Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Does the bill that the Senator from Arizona brings forward deal with the issue of drugs or the misuse of drugs by our teenage populations in this country?

Mr. CRAIG. A great deal of assumptions suggest that teenagers would slow their smoking, or discontinue smoking, or not start smoking as a result of this bill. Yet, all of the other studies indicate that is probably not the case. The Senator from Missouri cites a concern for elevated activities in black-market sales; is that not true?

Mr. CRAIG. Is it not so that countries that have increased the price per pack of cigarettes dramatically, and found that those cigarettes then moved into a black market, backed away from those taxes to bring those products back into the market and away from the illicit activity of the black market?

Mr. CRAIG. This Senator from Idaho is concerned that those who would sell black-market cigarettes are also now selling marijuana and cocaine to our young people. Does the Senator from Missouri have the same fear?

Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding. I know he said he would like to conclude by 2. I also appreciate his stressing the need for an expanded debate of this issue. I hope the leadership, and obviously the managers of the bill, recognize that and are now recognizing the importance that we debate this fully. I appreciate the responses of the Senator from Missouri to my questions.

Mr. CRAIG. I have sat for well over an hour now this morning, listening to the colloquies, the questions, and the debates between the Senator from Missouri and the others who engaged him, concerned as we all are about teenage smoking, and concerned as we all are about what appears to have been a targeted effort on the part of some tobacco companies to increase teenage smoking. But the Senator from Missouri also cited a poll, as did the Senator from Texas, that indicates that amongst Americans the No. 1 issue with their teenage children is not smoking but drugs. Would the Senator from Missouri agree with that?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I have worked with Chairman Lugar and the Committee for two years to see this Act crafted and passed. I am pleased that the Leader has allowed it to come to the floor and encourage my colleagues to support its adoption. Mr. President, the bill reforms and reauthorizes discretionary agricultural research programs that play an important role in keeping our nation's farmers competitive in the ever expanding world market. These programs and extension activities have experienced dramatic returns--in the form of better land management, environmentally sound farm practices, increased crop yield, improved crop varieties, and countless other ways--and represent a sound investment in the future. The bill's reforms will ensure more collaboration and efficiency in federally funded research and provide for greater accountability to the American taxpayers. The bill also provides $600 million over the next five years in mandatory funding to the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. This new mandatory spending will provide $120 million per year on a competitive grant basis for six high priority mission areas: agricultural genome research; food safety, food technology, and human nutrition; new and alternative uses of agricultural commodities and products; agricultural biotechnology; natural resource management, including precision agriculture; and farm efficiency and profitability. In addition, the bill addresses the immediate concerns facing all those who rely on federal crop insurance, provides for the Fund for Rural America, and funds food stamps for the elderly, disabled, and children of the nation's poorest immigrants. Mr. President, more than just a reauthorization bill, the legislation before the Senate today is an investment in the future and represents our commitment to America's farm families. By providing the technical research and extension activities that help expand farm income, improve resource management, and develop new crop varieties, federally funded agricultural research assures that our nation will continue to lead the world in farm production and help bolster the stability of our rural areas. I encourage all my colleagues to support its adoption.

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 11, 1998, at 2:00 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. 1253, the Public Land Management Improvement Act of 1997. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Amie Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. 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 4, 1998, at 2:00 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. 1253, the Public Land Management Improvement Act of 1997. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Amie Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 2364 be modified, and I send that modification to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send three amendments, en bloc, to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I discuss these three amendments en bloc, let me say, as so many of us have on the floor over the last several days, how proud we are of Senator Bill Roth for the very statesmanlike approach he has taken toward major reform of the Internal Revenue Service. His committee, the Finance Committee of this Senate, and the hearings he has held with the full participation of Democrats and Republicans alike in most instances, is producing the first significant reform in the IRS in its history in well over 200 years. We are reversing a trend that over 200 years progressively took away from the average citizen, the taxpayer, more and more of their rights as individuals, their personal power upon themselves, and their own financing. So what we do here today and what we have been doing for several days is phenomenally significant. I am tremendously proud of our chairman, Bill Roth, and the statesmanlike approach he has taken. Let me also say that the leadership of our majority leader, Trent Lott, has also helped to cause this to happen. He has supported our chairman and insisted that we move this along in a timely fashion. Of course, I am pleased that the American public is supportive of what we are doing. They know more than anyone else the importance of the reforms that we are debating. While this is a major step taken forward, my three amendments touch on an area that really has not gone overlooked but is very seldom talked about; that is, taxpayer privacy and disclosure of taxpayer information. It is probably one of the more important areas. And