Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 517

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Nevada withhold for a moment? Staff has, I believe, comprised that unanimous consent request and will provide it to you.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Alaska and the two Senators from Nevada in our commitment and belief that the 1872 mining law deserves to be reformed. These four Senators have worked for the last 4 to 5 years to bring responsible and sensitive reform to this old, but very important, law, a law that has served our country well on public lands that allows an individual to go forth to explore, to discover and to develop the mineral wealth of our country. It is also important to recognize that this is a public resource, and there needs to be an appropriate balancing act in the effective utilization of a public resource and a return to the taxpayer of the value of that resource. Because the 1872 mining law was really intended at a very early time in our country's history to be a development law that allowed growth and development primarily in the public lands of Western States, I, a Western Senator, along with the Senator from Alaska and the two Senators from Nevada as Western Senators, saw a need, along with a good many others of our colleagues, to provide good reform to this old law to allow the mining industry to go forth, to assure there would be a right to discover, a right to develop, but to do all of that in the context of sound environmental policy and, for the first time, to propose a royalty on hard-rock mining; also, to recognize that there was a surface value that is no longer there and an absolute sense of a need to develop western lands. So, therefore, there ought to be a market value placed on the surface rights that one gained as they gained title through the patenting process which allowed that public resource to go to private utilization. But for 4 years, this administration has literally refused us the right to do that. This Senate passed mining law reform. It was in the budget reconciliation 2 years ago, and the President vetoed it. So for the Senator from Arkansas to stand on the floor this evening and say there has been no meaningful mining law reform isn't quite true. There has been a very aggressive effort on the part of this Senator; the Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee; the Senator from Louisiana, now retired, Senator Johnston, who was the chairman of that committee; and, of course, the Senators from Nevada who understand the importance of mining, as I do, because it is a critical part of their economic base and the resource development in their State. The Senator from Arkansas has another vision of mining. It is called no-mining. For some reason, he believes that this is a source of wealth to the Treasury of this country, and when he sees millions of dollars invested, somehow he immediately equates that as millions of dollars returned to the Treasury, when the fact is that while money can be returned to the Treasury, it takes an average of $400 million to develop an operating mine today, to make sure it is in compliance with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, to make sure it meets the NEPA requirements, to make sure it is operated in a sound environmental way, while returning a profit to the company and to the investors that put up the nearly $400 million for that development. Unlike other kinds of resources, minerals are not sold in Little Rock at a Little Rock value or Boise, ID, at a Boise value. They are sold in Little Rock or in Boise based on a world value, a world market, because gold and silver and iron, zinc and lead, and all of those kinds of things that make up the fundamental base of the industrial society that we enjoy are traded in a world environment. When that price slips, so it slips at the mine. A mine that one year can be very profitable, the next year can be very unprofitable and can lose money. That has been and is the history of mining in our country. You talk about striking it rich, that happens in mining, but I also know a lot of miners who struck it poor. A mining company in our State just a year ago called me and said they wanted me to know that they were shutting down a major mining operation in one of the counties in the State of Idaho. Why? After they had invested millions of dollars, their exploration didn't pan out to be quite what they thought it ought to be. Their drilling didn't determine the projections of the ore body that existed. So they were shutting it down and walking away and writing off millions and millions of dollars of cost in the development of a mill and a plant and a site and all of those necessary tools to bring that mineral out of the ground to the smelter in a refined way. I say nothing new on the floor of the Senate tonight. I only bring current the 200-plus-year history of the mining industry of our Nation. But reform is necessary, and this Senator, along with the Senator from Alaska--the two Senators from Nevada have just authored a new mining law reform approach. We sat down with the Senator from Arkansas and his staff to try to see if we could not build a bipartisan compromise. That hasn't happened yet, and we want that to happen. We believe in the reform. But what the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas proposes tonight is not constructive. It doesn't add to the overall effort to build strong mining law for this country that allows continued development in an environmentally sound way, to build the resource and the wealth base of our Nation and to assure a domestic supply of minerals and metals. It does quite the opposite. It goes directly at mining industries