the Idaho delegation stands united, along with the Governor of our State and our State legislature. We appreciate having a military presence in our State. We appreciate Mountain Home Air Force Base for what it does for the country, but also what it does for the State of Idaho. We also appreciate the beauty of the great expanse of our Federal lands. We also understand the importance of balanced and multiple uses. We think we bring all of those to the table in the amendment that we have offered, that the Senator has authored, and we hope that the Senate will concur with us in that amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as you have heard, current U.S. policy allows only encryption below the 56-bit key length to be sold abroad. For a long time now, software companies have argued that this level of encryption is so low it provides little security for the information being transmitted over the ``super highway.'' This policy also states that, in the production of encryption stronger than 56-bit, software companies must provide some type of ``backdoor'' access to ensure law enforcement can decode encrypted material. Addressing this from an economic perspective, customers--especially foreign customers--are unwilling to purchase American encryption products with backdoors and third-party access. This is particularly true since they can buy stronger encryption overseas from either foreign-owned companies or American owned companies on foreign soil without these invasive features.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the E-PRIVACY bill seeks to protect individual privacy, while at the same time addressing national security and law enforcement interests. It would also modernize export controls on commercial encryption products. The E-Privacy Act specifically addresses the concerns of law enforcement. First and foremost, it makes it a crime to intentionally use encryption to conceal incriminating communications or information. It also provides that with an official subpoena, existing wiretap authority can be used to obtain communications decryption keys/ assistance from third parties.

Mr. CRAIG. 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 and global information infrastructure is essential to promote citizens' privacy and economic growth.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sensed an effort to express a great deal of outrage here on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. I am outraged that there are a good number of folks who would like to hide behind the idea of teenage smoking to raise more taxes than this Senate will ever have raised with the sweep of one vote and to create more official bureaucracies in big government than we have ever created by one vote. That is exactly what you are tending to do. Let me tell you where the outrage is. It is outside the beltway. It is the average taxpaying citizen who says, ``By golly, they figured out another way to do it. They balanced the budget. Now they will raise nearly $600 billion in taxes and they will create all kinds of bureaucracies.'' And the latest polls--and they are not biased polls, they are taken across the board--say that this bill will not stop teenage smoking. Why? Because we don't go at it how you go at a teenager. I am all for making tobacco a controlled substance, and I think this Senate is. I want to get tobacco out of the hands of teenagers, and we ought to. We ought to do exactly what the States are doing. If you drink or you attempt to acquire liquor as a teenager, you lose your driver's license. But we are not saying that. We want to create great schemes; we want to raise hundreds of billions of dollars. I say, let's go get the tobacco companies, but let's talk the right talk about how we deal with teenage smoking. That is what the issue is here. I am all for pulling this bill down. Maybe we will come to our senses and craft something limited, something directed, and something relatively simple. And the American people will say: I believe they are serious. Right now, the American people are saying--that $30,000 and lower-income group--you are really laying it on us heavy. You are going to take it away from us and you are going to try to give it back? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Then again, for 4 weeks we have not made a lot of sense. We have postured politically, but we haven't done the right thing for America's teenagers.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Firearms Owner Privacy Act of 1998. This bill is aimed at safeguarding the privacy of law-abiding citizens who choose to purchase firearms and therefore undergo the instant background check mandated by the Brady Act. As many of my colleagues know, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is scheduled to go online on November 30, 1998. After that date, federally-licensed firearms dealers are required to contact NICS before they sell any handgun or long gun, so that a records check can be performed to determine whether the purchaser is prohibited by law from receiving the firearm. A unique identification number will be assigned by the NICS to each search request in order to identify the transaction. That number is to be kept by the dealer. However, if the sale is approved--that is, if the purchaser is not disqualified from purchasing the firearm--all other records pertaining to that sale are to be destroyed. This only makes sense. The Brady Act was never aimed at generating records concerning legal firearms