Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed en bloc to Calendar No. 267, S. 508; No. 268, S. 857; H.R. 2731; and H.R. 2732; that the bills be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be advanced to third reading and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without further action or debate.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will consider the Labor-HHS appropriations conference report. The leader anticipates 90 minutes of debate and a rollcall vote on the adoption of the conference report. Therefore, the first vote today will occur at approximately 2:30 p.m. Following that vote, the Senate may be asked to consider an appropriations matter to be offered by the chairman and ranking member shortly after the vote at 2:30. Therefore, additional votes can be expected during Saturday's session of the Senate. Since these are hopefully the last few days of the session for the 1st session of the 105th Congress, many items are in the process of being cleared for consideration by the Senate. Some of those items include the FDA reform conference report, the adoption/foster care legislation and Executive Calendar nominations. Therefore, the cooperation of all Senators would certainly be appreciated. Mr. President, let me say briefly that the adoption/foster care legislation, I understand, is now nearly cleared. It is an effort that I, along with Senator Chafee and Senator Rockefeller --and a good many others--Senator Coats, Senator DeWine have worked ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, at this moment I am filing at the desk four amendments that at the appropriate time I would make efforts to attach to S. 1269, the fast-track legislation. The chairman is on the floor and I would provide him with a packet of information as it relates to these amendments. None of us yet know the fate of fast track or if the House will be able to engender the necessary votes to pass this legislation. Clearly, I think the proper refinement of fast track broadens its ability to be passed and to become law, and it becomes very important to all of us, if that is the case, that it does. I have reservations about giving the President this authority, and yet at the same time I have not stood in the way that the process be expedited to get it to the floor for a vote. But the amendments that I am filing this afternoon that I think are important are a product of the frustrations that American producers have experienced as a result of the mid-1980's North American Canadian Free-Trade Agreement and then, of course, NAFTA, the North American Free-Trade Agreement in the early 1990's. One of my amendments deals with the commodity problems that we have primarily in agriculture but also in the forest products industry between Canada and the United States. The flow of commodity interest is largely one way at this moment, from Canada into the United States-- live cattle impacting our markets, grain bypassing through the Canadian Grain Board, the protocol of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. We have just had disputes with Canada over poultry and dairy products. We now see a flood of potatoes coming out of Canada, potatoes last year that depressed the United States producer price to almost a historic low level, putting farmers in Idaho, Washington, and Maine in jeopardy. As a result of that, one of my amendments would establish a bilateral joint commission to identify and recommend means of resolving national regional and provincial trading or trade distortions and differences between the United States and Canada with respect to the production, processing and sales of agricultural commodities. I have explained the reason why, and if we get to the appropriate time I hope that the chairman and the full Senate would look upon that kind of amendment in favorable light. Another amendment that I think certainly the chairman and the Senate would look favorably on is an amendment to enforce the S. 1296 ban on extraneous provisions. This amendment would provide effective enforcement provisions already in the bill. As reported, S. 1269 prohibits extraneous provisions from being included in trade agreement bills considered under fast track. The bill limits fast-track trade bill provisions to those necessary or related to the implementation of a trade agreement, or not necessary to comply with the Budget Act. This is a major improvement, I think, over previous fast-track legislation. However, S. 1269 currently contains no effective enforcement of this provision. Let's remember the North American Free- Trade Agreement and what we fell into there. We forced small business people to have to go to computerized methods of accounting and withholding. That was a tax increase, in so many words, that was inflicted upon us in a ``take it or leave it'' proposition. What my amendment would do is prohibit that kind of extraneous material, or any hidden tax that might come sneaking through, if you will, in a trade agreement of the kind the President would be allowed to negotiate under fast track. Also, I have offered an amendment that would require domestic tax increases to be amendable, and that adds to the strength of the amendment I have just offered. Those are the three. The other one is a clarification of the standard for the importation of firearms. This amendment is aimed at clarifying current law and preventing the administration from continuing to abuse its trade authority to carry out a political agenda against firearms. Even for firearm imports, there needs to be a meeting of a standard and a test. We think the administration has gone well beyond that. That is the essence of the amendments that I have filed. Depending on how we get to the issue of fast track and what the House is able to do in the coming hours could determine our ability here in the Senate to perfect or to shape the fast-track agreement. With that, I will file those amendments and yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, aside from the business at hand, I ask unanimous consent that Janice Nielsen, a legislative fellow who works in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate and vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1119, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the