it is something that a lot of our citizens simply don't know a great deal about. They assume, and you and I assume, Mr. President, that our information, our forms, our files at the IRS are very, very private. They are not. For the next few moments let me explain why they are not, and why my three amendments would make a major effort to correct that. While the citizens of our country believe that the agencies of the Federal Government responsible for collecting and administering our tax laws will hold their information confidential--and I think they have been led to believe that over the years--it just simply is not the case. I was stunned when I found out that under the Internal Revenue Code and the IRS regulations all it takes is one simple letter from State tax officials to get the IRS to turn over to thousands of officials across the Nation millions of pages of citizen returns. Those citizens have no way of finding out that their returns have been passed on in whatever manner. Does the IRS tell them? No. It doesn't. Does it state to them that at least they have been turned over to the State? Or does the State notify them that they are in possession of their Federal tax records? Again the answer is no. It doesn't tell them. You and I, Mr. President, would like to think that those are our private records. We know, as every citizen knows, that they are the most disclosing of all financial information that any citizen ever provides. And it is all considered, at least by the citizen, confidential. The evidence is very clear that there could be abuse. We don't know at this moment whether there has been State or local abuse. I say local abuse because we know that cities that have income taxes also can have made available to them those citizens' Federal IRS returns referenced. So what we don't know is where the abuse is occurring. What we do know is that these are released. More than 60 jurisdictions under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code are allowed to have access, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth and territories, plus all of the cities with income taxes and with populations of over 150,000. It is true that section 6103 of the code prohibits sharing tax return information-- Watergate style, that is--with Governors and mayors. Or shall I say political individuals? But then you and I know, Mr. President, that in some of our States there still lurks and there always will lurk the ``good ole boy'' system. Who appoints the tax commissioner in the State? Very few are elected. The Governor does. Who has access to all of these files? The tax commissioner does. If I want to know something about an individual, and I am a Governor, or I am a mayor of the so described cities, is it impossible to get that information? Let me tell you. There is a law against doing that. But we know that law has not been enforced, or we know that in many instances. Who would ever find out? Do we have Federal agents at State collection agencies ensuring the security and the confidentiality of those thousands of records they have passed forward? No. Absolutely not. We couldn't afford it if it were the right thing to do. So what I am suggesting in my amendments is that we change the behavior, change the attitude. Drug dealers, child molesters, and organized crime individuals have more protection outside of the Tax Code than the average citizen has inside the Tax Code. Frankly, I am amazed that this type of sharing of confidential tax information has not been found to be an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment of the Constitution. I want to stress that this information is not passed along only in cases in which an individual is under investigation by a State or a local tax agency. One routine request will provide detailed computer tapes on virtually all of the taxpayers in that State. Then computers can be used to scan the tapes for any item of information that the State or the local officials think may indicate ``fishy behavior,'' or the tax return information of selected individuals may be accessed. And the taxpayer, again, let me repeat, is never told that his or her records are being passed around in the character and in the nature which I have described. What kind of confidential taxpayer information can be passed around so freely? I was astounded to find out how much. The kind of confidential tax information being handed out includes the taxpayer's annual tax returns, information returns, declarations of estimated taxes, claims for refunds, amendments, supplements, and supporting schedules and attachments. Worse yet, many types of information can be passed around simply because they are called return information. This can include the taxpayer's identity, the nature, the source, and the amount of income, any payments or receipts in the IRS files, and any deductions you may have taken. From that type of information it is possible to figure out what kind of house the taxpayer lives in, the amount of the debt that taxpayer has, if you are sick, if you are not sick. The confidential taxpayer information being passed around includes your net worth, your tax liability, any deficiencies in tax payments you have and the like. It gets worse. It doesn't get better because there are a lot of things in those files. The confidential information shared includes any data received or prepared by the IRS regarding a return deficiency, penalties, interest, offenses, and the like. It includes any information regarding actual or possible investigation of a return. And it also includes any part of an IRS written determination or background file document not opened to public inspection. Now, remember, I just said information not open to public inspection that can be sent out across the country to any lesser tax collecting agency. It may even include an incorrect or an unfavorable credit report, a report which under any other circumstance you could access, dispute, and correct. Generally, however, taxpayers do not have access to their own IRS files. Therefore, you, the taxpayer, have no way of checking the accuracy of the information or refuting incorrect information that may be passed back and forth freely amongst several levels of government. The bundle of amendments I have offered today does several things. My first amendment would advance the idea of not allowing this kind of confidential information to flow forward. I understand that States that have income taxes use the IRS code and its information to shape and define their own taxpayers, and I understand that if we were to stop that immediately it could cause grave impact on State tax