in this country, and it could very well render them marginal and, in some instances, less than profitable. When that happens, the mining industry doesn't stay around. It very quickly closes its doors and the average job of $46,000 a year goes wanting, and that mining industry goes to Peru or to Chile or to Colombia or to Ecuador or to Mexico to build the wealth base of those countries and to deny us the $100 billion industry that we have here. I don't think that makes good sense. I never have. And I can't understand the thinking of the Senator from Arkansas in that regard, other than he just appears to have it out for the mining industry. In my State, it is an important industry. Nationwide, it is tens of thousands of very high-paying jobs, and there is no question that this industry contributes a great deal to our country and hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy on an annualized basis. The mining industry already pays taxes. Somehow, because they are able to patent public resources and then develop them, the Senator from Arkansas suggests they pay nothing, they ``get a free ride.'' That one example on the bottom line of the chart of the Senator from Arkansas is an Idaho-based operation. There may be a billion dollar's worth of reserves in the ground, but that operation isn't operating today. They are not functioning, and the reason they are not is that they are not current in the economy of the marketplace. They may have invested millions of dollars, and they may have paid the Federal Government through the process of the $2.50 an acre surface value in the patenting process, but they are not returning any money today, and their mine sits idle. That is not unusual. That is the way the mining industry works. That is the way it has always worked. My guess is it won't change. The mining industry already pays an average in Federal taxes at 32 percent, according to the General Accounting Office. Because of the corporate alternative minimum tax, they currently pay a very high rate. But the Senator from Arkansas says, ``Whoop, that's not good enough, stick them again 8 to 10 percent.'' So we get them up to 42 percent. Why do you want to pay 42 percent on your income flow if you can move across the border and pay less? That is exactly what has happened. The Senator from Alaska and the Senators from Nevada spoke very clearly about that in their past statements. The exodus out of this country of the mining industry and the jobs and the expertise and the engineering that flows with it is a tragedy to which we shouldn't contribute. So I hope that Senators will recognize that we shouldn't be legislating more in relation to this tax bill that we have before us. This comes outside of the agreement. We have worked very hard, and, I must say, the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Finance Committee have done what I think is an excellent job in working to stay inside an agreement that the leadership of the Senate and the House and the President struck as it related to revenue and tax relief. Tax relief ought to be creating jobs, it ought to be promoting economic development, it ought to be growing our economy instead of shrinking it, instead of destroying thousands of jobs that I believe this kind of legislation and the Bumpers amendment would accomplish. I have before me a chart that talks about the combined direct and indirect contribution of the metals mining industry to the economy of the individual States of this Nation. I could go through that, but here is the bottom line, Mr. President. The bottom line is $134,378,000,000 a year. Is that in the pocket of some mining executive? Absolutely not. It is in the work force of Caterpillar equipment in Illinois. It is spread across the country in the supplies and the direct and indirect services that provide for the mining industry. It is in the chemical industry of Delaware. I am amazed, but I look down here and see that in Connecticut alone is $1,792,000,000--Connecticut--directly attributable to the mining industry of the country. I did not know there was a mine in Connecticut. Well, there probably is not, but there are major corporate headquarters and there are suppliers, and those suppliers create jobs. Of course, when you have a broad-based industry like metals and mining, all States benefit. Literally every State in the Nation has nearly $100 million or more in value of directly associated or related jobs to the metal and the mineral industry of our country. That is why we should not be stepping forward in some form to destroy it. We ought to be promoting it. Most importantly, the Senator from Arkansas ought to be working with the Senators from Nevada and from Idaho and from Alaska to get reform that we all want so that the mining industry of the country can know the ground on which it operates and the law to which it must comply. That is what we ought to be about. So I hope that tomorrow when we vote on the Bumpers amendment, we can vote it down, recognizing that when we deal with reform in the mining industry, let us deal with it in a comprehensive way in the appropriate authorizing committee with the hearings that are necessary to make sure that what we do fits so that we do not wound an industry that has provided for us well and that continues to employ tens of thousands of people across our country and provide well over $100 billion annually to the wealth base of this country. That is the issue. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. We have to check with the floor managers. Mr. President, while that is going on, let me reclaim my time and discuss the Bumpers amendment for a few moments.