Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my chairman for yielding. Let me also congratulate him for the clarity with which he spoke to this issue. Mr. President, I rise in opposition today to the amendment of the Senator from Nevada. I hope that in the course of what I have to say, Mr. President, that my opposition is clear. This comes to the issue the chairman and the Senator from Washington put so clearly. The Sierra Club some months ago, the Inland Empire Public Lands Council from the inner Pacific Northwest some weeks ago, and other organizations have come out with a policy for zero cut of timber on public lands. This is a national position that is well articulated by some of the more extreme environmental groups. I think the Senator from Washington is absolutely correct. I believe this is step 1 in a 5- or 6-year plan. This amendment cuts about one- fifth of the resource for road building. If this is accomplished, then next year they will try for a little more, and the next year even more, and the incremental game that has been played over the last several decades that has significantly changed the character of public land use is accomplished--in this instance, the elimination of timber harvest on public lands. The Senator from Nevada spoke of subsidies. Let me say as loudly and as clearly as I can that there are no subsidies. He is wrong. He talks about saving the taxpayers' money. He is wrong. The Price Waterhouse study that I have in my hand says so. Many others who have analyzed the program of purchaser credit also agree. The rhetoric of purchaser credits being subsidies may sound good when you suggest larger timber companies get money--taxpayer money. If this were the case, then that is subsidy, and that is wrong. It has no intent, and it doesn't improve in this instance the environment, or the ability of our forested lands to be ongoing and productive in their production of fiber for the citizens of our country. So let me say very clearly that Senator Bryan's amendment does not speak to subsidy because it does not exist. And it does not speak to saving money because it would not happen. In addition, the amendment would eliminate beyond an actual cut of 20 percent of the $47 million that is in this budget for proposed new timber roads. It would cut, of course, the purchaser credit. And that is where the argument on subsidies rests. This program was crafted by a Democrat Congress in 1964. It doesn't mean they were right. It doesn't mean they were wrong. At the time using the best analysis they could and an appropriate decision as it relates to how stumpage fees could best be utilized for the benefit of the taxpayer, they came up with this method. It was thoughtful legislating at that time, and I think it remains so today. It is a good policy. Let me try to explain why it is good policy and not a subsidy. Let me also explain why I challenge the Senator from Nevada on his arguments, because if I make a challenge I ought to be able to prove it. It is only fair and right that I do so. The purchaser road credit system has been utilized for more than 20 years. It allows purchasers to earn credits equal to the estimated cost of constructing roads specified in a timber sale contract. The purchaser can then use the credit to pay for the timber harvest. As with the regular forest road program which utilizes appropriated funds, the purchaser road credit program primarily supports the reconstruction of existing roads. The Senator from Washington has already very clearly spoken to that diagram effectively in the chart that he has before us. Of the total number of miles of timber sales roads built nationwide in fiscal 1995, about 90 percent were done with purchaser road credits. Approximately 80 percent of the purchaser road credits were used for the purpose of reconstructing. I thought it was important to mention this because the Senator from Nevada spoke passionately about the Tahoe Basin, an area which I am very familiar with the way it has been harvested or rather not harvested. This lack of harvest has attributed to the fuel buildup that goes on in that region, affected the wellness of the trees, and most importantly created a potential catastrophic environment that could exist in a drought situation causing massive fire. He speaks of roads, road conditions, and road maintenance. Purchaser credits have gone toward maintaining and improving, through reconstruction, more roads than hard dollars do. Every one of those roads is built to environmental standards which actually improves the environmental situation. In my State of Idaho last year--an exceptionally wet year--we had road blowouts; land and hillside blowouts in our national forests where man had never been. But the biggest problem occurred in areas where roads had not been reconstructed or effectively maintained. So, if the Senator from Nevada wants to talk about maintaining roads and improving road environments that create less sedimentation and a better water quality in Lake Tahoe, then he ought to be coming with more money. Because money does not exist in the budget, money does not exist to improve road conditions. Therefore, environmental conditions is the very thing that he is trying to eliminate. But back to the issue of subsidy. I brought this chart along to demonstrate the point. The point is really quite simple. If you are going to log the trees off the land, you have to get to the trees. There are Federal trees on Federal land. Who ought to build the road? The Senator and I come from large ranching States. You have cattle out in the corral in the back of the ranch, and you want to sell them to a cattle