Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, America always rises to a challenge. We meet challenges readily and directly and would never ignore one knowingly as a country. Therefore, it is not surprising that the greatest threat facing our Nation today would be the least visible. It is invisible because it originates behind our defenses. It does not come from a foreign country; it comes from our own. While it directly threatens our well- being, it dares not confront us directly. It uses Americans' good will and generosity against them. All of this serves to make the threat more insidious and more dangerous. Mr. President, the greatest threat facing America today is excessive taxation and with it a Washington culture that has transformed excessive into acceptable. By any estimation, America's tax burden is excessive. Washington is projected to take $1.68 trillion in taxes this year. No government in history has ever collected that much from its citizens. As an overall burden, that $1.7 trillion amounts to 20.1 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product. One-fifth of everything produced in this country is consumed by this city, this Government, Washington, DC. That one-fifth is the highest overall tax burden since World War II, when America had committed itself to a total effort to win the greatest war in mankind's history. Even then, under those most serious of circumstances, the tax burden placed on the Nation was only slightly larger than it is today. That burden lasted for just 2 years, 1944 and 1945. When the war was done, then the taxes returned to normal because this Congress made that happen because at that time we had not slipped into the culture of excessive taxation. In contrast, today's tax burden shows no signs of ever ending, to the point that excessive taxation has come to be accepted as normal. Even after the tax cuts of last year have been fully implemented by the year 2003, the overall Federal tax burden will still amount to 19.5 percent, still one-fifth of everything produced in this country. The burden will still be higher than all but 2 years following World War II: 1969, when America was involved in war, and in 1981, when America was being wracked by runaway inflation. Today we no longer see the specter of Hitler stalking across Europe; today we no longer are fighting in the jungles of Southeast Asia; today there is no runaway inflation; but today, and even more sadly, tomorrow, America is saddled with the same tax burden that used to be reserved only for calamities of the magnitude I have just spoken of. Today's calamity is the tax burden itself. What once was effect is now cause. Let me repeat that: What once was effect is now cause. Last year Federal, State and local taxes took 38.2 percent of the income of the median two-earner family. It is bad enough that Washington, DC, takes one-fifth of what America produces. But it is intolerable that we are party to, and the principal cause of, taking two-fifths from America's families. These are not just abstract numbers, folks. Meaningless? Not at all. They are not just something that someone with a green eyeshade or a calculator came up with. These are real dollars taken from real families who could spend them, save them, invest them in real things. The median dual-earning American family pays $22,521--that is $15,400 to Washington alone. That is more than they pay in food costs, for housing, for clothing, or for medical care--combined. That is more than they have ever paid, and they must now work longer and harder than ever to pay it. It is no wonder that two must work when it takes two-fifths of a couple's earnings just to pay their taxes. In fact, one of those two working parents virtually is working entirely for Washington, DC, every day and every hour that spouse spends working, so that Washington politicians can simply spend and spend and spend. Americans do not think it is fair, only Washington does. In a recent poll, 89 percent of Americans thought that the total tax burden for a family of four should not be any higher than 25 percent. That would mean Washington would still get a bigger portion of the family's earnings than each member of the family. Again, that's a statement worth repeating. Even with that figure, Washington still gets more of the money earned from the family than each member of the family gets. Americans are a generous people and they thought it was fair that Washington get only 25 percent. Sadly, Washington, DC, does not. Without any war, any disaster, and with times good, Washington demands more than it ever has. Where will the money come from in the time of disaster then? Washington cannot afford a disaster, because America can now no longer afford Washington. Somewhere along the way, the Federal Government lost its way. Washington has quietly and insidiously subverted the normal relationship that should exist between a state and a free people. Where excessive tax burdens were once relegated to abnormal circumstances, Washington now sees excessive as normal. Where wealth was once considered the property of those who created it, Washington now sees it as the property of those who tax it. Tax dollars have become Washington's dollars--not the rightful property of those from whom they are excessively taken, but the inalienable property of those to whom they are delivered. Only in Washington, DC, can a tax cut cause indignation, moral outrage that there exist people so selfish that they would dare to think their claim on their own earnings is more just than the claims of the bureaucrats and the politicians who wish to spend it. It is not Washington's money. It is not Washington's money. Not one cent of it. It belongs to those who make it. We are not entitled to it. We are merely its stewards. Our claim to it does not outweigh that of those who earn it, their spouses, their children, their families. Nor is it just money. To those who did not work for it, it is not real. They see it as a child might, understanding neither its origin nor its limits. What we diminish by calling it ``taxes'' is the work, the time, the property, the sacrifice and the very dreams of those who earn it for themselves and their families. It is what is taken when Washington taxes excessively. That people have a fundamental right to their time, their work and their property--none of us would deny this, and none of us would support a system whereby these things were taken. If the Nation commandeered an individual's time, it would rightfully be called a police state. In fact, when an individual's time is taken by imprisonment, it is in fact a police action that takes it. We ended the draft because we thought it was unfair to lay claim to a young man's life when there was no emergency of war facing this Nation. Yet, when the subject is money, Washington demands its portion even in the absence of an emergency. Excessive taxation is no less than confiscation. When the Federal Government takes more than its share, it forces others to pay more than their share. What crime have those committed who are able to pay, that they can be taxed and taxed and taxed? They are guilty of nothing but success, of supporting themselves, of having created jobs for others, of having saved so that others might borrow and open businesses and create yet more jobs. In 1995 the top one-half of earners paid 95.4 percent of the total income tax of this country. Is it any wonder, then, when we have so subverted the system that excess is normal and that the product of a person's labor is rightfully Washington's, that we have heinous abuses by the IRS? They cannot be excused, but perhaps partially explained, by the development of a culture that has come to see success as an indictment. Excessive taxation is immoral. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Yet, when Daniel Webster and Chief Justice John Marshall said it, they could not have known how right they really were. The power to tax not only has the potential to destroy those who are taxed but also, in a much more subtle way, the recipient as well. The American people demanded welfare reform not because they are mean-spirited, but because they recognize that no system can succeed that separates money from work. Nor should it. To an American, it is no less than immoral to get something for nothing. Washington finally recognized this in the case of welfare, but Washington has yet to apply that same principle to itself and to its taxes. By separating revenue from the work and the success that created it, Washington comes to take money for granted. It begins to be more concerned with those who receive Government programs than with those who are actually paying for them. And in the ultimate travesty, it comes to stigmatize those who, by their hard work and success, can afford to pay. In short, Washington becomes morally weakened by indolence, as does someone who lives perpetually on someone else's work. It begins to take both the tax and the taxpayer for granted and, ultimately, it has come to resent the taxpayer as well. Just as the power to tax is the power to destroy, so the reverse is true as well. The power to cut taxes is the power to create, to create higher wages, more and better jobs, homes, businesses, savings and investments. In a free society and a free market, people decide where they want their money to