Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk that I call up.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me first of all thank Senator Wellstone for his courtesy. Executive Amendment No. 2316 (Purpose: To condition United States ratification of the protocols on specific statutory authorization for the continued deployment of United States Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the NATO mission)

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. The Craig amendment will not be debated until tomorrow.

Mr. CRAIG. For purposes of unanimous consent, Mr. President, let me try this again so we can notify our Members of a vote at 5 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 5 o'clock be equally divided between the majority and minority. I further ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Hutchison amendment No. 2317. I further ask unanimous consent that at 4:25 Senator Ashcroft be recognized to lay aside the pending amendment and he call up an amendment, for debate only, until 4:55, and at such time there be 5 minutes equally divided for closing remarks on the Hutchison amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me withdraw the unanimous consent request at this time. We are wasting valuable debate time. The debate can go forward. We will see if we can come up with an agreement a few minutes from now. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am willing to extend to 5:10, the time at which we would start the votes. I will say to the Senator from California, I certainly respect her right and her need to debate. I can't say how long the Senator from Delaware plans to speak on my amendment. I have said about all there is to say on my amendment, and within a few minutes I could say the bulk of it. I know the Senator from Missouri also wished to lay down an amendment, I believe. That would take a minimal amount of time. But it is important. We have Senators who have obligations by 5:20, and that is what we are trying to meet.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.

Mr. CRAIG. I apologize to the Senator. Would he repeat that?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am filing an amendment related to the resolution of ratification for the proposed expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 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 defensive alliance and begin its role as a global peacekeeping organization. I have several concerns about the President's vision for NATO, not the least of which is cost for a ``new'' NATO. It seems to me that if the President continues to eagerly commit our men and women in uniform to dangerous peace-keeping missions, for which, the U.S. invariably pays the lion's share of the cost, the United Nations should either be forced to reimburse us for those costs, or relieve our so-called arrears. Therefore, I will be offering an amendment which requires that prior to the deposit of the instrument of ratification for NATO expansion, the President must certify that the Senate has obtained a commitment from the United Nations that the U.S. will be reimbursed or credited for costs incurred in peace-keeping missions. I am offering this amendment because I am both concerned and frustrated by the tremendous costs that the U.S. incurs in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions around the globe. Our men and women in uniform are asked to do more and more, with less and less. Meanwhile, American taxpayers foot the bill for these missions. Yet, the United States is handed the single largest assessed contribution for any U.N. member, despite the huge commitments we maintain across the globe. I hope my colleagues will support this common-sense amendment to force the United Nations to account for the contributions that the United States has made to peace-keeping around the world.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, since September of 1997, the General Accounting Office, at my request, has been conducting an investigation into possible anti-lobbying violations--as well as possible violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act--at the Department of Education. This investigation is ongoing and I have no reason to believe at this time that the nominee in question, Mr. Fleming, is a key figure in this investigation nor have I been presented with any evidence of wrongdoing on his part that would compel me to oppose his nomination. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to urge Mr. Fleming, in his new capacity as Assistant Secretary of Education for Legislation and Congressional Affairs, to cooperate fully with the GAO investigation in order to resolve this matter expeditiously. Mr. President, let me explain my involvement with this issue and my concerns as they relate to allegations of an unusually close, and perhaps improper, relationship between the Department of Education and certain lobbyists in this town. This matter was first brought to my attention by an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post on September 4, 1997. That editorial, written by nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak, described how--each week while Congress was in session--senior Department of Education officials and special interest group representatives gathered in Secretary Riley's conference room for what, in my opinion, amounted to `political action' or `legislative planning' sessions. News of these meetings surfaced in a report published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's, Paul Steidler. For seven months, Mr. Steidler attended these meetings and kept detailed minutes of what was discussed. What emerges from the Steidler notes, if substantiated, is extremely troubling. Without discussing the particulars of this investigation, Mr. President, let me note that I take Mr. Steidler's allegations very seriously. Collusion between special interest lobbyists and the executive branch for the express purpose of defeating or promoting specific legislation, at the grass roots level or here in Congress, is unacceptable. Mr. President, the GAO investigation into these matters is still underway. And, as I said, it does not appear that Mr. Fleming was a central figure in the formation or conduct of the weekly meetings in question. My concern is that the Department of Education cooperate fully with this investigation so this body and the American people can be certain that the Department of Education's interests correspond with our children's best interests and not just the needs of those special interests that dominate the landscape here in Washington. I ask unanimous consent that the Novak editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2309