buyer. He has to get the trucks to the corral. You say, ``Build the roads to the corral, cattle buyer, and you can have the cattle.'' He will say, ``OK. And I will bid you $5 less a head because I have to spend money to build the road.'' Or, you can say, ``No. I will get the road built. I will pay for the road. Therefore, bid me the market price on my cattle.'' That is the same scenario that goes on with public timberlands because, as the Senator from Nevada said, the timber company leaves and the road is still there. Yes, it is. It is a Federal road paid for by Federal money, owned by the Forest Service, utilized by the citizens once it is used for logging. Here is a good example. If the market value of the timber on a timber sale is $100, and you use the purchaser credit, it costs you $40 to build the road. You have a purchaser credit of $40. So you bid the market price for the timber. You bid $100. The net receipts are $60 because the purchaser road credit was constructed. If you do not have purchaser road credits it is still going to cost $40 to build the road. The logging contractor bid to the Forest Service less money because he is going to sell the trees to pay for the road he will build. So the purchaser credit is zero. He bids $60. He doesn't bid $100. He bids $60, and the net receipt is $60. Is that a subsidy, or is that a method of building roads that in 1964 this Congress and this Senate decided was appropriate? Call it a subsidy? I don't think you can. Try it, if you might. Price Waterhouse says no. Economists say no. The reason they say no is because of this exact chart. The Senator from Nevada says, ``Well, BLM does it differently. They just sell the timber, and the logger builds the road.'' Yes. They do. Price Waterhouse would analyze that, and every economist would analyze that and say on the ONC--Oregon and California--lands in Oregon, where the BLM has the bulk of the timber from all of their landholding across the country, they do as the Senator from Nevada suggests. But the economists would say the quality of that timber value is depressed in stumpage because the logger takes the price of the road out of the sale. Why is that important for Idaho, then? Why am I standing here concerned? Well, the Senator knows why. The Senator knows that in current law a share of the stumpage value is returned to local counties for schools and for roads. In his State of Nevada, down on the Toiyabe, it looks like they get a few dollars. They do not get anywhere the amount of money that Idaho, Oregon, Washington, or northern California gets. Why? If you are from Nevada, you know why. It isn't a timbered State, in large part. It is a high desert State--not a lot of trees, except in very few areas; primarily in the north, where the Senator is from, and down on the tip in the south. The bottom line is when you bid a timber sale you and bid $60 rather than $100 because you are taking $40 out for the road. The Federal Treasury receives the same amount of money but payments to counties decrease. What the Senator knows is that by this action, he is dramatically cutting the money that flows to counties for schools and for road construction--their own road construction, not this road construction, not Federal road construction. Why have we payed the counties over the years? I tell you why we have done it--because my State is 63 percent federally owned, and those are landlocked communities. They have no tax base from which to fund their schools and their local roads. The Senator from Nevada knows from which I speak. His State is much more owned by the Federal Government than is my State. Nevada is 84 percent. It is interesting that the Senator from Nevada hasn't mentioned a thing about the annual net proceeds tax that his State gets from Federal mineral resources. Last year, the State of Nevada got $613 million in severance tax from Federal mineral resources. I say to the Senator from Nevada. Why does he work so intently to destroy the money that my schools, the schools in Montana, Washington, and Oregon get, and speaks nothing about that intent in his State, masked in the name of the environment? Let me suggest to you that it is not so masked. It is open. It is direct, and the impact would be dramatic. In many of my counties, school funding is 60 to 70 percent funded by this base, and he would take, in many instances, 25 or 30 percent of it away immediately. If the plan of national environmental radical groups, the kind that advocate zero logging on timber forested lands, had their way the remaining funds would soon be wiped out altogether. I guess another thing that clearly is worth discussing, and it is terribly frustrating to me, the Senator mentioned that he had letters from Secretary Glickman as it relates to the position of this administration when it comes to their support of his amendment. The Secretary before the House of Representatives said, interestingly enough, not very long ago that the elimination of purchaser road credits would hurt mostly small timber purchasers who have less access to credit. Now, the Senator from Nevada talked about sticking it to the big boys. I think in reverse, if he studied it with some intent, he would find that this is not quite the case. I have another chart here that speaks to what Secretary Glickman was talking about--purchaser credit use: ``Who buys the Federal timber?'' The dark blue represents small business, the red represents large business by definition. As we can see by the chart itself, in almost every instance, they are buying better than 50 to 60 percent of the timber. Small business timber purchasers would be adversely affected