go, and it will go where it will be most efficiently used. Raising taxes circumvents this process. Cutting taxes reinvigorates it. Cutting taxes is not simply about leaving money with the individuals who created it, it is about leaving opportunities in communities. Washington spent more than $5 trillion in constant 1993 dollars on welfare in the 30 years between 1965 and 1994. That figure is roughly the size of the entire national debt today. Yet, there was never a Federal program that could give an individual what Main Street America does day after day after day, and that is a meaningful job, a job that exists strictly because someone, under no compulsion, thought it was worthwhile to hire that person. No Government program can replace by giving what an employee earns by working. Cutting taxes will put money not only where it belongs morally--with those who earned it--but where it belongs economically--into the Nation's economy. With this spur, the growth we need to meet our future commitments would be at hand. Money going to Washington today will do less to prepare us for our future than money staying with America's earners. If the people knew enough to create the wealth in the first place, why then should Washington know best what to do with it? Finally, cutting taxes is necessary. We have the highest peacetime tax burden on the largest economy the world has ever known, and it still cannot support our current programs in the near future. Every credible analyst, both inside and outside of Government, knows that we cannot afford our entire entitlement programs tomorrow. Only politicians disagree. President Clinton's latest budget, according to CBO, contains $128 billion in new spending. If we cannot afford today's programs tomorrow, how can we seriously consider adding more? We must first reform what we have. In just 14 years, Social Security taxes will be unable to pay for benefits. The cost of both Medicare and Medicaid will shoot up. Tax increases will not possibly be able to pay for tomorrow's exploding costs without imploding the Nation's economy. If we follow the tax-hike route, we will not only not solve our problem, we will exacerbate it as slower economic growth leads to increased Federal costs. In short, tax hikes are a treadmill to oblivion. That is why I offered an amendment last year to require a supermajority in the Senate in order to raise taxes to pay for new spending. Instead of tax hikes tomorrow, we need to cut taxes today. We need to begin preparing the economic foundation now for a time when the ratio of workers paying taxes to the retirees receiving benefits is smaller than at any time in our Nation's history. This means increasing economic growth, and that means increasing investment. Investment does not come from Government, it comes from millions of men and women savings and from hundreds of thousands of businesses adding new equipment, things that cannot happen if the money needed for savings and investment in America is being consumed for spending right here in this city. Taxes are excessive. Excessive taxes are confiscatory. This confiscation by excessive taxation is immoral, both because of what it does to the person for whom excessive taxes are taken, and also because of what it does to the recipient. Excessive taxes are bad for the economy, and excessive taxes are unsustainable because of the fiscal path now charted by existing spending programs. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, what do the defenders of tax-and-spend-welfare state offer in return? The only thing they can: good intentions. But good intentions are not enough. Would you excuse those who deny you your money, your time, your property, the things you earned for your family, just because their intentions were good? Would you excuse those who denied basic common sense just because they meant well? Of course not. But we find ourselves too often paralyzed by the good intentions of counterfeit compassion, a compassion that argues there is never enough of other people's money to pay for their good wishes, a compassion that holds there is nothing so noble as a gift from the Government and something suspicious about those who succeed on their own. Good intentions should not be allowed to excuse Washington's indolence when it claims it cannot cut, that it cannot reform, that it cannot restrain the growth of programs it created so that people can keep more of what they have earned. Nor should Washington be allowed to say it cannot reform when it really means it will not reform. Washington will not reform because it imagines that it knows better, better than the tens of millions of taxpayers, workers, employers, savers and investors, but Washington, ladies and gentlemen, is wrong. Instead, Washington should be made to answer this very simple question: Why should those who did not earn, did not save and did not invest the money be more entitled to the returns it generates than those who did? We must finally say to Washington what Washington has been saying to taxpayers for decades: Sacrifice a little bit. We must fundamentally change how the Tax Code works. It can no longer be allowed to penalize people. It should not feed off of the system. It should offer rewards. And that is what we must recognize. We can no longer have a Tax Code that treats success as a crime to be punished instead of a goal to be emulated. We can argue over what would be the best tax reform, but we must agree that most suggestions for reform would do better than we are doing now with the current Tax Code. We must simplify the system. It is bad enough that Washington takes more than it should without the additional insult of confusion. Last year, Americans spent $230.4 billion just complying with the Federal Tax Code. You can call that wasted money--I call that wasted money. That is $230.4 billion that Americans spent trying to stay within the law of the current Tax Code--a quarter of a trillion dollars, not paying taxes, just paying for the ability to pay taxes. We must lower the excessive tax burden. It is not enough to say that taxes are excessively high and then satisfy ourselves with not reducing the burden. Shifting and simplifying the load is not enough; we have to reduce it, along with simplification. We must end the abuses. As bad as the current code is, it is made intolerable when it is abused. In cases that we have heard in hearings in the Senate, we have seen the system not merely cross the line, but cross borders and time itself to become a system worthy of a totalitarian state of another time. When America fears its Government, as America fears the IRS, something is wrong. This is beyond unacceptable, and it has to be stopped. We must do whatever it takes to make sure that it does and that it never returns. To understand our duty in this, we must first look not to the Tax Code but back to America's foundations. Perhaps we in Idaho, my home State, have the advantage of doing this a little more clearly than some. Ours is a relatively new State of the Union, so perhaps we have a bit clearer view of the intention or the role that Government should take and the role that it ought to play in taxation. No one was ever inspired to come to America to work for someone else, and certainly not for Washington, DC. They came to work for themselves. People did not cross oceans, and later prairies, in search of a Government program. They came in search of opportunity. Today, we have a Tax Code that takes that opportunity away and makes their search endless. This country was not founded on a dream of paying excessive taxes. Rather, our country arose from a rebellion against paying excessive taxes. Today, we have a Government--not in London but right here in Washington, run not by a king but by ourselves--that demands from our citizens what our forefathers rejected. America was not founded on an ideal of relative freedom but on the principles we believe to be absolutes. Excessive taxes are wrong, and the taxes we now pay as Americans are excessive. This is absolutely wrong. It does not matter that other governments exist in other places that demand even more excessive taxes of their citizens. Our standard was never those, and it never should be. America's goal was always to lead and not to follow, and one does not lead by looking back at those who lag behind but forward to the goals that beckon us. There is no more basic test of Government than what it demands of its citizens. Failure to tax fairly is the worst of Government itself. Because taxpayers are honest, we must be prudent. Because taxpayers work hard, we must remind ourselves that they, not Washington, are entitled to the reward of those works. We are but stewards of their money and they trust us to use it properly. Sadly, we are abusing this trust through excessive taxes. In governing, we should never use the trust that our people give us against the people themselves. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place Wednesday, March 25, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following general land exchange bills: S. 890, to dispose of certain Federal properties located in Dutch John, Utah, to assist the local government in the interim delivery of basic services to the Dutch John community, and for other purposes; S. 1109, to make a minor adjustment in the exterior boundary of the Devils Backbone Wilderness in the Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri, to exclude a small parcel of land containing improvements; S. 1468, to provide for the conveyance of one (1) acre of land from Santa Fe National Forest to the Village of Jemez Springs, New Mexico, as the site of a fire sub-station; S. 1469, to provide for the expansion of the historic community cemetery of El Rito, New Mexico, through the special designation of five acres of Carson National Forest adjacent to the cemetery; S. 1510, to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands to the county of Rio Arriba, New Mexico; S. 1683, to transfer administrative jurisdiction over part of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture for inclusion in the Wenatchee National Forest; S. 1719, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange land and other assets with Big Sky Lumber Co; S. 1752, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain administrative sites and use the proceeds for the acquisition of office sites and the acquisition, construction, or improvement of offices and support buildings for the Coconino National Forest, Kaibab National Forest, Prescott National Forest, and Tonto National Forest in the State of Arizona; H.R. 1439, to facilitate the sale of certain land in Tahoe National Forest in the State of California to Placer County, California; H.R. 1663, to clarify the intent of the Congress in Public Law 93-632 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to continue to provide for the maintenance of 18 concrete dams and weirs that were located in the Emigrant Wilderness at the time the wilderness area was designated as wilderness in that Public Law. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Amie Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand today to pay tribute to the kind of person every community wishes they had, a down-to-earth caretaker of the community with a heart of gold. Jack Buell, Chairman of the Idaho Benewah County Commissioners is being honored in his community as Citizen of the Year. Jack, like many Idahoans, lives in a resource-rich part of Idaho. He not only provides jobs for many citizens of St. Maries, but is constantly working to enrich this small town. Jack has served as a county commissioner since 1974, and has a reputation for active leadership. This year, he was named as one of the top 25 most influential citizens in the state of Idaho by a Boise newspaper. It is not difficult to understand why Jack is a man of influence: He's a man of his word and a problem solver. Over the past few years, he faced demanding challenges when his community was hit by devastating floods in the spring of 1996. He worked around-the-clock to minimize the destructive damage caused by the spring floods. He offered heavy equipment, employees, campers, trailers and any other resource he had that someone else could use. He paid his employees for their work and never asked the government or community to reimburse him for his employees' wages. And still Jack was deeply frustrated that he could not do more to protect people from the problems and pain they faced as they faced their losses. Jack has been inspiring in his work with the community schools. When the school board couldn't get a bond passed to build a new gym for the high school, Jack got to work and found local solutions to the problem. He is a man who doesn't ask what his community can do for him, but instead asks what he can do for the community. Jack's passion for service without recognition does not go unnoticed. I am proud to honor this man so many call friend, and recognize him for living his daily life in a way that has earned the title of citizen of the year.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand today to pay tribute to a man who quietly serves his community the only way he knows how--through hard work and dedication. Bud McCall, a county commissioner since 1977, is being named Citizen of the Year by the St. Maries Chamber of Commerce. Bud has been an active community member in St. Maries and Benewah County longer than most people can remember. Bud serves the community in many ways: as an employer, an elected official, and a community volunteer. Today he is being recognized for his voluntary efforts during the spring floods of 1996 when Bud came to the rescue of many area residents. He tirelessly worked around the clock to help protect the community from further damage from the repeated flooding. He rounded up equipment to stabilize crumbling dikes, met with emergency crews developing a crisis management strategy, and provided shelter for those who found themselves homeless. He literally donated thousands of hours of his time and equipment for the benefit of the community when the community needed him most. However, this is nothing new for Bud. He has always been there when the community needs him. On a more personal note, Bud is a man of few words. He is the kind of man who, when met on the street even after a long day of hard work, will always greet you with a smile. Bud's love for his community is shown through all he does. I am proud today to recognize him as an outstanding citizen and public servant that represents the ideals of Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I share the concern of my colleagues from New Jersey and Ohio, and all the cosponsors of this amendment. I am in complete agreement with the view that there should be a no tolerance policy for drinking and driving. That kind of irresponsibility is inexcusable; the senseless human tragedy it produces is unpardonable. Our laws should be severe enough to deter anyone who thinks he or she can abuse alcohol and drive without impairment. Our law enforcement officials should have the tools they need to locate and stop these accidents waiting to happen. My state of Idaho is one of the states that has already adopted a blood alcohol content standard of .08 percent. They believed this was a reasonable standard, based on sound data, that would help save lives. Other states have come to the same conclusion and made the same choice. And that brings me to my point. While I would support a strong resolution from this Senate denouncing drunk driving or even recommending the adoption of this particular blood alcohol content standard, I cannot endorse this amendment. The federal government should leave this decision to the states, where it constitutionally belongs in the first place. I am confident if the facts truly support it, this standard will be adopted voluntarily by every state. However, I am not willing to say today that this is the one and only way to solve the terrible problem of drunk driving, nor that it is the best way. We've heard a lot on this floor and from the administration about how our states are ``laboratories of ideas.'' Instead of burdening them with new federal mandates, we should be ensuring they have the maximum freedom and flexibility to work out effective solutions for local problems, especially problems of this magnitude. In short, transportation dollars that are critical to public safety should not be threatened in order to force states into compliance with the ``solution of the day''--no matter how well intended. While I strongly agree with the goal of stopping drunk driving in America, I strongly disagree with the path this amendment would take to achieve that goal. For all of these reasons, I have no alternative but to vote against this amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues on adopting Senate Resolution 96, which designates March 15 through 21 of this year as ``National Safe Place Week.'' Project Safe Place is a unique union of community agencies and the private sector that promotes the well-being of our nation's youth. It is an innovative network of nonresidential community locations where youth who are at-risk or in crisis situations can obtain help quickly and find shelter if necessary. Safe Place cultivates community involvement to combat child abuse, substance addiction, and crime. Since its creation in 1983 in Louisville, Kentucky, the scope of Project Safe Place has spread to include more than 8,000 Safe Places nationwide, and more than 27,000 young people have sought help at these locations. We all agree that our nation's youth are our most valuable resource. Project Safe Place volunteers have been quietly tending to this resource for fifteen years, offering help to youth who are threatened or in trouble. The recognition Project Safe Place deserves is long overdue. Senate Resolution 96 celebrates this outstanding program and also honors the efforts of over 2,500 dedicated Safe Place volunteers, who selflessly devote time and resources to protect our nation's young people. Two of these individuals--Sandy Bowen, the National Safe Place Director, and Mickie Adler, who has spearheaded Safe Place efforts in the state of Idaho--have been instrumental in making ``National Safe Place Week'' a reality. Sandy Bowen has been involved with Project Safe Place for 13 years. When the program began to gain momentum and become a nationwide effort in 1986, Sandy stepped in as the National Director. Over the years, her hard work, dedication, and concern have helped to bring Project Safe Place out of its infancy, transforming a simple idea into a nationwide force that is now present in over 300 of our communities. Mickie Adler has been the driving force behind the Safe Place movement in Idaho for four years. In fact, this month marks the four- year anniversary of Safe Place in Idaho. Last year, Mickie brought three students to my Washington office to sell me on the idea of a ``National Safe Place Week.'' Victoria Smith, Caroline Reams, and Jessica McCaleese--all of whom are either High School or Junior High School students from Bannock County--were articulate and poised as they conveyed the idea of promoting Project Safe Place. I would like to take this opportunity to thank these fine young ladies for bringing their ideas to my attention. Mickie first got involved with the Safe Place movement after Jerelee Underwood, an eleven year old girl, was abducted in Southeast Idaho. She committed herself at that time to preventing future violence against Idaho's children by initiating the first Safe Place site in Idaho four years ago. Since that time, Project Safe Place in Idaho has expanded to include 250 Safe Places in Bannock County--including my regional office there--and 18 sites in the Twin Falls area. Mickie has recently been called upon to implement the program statewide, with new Safe Places to be added in Coeur d'Alene, Burley, Caldwell and Idaho Falls. I want to do my part by offering each of my Idaho offices as Safe Place sites. I encourage my colleagues to do the same nationwide. There are thousands of people just like Mickie and Sandy who work hard every day because they care too much to let our children endure difficult times alone and without guidance. In part, ``National Safe Place Week'' will serve to honor and recognize these humanitarians. More than that, though, ``National Safe Place Week'' will build community awareness, increasing not only the number of young people the program might help, but also the number of those who themselves might contribute to the effectiveness of the program. As a father, a grandfather, and a concerned citizen, I would like to personally extend a sincere and heart-felt ``thank-you'' to all those who make Project Safe Place such a successful program. And, to my colleagues in the Senate: Thank you for working with me on this resolution. If passage of ``National Safe Place Week'' helps only one more youth by keeping him or her from turning to drugs, suicide, or the streets, then I know that our time in passing Senate Resolution 96 will have been well spent.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in the same vein, one of our colleagues, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, made the same point on the floor February 12, and I thought it was worth noting, especially because it came, again, before the Annan-Hussein agreement: But in the area of Russia, for example, this administration appears to think that they can go to the [Russians] and demand that Russia follow our policies in Iraq and insist on their support on Iraq, but at the same time this administration proposes an expansion of NATO. You have to recognize, if you were a Russian leader, you would find a certain irony in a request that was coupled in that terminology. Because, of course, an expansion of NATO, especially to Poland, is an expansion that can only be viewed in Russia with some concern and possibly viewed by some as an outright threat . . . So you can understand that Russia might view a push to expand NATO at the same time as we are asking them to support us in Iraq as being inconsistent and a bit ironic. And it reflects, unfortunately, I think, this administration's failure to understand the linkage--and linkage is the right term--between working with a nation like Russia and our capacity to do things in the Middle East and moving forward with the NATO expansion at the exact same time. Yet, if you were to listen to the leadership of this administration, they will tell you that there is no relationship, they have no overlap on those two issues. Of course, that is just not true, and that is one of the main reasons we are having problems with Russia [today]. In case anyone in this country has missed it, the Russians have not. They understand the linkage, even if the Clinton administration does not seem to understand it. On February 24, Vladimir Lukin, Moscow's former Ambassador to the United States and now the chairman of the Duma's Committee on International Affairs, commented: It would be a big mistake if the United States was offended by Russian policy toward Iraq or another country . . . Russia's policy toward Iraq is not only Russia's policy--we coincide with many other countries, including U.S. allies . . . The problem is whether Russia is considered part of the Atlantic community or not. Now remember, I am quoting the Russian chairman of the Committee on International Affairs of the Duma. He says, again: The problem is whether Russia is considered part of the Atlantic community or not. Russia will have to decide how it is being considered--as an equal partner or as an outsider. NATO enlargement is isolating Russia. What is the choice for us? Only to be an outsider. He also goes on to say: Not a hostile outsider, but still an outsider. It is a danger. We will become stronger, and we are still a nuclear power. It is a danger to us and a danger to you-- Meaning the United States. A few years ago there was the idea of partnership, now there is a strong hesitation in the United States. Mr. President, that's the linkage you are missing, that's the linkage many of us are concerned about as it relates to current policy. The point here, as I have noted at some length, is just one ongoing aspect of this very complex issue which we have hardly begun to assess. This is just one aspect, but there are others, no less troublesome, which I will only mention briefly. The Baltic States: What is the nature of our commitment to admit these States? What are the ramifications? Our European partners: Why are we so passive to our allies' bald insistence that they intend to bear very little of the costs of expansion? As our distinguished former colleagues Howard Baker and Sam Nunn raised the matter in their recent essay in the New York Times: Advocates and skeptics of NATO enlargement alike agree that the transformation of Europe's security structure should be related to the transformation of the economy. As James Baker, the former Secretary of State, has testified, European Union membership ``is just as important as membership in NATO for the countries involved,'' and ``we must make clear that NATO membership for the countries of Central Europe is not a substitute for closer economic ties to the European Union.'' So then, why are we taking the first step in a reintegration that is not primarily a question of security--since there is no credible threat--while our European allies, who together have greater resources to help their neighbors than the United States, continue to play what can only be said to be a secondary role? The ``New NATO'': Republicans, in particular, should be very concerned about the words of President Clinton upon signing of the Founding Act in May of 1997. He says: We are building a new NATO. It will remain the strongest alliance in history, with smaller, more flexible forces, prepared to provide for our defense, but also trained for peacekeeping. As we know, peacekeeping, in some people's eyes, can be considered offensive actions. I go on to quote: It will work closely with other nations that share our hopes and values and interests through the Partnership for Peace. It will be an alliance directed no longer against a hostile bloc of nations, but instead designed to advance the security of every democracy in Europe--NATO's old members, new members and nonmembers alike. Mr. President, I certainly hope this doesn't mean what it sounds like it means--the end of NATO as a defensive alliance and its transformation into a regional peacekeeping organization. Will the ``new NATO'' exist to protect its members--or to engage in many Bosnia- like missions all over Central and Eastern Europe? Now let me speak briefly of costs. To say the least, there is a great deal of skepticism over the question of how much this is going to cost the American taxpayer and whether the very low estimates now being given by the administration are, in any way, credible. I note that we have not even begun to discuss how much of the costs accruing to the new allies will end up being billed to the United States. For example, in May of 1997, ABC News quoted the American Ambassador to Hungary to the effect that the American share of buying new planes for the Hungarian Force ``will be perhaps 20 percent to 25 percent'' of the cost of that ``at most.'' How about 30 percent or how about 40 percent? We don't know. That hasn't been negotiated. But what this administration is saying is that we will play a substantial role in the diversity of military equipment for these new partners in NATO. So how much is the real cost? And, again, shouldn't we know before we are asked to vote? In closing, Mr. President, let me emphasize that I do not believe we are yet ready in this Senate to give this matter the full debate that it deserves and that we must hear on this issue. If we had to vote on NATO expansion on the basis of the information we now have, I would vote no, and I know that there are many others in this body who would vote no. I look forward to a full, detailed and lengthy debate on the issue at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the Senate is fully knowledgeable on the issue of NATO expansion as they take up one of their most important constitutional responsibilities: the advice and consent on these critical issues. I yield the floor. Mr. Chafee addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for those comments. One of the measurements I always use on issues of this gravity and importance, and especially if I do not know a great deal about them, is when there are men and women on both sides of the issue whom I respect, it demands that I begin to review it in great detail. That is what I am hearing from the Senator, that when you have the likes of Howard Baker, and a former Secretary of State, and you have Sam Nunn and a good many others on the other side of the issue who are certainly knowledgeable, I think it is time for the Senate to focus and for our colleagues to begin to try to deal with this issue, and that is why I am here. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I come to the floor of the Senate to visit with my colleagues about NATO and NATO expansion. Of all the responsibilities the Senate is called upon to exercise under our constitutional system, none is more momentous--and, in most cases, as irrevocable--as our advice and consent to the ratification of treaties and treaty revisions. One of the treaty questions the Senate will be facing in the near future is whether the North Atlantic Treaty--the NATO alliance--should be modified to include the former Warsaw Pact states of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Our decision on this matter will set the structure for security in Europe and the American role in it for years, perhaps decades, to come. I would like to commend the distinguished Chairmen of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations for the thorough and thoughtful hearings they have held on this matter. However, in my discussions with a number of Senators, particularly those who, like myself, are not members of those committees, it is clear that many Senators have only begun to focus on the many interrelated issues that touch upon the matter of NATO expansion. Indeed, some of the issues--our relations with our allies, relations with the Russians, the implications for weapons proliferation, our policy toward Iraq--are shifting every day. For example, this week the distinguished Majority Leader spoke forcefully about his misgivings about the agreement reached between U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Our entire policy in the region has been put on hold. It is well known that both France, a key NATO ally, and Russia, the obvious object of NATO expansion, strongly welcome this outcome. Will Saddam Hussein live up to this agreement? Many of us consider it unlikely. Will the United States return to the military option in a few weeks or months? I don't think any of us really yet know that. How will the Iraq crisis, what ever its outcome, affect our relations with both our allies and Russia? We do not yet know the impact of the realities of these events. How will the outcome affect the larger task of stemming the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and missile technology? We do not yet know. Not knowing the answers to these questions, are we prepared to make an irreversible decision on NATO expansion? I think not--at least not yet. In considering the implications just of the Iraq crisis, I bring to my colleagues' attention an op-ed by Mr. Thomas L. Friedman that appeared in the New York Times on February 17, before the Annan/Hussein deal. Mr. Friedman wrote: The U.S. should be doing everything it can to work with Russia, not only on Iraq but to shrink Russia's own nuclear arsenal, which is the greatest proliferation threat in the world today. Attention shoppers: Russia has thousands of weapons of mass destruction. It has hundreds of unemployed or underemployed nuclear scientists. And it has only the loosest controls over its nukes and nuclear materials, and it has a signed nuclear arms reduction treaty with the U.S. that has not been implemented. But instead of dealing with this problem, the Clintonites are making it worse. They are expanding NATO to counter a threat that doesn't exist--a Russian invasion of Europe--and thus undermining America's ability to work with Russia on the threat that does exist-- Russia's loose nukes. ``Halting the proliferation of nuclear materials, missiles and technology is clearly our number-one foreign policy challenge since the breakup of the Soviet Empire,'' says former Senator Sam Nunn, who was the expert in the Senate on this issue. ``But because it is number one, we should be measuring all other policies by how they affect proliferation. Not only does NATO expansion not help us deal with Russia on the issue, it is counterproductive.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Friedman's essay be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding. I want to speak only briefly, Mr. President.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I had the privilege of being with Senator McConnell when he received a ``Legislator of the Year'' award from a national organization that recognized how critical his leadership on campaign finance reform is. This is an organization that has a large broad-based membership of individual God-fearing, constitutional Americans who recognized, as most of us do, that what we have here and what was debated over the last good number of days was a way of reshaping the Constitution and our basic rights as citizens in this country. You stood up and said: No, it isn't going to happen. It will not happen. We are going to agree with the courts and we are going to keep our citizens free to express, at will, their political thoughts. So let me thank you for the kind of leadership you brought. Clearly, while it may go unrecognized by many, this was a phenomenally significant vote for the country and for our citizens. And I thank you for that.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there is another vote that will occur here tonight at 6 o'clock that is very important. That is a veto override. I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of this and the 38 military construction projects that the President vetoed last fall. He is a bit embarrassed about that now. Somehow the communication between he and the Defense Department on those projects that he had already penciled off on for this year's budget but that we found and the budget process found adequate moneys for, he vetoed. I am one who supported the line-item veto, but I will say if it is going to be used as haphazardly as it was used in this instance, I will have to reconsider my support, as I think others do. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering whether to override President Clinton's veto of 38 military construction projects last fall. The President argued that these projects weren't requested, couldn't be completed in FY 98, and did not contribute to quality of life for service member. Mr. President, I strongly disagree. I offer that his reckless veto of these projects is an indication of his disregard for important defense matters and sloppy work by his staff. Let me begin by setting the record straight. The President claimed that the projects he vetoed were not in the future years defense plan (FYDP). Wrong, Mr. President. 33 of the 38 projects were in the FYDP. The President also contended that design work for the projects wasn't complete and couldn't be executed in the coming fiscal year. Wrong again, Mr. President. For example, the two projects vetoed for Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho are currently designed at 50 percent or more, and could be awarded this year. This President has consistently underfunded the military construction budget, and then had the audacity to veto projects that the Congress thoughtfully restored. This isn't frivolous, Mr. President, the total Military Construction Appropriations approved by Congress FY 98 was already $610 million below FY 97, but the President's budget was lower--because it was reckless in underfunding the military construction and quality of life projects. In July, this body approved the additional funds for military construction recommended by the Senate Armed Services Committee to help provide money for rundown bases facilities and other high priority projects submitted by the military services that were not funded in the President's budget. It think it is noteworthy that both the authorizing Committees in the House and the Senate noted the continuing low priority military facilities received, despite maintenance and modernization backlogs. Congress knew better than to cut defense as deeply as the President. It's pretty clear to me that this Commander-in-Chief doesn't have the regard for the men and women in uniform that they deserve. What also angers me also is that the Administration never tried to negotiate or object to any of these projects when they came before the Congress for a vote. It seem apparent that these vetoes were either afterthought or politically motivated. Despite my frustration by the President's action, I do want to reiterate my support for the line-item veto. However, today Congress is also exercising its right to object and vote down those vetoed items. Certainly, a vote to override the President's veto is not a vote against the line-item veto, it's a vote against arbitrary and reckless vetoes of important projects. One of the items vetoed is the B-1 Bomber Avionics Shop at Mountain Home Air Force Base. I can hardly think of a more worthy candidate for military construction funds. Currently, it is difficult to keep the proper environment necessary to perform required maintenance tasks on the composite wing aircraft avionics and EMC systems. In fact, sometimes the avionics projects have to be flown off base and back to finish the required work. This mission essential avionics shop not only supports the B-1 beddown, but will also restore inefficient avionics repairs for the F-15 and F-16 which are done in an aging misconfigured building. The current facility has repeated power dumps from faulty fire suppression alarm system, leading to equipment failures and costly repairs. The President also vetoed the F-15 Squadron Operations Facility. This project replaces a 28 year old, substandard facility that is misconfigured for flight operation and geographically separated from the flight line. The new facility will provide adequate space to plan, brief, and critique combat crews, and direct the F-15 flight operations. Administrative space is required for the commander and staff to program and conduct mission briefings and command activities and to care for, store and issue equipment. Mr. President, although military construction represents a small portion of the overall defense budget, it is a very important part. The quality of our facilities and installation directly strengthens or weakens the safety and readiness of our troops. It seems apparent to me than many of the vetoed items enhance quality of life of our troops and directly contribute to the mission that our service men and women are asked to perform--no one is asking for country clubs, or golf courses here. These projects are essential to national security interests and improving the readiness of our forces. Mr. President, your vetoes are simply not justified. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday on campaign finance reform and I stand today certainly in opposition to the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. It does not address the problem. I don't think the problem exists. The courts have said we don't have jurisdiction over it. We ought to leave it at that.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. Let me, again, tell him how grateful I am for the work he has done on the issue of campaign finance reform and the clarity which he has brought into the debate which I think the American people now understand. I say that in the context now of the discussion that goes on in this Chamber, and I also look at the news of the day. The media, I think, has really attempted to work up a bit of a feeding frenzy, showing all kinds of angles as to how this issue might have divided Congress, that it has divided the members of the same party, that there is a cry of outrage across the land as people stand up ready to storm the Capitol in protest over this issue. But despite the media's efforts and despite their hype, the public really does not care about this issue. In the most recent Gallup poll, where people were asked about the most important problems facing the country, campaign finance reform did not appear in the top five items on the list. In fact, in all honesty, Mr. President, it did not appear at all. The same stands true for the latest CBS News poll and the latest Time/CNN poll, and even the latest Battleground poll by Ed Goaes and Celinda Lake, which is a bipartisan effort to balance out the issues so you cannot question that it might be distorted one way or the other. After extensive research of all of the major polling groups, the issue of campaign finance reform did not show up as a concern amongst almost every American. What is important to the American people are issues like crime, economic health, health care, education, Social Security and the moral decline of our country. What people really care about is whether their kid will get to school and back safely and whether the schooling they are going to get once they get there is good and of high quality. They care about keeping their jobs and trying to make ends meet while they watch a good portion of their hard-earned money go to Washington to support what they think is a wasteful Federal bureaucracy. They care about their future, whether they can save enough money to someday retire and whether they have affordable health care. What they do not care about is campaign finance reform. It isn't a real issue at all. It is an issue created here inside the beltway to try to divide and in some instances to conquer. Let us just suppose for a minute that people really did care about campaign finance reform, that they sat around the dinner table at night and said, ``Well, dear, how was your day at the office? And, oh, by the way, shouldn't we reform campaign finance?'' I doubt that that question has been asked at any dinner table in America since the last election-- after hundreds of millions of dollars were spent by some interests only to generate a passing question about how the system works. What Americans really do need to know are the details of the campaign laws that are currently on the books. You know, once you begin to explain the laws that are out there today, their eyes glaze over and they say, ``Well, isn't that enough?'' And I think they need to know about some appalling campaign practices that were used by this administration in their reelection. Now, we had a committee spend millions of dollars here searching out these allegations. I use the word ``allegations.'' My guess is the only result from it was that it diverted our attention away from other scandals besetting this administration for some period of time. They need to know what Congress wants to do to reform campaign finance laws and to level the playing field so that neither political party has an unfair advantage over the other. They need to know what we are going to do to make all political contributions voluntary so that no person, union or nonunion worker, is forced to pony up their money for political purposes without their expressed consent or permission. Is it possible that today in America people are forced to contribute money that goes to political purposes they do not want? Oh, yes, Mr. President, you bet it is. And that is the issue in an amendment before us. I do not care how the other side tries to whitewash it, the bottom line is hundreds of thousands of American working men and women who are members of unions, when given the opportunity to give voluntarily, walk away from the forced contribution that goes on currently within their unions. Americans need to know what we are going to do to give them complete and immediate access to campaign contribution records about who gives and to whom. This prompt and full disclosure of so-called ``soft money'' campaign donations will make the names of the donors immediately public and allow voters to decide if the candidate is looking after their best interests. So I have suggested to you today what I think Americans want to know and, most importantly, what Americans do not want to know or do not care to know or sense no urgency in knowing. However, under the McCain-Feingold plan, there would be an across- the-board ban of soft money for any Federal election activity, Mr. President. I feel this is a grave mistake for the political process. Report it? You bet. Report it promptly? You bet. Let the American people know they have a right to know. To ban it? Well, let us talk about that for a moment. Let me first recognize my colleagues who have worked hard on this issue, and let me also recognize that I think they are people with a deep concern. I have great respect for them. I have respect for their tenacity and their diligence as they brought this issue to the floor. But I just flat disagree with them. And I think a good many other of my colleagues disagree with them. And I think there is a substantial basis for that disagreement. As for the ban on soft money, I have several major reservations on how this measure would ultimately impact the current campaign finance system, not improving it, but creating such a hardship on this country's State and local political parties that it would force them to spend more time concentrating on raising money in order to exist. Under the McCain-Feingold proposal, the ban on soft money, any State and local party committees would be prohibited from spending soft money for any Federal election activity. Right now, State and local parties receive so-called ``soft money'' from their national political parties. Here in Washington, both the Republican National Committee and the Democrat National Committee receive money from donors. Some of that money is then distributed to the respective political parties in counties and locales around this country. There are thousands of State, county and local party officials who receive this financial aid. Then, under certain conditions--and they are clear within the law-- the money is used for activities such as purchasing buttons and bumper stickers and posters and yard signs on behalf of a candidate. The money is also used for voter registration activities on behalf of the party's Presidential and vice Presidential nominees. The money is also used for multiple candidate brochures and even sample ballots. Let us talk about election day. You go down to the local polling site. Maybe it is a school or a church or an American Legion hall. Sometimes there is a person standing out there who hands you a sample ballot listing all of the candidates running for office in your party and the other party. And it is quite obvious some people at that point are not yet informed. They tend to vote their party. This is an assistance. No subterfuge about it. It is very up front. It is very clear and it is what informing the public and the electorate is all about. But under the McCain-Feingold proposal, it would be against the law to use soft money to pay for a sample ballot with the name of any candidate who is running for Congress on the same ballot that the State and local candidates were on. Under McCain-Feingold, it would be against the law to use soft money to pay for buttons, posters, yard signs, and brochures that include the name or the picture of a candidate for Federal office on the same item that has the name or the picture of a State or a local candidate office on it. What you are talking about is setting up a morass of laws to be implemented and to be enforced that becomes nearly impossible to do. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Under McCain-Feingold, it would be against the law to use soft money to conduct a local voter registration drive for 120 days before the election. These get-out-the-vote drives, which have proven to be effective tools for increasing all of our parties' interests and the public's interests, would simply be banned. Why would we want to ban all that I have mentioned? Because under these new laws in McCain-Feingold's plan State and local officials would have to use hard money instead of soft money. And already by what I have said, the public is confused. What is hard money? What is soft money? How does it get applied? We have the FEC that is out there now trying to make rulings on something that happened 3, 4, 5 years ago. What we are talking about is timely reporting, not creating greater obstacles for the process. Most importantly, what we are talking about, Mr. President, is free speech. It is what the majority leader has called very clearly the greatest scandal in America. Well, the greatest scandal in America is not campaign financing. The greatest scandal in America is trying to suggest that there is a scandal when it does not exist, a scandal that under anyone's measurement just does not meet the muster. Poll America. I have mentioned that polling. And it does not work. Back home in my State, when I suggested at town meetings that campaign finance is an issue, they scratch their heads and say, ``Why?'' Most importantly, today, now they are coming out and saying, ``No. And, Senator Craig, let me tell you why it wouldn't work. Because I, as an individual, am a member of a small group, and I can contribute collectively and that small group's voice can become louder. And if I am able to make my voice louder, then I can affect, under the first amendment of the Constitution, my constitutional right as a free citizen of this country by the amplification of my voice, my ideas, and my issues in the election process.'' Of course, our colleague and leader on this issue, Mitch McConnell, has made it so very clear by repeating constantly what the courts of our country have so clearly said--that the right to participate in the political process, the right to extend one's voice through contribution is the right of free speech. So no matter how you look at what is going on here on the floor, no matter how pleading the cries are that major reform is at hand, let me suggest a few simple rules. Abide by the laws we have--and 99 percent of those who enter the political process do--abide by those laws, and you do not walk on the Constitution and you guarantee the right of every citizen in this country, whether by individual power or by the collective power of individuals coming together, the insurance of free speech. Why has the Senate rejected this issue in the past? And why will they reject it Thursday when we finally vote on this once again? Because we will not trample on free speech. We recognize what Americans across the board have said to us: Provide limited instruction, which we already have in major campaign finance reform over the last several decades, and then we trust that we will be able to extend our voice in the political process, and through that our freedoms, our constitutional freedoms, will be guaranteed, and the political process will not be obstructed by the bureaucracy that is trying to be created here today by McCain-Feingold. Let us look at the reality of this situation. Because of these new restrictions, local party officials--say like the Republican party chairman in Custer County, ID,--will be forced to seek out hard money donations from local businesses and individuals to fund these political activities. In a county of a little better than 4,000 people, this party official--who is more than likely a volunteer--now has to spend more of his or her time fund-raising, not to mention the fact that those with more money stand a better chance of winning an election. Party affiliation will become insignificant. In other words, raising hard money will become a bigger concern for these State and local officials than ever before. And, whomever raises the most money can then fund more political activities. Mr. President, what kind of campaign finance reform is this? What are we trying to accomplish? We've just added more laws to a system that is already heavily burdened with regulations, forced thousands of State and local party officials to go out and raise money, and created more confusion for the voters. If the point of the McCain- Feingold plan is to reform the campaign finance system, the last thing you want to do is ban soft money. Instead, full and immediate public disclosure of campaign donations would be a much more logical approach. With the help of the latest technology, we could post this information on the Internet within 24-hours. Let us open the records for everyone to see. Anyone interested in researching the integrity of a campaign, or in finding out the identity of the donors, or in looking for signs of undue influence or corruption would only have to have access to a computer. They could track a campaign--dollar for dollar--to see first hand where the money is coming from. But Mr. President, what bothers me the most about the McCain-Feingold proposal is not what is in the bill, but what has been left out. As I said, it is--what the majority leader once called--``the great scandal in American politics * * * and the worst campaign abuse of all.'' That is the forced collection and expenditure of union dues for political purposes. Mr. President, this is nothing short of extortion. Let me make myself clear, I fully support the right of unions and union workers to participate in the political process. Union workers should and must be encouraged to become involved and active in the electoral process. It is no only their right but their civic responsibility. Back in my home state of Idaho, I meet with union workers in union halls, on the streets, and in their homes. And I hear their complaints, their anger and their outrage over how their dues are being spent and mishandled by national union officers. They say to me ``Senator Craig, every month I am forced to pay dues that are used for political purposes I don't agree with. But what can I do? If I speak out, they'll call me a trouble maker!'' During the 1996 elections alone, union bosses tacked on an extra surcharge on dues to their members in order to raise $35 million to defeat Republican candidates around the country. It is likely they used much more of the worker's money than they reported, but I am sure we will never find out the truth. But under the Paycheck Protection Act, union workers will have new and exapanded rights and the final say on how their money is being spent. The legislation not only protects the rights of union workers, but also makes it clear that corporations adhere to the same measure. Unions and corporations would have to get the permission in writing from each employee prior to using any portion of dues or fees to support political activities. And, workers will have the right to revoke their authorization at any time. Finally, employees would be guaranteed the protection that if their money was used for purposes against their will, it would be a violation of Federal campaign law. Mr. President, this is commonsense legislation and it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, all too often, we hear frightening stories about today's young people. I think it's important to remember that not all of them deserve that bad reputation. In fact, many--if not most--of our young people step up to the responsibility of caring for their communities and fellow citizens. I would like to take this opportunity to tell you about a heroic young Idahoan, John Benscheidt, who courageously saved the life of eight year-old Douglas Schedler. This remarkable youth responded to an emergency situation with the speed of a trained professional. John Benscheidt was the only person to witness the heavy snow pile cascade off a condominium roof at Schweitzer Mountain and quickly bury a small child standing nearby. Without hesitating, John began digging with his snow board, trying to reach little Douglas trapped under five feet of snow. John's calls for help caught the attention of others in the area, who assisted in John's efforts to save the boy. After frantic minutes of searching, the child was retrieved and taken to Bonner General Hospital, where he was treated and released without serious injuries. We are all grateful that John had the presence of mind to act quickly in a life-threatening situation. The inherent characteristics John demonstrated during this incident reflect a strong upbringing and profound awareness of human value. Let him serve as a reminder to all of us that we have exceptional youth in this country who contribute greatly to our communities and to our lives. It gives me great pleasure to honor such a fine young man.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for a very brief time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for yielding but a brief moment for the Senate to recognize something that went on last night nearly halfway around the world while all of us slept. A marvelous young lady from Idaho, and a superb athlete, won the gold medal, one of our first gold medals in this Olympics in Nagano, Japan. Picabo Street, from the Sun Valley area of Idaho, who was a silver medalist in the 1994 Olympics, brought home the gold. I think all of us are extremely proud this morning of our country and our athletes, and this fine woman athlete, Picabo Street, who some months ago had major knee surgery, while she was at the World Cup had a major accident, but with tremendous guts and tenacity and ability she is now one of our gold medalists and we are all proud. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today we celebrate ``Food Check Out Day'' and commemorate the day when the average American will have earned enough income to pay for the entire year's food supply. We celebrate the bounty from America's farms and ranches and how it is shared with American consumers through affordable food prices. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, on average, American consumers spend only 10.9 percent of their disposable income for food. When applied to the calendar days, that means that the average American will have earned enough income to pay for his or her family's annual food supply in just 40 days. We commemorate this fact on February 9th, which is the 40th day of this year. Compared to other expenses facing America's families, food is a bargain. While Americans must only work until February 9th to pay for their yearly food supply, last year they had to work until May 9th just to pay for their taxes. In addition, the percentage of disposable personal income spent for food has declined over the last 25 years. In 1997, Food Check Out Day would have been on February 10. In 1970, Food Check-Out Day would have been 11 days later than it is today--February 20. This is made more notable by the fact that trends indicate Americans are buying more expensive convenience food items for preparation at home, as well as more food away from home. The Agriculture Department's latest statistic, compiled for 1996, includes food and non-alcoholic beverages consumed at home and away from home. This includes food purchases from grocery stores and other retail outlets, including food purchases with food stamps and vouchers for the Women, Infants and Children's program. The statistic also includes away-from-home meals and snacks purchased by families and individuals, as well as food furnished to employees. Mr. President, many states will mark today with an event to raise food donations for their local Ronald McDonald House. The Ronald McDonald House provides a ``home-away-from-home'' for the families of seriously ill children receiving medical treatment in their local areas. The food donated from these Food Check Out Day programs will be used to help feed visiting families staying at the House. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that food in America is affordable, in large part because of America's productive farmers and ranchers. Food Check-Out Day allows us to recognize their hard work, the benefits of which we all enjoy. As a fellow rancher, I personally want to salute these Americans and thank them.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight 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 Wednesday, February 24, 1998 at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the use of specialty forest products from the national forests. 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 Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Hatch in introducing the joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to protect from physical desecration the flag of the United States. This is the same resolution that the House has passed, and we hope it will soon be passed by this body and sent to the American people for ratification. Some of my colleagues may remember the time I came to this Senate floor with memorials from forty-three state legislatures, urging Congress to take action to protect the American flag from physical desecration. Those memorials were inserted in the Congressional Record for all to read. Today that number has swelled to forty-nine states, eleven more than are needed to ratify an amendment Since this amendment was proposed in 1989, poll after poll has found that eighty percent of the American people consistently support a flag protection amendment. These polls have been performed in times when flag burnings have been more frequent, and times when the flag burners have been fairly quiet; yet the result is always the same--Americans want the flag protected. Mr. President, today, we have an opportunity to respond to the American people by passing this resolution and sending a very simple amendment to the states for ratification. This amendment authorizes Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United States. It is a very straight-forward proposal, and the only way this goal can be accomplished, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our flag, which predates our Constitution, articulates ``America,'' more clearly than any other symbol does. Our flag represents the tapestry of diverse people that is America--as well as the values, traditions, and aspirations that bind us together as a nation. It waves as a patriotic symbol of our values. It's amazing to see how our flag captures basic American values and inspires people to protect them. In return, the vast majority of the American people want our flag protected from acts of intentional, public desecration. We have many songs for our flag and have even named it Old Glory. That's because our flag holds a special place in our hearts. No other emblem of our nation has been defended as a symbol of freedom so animatedly. No other symbol has brought our country closer together, dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other token has drawn immigrants to our nation, with the promise of democracy. No other artifact inspires us to rise to the same level of dignity and patriotism. Our flag's leading troops into battle is an American tradition, inspiring both families at home and those on the front lines; it has inspired men and women to great accomplishments; it flies over our government buildings because it symbolizes our republic; it is displayed in our schools as a reminder of the importance of learning and our desire for an educated people; it is flown from the front of our homes because we are proud to be Americans and we are proud of the contributions our nation has made; it waves above our places of business as a testament to the free enterprise system; it hangs in our houses of worship as a symbol of our freedom to worship God as our conscience dictates. The flag represents the values, traditions and aspirations that bind us together as a nation. It stands above our differences and unites us in war and peace. The American people want an amendment to protect the flag from desecration, and they should be given the opportunity to ratify it. We, as servants of the American people, shouldn't act as stumbling blocks. Instead, we should respond by passing this resolution. If the American people don't want this amendment, they can vote to reject it. However, we should remember that already more than three million people have signed petitions asking Congress to pass a flag-protection amendment and send it to the states for ratification. This is the first step in that process. Flag desecration is offensive to the majority of Americans. To publicly desecrate even one flag promotes nothing worthwhile in our society, communicates no clear message, and tears at the fabric of our nation. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, ``One of the high purposes of a democratic society is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people--whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution, or flag burning.'' The U.S. flag is more than just a piece of cloth. It represents the fabric of our nation. I urge my colleagues to listen to the voice of the American people and join us in protecting our flag.