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on May 2-4, 1998, more than 1,200 students will participate in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution Program. This is a three day academic competition on the Constitution and Bill of Rights here in Washington, D.C. I am proud to acknowledge students from Les Bois High School in Boise, Idaho, who have achieved the great honor of participating in this outstanding program. Under the direction of their teachers, Dan Prinzing and Janet Adams, these students have worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning competitions in Idaho. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the primary goal of the We the People . . . program, is to promote civic competence and responsibility among the nation's elementary and secondary students. This instructional program is designed to increase the students' understanding of American constitutional democracy. By providing firsthand experience, students are able to witness the relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in dealing with contemporary issues. Participation in the national finals requires that the students demonstrate their knowledge of constitutional principles and their relevance to current issues before a simulation of congressional committees composed of constitutional scholars, lawyers, journalists, and government leaders. Here the students will have the opportunity to scrutinize and take or defend positions on issues placed before them. This program provides an excellent opportunity for these students to increase their knowledge of our nation's government and legislative procedure. This is an experience that will benefit both these students and the nation, as it provides an excellent hands-on course in preparing our young Americans for future leadership. I commend these students from Les Bois High School for this outstanding achievement, and wish them luck in the National competition. I am proud to have them represent the great state of Idaho. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of student names from Les Bois High School who will be competing be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is great to be back from our recess and once again to convene the Senate in the work of the citizens of this country. Mr. President, let me, first of all, recognize my colleague from Nebraska and my colleague from Wyoming and, for the record, praise them for the leadership they have demonstrated on the most critical issue that we address here on the floor this morning. Senator Hagel has become the Senate's leader, along with Senator Byrd of West Virginia, on this issue of climate change and trying to convince the Administration, and I think some of our critics, that the course this Administration pursues is not only unrealistic, it really is unjustified. Both Senator Hagel and Senator Enzi, as was recognized by the Senator from Wyoming, were in Kyoto to watch as this Administration negotiated and began to work on some form of protocol. I think we three Senators join on the floor this morning proud that during this century our Nation has developed into the strongest economic and military power ever to exist on the face of the Earth. Our democratic system of government, which ensures unparalleled freedom for its citizens, is the envy of the world. All of us in this body are entrusted with the responsibility to protect and enhance that very stature. Because I feel so strongly about that responsibility, it is with the most chilling concern that I comment today on the President's contemplated signing of the Kyoto Protocol on Global Climate Change. Despite grave bipartisan warnings from the Congress since the conclusion of the U.N. Global Climate Summit in Kyoto, the President insists on committing our country to an agreement that I believe threatens our way of life; indeed, it threatens the heart of our Nation's power--and the American economy. I, like many of my Senate colleagues, am confounded as to why the President is contemplating signing this agreement. I can only hope that it is not simply misguided loyalty to the Vice President, who every American knows is the main protagonist in this ill-conceived campaign to avoid what he calls ``an imminent environmental holocaust'' caused by global warming. Let me repeat those words. Catch the flavor and the emotional ring of ``an imminent environmental holocaust.'' If anybody stood on the street corner of America and spoke with those terms, surely they would catch the attention of some. When the Vice President speaks in those terms, he catches the attention of many. There is only one problem with that kind of rhetoric. Few, if any, scientists today believe that the world is facing an environmental holocaust from global warming, much less an imminent one. In fact, as more and more American scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made by the Administration in the Kyoto Protocol is an unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat--``to an exaggerated threat'' that the Vice President himself is caught up in making. Indeed, just today more than 15,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, released a petition they signed urging the United States to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition, expressly states that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Mr. President, why