because the potential financing problem they would encounter if they had to operate by doing exactly what the Senator said, going out up front and getting the money to construct the roads before they could harvest the trees, take them to market and get their return. The alternative is the purchaser-elect program which does not protect the small business that are have the most threat. According to Price Waterhouse, a small business still has to pay cash for the full amount of the timber. This would explain why the purchaser-elect program has been rarely used by small business timber purchasers. Of course, that is what the Senator is advocating. Mr. President, I recently noticed that the administration is having a bit of difficulty with what they tell us here in the Congress, and that is why I wonder about the letter the Senator has that he put in the Record. I have a copy of that letter. I say that because last year I asked about potential legal and financial liabilities associated with canceled timber sale contracts. The Forest Service provided a response, and the Department rescinded that response within just a few days. Earlier this year the Department properly rejected a position for a new policy on qualifications for timber purchasers, and 2 days later the Under Secretary claimed that an unauthorized individual had used an autosigning machine and the letter should never have been sent. Well, it seems as if the Secretary had tried to place himself squarely on both sides of this issue. I suggest that he put greater control on his autosigning pen. Maybe we would more clearly understand what the Department of Agriculture is all about here--whiplashed by an environmental interest that does not serve this program well, does not serve the rural forested communities of our States well and, most importantly, does not address this issue in a fair and balanced way. During the summer of 1966, there were several incidents where impassable roads resulting from washouts and wind-thrown trees hampered firefighters' ability to respond to fire emergencies, requiring fire crews to turn around and find other access to fires. Why do I just instantly bring fires into this argument? Because the affected responsive maintenance of roads that is done through this program is what allows the Forest Service to manage our forests and fight fires. There are also roads that are used by off-road-vehicle people of the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Idaho. There are our hunters, our fishermen, our berry pickers, our recreationists, our tourists. Those are the roads that were initially built to harvest timber. I would suggest to the chief of the Forest Service that if he has $440 million worth of road maintenance and backlog, he is achieving most of it today through the program that the Senator from Nevada is trying to eliminate. So I hope that my colleagues this afternoon, recognizing the importance of this program, the way it is used effectively--it is not a subsidy. It benefits the taxpayer. It certainly benefits the small community that is the recipient of stumpage fees that fund schools and roads. It is a program well balanced and considered by the Congress over these years, and I hope they will reject the amendment of the Senator from Nevada. I do believe it is not well thought out. It certainly does not meet the arguments that he himself made as it results to the need for effective road maintenance to provide environmental quality, water quality and the kinds of things that we appreciate from our public land. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think it is certainly appropriate, for a few moments, to speak to the issue at hand here on the floor and my support for what the Senator from Washington has chosen to do with the two issues that he brought to the Interior appropriations bill dealing with native Americans and sovereign immunity. I discussed these issues with him at length and certainly with native Americans of my State--four different tribes. I have spent a good number of hours discussing this issue and how it relates to their rights and how it relates to the rights of all citizens in this country. I am extremely pleased also to have worked very closely with the Senator from Colorado who I respect greatly for his opinions in this area and certainly his long-term knowledge about issues of native Americans because he is so proudly one of those amongst us who can claim that title and does so proudly and represents them so well in this body. I am pleased that we are willing to take this back to hearings. It is an issue of immense proportion for both non-Indian citizens of our country and Indian citizens because of the nature that is evolving upon many of our reservations and the questions that are mounting outside of them as it relates to fairness and equity. In my State of Idaho we have at this moment some conflict that must, I think, in the end be resolved so that there is a sense of fairness for all parties involved. There is now on both sides of this issue a lack of that sense. I hope that we can resolve some of it. It is our responsibility. We are talking about Federal law and the recognition of that law and that which has built up around it now for well over a century. I certainly trust my colleague from Colorado to deal with it in an even-handed, straightforward way and the Senator from the State of Washington who forced this issue upon us, in the right way, to cause us to look at something that sometimes we are not willing to or we find difficult to deal with. Yet there are times in our country's history when it is appropriate to look at what we intended in the past and how it has revolved into the present and whether it fits today's modernness or if there are some reasonable adjustments that can be made within law that affect people in their lives. That certainly is our responsibility. So I thank both of my colleagues for their willingness to cooperate and work with each other and to resolve, out of what could have been substantial conflict, an approach that I think in the end meets all of our interests in a way that serves this body and native Americans in our country well along with non-Indian citizens. I yield back my time. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing on intelligence matters.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee Special Investigation to meet on Wednesday, September 10, at 10 a.m., for a hearing on campaign financing issues.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 10, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 10, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on the nominations of Heidi Shulman and Katherine Anderson to be members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Robert Mallett to be Deputy Secretary and W. Scott Gould be an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Commerce, and Sheila Foster Anthony to be a Federal Trade Commissioner.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, September 10, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to join my colleague from the State of Washington this evening in support of and as a cosponsor of his amendment to allow resources, money, tax dollars to get to the young people of this country in a way that seems so easy and so simplistic and, yet, so right, because I suspect that the Presiding Officer, myself, and everyone on this floor believes in, and we are collectively supporters of, public education. I happen to be a member of the Republican leadership, and I have worked hard over the last several years to make sure that education funding is one of our party's top priorities and that we, along with everyone else who serves here, are seen to be strong supporters of public education. And we do that by expanding programs where the need is, by increasing dollars, by looking at priorities. That is what we should be doing. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Education and Human Services, I have worked to make sure that that kind of rhetoric gets translated into increases in Federal funding for education, and I am pleased that this year's bill--the one that we are currently debating--has such increases in it. In other words, what we are doing here in the Senate is something we should be doing because the American public has asked us to do it--to examine our priorities, balance the budget, and redirect our resources and, in doing so, placing education as one of those enhanced priorities. Yet, despite all of the increases in spending, I find that teachers and parents in my State and across the Nation have not yet been able to see an improvement in their schools. There is still a high level of frustration, especially at the parental level, with the quality of education that our young people get, the method by which they are educated, and the whole combination of the environment that we call our public school system. They want to know--and I want to know-- where the money goes, how the money gets spent. Why do we have a lot of people at different levels of the administrative process making decisions when, in fact, we have elected officials at the local level and professional educators who should be allowed to make the largest block of those decisions? Now, in many instances, the Department of Education can't tell you where the money went. It doesn't get lost, it just gets administered. The fact is that between the time we appropriate it and the time a student feels the impact of it, anywhere from 15 percent up to 25 percent of the money gets lost at the Federal and State administrative levels. The Gorton amendment cuts to the chase. It basically asks us to be true to the very arguments we have placed time and again in our town meetings and in our citizen gatherings in every State, and that is, we want local control and we want the money to get to the local level. Yet, in our desire to fund public education, we are constantly working at--if I can use the word--new schemes, new processes by which the money moves through. And in the end, as I say, as much as 25 percent doesn't get there. As the Senator from Washington was mentioning a moment ago--and he didn't mention my name, but I was the one visiting with him the other evening in relationship to an administrator in my State. After I toured his school, he said, ``You know, Larry, the Federal programs that we have just seen, some of them are very good and well meaning and are providing very valuable service to our young people, but there is a problem.'' I said, ``What is that problem?'' He said, ``Well, 60 percent of the paperwork that my school has to do . . .''