sales. It was promoted as a law enforcement tool--a tool to prevent illegal gun sales and prosecute convicted felons or other disqualified persons who attempt to obtain firearms illegally. More important, Senators who participated in the debate on the Brady bill will remember the concerns that were raised about the federal government retaining records of approved, legal transactions. Simply put, keeping those records is tantamount to registering firearms-- something that is far from acceptable to most Americans, not to mention most members of Congress and certainly to this Senator. The federal government has no legitimate reason for keeping track of which Americans own guns. On the contrary, history teaches us that gun registration schemes have been used to pave the way for gun confiscation. It is not unreasonable for citizens to be skeptical of the government's self-restraint--indeed, that is why our Founders built checks and balances into our system of government in the first place. In fashioning the Brady Act, Congress did not rely on government promises not to compile information on law-abiding gun purchasers. Instead, the law expressly prohibits the federal government from using NICS to establish any system for registering firearms, firearm owners, or transactions involving firearms. It also prevents a de facto registration system by specifically prohibiting the federal government from recording or keeping the records generated by the instant background check. Again and again during debate on this measure, members of the House and Senate raised concerns about the privacy interests of law-abiding citizens. Again and again, we were assured that these prohibitions would prevent the Brady Act from establishing or promoting any kind of gun registration for law-abiding citizens. Clearly, one of the keys to passing the Brady bill was the absolute assurance that the privacy of law-abiding citizens would be respected, and records of their firearms transactions would be destroyed. It is worth noting that since enactment of the Brady law, the concern over its potential for promoting gun registration has continued to boil. Like many of our colleagues, I continue to hear from people in my state and around the nation who do not believe this Administration--no friend to law-abiding gun owners--can resist the opportunity to mis-use and abuse the records generated during these background checks. Mr. President, the Administration just turned up the heat on those boiling fears. Now that we are within months of putting NICS on line, federal agencies are beginning to release the details of how the system is expected to work. My telephones are beginning to ring as firearms dealers, gun collectors, and sportspeople have an opportunity to read the fine print. Among the proposals that concern them the most is that the agency operating NICS intends to keep records of approved firearms transactions for eighteen months. That's right. The federal government proposes to keep records of legal, approved transactions for a year and a half. The agency has explained that it needs to keep the records for auditing purposes, to make sure the system is working properly and not being abused. Mr. President, why in the world do they need a year and a half for that purpose? Furthermore, the longer these records sit around, the more potential there is for abuse. How can the agency justify allowing its own administrative convenience to outweigh the serious privacy and civil liberties concerns raised against retaining such records? Let's not forget that under the current, interim system, records of an approved transaction are destroyed within twenty days. The NICS system is supposed to speed up the entire background check process so that the average contact will take minutes. Even if additional time is required because of problems with the check, the transaction is allowed to go forward within a mere three days, if the dealer does not receive a disapproval. The acceleration in every other part of the NICS system makes this records retention proposal even more incredible. I am wholly unconvinced that the agency has any legitimate purpose for retaining the records of lawful purchases by qualified citizens as it has proposed. The bill I am introducing today, the Firearms Owner Privacy Act of 1998, simply reinforces the decision that this Congress originally made on this critical issue. It would require information generated by the system on approved, lawful purchases to be destroyed within twenty-four hours. An individual who knowingly retained or transferred that information after that time would face criminal penalties of up to $250,000 or up to ten years' imprisonment. My bill also deals with transactions that are disapproved because a would-be purchaser is prohibited by federal or state law from receiving a firearm. For those transactions, the bill would permit the agency to retain the records for five years. If a criminal prosecution has been commenced against the purchaser, there would be no restriction at all on the agency's retention of the records. These provisions are aimed at insuring that if our law enforcement agencies intend to pursue a disapproved sale, they have ample opportunity to do so. However, the usefulness of these records past five years is very questionable. Mr. President, I believe my bill imposes reasonable, workable limits that conform to Congressional intent. If someone knows a legitimate reason why the federal government should keep these records longer than my bill allows, I am certainly willing to listen to their arguments. To date, however, the explanations from the Administration have been unpersuasive at best. Let me point out that a similar effort to limit the retention of these records is underway in the other body, headed by Representative Bob Barr. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to protect the privacy and civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Firearms Owner Privacy Act of 1998 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, then I will use some of that time. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining in morning business?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Firearms Owner Privacy Act of 1998. This bill is aimed at safeguarding the privacy of law-abiding citizens who choose to purchase firearms and therefore undergo the instant background check mandated by the Brady Act. As many of my colleagues know, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is scheduled to go online on November 30, 1998. After that date, federally-licensed firearms dealers are required to contact NICS before they sell any handgun or long gun, so that a records check can be performed to determine whether the purchaser is prohibited by law from receiving the firearm. A unique identification number will be assigned by the NICS to each search request in order to identify the transaction. That number is to be kept by the dealer. However, if the sale is approved--that is, if the purchaser is not disqualified from purchasing the firearm--all other records pertaining to that sale are to be destroyed. This only makes sense. The Brady Act was never aimed at generating records concerning legal firearms sales. It was promoted as a law enforcement tool--a tool to prevent illegal gun sales and prosecute convicted felons or other disqualified persons who attempt to obtain firearms illegally. More important, Senators who participated in the debate on the Brady bill will remember the concerns that were raised about the federal government retaining records of approved, legal transactions. Simply put, keeping those records is tantamount to registering firearms-- something that is far from acceptable to most Americans, not to mention most members of Congress and certainly to this Senator. The federal government has no legitimate reason for keeping track of which Americans own guns. On the contrary, history teaches us that gun registration schemes have been used to pave the way for gun confiscation. It is not unreasonable for citizens to be skeptical of the government's self-restraint--indeed, that is why our Founders built checks and balances into our system of government in the first place. In fashioning the Brady Act, Congress did not rely on government promises not to compile information on law-abiding gun purchasers. Instead, the law expressly prohibits the federal government from using NICS to establish any system for registering firearms, firearm owners, or transactions involving firearms. It also prevents a de facto registration system by specifically prohibiting the federal government from recording or keeping the records generated by the instant background check. Again and again during debate on this measure, members of the House and Senate raised concerns about the privacy interests of law-abiding citizens. Again and again, we were assured that these prohibitions would prevent the Brady Act from establishing or promoting any kind of gun registration for law-abiding citizens. Clearly, one of the keys to passing the Brady bill was the absolute assurance that the privacy of law-abiding citizens would be respected, and records of their firearms transactions would be destroyed. It is worth noting that since enactment of the Brady law, the concern over its potential for promoting gun registration has continued to boil. Like many of our colleagues, I continue to hear from people in my state and around the nation who do not believe this Administration--no friend to law-abiding gun owners--can resist the opportunity to mis-use and abuse the records generated during these background checks. Mr. President, the Administration just turned up the heat on those boiling fears. Now that we are within months of putting NICS on line, federal agencies are beginning to release the details of how the system is expected to work. My telephones are beginning to ring as firearms dealers, gun collectors, and sportspeople have an opportunity to read the fine print. Among the proposals that concern them the most is that the agency operating NICS intends to keep records of approved firearms transactions for eighteen months. That's right. The federal government proposes to keep records of legal, approved transactions for a year and a half. The agency has explained that it needs to keep the records for auditing purposes, to make sure the system is working properly and not being abused. Mr. President, why in the world do they need a year and a half for that purpose? Furthermore, the longer these records sit around, the more potential there is for abuse. How can the agency justify allowing its own administrative convenience to outweigh the serious privacy and civil liberties concerns raised against retaining such records? Let's not forget that under the current, interim system, records of an approved transaction are destroyed within twenty days. The NICS system is supposed to speed up the entire background check process so that the average contact