nomination of Charles Rossotti to be IRS Commissioner. I don't know whether to offer this new Commissioner congratulations or condolences. He comes to the IRS at a time of great turmoil and, I must say, also at a time of great opportunity. The process of investigating and reforming the IRS has only just begun, and I commend Senator Roth and the ranking member, the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, for holding the recent Finance Committee hearings, and especially commend the courage displayed by the witnesses at those hearings. I say ``courage'' because oftentimes in the past, as witnesses have come forward, they were to find themselves only later victims of a very aggressive rogue agency that would not adhere to any reasonable policy of treating the taxpayer as somebody who deserved appropriate treatment. I suggest that those hearings and those witnesses are merely the tip of an iceberg; there is so much more to be uncovered and to be investigated. The recent hearings were barely over when my office started hearing from basically two groups of taxpayers: those who were cynical, saying, well, now that the hearings are over, I suspect nothing more will happen and it will be business as usual. That was the first type. The second type were those who were relieved to discover what appeared to be a very serious Congress finally looking toward reform and an effort to prevent IRS abuse. So they were saying to me, as a Senator, that they were not alone and that they were now willing to come forward and to express to me, or to a larger body of interest, their experience with the IRS, the problems they had. Similarly, the IRS restructuring bill that is now moving through the other body is a start. Let me suggest, and I think the ranking member who is here on the floor, the Senator from New York, would agree it is only a start. Taxpayers deserve as much due process protection in the matter of taxes as do all other citizens dealing with our Government in all other issues. Blatant disregard for individual rights has all been in pursuit of one goal by the IRS, and that was, ``Get the money, get the money,'' and sometimes at nearly all costs to due process, and we heard some of those examples expressed by witnesses before the Finance Committee. Drug dealers, child molesters and organized crime in many instances have more legal rights than the average taxpayer whom the IRS suspects may owe a few dollars of back taxes. With the IRS, the taxpayer is guilty until proven innocent, and therein lies the difference, because I will tell you that a drug dealer is, by law, innocent until proven guilty, as is the child molester. But we heard very clearly from those witnesses that they were guilty until proven innocent. Unlike the FBI or the local sheriff, if the IRS thinks someone has underpaid taxes, it can seize cars, freeze bank accounts, and all under its own authority without obtaining any kind of impartial or prior approval. If the taxpayer fills out his or her return relying on tax advice from the IRS and that advice turns out to be wrong, guess who is liable. Not the IRS, that's for sure, but the taxpayer himself or herself. If the IRS wrongfully assesses back taxes or penalties, the taxpayer usually has three basically no-win choices to make: You pay up and shut up, take the case to the tax court where the judge is usually a former IRS employee and taxpayers usually lose, or pay up and then go to Federal district court and sue to get your money back. Remember, I say ``sue to get your money back.'' While the Finance Committee's investigations focused on middle- to lower middle-income individuals, I had the representative of a relatively large corporation in my State approach me and say: You know, Senator, I know we get no sympathy. We are considered big and therefore we are considered wealthy as a company. But a good number of years ago the IRS withheld an additional $8 million that they thought was theirs and we thought was ours, and we went after it, and not long ago the courts ruled it was ours. The only problem is, the $8 million plus the interest plus all other assessments was now about $24 million. Will they get it back? I doubt it. But it was the IRS that was wrong, and it was the large corporation that was right. Now, that large corporation could spend the money to fight the IRS and they probably could write off a lot of their expenses fighting the IRS. Could an individual, small taxpayer, do that? Absolutely not. So, even when the IRS loses, it really wins, because the IRS, with unlimited resources, has been known to appeal and appeal a weak case until the innocent taxpayer gives up or is just simply financially exhausted and goes away. That is a story that should not have to be told on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but it is in fact a story of fact that occurs many times across this country when it should not. I think the IRS needs to realize that the taxpayer is the boss, because in our system of Government that is exactly the way it ought to be. Taxpayers are not a suspect criminal class in our society. Yet it appears from what we have heard, in example after example, and a good many more that could be expressed, that that is oftentimes the way they are viewed by the IRS. Taxpayers should be treated with respect and dignity and should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why should this Senator have to say that on the floor, when it ought to be a matter of fact and law? Because it is not a fact today, and now we know it. There should be no quotas, pushing agents to prosecute dubious cases. Taxpayers should not be targeted on the basis of how little resistance they can offer. Can you imagine that as the policy of a Federal agency, ``Let's pick on those who can offer least resistance because we will get a greater yield on the money spent,'' when they could be innocent and can be at least embattled until they are willing to give up? There should be no vendettas, absolutely not, and yet there appear to have been some and probably are some. The privacy of taxpayers should be fully respected. And, yet, is it? Both the IRS and the Congress have been a part of the problem. I can point the finger only at the IRS, but that would be somewhat unfair. We have