collecting agencies. So what I have asked in this amendment, in the modification that I sent to the desk, is that we review through the study within the proposed law that we are debating now of 6103, that we look at this as a part of a study to see how we can shape the assurance of confidentiality, as information in some instances probably must flow to other tax collecting agencies. And I hope we can accept that. It is a study to begin to look at assuring confidentiality in an area that, very frankly, the committee did not take a lot of time looking at. The second amendment would limit the sharing of tax return information with States or local governments to circumstances in which its disclosure and use is necessary to administer a State or local income tax. So we are talking exclusively of an income tax calculation, not, if you will, the broad search for information. Under careful examination of section 6103, I noticed that large cities, as I mentioned, would receive confidential tax information only if they impose their own city income tax. So we want to limit it to just those cities that have an income tax. But States, the District of Columbia, territories, and Commonwealths could receive detailed, voluminous information on income tax returns as long as they assure the IRS that the information is somewhat related to State tax law; in other words, we want to make it specific: States, governments, local jurisdictions that have income taxes as a part of their revenue collecting and therefore to be very specific so that States that do not, cities, large cities of over 225,000 that do not, cannot request it because the law would deny, or allow the IRS to deny that kind of request of these very large volumes of confidential information. Amendment two would shape that and limit it. In short, this amendment simply says income tax information should only be shared for a relevant purpose--for income tax purposes, period. It would treat States and other jurisdictions the way the Tax Code already treats the larger cities. This amendment represents a modest first step toward better protection for taxpayer privacy. The third amendment requires the IRS to publish a reasonable disclosure to all taxpayers in the instruction booklets already accompanying the basic Federal income tax returns. This would simply be an explanation to the taxpayer in clear language, in conspicuous print, one page, in the front of the information booklet, the conditions under which the taxpayer's tax return information may be shared with any other party outside the IRS. In other words, it puts the taxpayer on notice that here is the limit and this is information they simply did not know before. I firmly believe that virtually none of America's taxpayers realize just how public their private tax records are. The very least we owe them is to disclose up front the circumstances under which their information will be shared. This would also assure them of the extent, however limited, to which their privacy is protected. This disclosure also should result in increased compliance with State and local tax laws since taxpayers will be reminded up front as they prepare their Federal return that the same information may be shared for State or local compliance purposes. Surely, the IRS can do this for its taxpayers. Taxpayers who will send $1.7 trillion this year to the Treasury of this country deserve to have a clear, one-page explanation of the extent to which their privacy is protected. Let me repeat that. One page of information, that is all it takes, in the front of the information book that goes out to every taxpayer. I do not want the regulators downtown to decide that it takes an entirely new book with multiple pages saying blah-blah-blah, blah-blah-blah. We want the taxpayer to know the circumstances and those who can receive this very private and very confidential information. So that is what should happen, and I believe these are amendments Congress should accept as we move to reform the IRS code. Mr. President, I urge adoption of amendment 2364, as modified, and I ask to set aside for the time being amendments 2365 and 2366.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, again, I applaud my chairman, Bill Roth, for the leadership he has brought on this most significant of issues. As I say, it is fun to be a part of rolling back 200 years of accumulation of assault on the American taxpayer that clearly this Senate is acting upon now in this major reform of the IRS. Of course, to our majority leader, and to all who have joined in the Finance Committee, it is especially important that we do this. So I hope that the disclosures I am talking about, the limitations as they relate to privacy and the confidentiality of this information can become a part of that reform. And then, of course, the other, an intense study to understand how far we can go and how we can work with income-tax-collecting State agencies and cities to assure even greater confidentiality is so very important. With those comments, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the IRS Reform Act. I would like to begin by congratulating Chairman Roth for holding the recent IRS hearings. The Finance Committee's historic hearing have made it possible for us to consider this bill, and they have made the Senate version of the bill improved and stronger than the House-passed version of HR 2676. However, I'm disappointed by the recent remarks by the Minority Leader, who said the Chairman's hearings were ``sensationalistic.'' These hearing were not ``sensationalistic,'' but were instead about getting at the truth. They exposed sensationally bad news about how a powerful arm of government has treated individual taxpayers. Indeed, given the stories that emerged, even holding these hearings was a brave act. Without these hearings there would have been no appointment of William Webster to review the IRS Criminal Investigation Division; no announcement of a special internal task force; the public would not have known that even a Senate Majority Leader is not protected from bizarre, apparently criminal, targeting; the bill might not have been as strong as it is; and, after a brief flurry of attention, the IRS would assume it was safe to return to business as usual. There are many causes to the problems that these hearings exposed. The culture which pervades the IRS is arrogant, powerful, and a law unto itself--it is unaccountable to anyone else. The tax law, too, is to blame. After forty years of liberal Congresses encouraging and empowering the IRS, it seems as if their only goal is to get the money and that the ends justify the means. We