Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a group of letters on this issue from many of our citizens in Idaho and different groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I don't think the Senator from California knows how much I appreciate her speaking boldly and frankly this afternoon about a very real, human problem, which is the inability to do reasonable and responsible maintenance on structures built over the last hundred years in our country to protect life and property. We are not allowed to do it, in many instances, because of the current Endangered Species Act. And I know, as most Senators know, that that was never the intent of the Endangered Species Act. Another reason we are here this afternoon is because my colleague, who is now Presiding Officer, Senator Kempthorne of Idaho, has acted boldly over the last 2 years to try to bring about responsible reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. It just hasn't gotten done. The reason is because too many people behind him want to act timidly. It was because of that, because of the effort that the Senator from Idaho had taken because of a crisis situation that existed in the small north Idaho logging community of Saint Maries, where a flood had occurred, a town had been under water, dikes had been destroyed, and now we were in the rebuilding process this last late fall and winter, at a time of unprecedented snowfall in Idaho, with a perched watershed of nearly 200 percent of normal sitting above this community, and in steps the Fish and Wildlife Service and halts the construction of the dikes, as my colleague from Idaho has expressed, and basically said, ``We want you to spend a million dollars mitigating.'' Those in the community said, ``My goodness, can't you see we are at risk here? Can't you see we have just replaced our homes? Can't you see we have just repaired our livelihoods and we have an impending flood and crisis in the making?'' The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said, in essence, we don't care, because the Endangered Species Act requires--thank goodness, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and Senator Reid and Senator Kempthorne and I were able to sit down, after I placed this amendment in the supplemental bill, to crank their tail and get some attention, that it was time we acted just a little boldly to solve a problem. I must say that my colleagues did come together and they have acted a little boldly--I appreciate that--to amend the Endangered Species Act. I hope we can get that done in the comprehensive legislation that Senator Kempthorne, Senator Chafee, and Senator Reid are working on. It must be done. We want to protect species of plants and animals and insects; but doggone it, we have to protect human life. The hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment in the California Delta is at risk today, as the Senator from California has so clearly said, and now it will cost hundreds of millions to replace it, when it would have cost hundreds of thousands just to maintain it. That is what we need in Idaho; that's what we need in the Red River Valley in the Dakotas, in California, in Oregon, and in Washington, and any other place in the Nation where flooding can and does occur, where dikes and levees have been built. We need the legislation that is now before us. I am glad we have come to an agreement where that can be resolved. Will mitigation occur after the fact? Of course, it will. We want that to happen. Now, I am disappointed that we could not recognize the financing tool that is necessary and very critical to the Senator from California and important to Idaho. But I am also pleased that my colleague from Nevada would recognize our need in north Idaho and agree to help us mitigate the situation in Saint Maries. So what we have now is an amendment to this supplemental appropriations bill for 1996 and 1997 that eliminates this lengthy, unnecessary delay, that makes eligible flood projects respond to mitigation and activities to go forward. Eligible flood control projects are only allowed to perform preventive and remedial measures directly related to the natural disaster and for imminent safety threats. This is the compromise. It is an important one. It resolves the problem for 2 years--last year and this year. And then if we have not been able to effectively address the Endangered Species Act, as we should--and I know my colleague, the Senator from Idaho, wants to accomplish and is working to accomplish this--my guess is that the Senator from California and I will be back. We have to solve our problems in Idaho, we have to solve the problems in California, and we have to solve this problem nationwide that man, persons, humans and his or her property come first when an imminent crisis is at hand, where their lives can be destroyed and their property swept away. They deserve the right to be first. Then we will worry about, as we should, any loss of habitat or species that might occur as a result of this natural disaster. So I thank all of the parties for coming together to work with us to resolve this problem. Mr. President, it is my understanding that no one else wishes to address this. I believe we may be now ready for a vote.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me first thank my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, for his action and the work in developing this legislation that appropriately recognizes Vernon Baker, Edward A. Carter, Jr., and Charles L. Thomas in what I think can best be called retroactivity, certainly recognizing that there is a special pension tied to the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor was given to these African American soldiers and citizens and wonderful people in the appropriate fashion, finally, after a long, long wait. We had the opportunity to be at the White House for the ceremonies, and it was truly moving. Recognition of their outstanding courage and daring leadership during their service to their country in World War II was far too long coming, as I mentioned. However, their rewards should not be based upon the delay in their recognition, but based on the moment of their heroism. In the case of Vernon Baker, one of my fellow Idahoans--as Senator Kempthorne said, we had the privilege of getting to know he and his wife--more than 50 years have passed before the Nation did the appropriate thing in recognizing their courageous actions and bestowing them with the Congressional Medal of Honor. Now fairness demands that we couple this honor with the benefits entitled to them and the next of kin in the case of the deceased, effective to the dates corresponding to their actions. Mr. President, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I once more thank Vernon Baker for his gallant actions on that April day so long ago and encourage the support of my colleague's legislation to resolve this issue for America for all time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill of critical importance to our Nation's cattle industry. The joint United States- Canada Commission on Cattle and Beef is designed to resolve some of the existing differences in trade practices between the two countries. I want to thank a number of my colleagues who are joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation. The cosponsors of this bill include Senator Baucus, Senator Burns, Senator Gorton, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Enzi. As a former rancher, I have a firsthand understanding of the challenges that face the