created one of the most complicated tax systems in the history of this country. Sometimes the problem is the IRS, who act outside the law--or certainly to the very edges of the law. I am sure most IRS employees are decent, hard-working, and conscientious people. And I know many of these employees, as do others, and they would fit that which I have just described. But the exception has become the rule, tragically enough. The tail is wagging the dog, and the IRS is now widely perceived as a rogue agency, marching to its own beat with Congress afraid to touch it because Congress itself, individually, could be audited. And that has happened in the past. So we draw back quietly, talk tough on the floors of our collective bodies, but very seldom follow through with actual and real hearings and reform that is a product of those hearings. I certainly hope that is simply now the exception, and the rule of the day, with the action that the other body is taking and the action that I hope we will take, will be comprehensive and broad-ranging reform of this agency. Sometimes problems happen because previous Congresses, liberal Congresses, or simply those with a ravenous appetite that the taxpayer pay the money because we need the money--whether it is balancing the budget or spending beyond the will of the citizen--the money has to be there. So we have granted IRS what I call power beyond the law, in many instances, to collect what we ask them to collect. In any case, there is never an excuse for such behavior, and this Congress is going to change things, I hope. Certainly, if it is this Senator speaking by his intent, then it is my intent, and I believe the intent of a bipartisan Congress, for major reform. And that we must get at. So I invite the Commissioner whose nomination will be voted on today to work with us in a constructive way to change the character, the image, the style, the culture of an agency that is now out of control. And witnesses in our country, those who make up our country, have so demonstrated. Real IRS reform also depends on real Tax Code reform. I will not mention the Senator, but right after we offered some reasonable tax relief this year, he said: Well, there is relief in the Code, if you can find it. So now, to the lower middle-income people for whom we champion the tax relief, we say now go hire an accountant and spend the money to get the tax relief, and probably the tax relief will at least pay for the accountant. If that is true, that is tragic. And tragically enough, that is probably true. Sometimes the problem is the Tax Code--too complicated even for the IRS to understand it. Listen to these figures. The IRS publishes 480 different tax forms and another 280 forms to explain the first 480. If laid end to end, the 8 billion pages of instructions sent out by the IRS every year would circle the Earth 28 times. That is why Senator Shelby and I introduced--or reintroduced--the Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act, better known as the flat tax. Why? Simplification, equity, fairness, the ability with ease to fill out a form, to know you are in compliance when you do it, and to once again set in motion something that has been historically true up until about two decades ago of the taxpayer versus the Tax Code--that was an understanding in this country that laws ought to be self-enforcing and that citizens really did want to pay their taxes, their fair share of running a Government and keeping a free society and assuring that our democracy survived. That has not been true of the last several decades. Taxpayers today are much more often heard to be telling their tax accountant: Find out everywhere you can where I do not have to pay taxes, because the code is too complicated and the taxes are too much. Grandfathers used to pay only about 20 percent in their taxes. That meant they got to keep 80 percent. Their grandchildren in today's work force now have to pay nearly 50 percent in their taxes, keeping only half. And we wonder why families can't provide for themselves today, why both parents are working when one may not want to. Oftentimes it is a combination, but most often it is just simply that they have to pay so much, so much is taken from their paycheck that they cannot survive unless both are working and providing for their family. Underlying our commitment to making substantial tax reform a reality, I have also cosponsored leading bills to sunset the current Internal Revenue Code by the year 2001. Mr. President, this Senate, the 105th Congress, led by conservative Republicans, have a unique opportunity, working with all of our colleagues, to assure that major reform of the IRS occurs and that we lead a march toward a significant reform of the code that brings us to a simple, fairer form that then allows the responsible downsizing of the IRS. No people can remain free or their government effective if they do not display trust and confidence in each other. Yet, America's tax system increasingly eats like a cancer at the very bonds of support and the legitimacy of our society. I urge all of my colleagues and invite the new IRS Commissioner to redouble their efforts to restore fairness to the tax system and trust to the people. Reform for the Tax Code, making it simpler, fairer and, I hope, flatter, is one approach toward doing that. Reform for the tax collector, increasing IRS accountability and requiring the IRS to treat the taxpayer with dignity, respect and the due process of the law would be a legacy that I wish could be done during my tenure in the U.S. Senate and I believe that would be a legacy that a majority of the Senators would like to leave. That is our goal. That is certainly my hope. Recognizing that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on the pending nomination at 5:45 this evening.

Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from New York, who, I think, has spoken very clearly to what happens in large part when the Congress of the United States restrains spending. While I recognize that there were certainly added revenues by a substantially large tax increase, if the Congress following that had followed the practices of past Congresss, and that is of course, a promise to reduce spending for every so many dollars of increase--and, I think I had heard that promise over my years in the House and in the Senate--I doubt that we would be experiencing the kind of economic vitality that we are currently and that the Senator spoke to. This Congress adhered to very real spending restraints, and as a result of that the markets recognized that we were not going to spend beyond our limits and, in fact, we would actually see a reduction in deficit of the kind the Senator spoke to. There is no question that with that kind of restraint here, the markets have responded and our citizens and our work force are now experiencing the kind of economic growth of which we are all extremely proud.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I want to congratulate my colleagues, Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd, for balancing the competing interests that are presented by the programs of the Interior bill, all of which have very vocal constituencies. I would like to clarify that, if the Bureau of Land Management believes that the funding provided in this bill is insufficient to carry out the objectives of wild horse and burro management, procedures for reprogramming must be followed by the Agency. Is it the managers' intention that funding not be reallocated absent the involvement of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees?

Mr. CRAIG. I understand that the conferees to the Interior bill agreed to provide $15,866,000 for the wild horse and burro program for fiscal year 1998. That amounts to the same funding level for the program as was provided for fiscal year 1997.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee regarding funding for the Wild Horse and Burro Management Program within the Bureau of Land Management.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, this morning to speak out against the proposal that our President yesterday announced to the Nation and to the world as it relates to this country's concept of how the world ought to be when it comes to the issue of global warming. But first let me thank the Senator from Nebraska for the leadership role he is taking on behalf of a very large bipartisan coalition of Senators in bringing clarity to this issue and demonstrating what is a clear opposing point of view, an opposing point of view based on science, an opposing point of view based on economics and an opposing point of view based on one of the largest coalition-building efforts I have witnessed, at least in my public life, between labor and business and public officials in this country. The Senator spoke out very clearly this morning on the discrepancy as it relates to what our President announced yesterday compared to what the Hagel-Byrd resolution that was adopted by the Senate some months ago spoke to. That was, if we are to enter an agreement, that agreement must be, by its definition, a world agreement, that all parties involved, that is, all nations of the world, must come together in recognition of what may or may not be an environmental problem. I am disappointed that the President of the United States, clearly recognizing the constitutional obligation of this body, chose largely, yesterday, in his proposal, to ignore us. While he gave us lip service and while his spokespeople have given us lip service over the last several months since the almost unanimous adoption of the Hagel-Byrd resolution, I must tell you that what our President laid down for his negotiators in Bonn yesterday is not reflective of what he has been saying or what his people have been saying. To the parliamentarians of the world, it is important that you understand that we are not a parliament and the President is not a prime minister. He does not speak for the majority of the U.S. Congress. He speaks for himself and for what I believe to be a narrow interest of people whose agendas take them well beyond just the concept of a better environment, but to a desire to do some industrial or economic planning nationwide, if not universally, all without any reliance whatsoever on the good judgment of the American consumer and/ or the free market that this country has relied on since its very beginning. ``Serious harm,'' those are important words. Those are words that the Hagel- Byrd resolution spoke to, ``serious harm to the U.S. economy.'' Important words, simple words, easy to understand, a relatively small measurement and threshold to be understood by anyone negotiating a treaty that, in the long term, might bind this country in an international obligation. We will not, nor should we, seriously harm our citizens, the economy in which they live, and the opportunities for which they strive. And yet, the President, we believe, ignored that and talked about the need for catastrophic emissions reductions by the year 2012. Mr. President, 2012. A long time off? No, not really; clearly within my lifetime, clearly within everybody's reasonable imagination, and something that if you are to accomplish a 30-percent reduction of fossil fuel emissions off from the current path, then you must start now in significant ways to change that and alter it. It is something that you do not wait until you get out to 2008 and then you say, ``Oh, my goodness.'' Because if we are to be responsible in relation to a negotiated treaty, a ``binding'' relationship by that point would draw us into a situation that we could not meet, or, if we chose to meet it, we would truly handicap the economy of this country. This Senator will not vote to make our country and its citizens second class to the rest of the world. I cannot nor will I do that nor do I believe any Senator in this body will knowingly vote in that way. Yet, the President is proposing that we allow 130 economies, 130 nations of the world, be exempt, to be able to do anything they choose while we would choose to restrict and control ourselves. Mr. President, we are a nation today that is proud of its environmental legacy. We have moved faster and more directly in the last two decades to improve the environment in which our citizens live than any other nation of the world, and we have paid a big price for it. But we have been willing to pay it. We have been willing to pay it and able to pay it because we are a rich nation. Rich nations move to do things to clean up their