also must not forget that individual IRS agents also overstep the law. We still want to believe most IRS employees are conscientious civil servants. However, the hearings show the IRS has not disciplined its own. In fact, the IRS culture has rewarded rogue activity, punished whistle blowers, and carried out retribution against innocent taxpayers. The problem of ``rogue agents'' is really more a problem of a rogue agency. Today, in law and in practice, drug dealers, child molester, and organized crime have more legal rights than the average taxpayer whom the IRS suspects may owe a few dollars in back taxes. The IRS abuses are part of a bigger problem. There is a culture of big government, growing like a cancer on the body politic for two generations, that says the money you earn isn't yours, it's the government's; that says freedom isn't the individual's unalienable right, it's the government's to give or take away; that promises compassion and support, but demands control and dependence. It may all be relative, but it's becoming more like Big Brother and less like Uncle Sam. Now is the time to turn that tide. A Republican Congress has started already. We enacted the welfare reform law of 1996, which expects individual responsibility and encourages individual and community initiative. We also passed the Balanced Budget and Taxpayer Relief Acts of 1997 which said we will put limits on the appetite of government. Now we must take the next step with IRS reform. More Americans come into contact with their government through the IRS than through any other means. This bill is the first significant step to reminding everyone that the taxpayer is the boss--not the IRS, not the government. But this bill is only the first step. We need continued and increased oversight of the IRS through more hearings. From calls and letters from our own constituents, Senators know the first few hearings only scratched the surface of the tip of the iceberg. Sunlight is the best protection the people have. We also need to look at more reforms, especially protecting due process and privacy rights and increasing accountability for wrongful actions. Continued, aggressive committee activity are also a must. The ultimate IRS reform will be abolishing the current tax code and starting over with a new, fairer system. Later this year we will take the next step--voting to sunset the tax code. This would underline our commitment to ending the tax code and the IRS as we know them; guarantee the American taxpayer we will build a new, fairer system, from the ground up; and force Congress and the President to come to terms on creating a new system. Of course, President Clinton and others will fight to preserve the status quo. For a while, they tried to block IRS reform, but saw the American people wouldn't stand for it. Now President Clinton wants to dress up as First Drum major and get out in front of the parade Congress started. Mr. President, we welcome your help, however belated, if it's sincere and substantial. But, Mr. President, at least have the honesty to say, ``me, too'' instead of, ``my idea.'' President Clinton and his allies still say sunsetting the tax code would create uncertainty, but a sunset creates no more uncertainty than the status quo, which has perpetuated uncertainty for decades with a major new tax bill about every two years. Opponents don't want major tax reform--they like the current code and the way it shakes down the taxpayer. They will use divide and delay tactics, pretending to support reform but making sure no one proposal breaks out of the pack. But the American people know better, tax reform will be debated thoroughly across the country between now and 2000. Now and in the future, the American people are demanding change. They want an IRS that is fair, courteous, and respects their rights of due process and privacy. Congress is committed to creating a new culture at the IRS, serving the taxpayer, not treating them like a criminal class; treating taxpayers with respect and dignity; pursuing criminals, not quotas; and upholding the Constitutional principle of ``presumed innocent until proven guilty.'' For the future, the American people demand fundamental change--a new tax code that is simple, fair, efficient, and allows working Americans and their families to keep more of the fruits of their labors. Republicans in Congress are committed to creating that completely new system.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to share a story about an extraordinary group of Idahoans. As I drove into work this morning, my thoughts were with this group of my constituents in Nepal, very far away from home and even farther away from Washington, D.C. These Idahoans are attempting to climb Mt. Everest. Only a handful of people have climbed the mountain over the years and succeeded. Others have failed in their attempt, but very few people have ever tried to climb the mountain at all. It is a challenge that could mean death at every turn. For this group of Idahoans, however, the climb means life around every corner. The climbers are all physically disabled. These disabled trekkers are affiliated with the Cooperative Wilderness Handicapped Outdoor Group at Idaho State University, affectionately known as HOGs. This group's philosophy is, ``Hey, just because you're disabled, it doesn't mean that your life is over.'' And they are proving exactly that. The group's journey is being documented on the internet, so that updates on their progress can be found frequently. On their website they write, ``Disabled people are ignored, not really discriminated against, but ignored. I've seen families where a relative is newly disabled and they didn't let him do anything. This at first is a well-meaning attitude, but later it effectively takes a disabled person's power away to make choices. We're making a choice with this Everest Trek. It's going to be really hard, but we are going to give it our best.'' Disability comes in different forms for the participants. Kyle Packer, an Idaho State University student of the year, has Cerebral Palsy. Isaac Gayfield set many Idaho State University track records. He now has Degenerative Bone Disease. Tom McCurdy is an Idaho State University student who happens to be a paraplegic. Steve DeRoche is a weight lifting coach and a double amputee. Sheila Brashears lost a leg to cancer. Carla Yustak, who has Cerebral Palsy, is an Olympic trainee for cycling when she isn't climbing mountains. And then there is Tom Whittaker. The founder of the CW-HOG organization, Tom lost his foot in an automobile accident in 1979, shortly after finishing his Masters