must the United States be a party to an agreement that will substantially and negatively affect our economy, change our way of life, and potentially weaken our ability to maintain the world's most powerful military without sufficient scientific evidence of impending doom--sufficient scientific evidence of impending doom? I submit that this Administration has yet to adequately answer that question. The President of the United States, over anyone else in our country, must answer that question. Even if we were to ignore the scientific evidence and assume that the world is facing an imminent environmental problem, this agreement does nothing to avoid the threat. Bert Bolin, a Swedish meteorologist and the outgoing chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, recently said that ``[t]he Kyoto conference did not achieve much with regard to limiting the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.''--The Washington Post, February 13, 1998 Therefore, I ask again: Why is the President going to sign this agreement, which, if ratified in its current form, will raise the costs for nearly everything in a typical American budget, in both the short term and long term? The Administration has attempted to relieve our economic concerns with a superficial analysis that presents a simplistic view of how American industry can adapt to new economic challenges and includes assumptions about the success of emission trading proposals that are untested in the international arena. This so-called economic analysis is contained in a 20-page paper by Janet Yellen, the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, submitted as testimony to the House Commerce Committee and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. However, in testimony recently given before the Senate Agriculture Committee examining the Kyoto Agreement, Mary Novak, senior vice president of a respected economic forecasting forum --you have heard of them--called Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates, well-known worldwide for its expertise, stated that the Administration's economic analysis of the impact of the Kyoto Agreement is terribly flawed--not possibly flawed, not flawed in limited ways, but terribly flawed. Ms. Novak predicted that the total U.S. cost of meeting the Kyoto Agreement would be $250 billion, or a loss of 3.2 percent of gross domestic product. In addition, Ms. Novak stated that about 2.5 million jobs would be lost, and the annual expense per family would exceed $2,700 a year. If the Senate of the United States were, at this moment, contemplating an income tax increase that would increase the average family's taxes by $2,700, and if we passed it, very few, if any, of us would withstand the public outcry, let alone the voters at the ballot box in November. Yet, this President, because he thinks he can hide it through the processes of time and the procedure of international agreement, is proposing just that. That is what the WEFA says--an annual expense per family to exceed $2,700. Mr. President, if this administration were sincere about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we would have seen in the President's budget proposal strong support for an array of reliable electric energy that we all know has a benign impact on the very environment that we all cherish and want to protect. Conspicuously absent from the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative was any support for nuclear or hydroelectric power. In fact, the President and the Vice President are hostile to nuclear and hydroelectric power. This very Administration has initiatives that will ultimately grind nuclear energy generation to a halt and would restrict us from any further development of hydro, let alone maintaining the status quo. Yet, both of these sources of power, as we know, do not produce one single molecule of greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a cleaner source of power than falling water, or nuclear fission. What about the sincerity of this Administration's commitment to our Nation's global competitiveness? I was watching television yesterday catching the news shows and talk shows discussing the American economy. Many pundits were concerned about the aggressiveness of the stock market. Well, concerned, yet happy; but will this happiness last? We are surely concerned about the economics of the Pacific rim at this moment; and, nearly every economist on these shows were talking about the power of the current economy of the United States, how it pulls other economies with us, and that we continue to expect growth in the coming year; growth of about 2.5 percent, growth very similar to the kind we had last year. And, while we are talking about that, while we recognize that our competitiveness in the global environment drives the global market, we have an Administration that is tinkering around with the idea of restricting the ability of our country to lead economically and to help out all other nations of the world with their own economic problems. Mr. President, our Nation's agricultural industry is one of several industries that will be adversely affected by the requirements of the Kyoto Agreement. American agriculture has evolved with the rapid adoption of new technology; it is both highly capital and energy intensive. Energy use in both direct and indirect ways, including the fuel and lubricants for machinery and vehicles, the natural gas used to dry crops and pump irrigation water, and the electricity used in a wide variety of ways, has caused the American agricultural economy to be the most competitive and the most productive in the world. We use fertilizer and pesticides, all containing large energy components. For these reasons, our agricultural system is very sensitive to the kinds of changes the Vice President and the President are proposing. American farmers buy $166 billion worth of inputs and services, sell about $212 billion worth of products and services, and receive just about $54 billion in cash income to cover costs