environment. Poor nations simply cannot afford to. They are too busy trying to feed themselves, clothe themselves and put shelters over the heads of their citizens. All of those items in this country are secondary considerations because we take them for granted, because we are rich, and we are rich because of a free-market system unfettered by Government rule and regulation and, in my opinion, by the silly politics that this administration perpetrates today on faulty science or certainly a lack of science or a knowledge of what all of this means. I have to say, in all fairness, the President gave some reasonable suggestions for conservation, and there is no question we ought to create the kind of incentives within our economy that move our citizens, and the economy that drives us, toward conservation. That is fair and that is reasonable, and we could assume a better world with all of that in mind. But the thing that frustrates me most is that there is emerging out of all of the current negotiations a reminder that the developing world is saying something to us that is most significant, and I am not sure that our President is listening at this moment. They are, in essence, saying, and when they laid down their position on the table in Bonn on October 22, that developing countries are demanding reductions of 35 percent below 1990 levels of emissions and that fines be assessed against the United States and the other developed nations if those targets are missed. They want global warming gas reductions, but guess who is supposed to pay for it? Not the consumers of the developing world, but us rich Americans. Rich Americans are supposed to pay for any economic inconvenience the developing world would encounter because we are foolish enough to agree to impose these kinds of reduction targets on ourselves. I am sorry, Mr. President, I don't buy that, the American consumer is not about to buy it, nor do I believe the U.S. Senate will. So in 10 to 14 years, at about the time that the baby boomers are retiring and our Social Security system is challenged, at about the time when we are once again going to have to make tough decisions in this country about our social character and the economics that drive our social well-being, the President yesterday said we are going to lay yet a bigger burden on the economy; we are going to say that you are going to have to be at a certain level of emissions reductions and, if not, we are going to take drastic measures to drive up the cost of energy, to drive down the amount of consumption, and that's what we are prepared to do based on faulty science and interesting politics. I suggest, Mr. President, that what you have proposed to the world and to the Nation and to this Congress is unacceptable. It certainly appears to be unacceptable at this moment to the U.S. Senate and to all who have spent any time studying the critical issue of global warming. While this Nation will continue to strive for a cleaner world--and it should--and a cleaner nation and will be reasonable and responsible players, we expect the rest of the world to do the same. But we can also understand that where a nation tries to feed itself and clothe itself and cause its citizens, by the economy in which they live, to rise to a higher standard of living, we understand that we have had that privilege and opportunity over the years and we should not restrict nor should we cause them to achieve anything less. Our technology can assist, and we need to be there to help. But I suggest, Mr. President, that binding obligations, no matter how far out you push them to allegedly conform with what our country believes ought to be done, simply do not work. This proposal won't work. I agree with my colleague from Nebraska, this Senate, in my opinion, will not concur in this, will not agree to the kind of treaty that our President and his associates are attempting to cause the rest of the world to agree to. So, Mr. President, I hope that you understand and I hope the world understands that this Senate, the Senate responsible for the ratification of these kinds of agreements, will, at this time, not ratify what you are proposing. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today Richard Wilson, who is the Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation, has announced that they have given preliminary certification to the waste isolation pilot plant in Carlsbad, NM. To Idaho and to the Nation, this is good news, because for the first time in decades we are on the threshold of beginning to move radioactive waste to a permanent repository, and the waste isolation pilot plant in Carlsbad will handle the transuranic waste, a majority of which is stored in my State of Idaho. This is consistent with an agreement that DOE struck with the State of Idaho over a year ago. EPA's action today is also consistent with a request by Congress that EPA review the facility in Carlsbad, NM, to make sure that it met the standards that we had asked for human safety, environmental protection, and of course dealing with any potential radiation. They believe it does not. Now they must go to the public process. We hope they will move as quickly as possible in that, because Idaho and the rest of the country deserves to know that by 1998 we will begin to see nuclear waste moving to a safe, permanent repository that this Government and this Senate has asked for well over a decade ago. I thank my colleague from Alabama for yielding.