will take minutes. Even if additional time is required because of problems with the check, the transaction is allowed to go forward within a mere three days, if the dealer does not receive a disapproval. The acceleration in every other part of the NICS system makes this records retention proposal even more incredible. I am wholly unconvinced that the agency has any legitimate purpose for retaining the records of lawful purchases by qualified citizens as it has proposed. The bill I am introducing today, the Firearms Owner Privacy Act of 1998, simply reinforces the decision that this Congress originally made on this critical issue. It would require information generated by the system on approved, lawful purchases to be destroyed within twenty-four hours. An individual who knowingly retained or transferred that information after that time would face criminal penalties of up to $250,000 or up to ten years' imprisonment. My bill also deals with transactions that are disapproved because a would-be purchaser is prohibited by federal or state law from receiving a firearm. For those transactions, the bill would permit the agency to retain the records for five years. If a criminal prosecution has been commenced against the purchaser, there would be no restriction at all on the agency's retention of the records. These provisions are aimed at insuring that if our law enforcement agencies intend to pursue a disapproved sale, they have ample opportunity to do so. However, the usefulness of these records past five years is very questionable. Mr. President, I believe my bill imposes reasonable, workable limits that conform to Congressional intent. If someone knows a legitimate reason why the federal government should keep these records longer than my bill allows, I am certainly willing to listen to their arguments. To date, however, the explanations from the Administration have been unpersuasive at best. Let me point out that a similar effort to limit the retention of these records is underway in the other body, headed by Representative Bob Barr. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to protect the privacy and civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Firearms Owner Privacy Act of 1998 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I certainly want to echo the statements of my colleagues from Kansas and Nebraska about the importance of dealing with our agricultural situation in this country. Last week, in my State of Idaho, wheat hit $1.90 as a result of the impact of the sanctions that are being imposed by this administration in reaction to laws that were passed by Congress a good number of years ago. I say this this morning to refocus us to understand that much of what we need to do is not getting done. Now, my colleagues on the other side, I have a feeling, would like to spend a lot more time on the tobacco issue. Somehow they think they are gaining points in the political arena that is warming up out there for many of our colleagues in the coming days through to November. I would like to suggest they look at the polling data of recent, that they talk with the American people just a little bit, that they ask teenagers in this country where the real problems are, and maybe they would agree with us that it is time we deal in some degree of finality with S. 1415, the tobacco bill. I know it is great politics, or at least many thought it was great politics, to be antitobacco, anti-teen smoking, and to raise a heck of a lot of money to do a lot of different things from the government level. It is important that this Congress be anti-teen smoking. It is important that we express our frustration and, if necessary, our anger with the tobacco companies on what they have done, and I think we can do that and should do that. But you do not do it by sucking the life out of lower-income Americans, raising taxes, shoving this commodity that we dislike into the black market and saying you have solved the problem by creating great new bureaucracies that we know will spend the money and get very little done. For the moment, let's do a reality check. We have been debating this bill now for upwards of 3 weeks. We have been adding a lot of amendments. Everybody has been pounding their chest on all of the good things we are going to do if we pass the bill. Here are the good things we have not done. Let me analyze for you the revenue flow over this multibillion-dollar bill. S. 1415, major revenues: 5 years, $55-plus billion; floor amendments costing $35 billion; original 1415 spending, $65 billion; total spending commitments, $100 billion. Whoops, Mr. President, whoops. We have already overspent $35 billion in the first 5 years. What does that tell you about a Congress that is trying to be fiscally responsible and balance its budget? When it comes to feeding at the trough of American politics, we do not care, do we? Or at least somebody does not care, because S. 1415 is now badly out of line with the revenues it proposes and the moneys it plans to spend. By this action, is this Senate proposing that we raise another $35 billion or $40 billion over the next 5 years in revenues to fund all of these great new government programs that are going to take all of our kids off smoking, or at least 35 or 45 or 55 or 60 percent over the next decade? Have we talked to our kids recently about that? Have we asked teenage America that if we raise the price of a pack of cigarettes another $2 a pack or $3, are they going to quit smoking? Well, I