degree at Idaho State University. An avid outdoor adventurer, Tom felt as if his life had come to an end--but he overcame his disability, and then some. Now a professor of adventure education at Prescott College in Arizona, Tom is poised to become the first amputee to stand on the summit of Everest. While the rest of the team plans to end its journey upon reaching the base camp of the summit, Tom will travel the final stage to the peak as the sole disabled participant. I want to personally congratulate this group for their efforts so far. They are expected to reach the base camp today and Tom is set to reach the summit later this month. It is indeed a defining moment for disabled people in America and around the world. Mr. President, let me share what was written about Tom Whittaker in his online profile: ``* * * [he] reminds us, when setbacks occur in our personal and professional lives, it is not the falling down, but the getting back up that matters. The essence, in the heart of the American Dream, is not money, status or power, but the freedom to dream and the courage to embrace those dreams--for all people. As a people, we love to compete and we love to win. But more than anything, Americans applaud the grit and spirit it takes to get back up and finish the race.'' In closing, I want to recognize their spirit today. It is my hope that everyone who hears their message might be inspired to face and conquer their own challenges, and by so doing, become not only better persons but better Americans.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the time I use would not take away from the allocated time of the Senator from Utah.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to speak to the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. I ask unanimous consent my name be added to the cosponsorship of S. 1180, a bill reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about S. 1180, the Endangered Species Act reauthorization bill, and why I have decided to cosponsor it at this time. As our colleagues know, this bill was passed by the Environment and Public Works Committee last fall, and it is currently on the calendar, ready for consideration by the full Senate. I have been slow to cosponsor S. 1180 because of some reservations I had--and still have-- about the bill. I will talk in more detail about those details in a minute. However, I am absolutely convinced that the current Endangered Species Act is not only a dismal failure at saving species, but is actually working against that goal. Furthermore, every day we tolerate this defective law, its unfair and unnecessary burdens increase on citizens and the economy. Yet at the same time, the American people continue to believe that conserving fish and wildlife species for the enjoyment of future generations is the right thing to do. And I certainly agree with that. They want to make changes to the law, but don't want to see the Endangered Species Act thrown out. That is why for the last three years, my colleague and friend from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, has been working mightily to improve this complex law. He has held hearings, built coalitions, drafted and re- drafted language to correct the problems while still advancing the goals of the Endangered Species Act. I congratulate him, as well as our other Senate colleagues who have worked with him to produce this bill. S. 1180 would make some positive reforms in the current system. It would re-focus the process on actually saving species. It would create opportunities and benefits for people who are affected by the government's actions in these areas. For example, the bill emphasizes sound science--instead of politics-- to guide actions taken to conserve and recover species. It requires independent peer review for listing and delisting decisions, and for the establishment of a biological recovery goal in a recovery plan. Specific time limits would be observed, and States and local citizens would have a larger role in the process. I believe these provisions and others would make significant improvements in our current process, to the benefit of both our wildlife and our citizenry. While additional corrections could be made, those who drafted this bill believe that a more comprehensive overhaul of ESA is not going to pass this Congress. I tend to agree with that assessment and I am also willing to pursue the strategy of trying to pass these reforms now as a foundation for further reforms later. That is the message I would like to send with my cosponsorship of S. 1180 today. Having said all that, Mr. President, I cannot endorse each and every provision within this legislation. I will be supporting amendments that will change or add to the bill in a number of areas. For instance, while I support S. 1180's stated goal of providing incentives to promote voluntary habitat conservation by private landowners, I am very concerned about what the bill as a whole will fail to do in the area of protecting private property rights. This is no small matter. The right to own and use property goes to the very heart of our American democracy. It was so important to our founding fathers that they enshrined the protection of private property in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. It is equally important today. Yet our federal government has increasingly ignored these rights. President Clinton rejected the Constitution's guarantee outright when he pledged to veto any ``compensation entitlement legislation'' intended to strengthen Americans' private property rights. Representatives of this administration have even suggested that the idea of private property is an outmoded notion. Let me say to them, how dare they. Nowhere in the administration's hostility toward private property rights is there more evidence of that than in their threat to veto an endangered species reform that has that in it. Let's take a look at Secretary Babbitt's ``no surprises'' policy, for example. The basic idea is that if landowners surrender control over the use of part of their property for ESA purposes, then the Federal Government will let them use the rest of it without interference. To put it another way, Secretary Babbitt proposes that you pay the Government for the right to use your own land. By comparison, the Constitution of the United States promises that if the Federal Government wants your land used a certain way, the Federal Government has to pay you for it. Even more outrageous than Secretary Babbitt's program is the fact that many landowners think it is actually a pretty good deal. How oppressive and tyrannical have ESA regulations