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, for taking out this time to reference what tragically has become all too common in America today--the loss of a beautiful person and the repercussion of that loss on the family of Coleman and Jean Harris. I must tell you, I did not know Ann, but I do know Coleman and Jean, the parents of Ann. I watched as the community around where Senator Kempthorne and I live mourned the loss of this beautiful young girl and felt the tragedy of it all. I don't know what we do about crime in America today. The statistics this morning were, as I drove in from the Mount Vernon area to our Nation's Capital, that the number of violent crimes is down in America. That is always positive and it is always good. When Ann left home here in northern Virginia to go to Tacoma, WA, with her friends to see friends, she did not expect to be treated violently or to become involved in a violent episode, because the perpetrator of the incident that killed Ann Harris broke the law. So is the answer today adding more laws to the books? It really doesn't seem to be. What Coleman and Jean Harris are doing today may well be a piece of an answer that allows citizens of this country not only to express themselves, but to recognize that this is a people problem that we are dealing with today, that it is a societal problem in our country, that stacking laws upon laws that people refuse to live by, if they decide to constantly be a breaker of the law, doesn't solve the problem. Now, when I came to work yesterday morning, I was involved in the standard traffic gridlock that oftentimes we become involved in in this immediate metropolitan area. There were times when my temper flared and I thought, why should this happen? Yet, I calmed myself and relaxed as much as I could to cope, so that I would not misjudge or cause a bad action. Certainly that kind of reaction, or whatever may have caused a reaction that caused the death of Ann Harris, is something that I think we all need to deal with. Thank goodness, the parents of this beautiful girl have said, ``We are going to do something about it. In the name of Ann Harris, Ann's Campaign, we are going to do something about it.'' They have not approached Senator Kempthorne and me and said we want more laws. What they have said is, ``We want a campaign nationwide that recognizes that if you smile more and care more and you love more and you have more understanding and you bring back to the culture of this society some of those underpinnings that kept us whole and kept a human relationship going for so long that seems to have broken down, that may have caused the death of Ann Harris, and certainly does cause deaths around the country in drive-by shootings and those kinds of things that just seem to be baseless types of crimes, that our society can, by these actions and by this action of the Harrises, become a better and a safer place to live. That is what we must all dedicate a part of our time to. Dirk Kempthorne and I are lawmakers, and we could probably pass another law. Certainly, in the passion and emotion of these kinds of incidents happening, all of us want to reach out and do something about it and do it quickly. Well, this Senate and this Congress, for the last decade, has passed a lot of laws that deals with violent actions of our citizens. Yet, somehow we are told by sociologists today that we must prepare ourselves for a very violent generation of juveniles. While adult crime goes down, as I referenced, juvenile crime seems to go up. I suspect that when society as a whole does what Coleman and Jean Harris are now doing on behalf of the beautiful daughter they lost, and more and more citizens speak up and become involved, and our communities and our churches and all of the institutions of our society bind together in intolerance of this kind of activity, that we will once again become a safer place to live. So let me thank my colleague again for this time and this recognition. We must continue to use any pulpit we can to speak out, and certainly the Harrises have. They have every reason to. I applaud them for their action and want to be a part of it where I can be as I ask other citizens to in the name of Ann and Ann's Campaign so that we can all smile a little more in a less violent society. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as you know, the Labor/HHS/Education conference committee is considering funding for national education testing. I want to make it clear where I stand on this important issue and point out to my fellow conferees the task before us. While I support higher standards for our schools, I cannot support national testing. National testing, despite what some of its supporters might say, is the first step toward a unified national curriculum. It is my firm belief that these decisions are better left to the States and locally elected school boards. Some might argue that testing to a national standard would not affect curriculum. However, to do well on the tests, students will have to be taught accordingly. This was pointed out by Acting Secretary of Education Marshall Smith who said: ``to do well in the national tests, curriculum and instruction would have to change.'' Even the Washington Post agrees that the test would be ``a dramatic step toward a national guideline for what students should be learning in core subjects.'' Mr. President, the schools of Idaho are doing well, and our students continually score above the national average in core subjects, without being told what and how to teach by Washington bureaucrats. Supporters of the tests argue that a national standard would be acceptable because it would be based on standards developed by the Department of Education: the National Assessment of Education Progress [NAEP]. However, the NAEP framework is fundamentally flawed. These standards are so out-of-touch that no State in 50 has adopted them. Now we're being asked to force the States to teach within the NAEP framework. Most offensive, Mr. President, is the fact that the NAEP framework does not measure basic skills or the student's ability to perform tasks. The NAEP framework focuses on whole language and new math concepts and awards credit for more than one response, even if the response is wrong. National testing would force local school districts to adopt these flawed strategies. I believe that the correct course for us to take is to direct resources to the classroom instead of forcing national standards on teachers and students. Let's assist local educators and our students in rising to the existing standards--standards set and supported by local and State leaders. Mr. President, the Senate has voted on this matter once, when the appropriations bill was on the floor. I, along with most of our colleagues, voted for the compromise offered by Mr. Gregg. This vote has been interpreted by some, including many in the administration, as Senate support for national testing. This is not the case, and I caution anyone from reading too much into that particular vote. I voted for the compromise, and I do not support national testing in any form. The true message of the vote is the Senate's willingness to alter the President's proposal and its interest in the language included in the House version of the bill. Finally, Mr. President, let me publicly thank my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to cosponsor his measure, S. 1215, which would prohibit the Federal Government from developing these flawed national tests.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1253, the Public Land Management Improvement Act of 1997. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. subcommittee on water and power