--and he means all of the paperwork--``. . . is spent on approximately 10 percent of the money we get, and that 10 percent is Federal money. That is about one-and-a-half staff people in time involved in the paper shuffle to get 10 percent of the money, because the programs are there and the projects are there. So they are bound to go after them.'' By the way, that individual is not in the classroom teaching. That individual is sitting in an office filling out forms to identify with the Federal dollar. We all support education, but how will increases in spending make a difference if the money gets lost in the process or gets diminished dramatically in the process, at a time when we are trying to balance the budget and sort out the differences in very limited resources, trying to empower our taxpayers by letting them keep more of their hard-earned money, and still wanting to spend more on education because the public believes it is necessary, and so do we? So why can't we think of a better way to do it, instead of the schemes and the systems and the bureaucracies, when we have people who are elected at the local level, charged and empowered with the responsibility of educating young people and professionally trained educators who are there to do it, and yet the Federal system and the State systems tells them how to do it, where to do it, why to do it, and when to do it. The Gorton amendment says in a very clear way that there is a better way. Title I has been corrected, and it is important that it be corrected. The idea of funding has been exempt. Impact aid should be exempt because that speaks to the Federal presence in a given school district, a Federal presence of employees that oftentimes don't pay tax dollars by the nature of Federal property they might be on, be it a military base or an Indian reservation. And because there is a Federal presence it is important that that money be selected. Senator Gorton has exempted that. But what he has said--and importantly so for the rest of it--is create an equitable formula, allow the Secretary of Education to be the administrator of that formula, and pass the Federal dollars straight through to the local school districts, and each school might choose how to spend that money just a little bit differently. But they would choose it on a priority based on what was needed in that community and in that school district instead of pursuing the paper chase because there was a Federal program. And, we can get the money, but we really do not need that particular project in this district. But it is there, and we ought to apply for it because it will help fund a piece of this teacher's salary, and we can have them educate in the standard curriculum program along with the special program. That is, of course, exactly what happens. And those are the dynamics involved. That is why Senator Gorton has brought to the floor what I think is a very clean and simple idea. We are all for public education. This amendment is about public education. It is for public education. It dramatically increases the ability to get the $11 billion that we spend in public education to the teacher, to the school board member, and to the administrator but, most importantly, directly to the student. In fact, the Senator, who is the primary sponsor of this, believes that it increases the amount that goes to the students by well over $1 billion. I suspect we are going to hear arguments tonight: Well, but, but; How about; maybe, and This program is so valuable. Of course, that is the standard argument because that is the bureaucracy that has built up over the years, and we become defensive about it, if we are a creator of it, or an administrator of it. But what we are saying here tonight is let us pass the money through the Department of Education directly to the schools, to the students, to the educators, and to the administrators, and save 15 percent in administrative costs at the Federal and the State level, increase the finite resource dollar spent by well over $1 billion to the student, and be proud of the fact that we are strong supporters of public education but recognizing the fact that there are the professionals at the local level who know what they are doing and we are simply empowering them with more resources to do it. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Gorton education amendment. I hope my colleagues will join with us at the time of passage in voting for it. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand to join my colleague from Arkansas this evening in offering this second-degree amendment. I must tell you, when the Senator approached me, I was hesitant. I don't get involved in what I originally think is a private-sector relationship, a client relationship that can be none of our business here. But when the States attorneys general and the trial attorneys have come together to craft a universal or a national agreement that the Senator from Illinois approaches tonight as part of his amendment, and they approach us to make this national law, to make this the law of the land, it is now the public's business, without doubt. Clearly, the Senator from Arkansas has demonstrated that this evening. He has even clearly stated----

Mr. CRAIG. Touche. But the Senator has very clearly pointed out there could well have been side agreements made or upfront agreements that go beyond any average person's wildest imagination to the potential of tens of billions of dollars in attorney's fees. Here tonight the Senator from Illinois--and just a month ago this Senate agreed to tax an industry for the purpose of the health of the children of this country, a tax that in 1 year would not even demonstrate this amount of money. How can it be possible that any one profession could draw or come to draw or believe to be entitled to that amount of money? And $250 an hour is a what the Senator's amendment says is a reasonable and right fee, and even that the average working person would pale to. So I am extremely pleased that the Senator this evening has brought forward the amendment. It is something that this Senate will either face now or face in the future as we deal with the crafting of a universal agreement, if that becomes possible and ultimately gets to the floor of this Senate. I will join with the Senator however many