become, when citizens are willing, even eager, to give up their property and their constitutionally protected right to compensation just to get the Government off their back, just to get the Government to leave them alone. I applaud the goal of S. 1180 in reducing regulatory burdens and improving the certainty and finality of Government action in protecting endangered species. It is bad policy to require the American people to sacrifice their constitutionally protected rights for any Federal program, even this one. I would like to see S. 1180 strengthen and protect fifth amendment rights to compensation. I will vote for amendments and/or legislation that strengthens our citizens' private property rights. The paramount natural resource issue for Americans in the West is sovereignty of our States over water that flows and exists within the boundaries of those Western States. It is easy to say that all we need to do is remain silent on this issue and it will be OK. In fact, however, preserving State water sovereignty is not so easy. The reality of how Federal water rights are created, or not created, requires that we speak to the question, I believe, in this legislation. The appropriation doctrine is the water law of Western States and has as its central premise that the first person to claim a water right has priority on its use over those water claimants who assert claims at a later date. In the arid West, this principle lies at the very heart of our economy. It is the ability to allocate this precious resource--the resource of water--that allows us to exist in the West. It is for this reason we westerners become particularly agitated when the Federal Government tries to disrupt this principle or to ``take'' our water. Does this legislation create a Federal reserved water right? The answer is no, it doesn't. But it should say that very clearly. And I will support an amendment that I hope can pass, which will say very clearly that, within the Endangered Species Act reauthorization, it doesn't. With all of those considerations, though, I believe it is important that we move S. 1180. I think it is a positive step forward. As I have said, I believe it lays the right foundation for further changes in Congresses to come. It says to the American people that we are concerned about preserving species of animals, insects, of all things on this earth, if we can possibly do it. At the same time, there is a reasonable right and a reasonable responsibility enshrined within the Constitution that we preserve the right of the citizenry to exist also. It is for this reason that this legislation should clearly state the Congress' intent. For the record, this Senator does not intend for the endangered species reauthorization legislation to create a federal reserved water right. This is why I believe S. 1180 must state clearly that no implied or express federal water right is created in this legislation. I will support and vote for such an amendment. With these areas of concern in mind, I am also inclined to support a shorter term of reauthorization than S. 1180 provides. As I mentioned previously, it is my goal to build additional improvements on the foundation laid by this legislation. Accelerating the opportunity for Congress to re-open the issue would only advance that goal. In closing, Mr. President, let me repeat my endorsement for the goals that Senator Kempthorne and the other supporters of this bill set out to achieve in reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act. I think the bill will make improvements that are critical to ongoing EAS efforts in my state and elsewhere in the nation, and amendments in the areas I have discussed today will enhance those improvements. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about S. 1180, the Endangered Species Act reauthorization bill, and why I have decided to cosponsor it at this time. As our colleagues know, this bill was passed by the Environment and Public Works Committee last fall, and it is currently on the calendar, ready for consideration by the full Senate. I have been slow to cosponsor S. 1180 because of some reservations I had--and still have-- about the bill. I will talk in more detail about those reservations later. However, I am absolutely convinced that the current Endangered Species Act is not only a dismal failure at saving species, but is actually working against that goal. Furthermore, everyday we tolerate this defective law, its unfair and unnecessary burdens increase on citizens and the economy. Yet at the same time, the American people continue to believe that conserving fish and wildlife species for the enjoyment of future generations is the right thing to do and I agree. They want to make changes to the law, but don't want to see the Endangered Species Act thrown out. That's why for the last three years, my colleague and friend from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, has been working mightly to improve this complex law. He has held hearings, built coalitions, drafted and re- drafted language to correct the problems while still advancing the goals of the Endangered Species Act. I congratulate him, as well as our other Senate colleagues who have worked with him to produce this bill. S. 1180 would make some positive reforms to the current system. It would re-focus the process on actually saving species. It would create opportunities and benefits for people who are affected by the government's actions in these areas. For example, the bill emphasizes sound science--instead of politics-- to guide actions taken to conserve and recover species. It requires independent peer review for listing and delisting decisions, and for the establishment of a biological recovery goal in a recovery plan. Specific time limits would have to be observed, and States and local citizens would have a larger role in the process. I believe these provisions and others would make significant improvements in our current process, to the benefit of both our wildlife and our citizenry. While additional corrections could be made, those who drafted this bill believe that a more comprehensive overhaul of ESA is not going to pass this Congress. I tend to agree with that assessment and am willing to pursue the strategy of trying to pass these reforms now as a foundation for further reforms in the future. That is the message I would like to send with my cosponsorship of S. 1180. Having said all that, Mr. President, I cannot endorse each and every provision of this legislation. I will be supporting amendments that will change or add to the bill in a number of areas. For instance, while I support S. 1180's