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 Tuesday, October 28, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the potential impacts on, and additional responsibilities for Federal land managers by the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on regional haze regulations implementing section 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are about to vote on a cloture motion on what is, without question, a very important issue to all of us and to the country at large. In fact, it is so important that this morning the President of the United States cried out, ``Save me from myself. Save me, please. I'm off to Philadelphia to raise money, and if you don't save me by passing the new law, I may do something wrong, or I'm going to have to do what I'm going to do anyway.'' Well, Mr. President, I'm sorry, but all I ask you to do is to abide by the law that is on the books of the land today. That is what I do. That is what the Senator who just spoke does. I doubt that Senator Dorgan ever has attempted to violate campaign law. I know he hasn't. He is an honest man. He makes sure he doesn't because he hires an attorney and he hires an accountant and he keeps himself legal because what we live under today is a well-regulated campaign finance system. I am absolutely amazed that when the American family sits down at night the first topic of the dinner table is not what about that campaign finance reform they are talking about on the floor of the Senate; I suspect that family is talking about what happened to the child who was lost on the streets of America today, or that classmate of your son or daughter whom you found out got arrested for drugs, or some other issue like that. That makes a heck of a lot more sense to the average American than the phenomenal, political, and media hype that has been built over the last 3 or 4 months about campaign finance reform. Mr. President, if I have heard it once, I have heard it 100 times, spoken from the other side of the aisle, ``Oh, they all do it.'' No, we don't all do it. I just came out of a campaign and I didn't violate a law nor was I accused of violating a law. I raised money legally. I'm sorry if you have to use a smoke cloud or subterfuge to argue your political point of view. It is wrong. Mr. President of the United States, it is wrong to say that everybody does it, because not everybody does. I am not about to save you, Mr. President, from yourself and from going to Philadelphia today to raise money. Last I checked, you touched out of here voluntarily. You left this city voluntarily. And yet that was the argument that was used by the President of the United States today. ``Well, the Senate yesterday didn't pass a law so I got to go do it again.'' Sorry, Mr. President, that isn't the issue here. The Supreme Court yesterday spoke out very, very clearly when they said you can't deny the right of a citizen to speak out, you can't deny advocacy in a free speech society. This Senate can talk all of the politics it wants. It can line up all of the 30-second sound bites it wants, but it cannot violate the Constitution nor will the Court allow us to. In this instance, I would love to quiet the voice of an advocate who disagreed with me, and I had many of them last year in my campaign. I had over a quarter of a million spent against me, and I will tell you, I don't think the ads were right. In fact, I think they were wrong. I think they failed to tell the truth. But in a free society, doggone it, now and then you have to withstand somebody who doesn't agree with you and you have to withstand somebody who may tell a lie about you. If you are in public life, that is a darn fact, the sureness of what will happen, and we all know that. What is wrong about it? Nothing is wrong about it. Oh, I could see where we should adjust some things, but I will tell you right now, if we are going to say to a certain citizen in our society, ``You are going to provide money whether you want to or not, and that money is going to make it into the political system whether you want it to or not,'' and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not allow that to happen, they will not allow the average citizen to have full, voluntary participation, then there will be no reform for this Senator to vote for. That will not happen if I have the ability of most Senators to block issues from coming to the floor. If we are going to talk about major campaign, we must talk about fairness, we must talk about equity, and we must talk about the right of the citizen in free speech and voluntarism. So today I stand with pride in my defense of the Constitution and the right of the citizen. I will oppose cloture on this bill, not out of an embarrassment or not out of shame, but out of pride for the system that can work when you play by the law.