and provide incentives for future investment. Moreover, American agriculture is deeply integrated into the world economy and depends on more than $60 billion in export sales--the fastest growing market for our food and our fiber products. That is just one example of an economy in this country that helps set the pace for the world. The Kyoto Agreement would cause fertilizer prices to go up, and while the President says carbon taxes are not a part of his plan to meet the treaty's requirements, the administration intends to pressure fossil fuel prices through other ways that would have the impact of burdensome tax increases. One of the results of the Administration's approach to compliance will be higher costs for diesel fuel for trucks and tractors. It takes no genius to understand what that means: Increased costs for farmers, which translates into increased costs for food and finished goods at the grocery store. In addition, since most products are delivered by diesel-powered trucks, nearly every item in nearly every store in America will cost more. And all of this will be done by an Administration that pursues a policy which it has no strong scientific or economic basis or logical reason to pursue. One of the many potential tragedies of this treaty would be the higher cost of food, not just for those who can afford it but for those who cannot. And remember our Judeo-Christian ethic as a country, the hundreds of millions of dollars of food we send around the world to poor nations, to starving people. Could we afford to send more if it cost more? I doubt it. And yet that is exactly what the President proposes. According to Data Resources, Inc., another respected economic forecasting firm, 37 percent of American households have less than $20,000 after-tax income and spend about 21.2 percent to more than 100 percent of after-tax income on food. For these families, the impact of America's compliance with the Kyoto Agreement would be severe and very negative. Mr. President, I believe this will be the first time in the history of our country that a President has allowed foreign interests to control and to limit the growth of the American economy. Let me repeat that for the record because I believe, after our research, that is a pretty profound statement, not just coming from me but coming from the historic records of our country, that this would be the first time in our history that an American President has allowed foreign interests to control and limit the growth of the American economy. Never before have we allowed foreign interests to dictate the amount of energy Americans can use. The Kyoto Agreement requires Americans to cut energy use by the year 2010 to 7 percent below what it was using in 1990. That was just 8 years ago. This weekend, I was at a special school out in Idaho, a collection of bright young kids. They are developing an electric car. They are going to race it next week in a race in north Idaho, an electric car. But guess what. You have to use nuclear hydrocarbons to generate the electricity that goes in the battery that powers the car that creates no pollution. Get the message. No matter where you turn, whether it is fueling the cars for the great urban areas of our country that might be powered by electricity in the future, that electricity still has to be generated. And a lot of bright people are trying to accomplish that, so we can reduce that kind of impact on our environment. And yet, Mr. President, you are denying the ability to generate the energy by suggesting that we progressively reduce our ability to consume. Mr. President, to illustrate the emissions requirement of the Agreement, Jay Hakes, head of the Energy Information Administration--a statistical arm of the Department of Energy--said in February testimony before the House Science Committee: ``A 7 percent reduction [below baseline levels under the agreement] for energy-related carbon emissions alone would require a reduction of about 550 million metric tons of carbon in 2010, or about 31 percent,'' below current projections. According to EIA data, the mark of 550 million metric tons is greater than the total carbon emissions produced by electricity generation in the United States for 1990 or 1996 which were 477 million metric tons and 517 million metric tons, respectively. So let me say to all Senators and to the American people, tonight, walk around your house. Think about the light fixture you have just turned on, the appliance you have just turned off, the telephone device you might make a call on, or the computer you will sit down to, to communicate anywhere in the world. Many of these things you have added to your home since 1990. Look at the car you drove home from work. And to the farmer who is out there on the plains and the farmlands of America this very hour, that marvelously efficient diesel tractor that is pulling the plow and the drill to plant the crop that creates the abundant harvest that feeds not just the people of America but the people of the world. All of those tools are a product of energy. In fact, Americans today are consuming more energy as the economy continues to grow, and we will need to consume more. We will need to turn on our lights and our computers. We will need our cars. In the future, they will be better and they will be cleaner, but they still must consume energy. The Administration knows this protocol is seriously flawed. In a news conference held in Kyoto, Japan, on December 8, 1997, Vice President Al Gore acknowledged: ``We've said from the beginning that, in order to send an agreement to the Senate, we must have meaningful participation by key developing countries.'' We now know that developing countries did not sign the agreement. Is it fair to let these countries off the hook while we Americans are subject to such stringent requirements? Here's what Stephen L. Miller, President of the Center for Energy and Economic Development had to say about the Kyoto Treaty: ``The proposed Kyoto treaty is like a card game where the deck is stacked. American workers are being dealt a losing hand through the negotiating process. In the end, there will be no real environmental benefit and America's working families will be forced to pay higher energy and consumer costs while we export U.S. jobs to countries that are exempted from action under the Treaty.'' So let us call once again upon our President to incorporate in this agreement developing nations, growth nations like China, Mexico, and India, that have simply walked away because they cannot be a part of an agreement that would cut back on the opportunity they are trying to offer their citizens. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, sign something that is a winning agreement for America. Sign something that promotes our economy, that promotes the environment of the world. Sign something that all countries of the world can agree with. Please do not turn us away from the kind of economic growth and development that all of our citizens expect and demand. There is simply no compelling reason for our government at this time to force Americans to take preventive measures of uncertain competence against a problem that may or may not lie in the Earth's future. The Administration carries a heavy burden of persuasion that the CO2 compliance measures contained in the Kyoto Agreement are worth the sacrifice it will require of the American people. We here in the Senate must, and will, ensure that our nation's global economic competitiveness, our nation's military readiness, and our way of life, are not compromised merely to advance misguided political agendas. It bears repeating--the Kyoto Agreement is flawed. It is based on politic science and not lab science. And it is only through sound lab science that we, working collectively together with our colleagues around the world, will produce a better world. Once again, I thank my colleague from Nebraska for recognizing the importance of this special order this morning as we talk about global climate change and its importance to our country and to our friends and neighbors around the world. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this year this Senate will vote for $2.5 billion in new money to go to the disabled. We are doing our part for the first time. What the Senator from Arkansas fails to say is he is proposing half a billion dollars in new tax increases on the working men and women of the mining industries. It is not that simple. If you want to vote for a big tax increase, then vote not to table this amendment. But if you want to vote to maintain a strong mining industry in this country that is the foundation of our industrial might, then you ought to vote to table because we are doing the right thing this year. We are funding for the disabled with an additional $2.5 billion. I ask my colleagues to vote to table the amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I reluctantly stand in opposition to the amendment by my colleague from West Virginia. I say that because I appreciate and share with him membership on the Veterans' Committee. So I don't take this opposition lightly. But I recognize its importance because of the broad sense of obligation we have to our veterans community. We in this Nation have elevated veterans and veterans' care to a high standard. That is why it is a Cabinet agency. It didn't just happen by accident. We want to care for our veterans. Those men and women who have stood in harm's way for the defense of our freedoms deserve that care, and all of us appreciate the fact that is a great deal. That is why this budget spends $3 billion more over the next 5 years than was assumed in last year's bipartisan budget agreement. That is a true statement of commitment and obligation to our veterans. But this administration and I, and the chairman of the Budget Committee, have very real doubts whether allowing a post-service, smoking-related illness as a part of cash compensation to dependents is the right way to go--at a time certainly when our Veterans' Administration is strapped for cash to meet its current obligations to generate and create a new obligation that is estimated will cost $45 billion over the next 10 years and could reach as high as $10 billion a year by the year 2009. That is the reality of what we are talking about. How did we get there? There was a question asked inside the Veterans' Administration whether it was reasonable and right. Could they compensate if this were true? The answer was yes. But the chairman of the Budget Committee is right. Did this Congress authorize it? No; we did not. Can we literally start a new extension of entitlement that could cost $10 billion a year without Congress speaking to it? I hope not. But that is the character of the amendment offered by my colleague from West Virginia. I oftentimes do not like to use the argument that maybe we ought to study this. But maybe we ought to understand what we might be walking into. Is it really going to be, by the year 2009, a $10 billion expenditure at a time when our veterans' hospitals may be going unserved or unmodernized or unadministered, at a time when we are trying to strive for outpatient care, at a time when we are trying to build obligations for State-managed and shared veterans' nursing homes for the population of World War II veterans as they grow older and older? If this is the kind of expansion of entitlement we are talking about, how much of the other programs of the Veterans' Administration will we be starving out? That is why I have to say no and will oppose the amendment, and hope we can look at the possibility of secondary amendments that would analyze and study to see what this obligation might be. We really do not have the parameters of it. In the Veterans' Committee the other day, chaired by my chairman, Senator Specter, there was a general analysis of how they would interpret how they would judge. But, as we know, once you lay down a set of regulations and make arbitrary decisions about who is and who isn't eligible, all it takes is a court test to say, ``Wait a moment. You have judged me, my husband's, or my wife's illness improperly although they are deceased and I am entitled.'' And the judge says, ``Why not? It is the largess of the Treasury. And, by the way, the Veterans' Administration is being arbitrary anyway.'' Boom. We have a new expansion of an entitlement because this Congress didn't speak to it and this Congress didn't set the tight parameters necessary when we created new entitlement programs. We allowed an agency and their administrators to interpret and, therefore, to judge and, therefore, to define. I believe that is arbitrary. I think all of us do. Let me remind you: $10 billion a year by the year 2009 is potentially $45 billion over the next 10 years. That is a big chunk of money.