cattle industry. The prolonged down cycle is especially troubling because it affects the livelihoods of thousands of ranching families in Idaho and across the country. These beef producers are the largest sector of Idaho and American agriculture. Over 1 million families raise over 100 million head of beef cattle every year. This contributes over $36 billion to local economies. Even with the extended cycle of low prices, direct cash receipts from the Idaho cattle industry were almost $620 million in 1995. These totals only represent direct sales; they do not capture the multiplier effect that cattle ranches have in their local economies from expenditures on labor, feed, fuel, property taxes, and other inputs. Over the years, cattle operations have provided a decent living and good way of life in exchange for long days, hard work, and dedication. While the investment continues to be high, the returns have been low in recent years. The problems facing the cattle industry in recent years are complex. The nature of the market dictates that stable consumption combined with increased productivity and growing herd size yield lower prices to producers. This, combined with high feed prices and limited export opportunities, has caused a near crisis. Many Idahoans have contacted me on a number of cattle industry issues. Some suggest the Federal Government intervene in the market to help producers. However, many others have expressed fear that Federal intervention, if experience is any indication, will only complicate matters and may also create a number of unintended results. I tend to agree with the latter. Time and again, I have seen lawmakers and bureaucrats in Washington, DC, albeit well intentioned, take a difficult situation and make it worse. This does not mean that I believe Government has no role to play. I have supported and will continue to support Government involvement in areas like trade, where individual producers cannot help themselves. This bill recognizes a number of barriers to international trade that adversely affect American beef producers. The bill is meant to elevate the importance of all trade issues and specifically address some of the pending cattle trade issues between the United States and Canada. The United States-Canada Commission on Cattle and Beef is a measure designed to provide immediate, short-term solutions to some of the serious trade problems facing the cattle industry. Specific cattle issues that could be resolved with further discussion include animal health requirements and the availability of feed grains. The bill creates a commission composed of three people from each country along with a number of other nonvoting advisors. Within 30 days of passage, the Commission must be in place and within 6 months must issue a preliminary report on how to resolve the existing differences between United States and Canadian trade. I know that a number of my colleagues have legislation pending in regards to the cattle market. I would comment that I see this bill as a starting point, not an ending point for cattle industry issues and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill of critical importance to our Nation's cattle industry. The joint United States- Canada Commission on Cattle and Beef is designed to resolve some of the existing differences in trade practices between the two countries. I want to thank a number of my colleagues who are joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation. The cosponsors of this bill include Senator Baucus, Senator Burns, Senator Gorton, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Enzi. As a former rancher, I have a firsthand understanding of the challenges that face the cattle industry. The prolonged down cycle is especially troubling because it affects the livelihoods of thousands of ranching families in Idaho and across the country. These beef producers are the largest sector of Idaho and American agriculture. Over 1 million families raise over 100 million head of beef cattle every year. This contributes over $36 billion to local economies. Even with the extended cycle of low prices, direct cash receipts from the Idaho cattle industry were almost $620 million in 1995. These totals only represent direct sales; they do not capture the multiplier effect that cattle ranches have in their local economies from expenditures on labor, feed, fuel, property taxes, and other inputs. Over the years, cattle operations have provided a decent living and good way of life in exchange for long days, hard work, and dedication. While the investment continues to be high, the returns have been low in recent years. The problems facing the cattle industry in recent years are complex. The nature of the market dictates that stable consumption combined with increased productivity and growing herd size yield lower prices to producers. This, combined with high feed prices and limited export opportunities, has caused a near crisis. Many Idahoans have contacted me on a number of cattle industry issues. Some suggest the Federal Government intervene in the market to help producers. However, many others have expressed fear that Federal intervention, if experience is any indication, will only complicate matters and may also create a number of unintended results. I tend to agree with the latter. Time and again, I have seen lawmakers and bureaucrats in Washington, DC, albeit well intentioned, take a difficult situation and make it worse. This does not mean that I believe Government has no role to play. I have supported and will continue to support Government involvement in areas like trade, where individual producers cannot help themselves. This bill recognizes a number of barriers to international trade that adversely affect American beef producers. The bill is meant to elevate the importance of all trade issues and specifically address some of the pending cattle trade issues between the United States and Canada. The United States-Canada Commission on Cattle and Beef is a measure designed to provide immediate, short-term solutions to some of the serious trade problems facing the cattle industry. Specific cattle issues that could be resolved with further discussion include animal health requirements and the availability of feed grains. The bill creates a commission composed of three people from each country along with a number of other nonvoting advisors. Within 30 days of passage, the Commission must be in place and within 6 months must issue a preliminary report on how to resolve the existing differences between United States and Canadian trade. I know that a number of my colleagues have legislation pending in regards to the cattle market. I would comment that I see this bill as a starting point, not an ending point for cattle industry issues and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Nevada, was on the floor just a few moments ago to discuss a provision on an amendment that the chairman and other members of the committee helped me place in this supplemental appropriations that really is a critical issue when it comes to dealing with flooded areas and flood victims, and the rebuilding of structures as it relates to floods along many of the rivers of our country. What we are finding out in Idaho is that, in certain instances, it is very difficult to rebuild the levy to once again provide that critical barrier between the human species and his or her property and an endangered species, in this instance because agencies simply can't agree. And, as a result, we go into these extended periods of consultation