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. No more than 10 minutes. That could conclude at least for this evening debate on this issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. The amendment directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to request a study, through the National Academy of Sciences, on the short-term and long-term costs and benefits to the Medicare system of coverage of medical nutrition therapy services provided by registered dietitians. The Secretary is directed to provide funding for this study from the HHS appropriations for fiscal year 1998 and 1999. The report shall be submitted to the Finance and Ways and Means Committees no later than 2 years after the date of enactment. Essentially the same language was included in the House version of the budget reconciliation bill. The House version included broader coverage, that is, covering dental care and bone mass measurement.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to report a sad event in my State of Idaho that claimed the lives of two Guardsmen: Maj. Don Baxter of Boise, commander of the 124th Communications Flight, 124th Wing of the Idaho Air National Guard, and 1st Lt. Will Neal of Picabo, platoon leader with A Company, 1st-183 Aviation Battalion Army National Guard in Boise. They were flying reconnaissance over the floods in southwest Idaho where their helicopter crashed. As the natural disaster rages through Idaho, as the communities band together, as we strive to save lives and property, we now must struggle with the reality that these men lost their lives, and CWO Shellby Wurthrich, with A Company, 1st-183 Aviation Battalion Army National Guard of Boise, is still fighting for his life. These distinguished men had served their State and communities before. Major Baxter, a full time Guardsman, received many decorations, including the State of Idaho Emergency Ribbon in support of the Fire Suppression in 1994. Lieutenant Neal, a cattleman, received amongst his numerous decorations, the Army Commendation Medal, Army's Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and twice Army Reserve Component Medal. He was also airborne qualified. A neighbor who saw the crash, without fear for her life, Ms. Sherry Lang, risked her own life to rescue Chief Warrant Officer Wurthrich before the helicopter exploded into flames. The heroism she displayed exemplifies the spirit of a community pulling together. Chief Warrant Officer Wurthrich, recipient of the Army Commendation Medal, Army's Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, twice, Army Reserve Component Medal, and many other decorations, is today being transferred to a burn treatment center in Utah. We pray for his strength during his recovery and ask everyone to remember him in the weeks and months to come. As we mourn for the deceased, we mourn our loss and we sympathize with the sorrow of the bereaved. We search for the good things to remember as solace. Most of the richness of the human experience is in what is handed down from one to another--not things of wood and stone, but memories of what they did or said or felt. We must remember and emulate these individuals for the best of their lives. As National Guardsmen, they sought out opportunities to safeguard and help the people of Idaho, in times of disasters and distress. With every mission, they risked of danger and injury. Ultimately, they gave their lives in helping their neighbors and their community. This is why Idaho mourns their deaths and grieves with their families and understand their loss, for it is our loss, too. We will remember them and their heroic efforts. Life ends, but memories live on.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will not object--let me again thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership in this area and the refinement of this Senate resolution, what he is doing. What now 61 Senators are saying is that this is a very, very important issue for this country, and to the world. And the Senate wants to be active players and observers in the development of this potential treaty because ultimately it gets here to the floor of the United States Senate for us to make that decision. Senator Byrd has offered us tremendous leadership in this area. I thank him. Mr. President, I, too, know that you have become our leader on this issue, and I appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate that the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management will also include S. 881, a bill to provide for a land exchange involving the Warner Canyon ski area and other land in the State of Oregon. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 18, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. committee on small business

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank you very much. I stand this morning to join my colleague, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], in the introduction of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on climate change negotiation. The Senator from West Virginia and I agree that the administration needs to understand the Senate is very concerned about the potential adverse consequences of the proposed changes to the U.S. Framework Convention on Climate Change to which this body gave its consent shortly after it was signed by President George Bush at the Rio de Janeiro conference in 1992. I hope this resolution will be a much needed wake-up call to the administration about the seriousness of the Senate's views on its current negotiating position. I do not think it was proper for this administration to change the position of the United States from a voluntary approach that was endorsed by the entire developed world to a legally binding treaty to impose