times it takes to make sure that what he has proposed as an amendment tonight can and must become the law of the land, because in his wisdom and in the crafting of this amendment, he says that the excess dollars go where they ought to go, to children's health because all of us are extremely concerned about the rapid increase in teenage smoking in this country. That is part of what spurred this whole effort that is now nationwide as it relates to smoking and the tobacco industry. So I think the amendment to the pending amendment is appropriate this evening. It fits into what we are trying to do if in fact we become participants in the crafting of a global agreement as it relates to what is attempted to be resolved between the States attorneys general, the tobacco industry, and the representatives of those States attorneys general. So I join my colleague tonight. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important second-degree amendment. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Excuse me. Excuse me, the Senator from Alabama.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to disapprove the President's line-item veto of a provision providing tax relief when an agricultural production facility is sold to a farmer cooperative--a veto that has produced a cry of outrage from Idaho's farm families. I am disappointed that the President vetoed this provision of the Tax Relief Act of 1997. This provision had strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. This type of tax relief deserves to be debated on the merits and enacted into law. Because of the large number of ultimate beneficiaries involved in this kind of tax provision, it is my opinion that this item was erroneously identified as a candidate for a line-item veto. In Idaho, for example, in a single co-op, there are 1,130 family farm members who have been interested in this kind of tax law change for a long time. Changes in agricultural policy over recent years are intended to make American agriculture more market based. Prior changes in tax laws raised hurdles for agriculture at a time when world markets were becoming more competitive. Current tax law allows some advantages to corporations and other entities that are denied to farmer cooperatives. To allow family farmers in Idaho and across America to remain productive and effective in this changing environment, our tax laws need further revision. The provision the President vetoed would have helped, by allowing farmer cooperatives, by expanding their operations and compete more fully and fairly. I do not believe the President vetoed this provision without reservations. The White House has said publicly that the issue of ensuring the competitive ability of farmer cooperatives should be addressed. The administration had technical objections which, I believe, we should be able to work out. It is my hope, and it is fully my intention in introducing this bill today, that Members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, and the administration can now sit down and work out the details of similar legislation and produce a win-win solution--one that helps farm families and addresses technical concerns expressed by the administration. I also want to address some important procedural matters. I am optimistic that, ultimately, legislation providing relief to farmer cooperatives and making any necessary and reasonable technical changes, will move on a track totally separate from this bill. That is my hope and intent. But we are constrained by procedure and timing in the introduction of this bill. Introduction of this bill, in this form, no later than today, is the only way to keep all procedural options open to the Congress. The Line Item Veto Act prescribes the precise form and content of this type of bill. Therefore, this bill refers to one other vetoed item besides the farmer cooperative item I have addressed. It is my understanding that persons supporting that item already are working out its consideration on a separate track. I hope and expect that the same will be true of the farmer cooperative item many in this body have supported. I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the administration on any reasonable, technical changes needed to enact such needed tax relief into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to disapprove the President's line-item veto of a provision providing tax relief when an agricultural production facility is sold to a farmer cooperative--a veto that has produced a cry of outrage from Idaho's farm families. I am disappointed that the President vetoed this provision of the Tax Relief Act of 1997. This provision had strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. This type of tax relief deserves to be debated on the merits and enacted into law. Because of the large number of ultimate beneficiaries involved in this kind of tax provision, it is my opinion that this item was erroneously identified as a candidate for a line-item veto. In Idaho, for example, in a single co-op, there are 1,130 family farm members who have been interested in this kind of tax law change for a long time. Changes in agricultural policy over recent years are intended to make American agriculture more market based. Prior changes in tax laws raised hurdles for agriculture at a time when world markets were becoming more competitive. Current tax law allows some advantages to corporations and other entities that are denied to farmer cooperatives. To allow family farmers in Idaho and across America to remain productive and effective in this changing environment, our tax laws need further revision. The provision the