will tell you they don't think so. Neither do their parents. Last week, I was in the Chamber with a poll by the American Viewpoint polling group, a reputable group. You have read the poll. It has been talked about in the national press. Fifty-nine percent of the parents recognize that peer pressure and friends of their teenage sons and daughters are those who are the greatest influence on them when it comes to smoking. Guess what the biggest problem is out there. It is not smoking. It is drugs. It is the concern by our parents, the parents of America that their kids might somehow get associated with drugs. Why? Because drugs kill immediately. That is why. And that is the greatest concern. And yet we have stumbled down the road for 3 weeks and done one good thing: convinced the American people that we are slipping back into our old, bad habits of big government and great programs and lots of new money to spend. And in the meantime, they have become convinced that the bill before us ought to be defeated by a great number. That is the reality of what we are doing. Let me close by saying one more time, S. 1415 over the 5-year period has a deficit in money now of $35 billion. Is the other side proposing to raise that in new taxes in some form from the working men and women of this country to fund the panacea of big, new government? I hope they do not. I will not vote for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize one of my Idaho constituents, Kathy Wemhoff. With Flag Day quickly approaching on June 14th, I wanted to congratulate Kathy on being the Idaho state winner of The Citizens Flag Alliance Essay Contest. Kathy won a scholarship and went on to compete in the national competition. Her essay, titled, ``The American Flag Protection Amendment: A Right of the People * * * The Right Thing to Do'' focuses on the importance of the American flag to all citizens and discusses reasons why we should have a flag protection amendment. I think she has done an excellent job of making the case for protecting the flag, and I recommend her essay to every member of the Senate. I feel strongly about the protection of this flag. It is a beacon to us--a reminder of those who died for us and the values that unite us. As we near U.S. Flag Day, I'd like to remind the Senate of the already- proposed amendment to protect our flag and ask all my colleagues to support this important matter. Kathy's feelings are shared by most Americans. Let's not ignore them. Let's support them and build our nation's pride! Let me now read Kathy's essay: The American Flag Protection Amendment: A Right of the People * * * The Right Thing To Do I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of American. . .'' Every day, millions of voices speak these words first published in ``Youth's Companion'' on September 8, 1892: voices belonging to the men of the armed forces, school children, and the citizens of the United States of America. The pledge, written for the National Public Schools Celebration of Columbus Day, became enormously popular in a very short time. On Columbus Day of that year, only one month after its publication, more than twelve million school children took the pledge (Quaife 154). The birth of the pledge and its enormous success demonstrate the importance that the American populace place on the flag. The pledge must hold some special meaning for such a great number of people to believe and repeat these words daily. No words could be clearer than those of the Pledge of Allegiance. Every man, woman, and child who repeats the words not only understands them, but also lives by them. The people are voicing their loyalty to and belief in the nation and its flag as they put their hands to their hearts. Even centuries after the nation's establishment, the flag remains a symbol of the United States and the freedom of the people who reside within. Symbols have substantial importance in this world, but what exactly is a symbol? A symbol may be an object or idea which suggests some other more distinguished idea by reason of relationship, association, or convention. A Christmas tree or stockings, for example, are symbols heavily depended upon by most people. Few can imagine Christmas without a tree or stockings. The symbol relates the person to that event or object which would otherwise seem unimportant. Without the flag to represent the dedication, honor, and freedom of the United States, we the people will lose our faith in the country. The flag reminds the citizens of their freedom and the soldiers who fought and died for that freedom. The flag, so admirable fluttering in the air, must be preserved from the elements and protected from desecration. The thought of the flag torn and dirtied by carelessness or hatred turns the stomachs of the people who look to the flag with admiration. Not only can this behavior be labeled unjust to the flag, but also to the country and all its people. The need for a law to protect the flag from inequitable harm has arisen, for the flag is relied upon as the national symbol of freedom. Old Glory, millions of times unraveled and sewn again since Independence Day, July 4, 1776, remains for the most part preserved and protected throughout the country (Quaife 109). People young and old care for the flag as if it were a delicate vase shielded from all harm for many centuries, carrying it in from the rain, never letting it touch the ground, and even guarding it with rifles. When the flag rises, American citizens young and old stand