enforceable greenhouse gas reduction targets by a date certain. I am particularly concerned the administration did not consult with Congress prior to taking this new position which I am told was reached in the early morning hours of the last day of the Berlin negotiations. Subsequently, the administration has not sought, and certainly not received, consensus support from the Senate on its new approach. The attitude of this administration toward honest scientific inquiry is very troubling. I do not approve of using political science instead of real science. Mr. President, let me repeat that. I do not approve of this administration's use of political science instead of the real science that is critically necessary when negotiating and understanding an issue of this importance. It is outrageous that this administration has been running around the country and the whole world, for that matter, claiming, as Deputy Secretary Tim Wirth has done on a number of occasions, that as far as the scientific hypothesis that human activity is warming the planet is concerned, ``the debate is over.'' Instead of fairly testing that hypothesis, this administration is using its $1 billion-plus annual budget to try to prove only that carbon dioxide is warming the planet and to discredit any studies that might appear legitimate to the contrary. The Earth has warmed about a degree centigrade since the depths of the of the Little Ice Age of the early 1600's. All but a tiny amount of that increase occurred prior to World War II before significant human loading of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In fact, the world's scientists are still debating the extent, if any, to which human emissions of carbon dioxide rather than predominantly actual causes are actually increasing Earth temperatures. There is agreement on one point, however: That any future change in world temperature caused by human activity will be slight and there is no reason to rush to a new agreement in Kyoto in December of this year. Finally, Mr. President, it is unacceptable that this administration has refused to admit the details of its proposal or to release any analyses of the anticipated impact of the proposal. The administration has not revealed to us what kinds of differences its proposal would actually have on global temperatures. The administration's negotiators have refused to release any of their internal economic studies that show huge decimation in the industrial sector of our economy. One can only assume that it is to ensure that they will have free rein to commit the United States to whatever they decide to do in the early morning hours of the last day of the Kyoto conference in December. This kind of secret planning and hidden agenda is contrary to a democracy, and, Mr. President, it is just flat wrong. The administration should immediately start a more public debate and a more honest consultation with the Senate, which, after all, has the final say on whether the United States will be legally bound to any international agreement. A great time to begin to bring this position into the sunshine will be during the Foreign Relations Committee's hearings scheduled for next week by my colleague and the prime cosponsor of the resolution that is coming to the floor this morning, Senator Hagel. So I look forward to a more open and honest airing of the issue. I see the Senator from West Virginia is in the Chamber and let me again thank him for his leadership in the authoring of this very important sense-of-the-Senate resolution on global climate change. I am proud to be a sponsor and to work with him on this effort. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me also ask unanimous consent that, following my comments, the Senator from Missouri be recognized.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to add in a small way to the many tributes being offered on behalf of one of our colleagues. There are persons lucky enough to witness history, and persons wise enough to study history. Then there are those few who are dynamic enough to make history. This week we honor someone who has made more history than most--our distinguished President pro tempore, Strom Thurmond. Strom Thurmond was born during the Presidential term of Theodore Roosevelt--probably the only other person in the 20th century to have a comparable energy level. And in the same way TR launched America on the great adventure of the 20th century, Strom Thurmond has been a real force in building up and guiding America during that century. A few of our colleagues may have been friends with Jack Kennedy; but Strom Thurmond is the one who ran against Harry Truman--and came within a hair of denying him the White House. He is the only sitting Senator today who actually was on a general election ballot as a Presidential candidate. Strom Thurmond has always been a man of the people. In 1954, when the 31-member committee that represented the political establishment of South Carolina froze him out of a special election, Strom Thurmond did what no one before or since has done--ran and won as a write-in candidate for the U.S. Senate. Strom Thurmond has always been ahead of his time, with his finger on the pulse of history. In the middle of the Johnson landslide in 1964, he moved against the tide, from the Democrat to the Republican party. With the next election, he became only the second elected Republican Senator from the deep South since Reconstruction. By the time the next two sitting Senators changed party affiliation-- 30 years later--a majority of the Senators and Representatives from across the Nation--and, for the first time since Reconstruction, a majority from the South--were now in Strom Thurmond's adopted