President vetoed would have helped, by allowing farmer cooperatives, by expanding their operations and compete more fully and fairly. I do not believe the President vetoed this provision without reservations. The White House has said publicly that the issue of ensuring the competitive ability of farmer cooperatives should be addressed. The administration had technical objections which, I believe, we should be able to work out. It is my hope, and it is fully my intention in introducing this bill today, that Members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, and the administration can now sit down and work out the details of similar legislation and produce a win-win solution--one that helps farm families and addresses technical concerns expressed by the administration. I also want to address some important procedural matters. I am optimistic that, ultimately, legislation providing relief to farmer cooperatives and making any necessary and reasonable technical changes, will move on a track totally separate from this bill. That is my hope and intent. But we are constrained by procedure and timing in the introduction of this bill. Introduction of this bill, in this form, no later than today, is the only way to keep all procedural options open to the Congress. The Line Item Veto Act prescribes the precise form and content of this type of bill. Therefore, this bill refers to one other vetoed item besides the farmer cooperative item I have addressed. It is my understanding that persons supporting that item already are working out its consideration on a separate track. I hope and expect that the same will be true of the farmer cooperative item many in this body have supported. I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the administration on any reasonable, technical changes needed to enact such needed tax relief into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering today an amendment I am offering with Senators Bingaman and Domenici. This amendment to S. 1061 would make a change to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that is narrow in scope, but is of critical importance to irrigators in Idaho and the West. Our amendment solves a problem with the interpretation of a provision of the FLSA. Currently, nonprofit organizations that deliver water for agricultural purposes--such as water districts organized by local governments, co-ops, and non-profit corporations--are exempt from the maximum-hour requirements of the FLSA. However, according to the Department of Labor, if even one drop of this water is used for purposes it considers ``non-agricultural'', then the water delivery organization loses its exemption and severe penalties can be imposed. This is true even for minimal or incidental uses, such as road watering, lawn and garden irrigation, or livestock consumption. Such uses may be closely related to, but technically not interpreted as being, ``agricultural purposes''. Our amendment clarifies that the maximum hour exemption applies to water delivery organizations that supply 90 percent or more of their water for agricultural purposes. The work being done for these organizations is very seasonal. Irrigation has never been, and can not be, a 40-hour-per-week, 12- months-a-year, undertaking. During the summer, water must be managed and delivered continually. Later in the year, following the harvest, the work load is light, consisting mainly of maintenance duties. Our amendment is better for employers, workers, and farmers. If a water delivery organization is forced to pay overtime during the summer, it will have to lay off workers in the winter. Then it will hope that skilled, specialized workers, who know the equipment and the area, are available again next spring. Our amendment solves this problem, by promoting a stable work force and level costs, year-round. This adjustment also helps ensure year-round incomes and job security for employees. Our amendment restores the flexibility that traditionally existed and was always intended by Congress. It more accurately reflects the realities of agricultural water delivery. Representative Mike Crapo of Idaho has introduced a similar measure in the other body. It is our hope that this adjustment finally will become law this year. Finally, I want to acknowledge a former member of my staff, who is now an attorney in Idaho, Norm Semanko. Norm actually began work on this amendment some time back and laid the groundwork that has led up to its adoption by the Senate today. My staff still refers to this amendment as the Semanko Act. I understand this amendment will be accepted on both sides. I thank the managers of the bill for their support and assistance; the chairman and ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, with whom we consulted; and Senator Bingaman and his staff for their strong efforts on behalf of this amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment spoken of by my colleague, Senator Faircloth. The Faircloth-Craig amendment would require that the Secretary of Education certify each year the percentage of Federal moneys used directly for teachers and students. The point of the amendment is not the 95 percent figure--it is to draw attention to the vast amount of Federal waste inherent in the Department of Education. Much of what we spend on education each year is lost by Federal managers and bureaucrats. Increased spending has done little to advance classroom instruction. Federal spending on education has increased 41 percent since 1989. Yet, per-pupil spending at the school level has increased only 34 percent. The rest has been siphoned off to support the enormous Federal