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the debate over campaign finance reform is what I like to call the ``News of the Day''. The media has been on a feeding frenzy looking for angles to show that this issue had divided members of Congress. That it had divided the members of the same party. There there is a cry of outrage across America as people stand by ready to storm the Capitol in protest. But despite the massive media hype, the public really doesn't care about the campaign finance reform issue. In the most recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll--where people were asked about the most important problems facing the country--campaign finance reform did not even appear as one of the top 10 items on the list. In fact, it didn't appear at all. The same stands true for the latest CBS News poll, the latest CNN/Gallup Poll, and even last month's L-A Times poll. After extensive research of all the major polls, campaign finance has not showed up as a concern among American at all. What is important to the American people are issues like crime, the economy, health care, education, social security, and the moral decline of the country. What people really care about is whether their children will get safely back and forth from school--and whether they'll get a good education in the public schools. They care about keeping their jobs and trying to make ends meet while they watch a good portion of their hard earned money going to Washington to support a wasteful and inefficient Federal Government bureaucracy. They care about their future--whether they can save enough money to retire some day--and acquire affordable health care. These are real concerns of Americans today. Now let's just support for a minute that people actually did care about campaign finance reform. That they sat around the dinner table at night and said ``How was your day at the office, oh, and by the way, we really need more campaign finance laws. What Americans really need to know are the details about the campaign finance laws that are currently on the books. And then they need to know about the appalling campaign finance practices that were part of President Clinton's reelection effort--and how the campaign finance issues is being used to divert attention away from these scandals. And they need to know what Congress wants to do to reform the campaign finance laws and level the paying field so neither political party has an unfair advantage over another. They need to know what we've 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 permission. And, they need to know what we're going to do to give them complete and immediate access to campaign contribution records about who gave how much to whom. This prompt and full disclosure of so-called soft money campaign donations will make the name of the donors public, aid allow the voters to decide if the candidate is looking after their best interest. Under the McCain-Feingold plan, there would be an across-the-board ban on soft money for any Federal election activity. Let me first recognize my colleagues who have worked on this issue at great length and in good faith. I have nothing but the deepest respect for both Senators McCain and Feingold in their tenacity and diligence to bring this issue to the attention of the public. I agree with some of their points of disagree with others--and I will continue to do so during the course of this debate. 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 the country's State and local political parties that it would force them to concentrate on raising money in order to exist. Under the McCain-Feingold proposal to ban soft money, State and local party committees would be prohibited from spending soft money for any Federal election activity. Right now, State and local political parties receive so-called soft money from the national political parties. Here in Washington, both the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee receive money from donors. Some of that money is then distributed to the respective political parties in counties and localities all over the country. There are thousands of State, county, and local party offices that receive this financial aid. Then--under certain conditions--the money is used for activities such as purchasing buttons, bumper stickers, 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 multicandidate brochures and even sample ballots. Let's say it's election day. You go down to your local polling site-- whether it's a school, a church or the American Legion hall. Sometimes there's a person there who will hand you what's called a sample ballot--listing all the candidates running for office who are in your party. Like most voters, you are more likely to choose the candidates of your party. But under the McCain-Feingold proposal, it will be against the law to use soft money to pay for a sample ballot with the name of any candidate who's running for Congress on the same sample ballot with State and local candidates of the same party. Under McCain-Feingold, it will be against the law to use soft money to pay for buttons, posters, yard signs, or brochures that include the name or picture of a candidate for Federal office on the same item that has the name or picture of State and local candidates. Under McCain-Feingold, it will be against the law to use soft money to conduct a local voter registration drive 120-days before a Federal election. Because of these new laws in the McCain-Feingold plan, State and local party officials will have to use hard money instead of soft money for these activities. Let's look at the reality of this situation. Because of these new restrictions, local party officials--say like the Republican Party chairman in Caldwell, ID--will be forced to seek out hard money donations from local businesses and individuals to fund these political activities. In a town of just 2,000 people, this party official--who is a volunteer--now has to spend more of his or her time fundraising, 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? We have just added more laws to a system that's already heavily regulated, increased the burden on thousands of State and local party officials forcing them 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's open up 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's in the bill, but what has been left out. it is, what the majority leader called the other day, ``the great scandal in American politics * * * and 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. they should be encouraged to become involved and active in the electoral process. it's not 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 (Larry), 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 troublemaker * * *'' 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's likely they used much more of the worker's money than they reported, but I'm sure we'll never find out the truth. But under the Paycheck Protection Act, offered by Senators Lott and Nickles, union workers will have new and expanded 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's the right thing to do.