stated goal of providing incentives to promote voluntary habitat conservation by private landowners, I am very concerned about what the bill as a whole will fail to do in the area of protecting private property rights. This is no small matter. The right to own and use property goes to the very heart of our American democracy. It was so important to our founding fathers that they enshrined the protection of private property in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. It is equally important today. Yet our federal government has increasingly ignored these rights. President Clinton rejected the Constitution's guarantee outright when he pledged to veto any ``compensation entitlement legislation'' intended to strengthen Americans' private property rights. Representatives of this Administration have even suggested that the idea of private property is an outmoded notion. Nowhere is the Administration's hostility to private property rights more evident than in the area of endangered species regulation. Let's take a look at Secretary Babbitt's ``no surprises'' policy, for example. The basic idea is that if landowners surrender control over the use of part of their property for ESA purposes, then the federal government will let them use the rest of it without interference. To put it another way, Secretary Babbitt proposes that you pay the government for the right to use your own land. By comparison, the Constitution of the United States promises that if the federal government wants your land used a certain way, the federal government has to pay you for it. Mr. President, even more outrageous than Secretary Babbitt's program is the fact that many landowners think it's actually a pretty good deal. How oppressive and tyrannical has ESA regulation become, when citizens are willing--even eager--to give up their property and their constitutionally-protected right to compensation, just to get the government to leave them alone? I applaud S. 1180's goal of reducing regulatory burdens and improving the certainty and finality of government action in protecting endangered species. It is bad policy to require the American people to sacrifice their constitutionally-protected rights for any federal program--even this one. I would like to see S. 1180 strengthen and protect the Fifth Amendment right to compensation. I will vote for amendments and or legislation that strengthens our citizen's private property rights. Private property rights are not the only critical issue that concerns me in this legislation. I also had hoped that S. 1180 would directly address the issue of water rights, and specifically deny that any of its provisions create an express or implied federal water right. Mr. President, the paramount natural resource issue for the American West is the sovereignty of the states over the water that flows and exists within their borders. It is easy to say that all we need to do is remain silent on this issue and all will be well. In fact, however, preserving state water sovereignty is not so easy. The reality of how federal water rights are created, or not created, requires that we speak to the question in legislation. The appropriation doctrine is the water law of western states and has as its central premise that the first person to claim a water right has priority on its use over those water claimants who assert claims at later dates. In the arid West, this principle lies at the very heart of our economy. It is the ability to allocate this precious resource (water) for uses that allows us to exist. It is for this reason we westerners become particularly agitated when the federal government tries to disrupt this principle or to ``take'' our water. Does this legislation create a federal reserved water right? There are those who would say ``no,'' and there are those who would press to assert such a right. It is for this reason that this legislation should clearly state the Congress' intent. For the record, this Senator does not intend for the endangered species reauthorization legislation to create a federal reserved water right. This is why I believe S. 1180 must state clearly that no implied or express federal water right is created in this legislation. I will support and vote for such an amendment. With these areas of concern in mind, I am also inclined to support a shorter term of reauthorization than S. 1180 provides. As I mentioned previously, it is my goal to build additional improvements on the foundation laid by this legislation. Accelerating the opportunity for Congress to re-open the issue would only advance that goal. In closing, Mr. President, let me repeat my endorsement for the goals that Senator Kempthorne and the other supporters of this bill set out to ahieve in reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act. I think the bill will make improvements that are critical to ongoing ESA efforts in my state and elsewhere in the nation, and amendments in the areas I have discussed today will enhance those improvements.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am going to note the absence of a quorum for the purpose of the Presiding Officer having an opportunity to speak to this issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, yesterday I put before the Senate a very straightforward amendment to our resolution of ratification that speaks to the responsibility of the President as it relates to getting authorization for the continued mission of our U.S. military in Bosnia. I say that in the context of us debating NATO expansion because I think it is appropriate. It is appropriate because of the way this President has characterized the need to expand NATO from his perspective. He speaks about it no longer as just a defense mechanism for Europe; he speaks of it as a mechanism for the purpose of peacekeeping. We have heard several of our colleagues come to the floor in the last good number of days as we have debated this issue, frustrated by what will be the role of a new NATO, and how should we define that--at least from our understanding--as we move for the purpose of ratification, upholding our constitutional responsibilities, which are paramount on this issue. I am one of those Senators who has said very openly that I don't believe we ought to be expanding NATO at this time. We ought to be encouraging the European Community to reach out to those nations that have now emerged from behind the fallen Iron Curtain--reach out to them in an economic way, bringing them into the economic union, creating greater economic stability rather than, if you will, offering them the olive branch of inclusion into NATO as some coming of age