when the flood waters may be rising again, and the dike or the levy simply doesn't get built because there is not the opportunity, vis-a-vis the Endangered Species Act, to act immediately and quickly and responsibly to deal with these issues. We have found that in Idaho. I think the folks in North Dakota and the folks along the Ohio are going to be finding that out very quickly now as the flood waters recede and they begin to look at rebuilding along the rivers and making some of the corrections necessary, and doing so in a quick and timely fashion, in this instance potentially preparing for an additional runoff. That has happened in Idaho because we have had early floods in the first week of January. Several of my counties were subject to the 100-year flood. My hometown of Midvale was under 4 feet of water. Those communities and the Federal agencies responded very quickly to build back those levies immediately, and were able to do so in almost all instances. But in St. Mary's, ID, where a flood occurred in 1996 in the winter in February, here we had actual construction of a levy stopped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because they said that EPA and the community failed to respond to the Endangered Species Act. It is also interesting that in the delta area of California, Senators from California asked the Assistant Secretary of Interior to waive certain provisions so that citizens in that area could respond immediately, and, of course, that was done. The frustration often comes then when the agencies then step in after the fact and require very, very expensive and extremely costly mitigation. For example, in the area of St. Mary's, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is suggesting maybe $100,000 worth of mitigation, maybe 30-plus additional acres of habitat needing to be replaced, even though in all instances there appeared to be adequate habitat in the area. My provision in this bill, that the Senator from Nevada speaks of and is attempting to strike, covers only natural disasters and threats to public safety that occurred in 1996 and 1997. It eliminates the lengthy and unnecessary delay to flood control efforts. It is designed to allow Federal agencies and local communities to respond to human safety, to protect human life and to protect private property, and to protect those as the first line of defense in a flood and in the aftermath of a flood. Eligible flood control projects are not required to consult prior to emergency efforts. In other words, the Senator from Nevada was referring to a provision that the House committee put in which said that, if it were a declared disaster--what I am suggesting is that, if the water is rising at an unprecedented rate and the local community and the flood control district think they needed to add another foot to the top of the levy, they can do so because it is an impending emergency. Right now it is impossible to do that, if by doing so they might damage habitat, or something that a Federal agency would declare to be a threatened habitat, or I should say a habitat that was threatened--obviously, an endangered species. What we are talking about is the ability to respond quickly. That is why this provision that I am talking about is in the bill. My colleague, Senator Kempthorne, has for the last good number of years worked overtime to try to produce a responsive reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. He continues to do that. We are consulting now on adjustments and changes in this provision in the supplemental. My staff has met with John Chafee's staff and Senator Kempthorne's staff to try to work out these differences so that we can have this kind of timely response. It is critically necessary. I cannot believe that the Senate of the United States would not say that human life and private property at a time of impending emergency or at the time of the declaration of emergency should not be protected and responded to in a timely fashion, and not to have to worry about an agency coming in afterwards, and saying, ``Well, now you are going to have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to mitigate.'' Communities will respond. They will want to assure that that habitat is sound. But, first and foremost, they ought to have the right that they have always had in this country to protect themselves and their property. I don't care. The area in North Dakota ought to have that right. They ought not have to call Washington, DC, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and say, ``What may we do? We have private property and homes to protect, and we are going to ask you to spend 48 hours a week deciding what we may or may not do.'' That kind of time does not happen in an emergency environment. I would also look at eligible flood control projects and allow them to perform restructuring and operation and maintenance directly related to the natural disasters or an imminent safety threat. That is what we are talking about here. I will work, as we have. We spent yesterday and most of today with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the subcommittee chairman, Senator Kempthorne, my colleague, to see if we can resolve this issue in the best interests. Certainly, I want to work with the Senator from Nevada on this issue to resolve it. But we are not going to create loopholes, nor are we going to let Federal agencies stand in the way of timely response to the private citizens and their need for protection of their person and their property. That is clearly the intent of the provision that is within the supplemental at this time. I cannot accept changes in that unless they have as their initial premise that very kind of thing. We just do not need to get at the business of a lengthy process here. That comes and always will come at a time when we can approach it much differently than the declared emergency, or the impending emergency that comes with the crisis. We have so hamstrung the citizens of our country by laws that simply disallow them the right to protect themselves and to respond in a timely way. It is amazing to me--that very incident, in my opinion, that happened in the north end of my State in the last couple of months, as we knew we were headed into a runoff season of the year when that river and those dikes needed to be completed and, yet, we really saw a ho-hum attitude on the part of the agencies and a shutdown of operations that resulted in the dike not being prepared in a timely way. That is the intent. Mr. President, we are working to resolve this issue. I hope we can do so. But for the time being, the language that is in the bill is important language and it meets the need that many in the House wanted, and that, obviously, many in the Senate believe are necessary also. I yield the floor. 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, thank you very much. I certainly join my colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, in his expression of concern and hope for the outcome of the volunteer summit that has just occurred in Philadelphia. I, too, hope that we can keep the dynamics of that going. There is no question, though, that one of the blights against voluntarism and giving freely of one's time to the benefit of human kind is what has transpired in this country over the last several decades when we have, in fact, denied the doctrine of charitable immunity; in other words, the ability to go out and give of your time and then by chance you make an accident--or by chance somewhere in the process someone might claim some question of injury--that, all of a sudden, you are liable, the courts take it up, the trial lawyers drag you through the courts, and they put a phenomenal blight on the giving concept that voluntarism is all about. That is what S. 543 is about--to clearly prescribe what the limits are so that we don't put a legal damper on the kind of energies that are spilling forth from Philadelphia that Colin Powell is trying to once again fire up in this country. It is here. It is already here. It is part of the Judeo-Christian ethic that has made up the great growth of this country over the years. I want to relate to you a comment that the director of March of Dimes Easter Seals told me right after the Berlin wall came down and Eastern Europe was freeing itself from the shackles of communism that some of it had been under for 70-plus years; most of it for about 45 years. I was with this gentleman one night at a banquet. We were visiting, and we were both seated at the head table. I said, ``What are you doing nowadays besides the work of Easter Seals and March of Dimes?" He said, ``You would be fascinated.'' He said, ``I am spending a lot of time in Eastern Europe with the countries of Eastern Europe.'' I said, ``Doing what?" He said, ``Teaching them voluntarism.'' I said, ``Tell me more. What do you mean teaching voluntarism?" You and I, Mr. President, would have considered that part of our family heritage, part of going to church, part of the extension of the person of the American citizen--voluntarism. What had happened in Eastern Europe and throughout the greater Soviet empire was that government had taken over. Government had become the operative of people. No longer could you give of yourself. It was government that told you what to do, how to do it, what to say, what to think, and all of those kinds of things. Up until that time, I had forgotten, or I guess I had never really concentrated on the root of voluntarism, and what has transpired in our country over the years from the very early days of the barn raising in your State and mine--of neighbors sharing amongst themselves, because there was never enough work force to go around. So I would come over to your farm and help out, and you would come over to my farm and help out. And together, in a sense of community, we would help each other. That was before the days of lots of laws and lots of trial lawyers, and somebody looking around, and, saying ``Gee. You have to be liable for that. It is your fault that something happened. And, therefore, we are going to take you to task on that.'' Voluntarism has always been a phenomenal force in our country. And it did start from a Judeo-Christian ethic of helping one fellow person. That has been and remains the strength of our country. I was so pleased when I heard Colin Powell through a series of interviews leading up to the summit in Philadelphia. In fact, I was pleased but a little disappointed one day when Katie Couric in a rather--at least my interpretation--cynical way said, ``Well, but, but, but, surely you have to have Government doing some of these things, and, surely, you have to have a Government program. I mean, you have cut welfare, or Congress cut welfare.'' And, very consistently, Colin Powell said there is a role for Government. Yes. But there is a very clear role for people. Government doesn't nurture the child in the community. We can put food to the child. But we cannot nurture the soul. That is a personal relationship. That is a giving kind of relationship that is only put forth through the volunteer effort of the caring individual. It was the sense of the Soviet States, if they were truly to become free states again and knowing that government could never provide everything to everybody, that they would have to reignite voluntarism in the voluntary spirit of nearly half a century past. So they were asking large contributive voluntary charitable groups from this country to come across, to extend to them how we did it, and to work with them to rekindle the human spirit in an effort of voluntarism. That is what Philadelphia is trying to do--not to rekindle because it is clearly here in this country, and it always has been, but to extend it into other areas, urge people to give more of their time, to urge companies to provide time for their employees to go out and participate in the community in a free and giving way, and to knock down some of the barriers that exist in normal life that limit people's ability to contribute to give and to volunteer. That is what S. 543 is all about--knocking down the percolation of legal barriers that have built up over the years of somebody trying to make somebody liable for something. We know that when you give of your time it is going to put you at risk. You are willing to give less. You back away, and say, ``I can't be a part of contributive or voluntary effort if I might be sued.'' I mean that isn't in the spirit of Americanism. That isn't in the spirit of the raising of the barn in Kansas a century ago. Sure, the wall might have fallen down, and you had to pick it back up and somebody might have been hurt. There was always that risk. But it was always understood that nobody was liable under those circumstances--that you weren't trying to profit from it personally, that you weren't trying to gain from it. You were giving. That is what this legislation is all about--to recreate at least an understanding that people can give of their time freely without a loss of the immunity they have always had with charitable voluntary efforts. So I am truly complimentary of the Senator from Georgia for the tremendous effort that he has put behind this. It has come at a very important time. I must say to my colleagues across the aisle. You are filibustering. Get with it. Don't do that. There may be other reasons. But, if it is for this, it is a bad reason. If the trial lawyers of this country are wanting to play games with this, it is the wrong reason. They ought to go somewhere else instead of trying to go at the voluntary spirit of this country, the energy that built our country that made us what we are. It was not Government. It was people giving freely of themselves to other people. That is what this legislation is about. That is what the nations of the former Soviet Union have had to actually seek from us. Yes. They want our institutions of government because they figure that ours is the best form of government. But they want our people institution. They know that they cannot have government alone, that it will not serve the needs of citizens of Poland, or Czechoslovakia, or one of those nations that was barricaded and imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain. So they reached out to our great charitable voluntary contributive organizations immediately after the fall of the wall, and said, ``Come. Teach us again how you make it work because what we see in America, what we see as the great energy and the spirit of your country, is the blend of government with the blend of the free citizen, both working together for the betterment of humanity and for the betterment of your country.'' That is what S. 543 is all about. It isn't about trial lawyers taking people to court. There is plenty of that to go on in the private sector, and in the private economy, but not in the private giving should that be allowed. I am thankful that S. 543 speaks so clearly of that. I again say to my colleagues on the other side: Get with it. Come on. Stop this filibuster. This is a time to stand together, as former Republican Presidents and former Democratic Presidents and a Democrat President stood together in Philadelphia and said this is Americanism at its best. We should not use Government to tear down voluntarism. We should not use laws to restrict it. Let us use our energies to multiply it for the betterment of our citizens and for mankind. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Well, I agree with that, of course. As you know, our budgets operate on a fiscal year basis. My guess is that, come October 1, 1997, when the 1998 budget begins, there will be Federal agencies on the ground in North Dakota negotiating contracts with private contractors to rebuild or restore facilities in those devastated areas. They will be, at that moment, negotiating. If the Government shuts down for any given time, all negotiations have to stop, all transactions have to stop. That is reality. The Government isn't functioning. As we found out in the last shutdown, it is a very clear shutdown-- cease and desist, turn out the lights, go home--except for only essential employees who, by definition of their employment, might stay on location for the security of the buildings and operations of the facilities. That is reality. So I think the point the Senator from Georgia makes is a very clear and important point. Now, with these disasters ongoing and impending, the reality of continuation is very, very important. I have money in this supplemental for Idaho. It could be called disaster money. It goes to my hometown of Midvale and Washington County and Payette County and Jerome County. I have 13 counties in Idaho that have been declared disasters. We have flooding going on in my State as we speak. Senator Dorgan mentioned he didn't want any add-ons. Let me tell you of an amendment I am going to try to put on. It deals directly with disaster, and it is an add-on. When a disaster strikes and there is an immediate event and an emergency situation and there needs to be build- back of dikes to protect private property and private life, we have a problem. The problem is that the Endangered Species Act can step in, and external agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and National Marine Fisheries can oftentimes come in like they have in California during the incidents in January of this year. There was a special area designated by the Assistant Secretary to allow the waivers to take place because it had to be an Executive waiver. In St. Marys in north Idaho, a flood event that occurred in 1996 was in the midst of being repaired. At that time, there were over 400 homes in that community under water. As I flew over in a helicopter, just the rooftops were sticking out. The dikes had blown. Now they are repairing them. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stepped in and said, ``We don't think you are following the Endangered Species Act. Stop.'' That order went out about a month and a half ago. There is no more dike building going on in St. Marys in Benewah County in north Idaho. The water is rising as we speak and the dike is not complete. This is all about habitat for osprey eagles and has nothing to do with human life and property. My little amendment says that during the time of a declared emergency--in this instance, I am simply saying 1996 and 1997--the Endangered Species Act doesn't pertain during the time of emergency and emergency repairs to follow. I am sure that that will be the case along the Red River in North Dakota and other areas that we will have to deal with. That is an add-on, and I am sure the Senator from North Dakota would want that. There can be others that can be argued to be direct and specific as it relates to the supplemental. Mr. President, I came to the floor to suggest that this Senate deserves to debate and to vote upon S. 543. I find it amazing that, in this system of Government by laws that we all support and believe in, we have found ourselves so encumbered by laws that we can no longer volunteer, or you can't give freely of your time without liability or without risk of liability, or to work in a voluntary organization, and that organization has to take out insurance to protect themselves so that they are exempt from lawsuit. We used to deal with that as a free and open society. We had a doctrine of charitable immunity. In other words, we said, if you are giving to charity and you are giving in a voluntary and charitable way, you are immune from litigation. Well, that no longer exists. Most States abrogated charitable immunity by imposing full liability for damages without adequate consideration of whether unique characteristics of charitable organizations and volunteers warranted some other arrangement. I find it amazing that we are being blocked by the party of the President, who has just done a very admirable thing in Philadelphia about voluntarism, to launch a national voluntarism program across this country, which I suspect 100 percent of the Senate believes in, along with the huge majority of the American people. We are now at a standstill on legislation to protect those who would come out in response to our President and to General Powell and to past Presidents and to a nation which really does believe that the way to save our cities of America is not just a Federal program, but to incorporate the cause and caring of citizens of our country that give of their time in a voluntary way. I hope that we can pass this legislation. It is literally being filibustered at this moment. Are there extenuating circumstances? Yes, there are. We all know that. It is too bad we can't move on with this legislation and deal with it. But I will tell the Senator this. I mentioned it to him several times on the floor in, I think, appropriate and just ways. We will convene the Appropriations Committee this afternoon, we will mark up a supplemental, and it will have some emergency dollars in it and some defense reprogramming. It will have a CR in it, I believe, and it will probably have other issues in it that Senators, bipartisan Senators, Democrats and Republicans, will find necessary to put in the supplemental. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for saying so. I said it in the context that it is an add-on. You are right. I think it is appropriate and I think it will have bipartisan support. We are all for the Endangered Species Act, and we want to make sure our Government agencies function and operate in a way that their activities do not damage or threaten endangered species. But in a time of a flood incident or emergency, to invoke a bureaucracy and withhold the ability to immediately get out there and solve that problem and protect private property and human life is really beyond me. Yet, we find ourselves in that circumstance. My amendment will deal with that. With those comments, I hope we can move in a timely fashion to deal with S. 543. I hope that, with the work of the Appropriations Committee this afternoon, we can have a supplemental come to the floor that deals with disaster relief, that deals with reprogramming of defense dollars. It is going to deal with a lot of other issues. It is not the disaster bill. It should not be said that it is. It is an appropriation bill dealing with supplemental needs, most of them requested by the President and sent to the Congress. We are responding to the administration, in most instances, by dealing with those things that the President feels are necessary and that the majority of the Congress would agree with. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. The President, as the Commander in Chief, has the latitude within the law to spend beyond the limits of the budget when we have troops in foreign lands. The Food and Foraging Act allows for the President to do that. That case has occurred in Bosnia. What the supplemental offers is some reprogramming of dollars within the defense budget to pay for expenditures that have already been let in the area of Defense. So it is not just flood money. It is clearly reprogramming money for the Department of Defense and for our troops stationed in Bosnia.

Mr. CRAIG. I came to the floor to speak to that piece of legislation, but also to speak to the supplemental and the current situation the Senate finds itself in at this moment. Senator Dorgan has spoken passionately, as he should, about a concern for the citizens of his State and that their needs are responded to because of the devastating floods that are ongoing in his State. For that, this Senate will respond. I now have the privilege of serving on the Appropriations Committee, and I must tell you that it is my intent to support a supplemental appropriation that has disaster relief in it--for the citizens of North Dakota, yes, but also for the citizens of Midvale, ID, my hometown. In early January of this year, the national television cameras did not sweep across the 4 feet of water that surged through my hometown, that displaced 40 residents, destroyed homes, took the one small general store and put it out of business. I flew over it a few days later in a helicopter to see utter devastation like I had never seen before and like my friends and neighbors had never witnessed. I remembered looking at the files of the local newspaper and the flood of 1950 when I was a small child in that community. This, of course, was even worse. This was, without doubt, the 100-year flood. Now, what I found out at that time--and I have great praise for FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers and others--is that they did respond and they responded immediately. The citizens of Midvale were cared for within the limitations of the law and prescriptive to their needs. I am pleased about that and played a small role in helping them. What I also find out is that the citizens of North Dakota are being cared for at this moment. There is adequate money at this moment to deal with the immediate needs. They are being cared for. Will there be necessary moneys for the future needs of rebuilding and repair? No. That is what the supplemental is all about. There is adequate time for a responsible and reasoned debate on what we do about the expenditures of our Government. I am going to support a continuing resolution tied to the supplemental appropriation. Why? Because I do not like the budget process gamed. I do not like a President, who owns a bully pulpit, to veto and then stand on that pulpit, when it was his pen that brought the Government to a halt, turning and saying, ``Look at those folks up on the Hill. They did not give me what I wanted, so I am shutting the Government down.'' He says, ``They did not give me what I wanted, so they are shutting the Government down,'' and he got away with it. The American people said, ``Oh my goodness, isn't that terrible. Congress should not have done that.'' Congress did not intend to do that. Congress will not do that again. That is why we have considered amongst ourselves the importance of putting together a supplemental with a continuing resolution that has a level of expenditure of 98 percent of the 1997 fiscal year level. That is right and it is responsible. Now, I am on the Appropriations Committee. Yes, I am a freshman. I understand that. Does it take away my power and my leverage on the committee? I really do not think so. All appropriators want to produce and pass the 13 appropriations bills that will constitute the new budget for fiscal year 1998. Why? Because it is good policy. The President has some new programs, and he will get them. We have some new programs that we want and some spending reduction levels that we want and a tax package that we want that we think are important for the American people, and we will get there and the budget will be balanced. But what the CR gives us is the room to operate and to say to our Government employees, you will not be put at risk and we will not allow you to be gamed. I have a sense there is a little gaming going on now about the need and the urgency. Let me make myself clear. It is my understanding, based on an immediate review of the budgets of FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers and other areas, that they have money to deal with the immediate situation, and it has been dealt with. Every citizen in this country that turned on the national news saw Federal employees and Federal people on the ground in North Dakota helping, and they are there today and will be there tomorrow. What is important is that we deal with this issue and deal with it in a responsible and timely way. Will there be add-ons to the supplemental? Yes, there will be.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I want to address one other issue briefly. It is going to become one that all of us will be increasingly involved in as this month plays out and as the House works on it. The Senate will soon deal with the supplemental appropriations. My colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, has just entered the Chamber. She, I, and the leader all have recognized the importance of this supplemental appropriations. But we also recognize the importance of avoiding the kind of budget battles in the future that allowed the shutdown of Government a couple of years ago. So the Senator from Texas has introduced what I call--and I believe she calls--a ``safety net'' funding mechanism for 1998 that will disallow Government shutdowns. We call it a ``continuing resolution.'' We simply say the budget process goes on and the appropriating process goes on, and, while we work out our differences with this administration, let us pass a continuing resolution that is 98 percent of 1997 levels so that we continue to gain our savings toward a balanced budget, but we can turn rationally to the Government itself and say, ``We are not going to hold you out as hostage. It is important that we work cooperatively together.'' I hope that we will continue to look at this. It is time that we deal with it directly. The bill is clearly about politics as usual, and it would change the whole dynamics of the debate. It would allow us to work in a timely and appropriate fashion on the necessary appropriations bills. Twenty-seven days of Government shutdown in December 1995 and January 1996 furloughed over 800,000 Federal employees. There was a lot of political posturing. But in the end nobody gained, and a good number of people got hurt. The Congress of the United States and the President weren't doing what they should have done. The Government Shutdown Prevention Act as a continuing resolution coupled with the supplemental will build that very kind of safety net so we can go ahead to continue to work together in a bipartisan manner as we work to resolve our budget differences, strike a budget that is balanced by the year 2002, and deal with the Medicare crisis impending by the reports of the trustees of just this past day. These are important issues that the Senate of the United States and this President must come together on. I hope we can do that in the next month, especially on supplementals. But I also hope the President recognizes that Medicare really doesn't deserve to be tinkered with nor nibbled around the edges anymore as a way of solving the problem. We don't need a 1-year or a 2-year fix. We really need a long-term reform approach that strengthens, maintains, and offers a variety of options for the seniors of our country so they can have the understanding that this Congress has dealt with their concerns in a way that should not alarm but assures them a strong and a safe program. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for establishing this special order. And I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for bringing this special order to the floor and to the attention of our colleagues. For those who are watching this morning, yesterday, the Medicare trustees issued a report that was no surprise but, clearly, once again, reaffirmed to the administration and to the Congress of the United States that there is no good news when it comes to the strength and stability of the Medicare trust funds. What we had hoped for was just news. Knowing that it wasn't going to be good, the question was how bad was the bad news going to be? Two years ago, the trustees forecasted that the Nation's Medicare Program would be bankrupt, out of money, by the year 2002. Just last year, the trustees revised that prediction, saying bankruptcy would come sooner, in the year 2001. CBO has also predicted that the trustee fund would be broke by 2001, that it would run a deficit. It is now running a deficit. It did for the first time this past year, and it will run a $10 billion deficit this year. In other words, more money is being pulled from the trust fund than is now flowing into the trust fund to make it safe and secure. So let's face it. Our Medicare system is in critical condition, and it deserves to be treated as a patient with an illness. In this instance, we--the Congress of the United States and the President--are the doctor. Or, another way to say it, Madam President, is we sit on the board. We are the board of trustees, and the President is the chairman of the board. It is our responsibility to fix the problems that are now very, very clear, and which have been repeated for 5 years in a row by the trustees of Medicare. Two-thirds of these trustees are appointed by the President--this President. It is their job to report to him, as they did yesterday, and to the Congress on the health of Medicare. And they have reported that the health is not good at all. So, for 5 years running, not only have we received these reports, but the administration has received the identical reports. Last year, recognizing that, we dealt with it. We looked at a 30- year-old health insurance program that provides health insurance coverage for 35 million Americans and said, in that 30-year history, it really hasn't had major overhaul or reform to fit modern health care needs and to fit modern seniors; therefore, we ought to do something about it. And we did. That reform went in the balanced budget down to the White House, and the President vetoed it. For a year after that we saw television ad after television ad saying that the Congress of the United States had been irresponsible, that somehow they were trying to destroy Medicare as we know it for the stability and the security of our seniors when, in fact, we had offered a variety of modern options that would not only provide seniors with adequate health care and health care coverage but would address the deficit that, once again yesterday the trustees, appointed by this President, said, ``Mr. President, Congress, we report to you that this sick patient called `Medicare' is growing sicker by the day and that it is still a 2001 bankruptcy, but it is not going to be late in 2001 now. It is going to be early in 2001.'' My guess is, if we do nothing this year, the trustees will come back next year and say, ``Well, it is not going to be early 2001 now. It is going to be late 2000.'' What is the point of our discussion here today? The point is that we are prepared, as a Congress of the United States, to work with this President to reform Medicare, to save it, to secure it, to strengthen it, and to modernize it for the senior citizens of this country. I mentioned 35 million Americans being covered. By the year 2001, it is going to be 38 million Americans. So there is always a growing and greater dependency on this program. It clearly is our responsibility to address it, and to address it in the right and appropriate fashion. That is a bipartisan approach. That is the President and the Congress of the United States sitting at the same table. That is not one party trying to lead over another. I am sorry, the House and the minority leader of the House, it is not a political game anymore. You are not going to get any more mileage by demagoging or by pulling the programs out and sticking them under the general fund and allowing them to increase beyond the rate of private health care in this country. It is time that we must come together as a group--the board of trustees, those responsible for the strength and security of Medicare-- and address it in the appropriate fashion.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a workshop has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management to exchange ideas and suggestions on the proposed ``Public Land Management Responsibility and Accountability Restoration Act.'' The workshop will take place on Thursday, May 22, beginning at 2:00 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The topic for this workshop will be to hear testimony regarding community-based solutions that have been tried concerning public land conflicts. Testimony at these workshops is by invitation only. They are open to the public and the press. For further information, please write to the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510, or call Mark Rey or Judy Brown of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled jointly before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health of the House Committee on Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, May 15, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the release of the Columbia River Basin Environmental Impact Statement. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, thank you and let me thank my chairman, not only for yielding but for his leadership on this most important issue that now is being thoughtfully and responsibly debated here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Madam President, the Chemical Weapons Convention has such far- reaching domestic and national security implications that it deserves the most thorough and thoughtful examination the Senate can give it. I have given this matter a careful review and would like to reiterate some of the conclusions I have reached. If I thought supporting this treaty would make chemical weapons disappear, and give us all greater security from these heinous weapons, I would not hesitate in giving my support. Unfortunately, the facts do not demonstrate this; indeed, implementing this treaty may actually increase danger to U.S. citizens and troops. The convention has been signed by 160 nations and ratified by only 74--less than 50 percent. Five countries who are thought to have chemical weapons are not even signatories of the convention: Egypt, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. Another six nations have signed, but not ratified the convention: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, and Russia. In short, this convention is not global in scale. Even if it were true that this treaty had been signed and ratified by 160 nations, serious problems would