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has explained our intent with this amendment. Let me read it: The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Office of Management and Budget and the GAO are jointly required to-- jointly study (referred to in this section as the ``study'') the VA General Counsel's determination and the resulting actions to change the compensation rules. . . [and] deliver an opinion as to whether illnesses resulting from post-service smoking should be considered as a compensable disability. That is one point. The other point, and I think the most important one that drives this process, that alludes to the potential $10 billion a year, or $45 billion over the next few years, is: . . . estimate the numbers of those filing such claims, the cost resulting from such benefits, the time necessary to receive such claims, and how such a number of claims will affect the VA's ability to review its current claim load. In other words, this is not a dodge, this is a sincere effort to determine the impact of this potential program, that not one dime has been spent on yet. Are we truly going to damage other veterans' programs that are ongoing, that current veterans believe they are owed and, in all right, they are owed? I think we ought to have that information. That is exactly what this study does. Does it shove it off for years and years? Not at all. The study concludes that this has to be completed no later than July 1, 1999. And the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget and GAO shall report their findings to the majority and the minority leaders of the Senate and the ranking member and the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. This is an honest and sincere attempt not to legislate into the dark and to risk $10 billion or $45 billion, and to put in jeopardy current and future ongoing programs of the Veterans Administration, but to have a real understanding of where we might be treading. I believe it is responsible, I believe it is right, and I hope my colleagues will join with the chairman of the Budget Committee in support of this second-degree. Let's find out where we are going before we launch on a commitment that we would never be able to walk away from once we created that obligation to veterans. If we truly have dependents out there who start receiving the money, we will never cut it off.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me say first to the Senators from Arkansas and New Hampshire, this has to be one of the most gratuitous taxes on the mining industry you have yet come up with. Let me be blunt, let me be honest: Every citizen benefits from the wealth of the products that flow from mining, and certainly disabled Americans have benefited considerably from light metal technology and advanced computer technology that depends on our mining industry. It has made them mobile. It has made them active. It has changed their lives. The Senator from New Hampshire knows better than to say that mining industries don't pay taxes. They are in the 32 percent bracket on the profits of those industries. Everyone knows that, and that kind of statement ought to be taken from the record because it simply is not true. What is true is that the mining industry is characterized by relatively rare, commercially valuable metal deposits and mineral deposits. There is high economic risk, geologic unknowns, high capital requirements, and long lead times for the development of the mining companies. We know that, and that is why this Congress years ago provided that depletion allowance, because mining industries invest so much upfront for a resource that is rapidly depleting as they mine it out. It recognizes, by this action and by what Congress has already done, unique natural mineral extraction provides for this country the valuable base for our industrial-based economy. It is difficult to replace minerals. Much of the money must be used for exploration and development, millions and millions of dollars upfront, like no other industry that we have seen, only to play in a market that is oftentimes dramatic, in a world market with changing values, and as a result there are dramatic losses and, yes, dramatic profits. But the one thing that is clear and constant across it is a recognition of the constant use or the depletion of the resource that they have discovered. I am disappointed that the Senator from Arkansas would try to offset this against disabled people. It just simply doesn't make sense. This Congress has been tremendously responsive to disabled people--the Senator from Arkansas has, the Senator from Idaho and New Hampshire and all of us--and now to play this kind of gratuitous game simply doesn't make a lot of sense.

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, April 23, 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. 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. 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, April 28, 1998 at 2:30 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. 326, the Abandon Hardrock Mines Reclamation Act of 1997; S. 327, the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act of 1997; and S. 1102, Mining Law Reform Act of 1997. 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 at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources