Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, sometimes my colleague from Massachusetts and I disagree openly, sometimes loudly, on different issues, but he and I will not disagree today on the integrity or the excellence of the individual before us, David Satcher. But we will disagree. Nobody deserves a break on the truth or the facts as it relates to the performance of an individual. So let the Senator from Massachusetts and I agree that David Satcher is an outstanding individual of high quality. We agree. But because of differences in philosophy that sometimes produce politics we will disagree. I think my colleague from Missouri was doing that today. And so no breaks are given to anyone, nor should they be given. We are talking about building a record that is tremendously important as we reach out to decide whether this gentleman should become America's family doctor as the Surgeon General of the United States and therefore the record and the facts as they relate to this individual's performance and what he has done in the past are relevant and very important. There is no question that David Satcher will probably be confirmed as the Surgeon General, and as he is confirmed and as the American public gets to know him it is important that they know a little bit about his background so they can be ready and aware of what he might do along with what he will be required to do as our Surgeon General. I would like to talk about two areas that I think are very important to our country as a whole. As I have said, his philosophy is generally very different from my own, and that means that I will and do fundamentally disagree with the views of many of his efforts and my view, my politics, my philosophy is different from our President's. And so it is not unusual that he might nominate somebody that I would not agree with nor would I want to vote to confirm. But I also recognize the reality and the importance of our President being able to nominate those whom he feels would serve best under his Presidency based on his philosophy and his vision of how the country ought to be. So, while I believe the President's choice deserves some deference, I do not believe the Senate should automatically rubberstamp any decision that our President makes. This is one that he has made. It deserves reasonable debate on the floor. I believe I can offer some of that this afternoon. David Satcher comes to us with a background that includes service as a Federal officer. In his capacity as Director of the Centers for Disease Control, he was made aware of serious concerns that I and other Members of both the House and the Senate had talked about and had visited with him about. I was privileged to have that conversation in my office some time ago with Dr. Satcher. I was pleased that he would come, sit down and engage in a thoughtful and earnest way about something that was of concern to me and a very large constituency in this country; that I felt he and the tax dollars engaged at the National Centers for Disease Control were being misused. The House and the Senate had concerns about a crusade mounted by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control about certain kinds of things, and our director, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Satcher, went in a different direction. He launched a study against private firearms ownership in this country. Now, you have to scratch your head a bit and say, ``What? Firearms? Guns? Centers for Disease Control?'' I did. I scratched my head and said, ``Dr. Satcher, where are you coming from?'' Well, he was quoted to say this, that his efforts and the studies he was putting forth were ``to convince Americans that guns are first and foremost a public health menace'' and to that end they had ignored years of study by criminologists, people much more directed in the area of guns and crime than the Centers for Disease Control. But Dr. Satcher being politically correct for his President moved on. And therefore went on to say that they had labeled violence as an ``epidemic,'' and concluded that gun control was the way to cure it. What they failed to recognize, and they should have recognized if they are good clinicians, is that the state and the condition in which the individual is raised produces a violent person, and that a violent person will reach out in his or her act of violence and use any tool available to them. But, no, because it was politically correct, they chose firearms. Dr. Satcher, firearms are not an epidemic in this country, they are a constitutional right and you ought to understand that. And, while you were being politically correct for this President and your philosophy, you were being unconstitutional. You were directing the energies and the taxpayers' dollars of this country against something that in my opinion was, frankly, none of your business. But you chose to move ahead, for all the reasons I think I have just stated. In short, the so-called research done by that agency was, in my opinion, both politically motivated and from a scientific point of view--and we have heard about his tremendous scientific credentials this afternoon--seriously flawed. Although Dr. Satcher did not personally conduct the research, he used his position to defend it. Even worse, his leadership at CDC caused it to continue even after it came under criticism. So you have to question. My job is to question. I think my argument today is legitimate. Dr. Satcher, you were acting beyond your professional credentials and, therefore, your science in my opinion was flawed. Now he wants to be America's family doctor. Mr. President, law abiding gun owners are not a public health menace. Violent people are, and have demonstrated by their actions that they can become a menace to people's health. It is outrageous that the head of any Federal agency would endorse using taxpayers' dollars in a political campaign against a constitutionally protected right of the taxpayer who paid for the campaign. But the gentleman this Senate is about to vote on did just that. He very openly talked to me about it in my office and I respect him for coming to visit about it. His only argument was he just thought it was important to do. I noted that he was very much in sync with the President, and therefore he was obviously doing the right thing politically. But I think it is time we question him on that issue. This is not the only area where Dr. Satcher's extreme views, I think, generate some concern. He also supports the legality of partial birth abortions. His position on this controversial procedure is at odds with what most polling data suggest today is 80 percent of the American people, and with the professional and ethical judgment of the American Medical Association. In taking this position, Dr. Satcher clearly chooses the President's political agenda over the views of his medical colleagues. So I think it is important, when there are some who get a bit exercised here that somehow we are questioning this gentleman's sincerity, or most important his professional integrity, that this man is quite often very willing to politicize beyond science something that happens to fit the agenda of the President that he serves. His views on this particular procedure are so far in the minority, and I think it is important that we recognize that. Many Members of Congress who advocate abortion voted in favor of banning partial birth abortion. Dr. Satcher and President Clinton say the decision to have an abortion should be between a woman, her conscience, and her doctor; and that abortion should be safe and legal. The partial-birth abortion procedure is indefensible on any of those grounds. The procedure we are talking about is one of causing and then stopping delivery of a child. I could go into the details of that. That isn't necessary to do. It has been talked about for a long time on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I think Senators, in a large majority now, fit the understanding of the American people on this issue. So, let me conclude by saying that my intent this afternoon is not to impugn the talent or the integrity of Dr. Satcher. It is, though, to clearly demonstrate that he is a political nominee who can operate in political ways and has chosen to do so to stay in step with the President who nominated him and to be out of step, not only with the Constitution of this country, but in many instances the vast majority of the American people. I am not going to attempt to predict the outcome of the vote on the floor but my guess is that when the vote settles, Dr. David Satcher will be the next Surgeon General of the United States. I and others will watch him very closely, hoping he will serve with integrity and responsibility, and that he will not choose to use his bully pulpit as a leverage against fundamental constitutional rights in our country, or what a vast majority of the American people think would be a wrong procedure, a wrong process, or an unnecessary law. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

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.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a field 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 be held in Twin Falls, Idaho at the College of Southern Idaho in the Fine Arts Auditorium on Monday, February 16, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. The College of Southern Idaho is located at 315 Falls Ave., Twin Falls, Idaho. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the management of the Sawtooth National Forest Recreation Area. 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 Bill Lange or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Tuesday, February 3, 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. 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, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

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 Monday, December 15, 1997 at 1:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 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, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to respond to remarks made by the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, concerning the ``curio or relics'' U.S. origin historic firearms issue. I believe it's important for the Senate to be aware of this information in evaluating the actions taken today on the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill. The amendment that the Senator from New Jersey refers to, which has been under consideration in both the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 appropriations processes, is intended to correct a serious injustice in the way that our nation's firearms import laws are being administered. The amendment stops the Administration from ignoring Congress' intent that historic firearms be allowed to return to U.S. soil. Despite the fact the amendment was not added to the Commerce, Justice, and State spending bill, I am confident, based on the bipartisan support enjoyed by the amendment, that it will be passed in this Congress. A brief review of the history behind this issue is in order. In 1984, Congress first enacted a statute, 18 U.S.C. 925(e), specifically permitting the importation of military surplus curio or relic imports. At the time of enactment, however, the statute only benefited foreign collectibles, since other acts interfered with U.S. origin curio or relics from returning to the United States. In 1987, Congress remedied the inconsistency by enacting a provision for the importation of certain U.S. origin ammunition and curio or relic firearms and parts into the United States at 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B). The Treasury Department issued implementation regulations after the passage of both laws. The Department of State, which in certain cases consults with the Treasury Department on firearms imports, frustrated the purpose of the 1988 law by refusing to consent to U.S. origin applications, ostensibly on the basis of foreign policy interests. The Department of State for years has frustrated the efforts of importers to bring historic curio or relic firearms into the United States. In addition to fully assembled U.S. origin curio and relic firearms being denied entry into the United States, curio or relic U.S. origin military surplus parts and U.S. origin military surplus ammunition applications that used to be approved by ATF directly, are now being denied. Many hobbyists and collectors are being denied access to these historic arms. Many millions of dollars in business will now be lost on rifle parts sales and rifle ammunition, severely hurting an import industry that has already been very adversely affected by President Clinton's policies. With regard to the criticism that has been leveled against the amendment, and these arms, several important facts are in order. First of all, this amendment was not inserted in any bill ``in the dark of night'', it was part of an open mark-up over a year ago in the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee in the Senate for the appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997, and this year, for fiscal year 1998, it was added on the House side in an open full committee mark-up on the Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill. This is a well-known issue and one that has been widely publicized; in fact, Senator Lautenberg and other opponents of this provision have certainly ensured that it has been given attention. I realize that opponents of this amendment have been using the media to sensationalize the subject and to scare the general public into believing that there is something nefarious about these fine old arms. However, allegations concerning or implying a special crime threat that ``curio or relic'' M1 Garands, M-1 Carbines and M-1911A1 pistols pose to police officers or innocent civilians is simply false. Similarly, allegations that Iran will profit from the sale of these firearms is also wrong. In addition, the characterization of what the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms trace data indicates is misleading at best, as even ATF acknowledges that ATF gun trace data may not be used to make statistical assumptions about the use of firearms. Here are just some of the basic facts about this matter: First, ``curio or relics'' are defined as firearms which are of special interest to collectors, and are at least fifty years old, or are certified by a curator of a municipal, State or Federal museum to be curios or relics of museum interest, or have some rare, novel or bizarre characteristic because of their association with some historical figure, period or event. They are not the crime gun of choice for criminals. Second, corrective language is needed to enforce existing import laws and regulations that already permit the importation of U.S. origin curio or relic firearms, parts and ammunition from non-proscribed nations (the Arms Export Control Act, Section 38, 22 U.S.C. 2778 and the Gun Control Act of 1968). Third, the purpose of the Gun Control Act was to provide ``support to Federal, State and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence,'' but not to ``place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity.'' Additionally, the enactment of the Gun Control Act was ``not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes'' (i.e., such as gun collecting). The Administration's actions are completely contrary to legitimate collecting and hobby pursuits. Fourth, these firearms and ammunition were initially supplied to friendly foreign governments by sale or gift to promote the foreign policy interests of the United States. The U.S., under the Foreign Assistance Act, can waive receipt of any proceeds derived from such a sale and request that the proceeds be set aside in a special account. In most cases, the U.S. does so for the purposes of letting the ally nation modernize its military equipment. Since the U.S. usually would have assisted such a nation anyway in some manner with the modernization of their military equipment, the allowance of keeping the sale proceeds actually represents a potential cost savings to the U.S. taxpayer. Fifth, rifles, which constitute the vast majority of these guns, are not the alleged crime threat that opponents of this provision would like the American people to believe. In ATF's July, 1997 report entitled ``ATF, The Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, Crime Gun Trace Analysis Reports'' 8 out of 10 crime guns traced within a 10 month period in 1996/97 were handguns. Out of an average of the trace data that ATF compiled from 17 major cities across the United States, from July 1, 1997 through April 30, 1997, all rifles comprised only 7.98 percent of the total firearms traced to crimes. In fact, according to ATF's latest data concerning firearms traced to a crime scene'' in 1995, out of the 70,000 firearms traced to a crime scene, only .331 percent were U.S. origin firearms. In 1996, the percentage decreased: out of the 140,000 firearms traced to a crime scene, only .275 percent were U.S. origin firearms. In 1997, U.S. origin firearms constitute only .303 percent out of the total 200,000 firearms traced. In summary, these firearms are generally not attractive to criminals. They are expensive, heavy, cumbersome and not easily concealable. Sixth, Senator Lautenberg's figure of 2.5 million U.S. origin ``curio or relic'' firearms that would be imported is incorrect. First of all, we do not import ``millions'' of guns into this country on an annual basis. Currently, the rough total number of all firearms that are annually imported into this country is in the 800,000 to 900,000 range. Only a relatively modest number of U.S. origin curio or relic firearms are available for importation into the United States in commercially acceptable and safe-to-shoot condition--these will not number in the millions. Finally, current law--the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the Arms Export Control Act, the Foreign Assistance Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968--already prohibits U.S. importers from trading with proscribed countries, such as Iran, whose foreign policy threatens world peace and the national security of the U.S. and supports acts of terrorism. The proposed appropriations language made it very clear that importation would only be permitted from non-proscribed nations. Regarding the report language that has been added to the bill. I would like to point out that Senator Lautenberg's statement suggested expansion of the conference report language is contrary to what was accepted in the bill. It is clear that the items Senator Lautenberg offered on the floor were specifically rejected by the Conferees, which are as follows: First, the Conferees did not accept the Administration providing a description of any law enforcement or grand jury investigations of alleged illegal conduct related to the importation of M-1 or M19911 firearms. Second, the Conferees did not accept the Administration reporting on the number and types of weapons that have been added to the ``curios or relics'' list since 1980, the process by which those weapons are added to the list, and the entities that have petitioned to add weapons added to the list. Third, the Conferees did not accept the Administration providing a comprehensive overview of the number of homicides and violent crimes committed against police officers and against civilians with M1s or M19911s. In addition, Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg suggested by the use of term ``simple'' that the Administration should report on how ``simple'' the conversion of M-1 carbine is from semi-automatic to an illegal fully automatic gun. That is not what the report language calls for--it calls for an explanation of the facts. Converting the M-1 Carbine requires an M2 parts conversion kit; however, that is not readily or easily accomplished, since it is strictly controlled under the National Firearms Act of 1934. In summary, this amendment is needed, and I regret we could not achieve it this year. With the additional information from the Administration, and an early start on the matter, I believe we will be able to right what has been a wrong to the gun collecting and importing community for many years. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, with the Senate's vote today on ``The Adoption and Safe Families Act,'' we are sending the President a landmark reform of the nation's foster care system and a bill that will make an enormous difference in the lives of many children in America. Every child deserves a safe, loving, permanent family. For a lot of us, it's inconceivable that this most basic need is out of reach for hundreds of thousands of children across the nation. Although we've tried to provide a safety net to protect children at risk of abuse or neglect, that safety net is failing all too many children. The problem does not lie with the vast majority of foster parents, relatives and caseworkers who work valiantly to provide the care needed by these children. Rather, the problem is the system itself, and incentives built into it. On one end, it's allowing children to slip back into abusive homes; on the other end, it's trapping them in what was supposed to be ``temporary'' foster care, instead of moving them into permanent homes. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 will bring more children home--to safe, permanent homes--and it will bring them home faster. It will change the culture of foster care with a number of fundamental reforms: Currently, to obtain federal funds, states are required to use ``reasonable efforts'' to keep families together. While that sounds like a goal we all can support, this requirement has resulted in states using extraordinary efforts to keep children in what may actually be abusive or unsafe situations. Tragically, it's the children who ultimately pay for mistakes when this happens--sometimes with their very lives. Our bill will change this. It requires that the child's health and safety must be the paramount concerns in any decisions made by the state on behalf of that child. While the reforms in the bill respect the rights of others--such as birth parents, relatives, foster families and adoptive parents--it makes clear that the focus must always be on the child's health and safety. In addition to this general rule, the bill provides that the ``reasonable efforts'' requirement does not apply where there are aggravated circumstances such as abandonment, torture, chronic abuse or sexual abuse. This is not a comprehensive list; we've tried to make clear that states have the power to suspend the requirement for other aggravated circumstances that jeopardize the health and safety of the child. Mr. President, these critical reforms will help save the lives of children. That's probably the most important goal of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. But it's not the only goal; other reforms in the bill are aimed at encouraging adoption and helping to move children through the foster care system and into permanent, loving homes. For instance, for the first time, steps will have to be taken to free a child for adoption or other permanent placement once the child has been in foster care for fifteen months or more. In cases of severe abuse, when ``reasonable efforts'' are not appropriate, this bill establishes a new expedited process, requiring a permanency planning hearing to be held within 30 days. For the first time, states will be required to use ``reasonable efforts'' to place a child for adoption, if returning the child to the family is not an option. For the first time, those efforts must be documented. We were particularly concerned about helping make adoption more likely for foster children with ``special needs.'' These are children who, by definition, are hard to place, perhaps because they require special medical help or mental health services, or the like. This bill requires health insurance coverage for children with special needs, which will make it more possible for families of all incomes to give these children a home. This bill also provides states with financial rewards based on their success in increasing adoptions. An even higher reward is provided for increasing the adoptions of special needs children. The bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to provide technical assistance to states and localities to promote adoption of foster children. We've also highlighted adoption promotion and support as services funded by the Family Preservation Program, which we have reauthorized for three years and renamed the ``Promoting Adoptive, Safe and Stable Families'' program. We also attempted to address what many in the field have told us is a major hindrance to adoption: geographic barriers. It's my understanding that states are working independently to resolve this problem. Our bill gives them an additional push toward resolution, by providing that states risk losing their federal payments if they deny or delay the placement of a child when an approved family is available outside their jurisdiction. We've also required a study and report to Congress on interjurisdictional adoption issues, so that we can take additional actions in the future in this area, if necessary. This bill makes a number of system reforms aimed both at helping to advance our goals and providing a foundation for additional reforms in the future. For instance, we're requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with state and local officials, child advocates and others in developing performance measures and publishing a report evaluating the effectiveness of our child welfare programs. This bill also requires HHS to develop and recommend to Congress a system for basing federal assistance payments on performance. It allows child welfare agencies to use the Federal Parent Locator Service to assist in locating absent parents. It allows agencies to use concurrent planning--that is, providing services to reunite or preserve the family while simultaneously recruiting adoptive parents, so that if the family cannot be preserved or reunited, the child will not have to wait such a long time before moving into a permanent home. Before concluding, let me acknowledge the hard work of a number of members in both the House and the Senate, without which we wouldn't have a bill today. Although we may have started with fundamentally different views as to how best to change the system, we were united-- and driven to resolve our differences--by the strong belief that reform is urgently needed now. I am pleased to have had a part in the bipartisan Senate coalition that worked and re-worked this legislation: Senator DeWine, Senator Chafee, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Moynihan, Senator Jeffords, Senator Coats, Senator Bond, Senator Levin, Senator Nickles, and Senator Grassley. Special thanks must go to Chairman Roth of the Senate Finance Committee, and his staff, who helped navigate the Senate bill to the floor and through the House. The Senate coalition appreciated having excellent technical assistance from Karen Spar of the Congressional Research Service. I'd like to thank the other cosponsors of the Senate PASS Act for their support: Senator Dorgan, Senator Landrieu, Senator Johnson, Senator Kerrey and Senator Moseley- Braun. I also appreciate the efforts on the House side, led by Congressmen Camp and Kennelly, and Chairman Shaw. Mr. President, these reforms will save lives and help move children out of foster care, faster, and into safe, permanent, loving homes. It's the hope of all who support this legislation that President Clinton will sign it into law before the end of November--which, appropriately enough, is National Adoption Month. Let's bring these children home.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Senator Thompson has a technical amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 261, H.R. 497.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 66, submitted earlier today by Senator McCain.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record. The bill (S. 1304), as amended, was read the third time and passed, as follows:

Mr. CRAIG. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Mr. Hatch.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 275, S. 1304.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate, by this action, has just passed a major reform in the foster care of this country, an issue that bipartisan Senators have gathered on over the last several months to resolve. Senator Roth, of the Finance Committee, in the last several weeks, working with Senator Rockefeller, Senator Chafee, myself, Senator Coats, and Senator DeWine have taken on an effort to reform foster care in this country by the proposal of this legislation that we have now gained the concurrence of the Senate on. It is without question, in my opinion, a landmark piece of legislation because what it does, for the first time, is use foster care the way we intended it originally to be used. It ensures the safety for abused and neglected children. It promotes adoption. It accelerates permanent placement. It offers to children of this country in need an opportunity for a loving and permanent home. And it increases the accountability of reform. I am extremely pleased that at this late hour we could finally bring about a conclusion to this effort.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be agreed to.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. 1487 introduced earlier today by myself.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1414 be read for a second time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the title amendment be agreed to, and any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of calendar item No. 247, S. 759.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar item No. 169, H.R. 1086.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.