bureaucracy. This year's appropriations bill includes a significant increase in education--we don't know yet how much of it will ever see the inside of a classroom. Mr. President, teachers in Idaho, and around the country, want to know where their money has gone. I believe we must, in a time of fiscal restraint, examine where each Federal dollar is spent and cut waste wherever it is found. The Faircloth-Craig amendment is a sound first step in the right direction. amendment no. 1103 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Education to conduct a study regarding the costs of the anticipated increase in enrollments of secondary school students during the period 1998 through 2008, and the creation of smaller class sizes for students enrolled in grades 1 through 3) On page 61, after line 25, insert the following: Sec. . (a) The Secretary of Education shall conduct a study that examines-- (1) the economic, educational, and societal costs of-- (A) the increase in enrollments of secondary school students during the period 1998 through 2008; (B) the creation of smaller class sizes for students enrolled in grades 1 through 3; and (C) the increase in enrollments described in subparagraph (A) in relation to the creation of smaller class sizes described in subparagraph (B); and (2) the costs to States and local school districts for taking no action with respect to such increase in enrollments and smaller class sizes. (b) The Secretary of Education shall report to Congress within 9 months of the date of enactment of this Act regarding the results of the study conducted under subsection (a). Such report shall include recommendations regarding what local school districts, States and the Federal Government can do to address the issue of the increase in enrollments of secondary school students and the need for smaller class sizes in grades 1 through 3.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman. I am offering an amendment to S. 1061 that would make a very narrow change in the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is a small amendment, but it is critically important to irrigators in Idaho and across the West. My amendment would solve a problem with the interpretation of a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act clarifying that the maximum hour exemption for agricultural employees apply to water delivery organizations that supply 90 percent or more of their water for agricultural purposes. My colleague, Congressman Mike Crapo, has introduced a like measure in the House. This is an issue we struggled with for some time, Mr. President. What we are simply saying is that nonprofit co-ops that deliver water are exempt. We have always done it. We have done it for other provisions under the fair labor standards. But if that irrigation ditch happens to cross a pasture and cattle drink out of it and there is some other measure or use other than irrigation that falls under fair labor standards, we are saying OK, but a narrow window. Ninety percent has to be for that purpose, the other 10 percent might accidentally be used for those purposes and might not fall under the qualifications. The intent of the amendment, I think, clarifies, and certainly irrigators across the West working with other organizations had hoped we could resolve this issue. It has been some time in the making. Representative Mike Crapo of Idaho and I previously have introduced a similar provision as a bill--S. 259 in the Senate and H.R. 526 in the other body. Our amendment would restore the flexibility that was always intended by Congress. Nonprofit organizations, such as independent water districts or nonprofit corporations, which deliver water for agricultural purposes, are exempt from the maximum-hour requirements of the FLSA. The Department of Labor has interpreted this to mean that no amount of this water, however minimal, can be used for other purposes. Therefore, if even a small portion of the water delivered winds up being used for road watering, lawn and garden irrigation, livestock consumption, or construction, for example, delivery organizations are assessed severe penalties. Such uses may be closely related, but technically not interpreted as being, ``agricultural purposes.'' The exemption for overtime pay requirements was placed in the FLSA to protect the economies of rural areas. Irrigation has never been, and cannot be, a 40-hour-per-week undertaking. During the summer, water must be managed and delivered continually. Later in the year following the harvest, the work load is light, consisting mainly of maintenance duties. This adjustment would be better for employers, workers, and farmers. It would reflect more accurately the realities of agricultural water delivery. Winter compensation and time off traditionally have been the method of compensating for longer summer hours. Without this exemption, irrigators are forced to lay off their employees in the winter. Therefore, this amendment would benefit employees, who would continue to earn a year-round income. It also would keep costs level, which would benefit suppliers and consumers. I urge my colleagues to support this modest amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside, and I yield the floor to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for yielding. May I inquire of the Chair, has the last McCain amendment been set aside?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Does your first-degree amendment prohibit the Government from overseeing the rerunning of an election?

Mr. CRAIG. Would the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a question?

Mr. CRAIG. Would the Senator yield?