and salute it to show their respect for what it represents: honor, nobility, and the individual soldiers who fought for our freedoms: of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Berkin 425). These freedoms are extremely important, yet often taken advantage of. There remains an exception to the behavior that most possess around the flag; people may desecrate it without punishment. No law exists at this time to protect the flag from ill treatment. Those who desire to fight in the flag's honor can do so by joining forces with all our nations' people and fighting for the creation of a law to protect and preserve it. The Constitution and laws of the country are made by the people, and for the people; therefore, the people have the right to fight for the protection of the American flag. Not a law of one town or of one state, but a law of the nation should be created: an amendment to the United States Constitution guarding against desecration of our nation's symbol of freedom. The American Flag remains protected from ``disloyal utterances'' by the Sedition Act, passed in 1918, but holds no personal amendment or act to prevent it from being physically damaged (Berkin 425). An amendment with strength will uphold the credibility of the flag, saving it the humility of desecration or desertion. A simple and unadorned, yet specifically detailed amendment will hold anyone disrespectful to the flag's rights in contempt of the nation. Any purposeful act of aggression against the flag, such as dragging it in the dirt or burning it, would result in heavy punishment. The guidelines of what exactly would be punishable would be stated in the Flag Amendment; the Supreme Court would have the authority to enforce punishment when these laws were violated. A decision of the court may be based upon much of the same facts as was the case ``United States vs. O'Brien, 1968'' when four young men burned their draft cards in protest of the Vietnam War. The O'Brien case dealt with the issue of symbolic speech, whether or not certain actions should be allowed to fall under the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech (McClenaghan 118). Burning a flag or desecrating one in any other manner would follow the court ruling of the O'Brien case; a limitless variety of conduct cannot be labeled ``speech''; therefore, unacceptable behavior toward the flag can be punishable by law. The flag, protected by the First Amendment under symbolic speech, would then also have an amendment that described the limits of what behavior would be acceptable in its handling and what punishment could be given in the event of its desecration. The flag, for so many reasons, deserves and needs protection from desecration and misuse. Since the majority of the nation's people view the flag as a symbol of their freedom, it deserves an amendment to recognize and protect it. The need for this amendment exists because of the few people of the nation who cannot respect the flag or look to it as a symbol of their freedom. All citizens should support the cause of creating an amendment to protect the flag from dishonor. It is of great importance to have a symbol of the nation's freedom and unity so that the people do not forget or take advantage of the rights they possess by living in America.

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, June 25, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2146, a bill to provide for the exchange of certain lands within the State of Utah. 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 Amie Brown or Mike Menge (202) 224-6170. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, June 10, between the hours of 3 and 4 p.m, Anson Chan, the chief secretary of Hong Kong special administration regional government, be given floor privileges.

Mr. CRAIG. The last 30 days, 8th, 10th, 12th graders, using marijuana, up on the average of 100 percent. That is a dramatic figure that you speak to. Out in my State of Idaho--rural, big public land State--two major raids last year of huge magnitude, to interdict marijuana, and still it remains, by everybody's figures--and we don't have those figures--the No. 1 cash crop in this country being driven by this huge market in this country. And that is in this country. And we are not getting that, let alone getting the huge flow of cocaine and heroin coming in from the outside along with marijuana, 70 percent of the flow across our southern borders. The Senator from Georgia dealt with that with greater money for Border Patrol and interdiction. When we look at what is going on in Mexico today and their attitude in relation to this, it is a huge money machine for them, and it permeates down through their system, and it corrupts it. And it will corrupt ours, because there is the constant effort to corrupt. So that those who are of the profiteers can gain access through to the innocent, the children. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his effort and his energy in this area. He brought my attention to this issue, and it was obvious to me in a very short time that we had to deal with this. We will be back, successful or unsuccessful here. This is something I think neither of us will rest on until we have a much clearer, stronger public policy in this area and we engage our Government in probably one of the most significant wars--against our very culture and our people, our young people, our future--that we have ever seen before. I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.