party. In fact, he is the only Senator to have served as a Democrat in the majority and the minority, and as Republican in the majority and the minority. When we look at the New South today, we see the fruits of the ``Thurmond Revolution,'' or the ``Thurmond Realignment.'' He showed the way. The issue on which I've probably worked most closely with Strom has been the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. When you work with him closely on an issue like that, you see how, and why, his colleagues revere him. I cosponsored the first balanced budget amendment that made it to the floor of the U.S. House in 1982. I've been a part of writing every one since. But Strom cosponsored an earlier version in the 1950's. Once again, he was ahead of his time. When we finally pass that constitutional amendment, and permanently lock in that balanced budget we achieve in 2002, it will be the ``Thurmond Amendment.'' When you ask Strom Thurmond what his secret is for stamina and energy, he may say something about diet, working out, swimming, or loving the work he does for the people of his State. But his secret is, he thinks young--always. He probably still considers himself the junior Senator from South Carolina--every time he stands with constituents for a picture in front of the portrait of John C. Calhoun just outside this Chamber. One year, his campaign camper was the ``Strom Trek.'' Another year it was the ``Thurmon-ator.'' And he loves to talk with young people. He always has time to talk to the pages and visit with our staffers, treating them with respect and warmth, making them feel special. He always remembers to ask about our families, and always imparts some of that joy of life to those around him. Strom Thurmond has a joy of life, a love of people, and a sense of duty that give him purpose and energy. In a world that we fear is becoming too coarse, he is gracious--and reminds us of the way back to civility. He is devoted to God and country. He is our most senior Senator and the highest-ranking constitutional officer of the Senate. Best of all for us, Strom Thurmond is our friend and teacher.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place Thursday, June 26, 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. 783, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Accessibility and Fairness Act of 1997. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place Wednesday, June 18, 1997 at 2:00 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 following general land exchange bills: S. 587, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to exchange certain lands located in Hindsdale County, CO; S. 588, a bill to provide for the expansion of the Eagles Nest Wilderness within the Arapaho National Forest and the White River National Forest, CO, to include land known as the Slate Creek Addition; S. 589, a bill to provide for a boundary adjustment and land conveyance involving the Raggeds Wilderness, White River National Forest, CO, to correct the effects of earlier erroneous land surveys; S. 590, a bill to provide for a land exchange involving certain land within the Routt National Forest in the State of Colorado; S. 591, a bill to transfer the Dillion Ranger District in the Arapaho National Forest to the White River National Forest in the State of Colorado; 541, a bill to provide for an exchange of lands with the city of Greeley, CO, and the Water Supply and Storage Co. to eliminate private inholdings in wilderness areas, and for other purposes; S. 750, a bill to consolidate certain mineral interests in the National Grasslands in Billings County, ND, through the exchange of Federal and private mineral interests to enhance land management capabilities and environmental and wildlife protection, and for other purposes; and S. 785, a bill to convey certain land to the City of Grants Pass, OR. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Forest Service's Organic Act, so it is an appropriate time to reflect on how recent Congresses have addressed Forest Service issues. Let me also say to my colleagues, yesterday had sent to each one of your offices a book by Douglas MacCleery called ``The American Forests: A History of Resiliency and Recovery.'' During the 104th Congress, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee conducted the first extended series of oversight hearings on the management of our Federal forests in almost 20 years. As these hearings proceeded, we also consulted with experts in the field of forestry management, participated in and evaluated the results of the Seventh American Forest Congress, and asked the General Accounting Office and others to evaluate the current state of the management of our national forests. As a consequence of these efforts, we have formed some conclusions about the management of our national forests, and today I would like to share these with my colleagues. Notwithstanding considerable contemporary controversy, the Forest Service remains a top performer among Federal agencies. The breadth of contemporary controversy over Federal forest management and the cacophony of interest group outcries from all ends of the spectrum tend to obscure the simple fact that much of the time the Forest Service carries out its duties quite effectively. Over the decade, the quality of management employed on our Federal forests have been reflected in the integrity of the resources involved. Since the turn of the century, and particularly over the last several decades, the science of resource management has improved dramatically. Our federally owned forests are arguably managed under the most advanced scientific principles and the most stringent environmental controls that have been applied to any