process, and turning to the United States and, in essence, saying, now you have to pay for it or you have to play a greater role--especially when I don't think any of us sense the dramatic urgency of an expanded defensive mission for the whole of a freer Europe. That strength would come through the economic growth of those countries and the greater strength of their democracies because of the economic growth. Some of us have also expressed concern about, of course, Russia and how it feels as we tend to expand a defensive peacekeeping mechanism toward them, and not being willing to focus as much as we should on assisting, ensuring the democratic processes in Russia itself. As a result of that, I think it is tremendously important that we cause this administration to define what its intent is. As you know, Mr. President, we are now in a period of time in Bosnia where we are operating without authorization from Congress. Costs are mounting in a tremendous way, and as a result of that, we have no end game in mind, no mission intent at this moment. My amendment is clearly straightforward. It is something the President should have done some time ago. But, of course, when he seeks authorization, then he can't keep diverting money out from under the defense system itself to fund an unending operation in Bosnia, or at least unending by his current definition. So what I am saying is really very straightforward: Mr. President, as you move forward with your commitment to an expanded NATO, come to us and ask for an authorization and ask for a definition, if you will, in cooperation with us on the role in Bosnia. I think this becomes increasingly important. Colleagues from the other side of this issue have said I am amending the treaty. Well, we all know that is not true. What we are talking about today is a resolution of ratification. I am putting within that resolution--if my amendment were to become part of it by this process--a condition which the President would have to respond to prior to being able to move forward with the blessings of Congress in a confirmation of the resolution of ratification. That is the intent of my amendment. It is very straightforward, clear, and it is quite simple. I don't believe it is convoluted or confusing in any sense of the words. Maybe there are those who don't want the President to seek authorization. But I can't imagine any of us who are willing to fund and participate in putting the men and women of the U.S. armed services in harm's way--that we don't, for some reason, define how that all ought to be. It is with that intent that we bring forward this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank my colleagues. I would like to offer up a unanimous consent request for the good of the order and the remainder of the afternoon. I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 5 p.m. be equally divided between the majority and the minority. I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Hutchison amendment No. 2317, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Craig amendment No. 2316. I finally ask consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the second vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, again thanking my colleague, Senator Wellstone, for his courtesy, I will be brief. It is a very direct and simple amendment but I think a most powerful amendment. Let me read it. Statutory Authorization for Deployments in Bosnia and Herzegovina--Prior to the deposit of the United States instrument of ratification, there must be enacted a law containing specific authorization for the continued deployment of the United States Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the NATO mission in that country. That is the substance of the amendment. This amendment would require that before the President can deposit the instruments of ratification, he must receive authorization from this Congress for the mission in Bosnia. Last May, President Clinton publicly embraced the idea of a new NATO mission. It is my concern that the President's vision of a new NATO will signal the end of NATO as a defense alliance and the beginning of a new role as a regional peacekeeping organization. The President declared, ``We are building a new NATO. We will remain the strongest alliance in history, with smaller, more flexible forces prepared for our defense but also trained for peacekeeping. It will be an alliance directed no longer against a hostile block of nations but instead designed to advance the security of every democracy in Europe--NATO's old members, now members and nonmembers alike.'' I cannot support the President's call for a new NATO to be a de facto peacekeeping organization worldwide. Mr. President, President Clinton's peacekeeping operation in Bosnia has been going on now for more than 2 years without authorization from Congress, with costs mounting far beyond any estimate, with the mission's end date repeatedly broken. The mission in Bosnia is now what we were promised it would not be, an unauthorized, open-ended, nation- building deployment with no withdrawal criteria. As costs for NATO's mission in Bosnia continue to add up, the President seems eager to take on new peacekeeping operations. Make no mistake; the U.S. is paying the lion's share of the peacekeeping in Bosnia. We all know these costs are high for the Defense Department. The Defense Department is forced to come to Congress for supplemental funds. We are now meeting in a conference of the Appropriations Committee to deal with those very issues for the Defense Department. In 1995, the President vowed that U.S. troop deployment in Bosnia should and will take about 1 year and cost about $1 billion. Three years and $8 billion later, the administration now admits we do not propose a fixed end date for the deployment. Let me be clear. My amendment is not a war powers resolution. It does not say the President cannot continue the deployment in Bosnia without authorization, nor does it cut off funds for Bosnia, nor does it set an end date for the mission, nor does it establish a withdrawal criteria. It does, however, require the President to cooperate with Congress to set reasonable parameters for that mission before the President gets a blank check in the form of a new NATO for more of other area missions. The commitment of U.S. troops to Bosnia is a commitment of U.S. blood, and expansion of NATO is an expansion of this commitment. The decision to place U.S. troops in harm's way is a commitment that none of us take lightly. We owe it to our troops to obtain authorization for peacekeeping missions. That is what my amendment sets forth.