managed ecosystem in the world. In a historic context, the return on this investment in scientific management is striking. Many Federal forests which some view today as pristine ecological preserves were, earlier in this century, little more than worn-out farm lots. Species of megafauna which were dangerously close to extinction at the turn of the century are now flourishing on our Federal forests. The National Forest System provides more recreation opportunities than any other land ownership category in the country. Wood from our national forests made a significant contribution to the American dream of affordable housing for post-war America, and must still continue to make an important contribution to our national fiber needs today. The heat generated by present-day conflicts over Federal forest management makes it easy to forget that our national forests are century-long success stories. But this perspective is essential to retain as we go about the task of addressing contemporary problems and improving on our performance in forest resource management. Notwithstanding the barrage of negative publicity generated by the pleadings of special interests, I remain highly impressed by the commitment of Forest Service professionals of all disciplines and at all levels. Moreover, after more than 15 hearings on an array of related subjects, I am convinced that the majority of people--those not vested in a particular resource management outcome--are, after a reasonable opportunity to offer their thoughts, prepared to defer to the judgment and expertise of the Forest Service in resource management decisions. In this regard, I have reached four specific conclusions from our oversight. First, budget reductions and downsizing have left the agency with significant management problems. Throughout the system their are national forests with critical gaps in resource management expertise and/or personnel shortages. I have come away from our oversight convinced that we simply must find a way to provide the agency with the resources to do the job we want done. I urge my colleagues to join me in this search. Second, despite these current fiscal constraints and various and sundry controversies, the spirit of Forest Service employees remains surprisingly strong. This spirit shone through in much of the testimony received from agency employees, particularly during field hearings. I believe we must act now to avoid squandering this endangered resource. Third, the breadth and quality of resource and environmental expertise within the Forest Service, even stressed by budget constraints, is nonetheless unique among related Federal agencies. For example, I have come to conclude that the Forest Service's specialists possess: as much or more expertise in endangered species conservation as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; as much or more expertise in managing anadromous fish habitat as the National Marine Fisheries Service; and as much or more expertise in maintaining or restoring water quality in rural, forested watersheds as the Environmental Protection Agency. Fourth, in response to probative questions, we finally began to hear the acknowledgment, from other Federal agencies that this expertise exists and that the Forest Service could, in their view, be trusted to use it. I am not convinced that their actions yet reflect these words, but I was glad to hear them, nonetheless. Most people still strongly support multiple-use management despite well publicized assertions to the contrary. After listening to over 200 witnesses from all quarters, I have come away convinced that we should continue to use our federally owned forests for a wide variety of purposes as long as these activities do not damage the lands. I believe that the majority of the populace agrees that we should protect wildlife habitat, allow recreation, permit harvesting of trees, grazing of animals, and development of minerals on these lands, and that these activities--if conducted judiciously--can be compatible. I do not believe that the ``zero harvest,'' or ``cattle free'' philosophies are as widely supported as their proponents maintain. For example, at the seventh American Forest Congress, the 1,500 participants voted 91 percent to 4 percent to defeat an extremist proposal to eliminate commercial harvest on public lands. Moreover, I also strongly suspect from what we heard that most people believe that the way to decide the best mix of uses on Federal forests lands is to give the Forest Service--particularly the resource professionals on the ground--as broad and independent a responsibility as possible to conduct studies, develop comprehensive plans, consult with the public, and then implement the results. Unfortunately, most of the developments in contemporary resource policy over the past 15 years have worked to reduce the forest Service's responsibility. That is why last December, I began circulating comprehensive revisions to the 1976 statutes that govern the management of our Federal forest lands. These statutes have not been changed since Congress passed them two decades ago and are in dire need of modernization. The world that we face today is much different than the one we faced in 1976, even as it is different than the one that we faced in 1897. Over the course of the last 4 months I have held a series of six informal workshops on the draft that was circulated for the first time last December. These workshops included representatives from all points of view, and were conducted to be as informal and discoursive as possible in hearing all points of view. Since concluding these workshops a few weeks ago, we have been reworking our proposal for introduction this summer. I hope that we can, in this centennial year of the passage of the original Organic Act, make some positive changes--in a bipartisan fashion--that will provide a mandate to carry sustained and enlightened forest stewardship forward for another century.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly party conferences to meet.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent at 2:15 the Senate resume consideration of S. 4.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill when it was introduced. I commend Senator Ashcroft, for his leadership as the principal author of the bill, and Chairman Jeffords, for guiding it through the Labor and Human Resources Committee. In a word, this bill is about freedom. Mothers, and fathers and their families, need more freedom in the workplace--more flexibility in balancing the demands of work and family. What has the Federal Government all too often given them instead? Rules and regulations that are rigid, arbitrary, and one-size-fits all. Increasingly over the last 60 years, Federal employment law has reflected the paternalistic attitude of a government that thinks it knows more about work-and-family needs than do the families and workers themselves. The apologists of the failed regulatory state will argue that freedom is something granted to the people by the Government; and that freedom is a zero-sum game. For instance, you can't give employees more flexibility without creating an entitlement at the expense of the employer. They will offer amendments to this bill next week, asking us to impose more legal straitjackets on workers and employers. We should reject those amendments and opt, instead, for freedom for our workers and their families. This bill shows how Government, in its zeal to regulate, has failed our families; and how maintaining basic labor standards, while adding a little dose of freedom and flexibility, will create a win-win situation for employees and employers. This bill does not create a right or grant an entitlement. It does not take away from a single worker or employer. It simply removes an obvious example of overkill--of the Government acting as the national nanny. It gives back to workers and their families some of the freedom that was taken away when an earlier Congress went too far in regulating the workplace. This bill restores employee choice in an area where, for most private sector workers, the Government had taken it away from them. It allows the employee to arrange flexible work schedules to meet important family needs. It allows the employee the choice between one kind of overtime compensation or another. The employee will still receive time- and-a-half compensation for overtime. Only now the employee will have the freedom to negotiate when and how. The apologists of the regulatory state want to expand Federal control over the lives of workers and their families: They want the Federal Government, increasingly, to become the personnel manager for every workplace, and the collective bargaining agent for every worker. They want the Federal Government to decide a family's priorities for taking time off. But what qualifies Washington, DC, to choose a parent- teacher conference, yes; but the school science fair, no? Dentist appointment, yes; but going to the DMV, no? Some kinds of elder care, yes; versus other kinds, no? And you have to take a pay cut if you take their Government-approved leave, because the entitlement mandated under the Family and Medical Leave Act is unpaid leave. They want Congress to say to employers with 25 to 49 workers: In 1993 we thought you were a small business. In 1993 we said you didn't have the economies for scale to afford federally mandated leave. Now we think you're a big business and we want to run your employees' benefit package. Public employees have the freedom and flexibility that this bill would extend to private sector workers. Flextime and comptime have worked for public employees. These arrangements are overwhelmingly popular with the workers who have been eligible for them. Now is the time to pull back a little on the long arm of big brother. Now is the time to give back some of the workplace freedom that previous Congresses took away. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota who I think said it so well just a few moments ago as it relates to the outcome of the court actions in the Presiding Officer's home State and the city of Denver. What it says about our society is so very clear, that we gave and we give and we protect the rights of our citizens to speak openly and freely in protest against their Government, to express themselves and their opinions without fear that somehow the heavy hand of Government might sweep down on them, but if they use violence as an expression, a political expression, that then they fall within the act of a terrorist, and if so proven to be such, the kind of action or the kind of verdict that came about in Denver is the consequence. And that of course is what has marked the civility of our country well over 200 years now. And thank goodness our system still proves, as it apparently has expressed its will in Denver this afternoon, that it does work and it does work effectively. So I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota in making those statements.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk to the substitute amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. For the information of all Senators, this cloture vote would occur on Wednesday, June 4. The majority leader will consult with the Democrat leader with respect to the exact time of the cloture vote. However, at this time the majority leader asks unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.