remain. Compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention cannot be assured because it is not effectively verifiable. I think it is timely and appropriate to remember, as others have mentioned, the principles of Ronald Reagan. Even though he started the process that we are debating today, he would have insisted in the end, while we might trust our allies and our friends around the world, that in every circumstance we must verify. Unlike nuclear weapons which require a large, specialized industrial base, chemical weapons can be manufactured almost anywhere. Furthermore, many lethal chemicals are common and have peaceful uses. Chemicals help us to manufacture products such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and paints. With such a broad spectrum of uses, it would be difficult to discern the legitimate from the illicit. It is also very disturbing to me that ratification of this treaty would abandon a fundamental arms control principle insisted upon over the last 17 years--that the United States must be able to effectively verify compliance with the terms of the treaty. Verification has meant that U.S. intelligence is able to detect a breach in an arms control agreement in time to respond appropriately and assure preservation of our national security interests. I believe the Senate has an obligation to uphold this sound standard. Let me take this opportunity to express my support for Senator Helms' condition in this regard. I applaud his effort to make real verification a condition of CWC implementing legislation, if the treaty is ratified. Even if verification of compliance were not a concern, this convention would be difficult to enforce. In a sound arms control treaty, the United States must be able to punish other countries caught in violation of the agreement. The Chemical Weapons Convention provides only vague, unspecified sanctions to be imposed on a country found in breach of the Convention. Ultimately, the Chemical Weapons convention leaves the U.N. Security Council to impose penalties severe enough to change behavior of an outlaw nation. Since any one of the five members of the Security Council can veto any enforcement resolution lodged against them or their friends, China and Russia, for example, could simply veto resolutions imposing sanctions if they disagreed with other Security Council members. In sum, it does not appear that this agreement is verifiable or enforceable. Even if the enforcement mechanism to punish violators of the treaty were perfect, countries that represent the greatest threat to United States security such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea have not ratified the treaty and would be under no obligation to comply with its terms and conditions. Furthermore, our intelligence experts tell us that each one of these countries has active and aggressive programs to develop and produce chemical weapons. Iran has a stockpile of blister, choking, and blood agents possibly exceeding 2,000 tons. Their program is the largest in the Third World. Syria, which has been increasing production of chemical weapons since the 1980's, is home to several radical terrorist organizations, including Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Many worry that Syria could easily supply these organizations with chemical weapons. North Korea has a stockpile of nerve gas, blood agents, and mustard gas. Additionally, North Korea has the ability to unleash large scale chemical attacks through mortars, artillery, multiple rocket launchers, and Scud missiles. Currently, Libya has one chemical weapons production facility in operation, and a larger plant under construction. Iraq has not only a substantial capability, but has demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons against their own people. It has been observed that under the CWC, members to the convention would face no difficulty looking for prohibited chemicals in free and open countries which will accurately declare the location of chemical facilities. However, this situation will be much different for rogue states that are a party to the convention. As arms control verification experts correctly point out, ``We've never found anything that's been successfully hidden.'' Let me repeat that: ``We've never found anything that's been successfully hidden.'' Will the unintended consequence of the CWC be that villainous states will be more secure, and peaceful states less? Furthermore, have all questions raised in regards to the convention's compatibility with our constitution been sufficiently addressed? The Convention creates an international monitoring regime called the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or OPCW. The OPCW will be granted the most extensive monitoring power of any arms control treaty ever because it extends coverage to governmental and civilian facilities. The authority of this international monitoring regime also raises concern about foreign nationals having such broad authority to obtain access to property held by private U.S. citizens. The U.S. chemical industry is known to be one of the top industries targeted for espionage by foreign companies and governments. There is legitimate worry that international inspections could jeopardize confidential business information, trade secrets, and other proprietary data. Since the United States will be expected to pay 25 percent, or approximately $50 million, of the OPCW's operating costs, American tax dollars could be subsidizing increased risk for U.S. business interests. There is also an implementation cost that will be borne by private industry. The cost for each inspection has been estimated as high as $500,000 for large chemical companies, and a range of $10,000 to $20,000 for small companies. Costs could become even higher if a shutdown is required for an inspection to safeguard proprietary information or company security. Another issue which has not been thoroughly discussed is how the costs incurred with the inspections are to be paid. Estimates of the number of companies to be inspected in America vary from 140 firms to over 10,000 firms. And even though we would pay the lion's share of the international monitoring regime's budget, the United States would have no special status over other signatory nations, no veto power, and no assurance of being a member of the executive council. In conclusion, making the production and possession of chemical weapons illegal according to international law will not make them disappear. Use of such weapons has been prohibited since 1925 yet we have seen the results of their use. We all know about the tens of thousands of deaths from poison gas in World War I, and no one could forget the tragic photographs of the Iranian children killed during the 1980's by the Iraqi government. Illegal? Yes, but still in use, nonetheless. I stand today with all Americans expressing a grave concern over the increasing proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. The real question here seems to be whether ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention will increase our own national security. Unfortunately, the answer is no. There is little value in implementing international laws which do little to decrease illegal research, development, and proliferation of chemical weapons worldwide. I support the goal of making the world safe from the threat of chemical weapons. I applaud the honorable statement the CWC makes against these heinous weapons. However, I believe the best way to protect ourselves from this threat is by rejecting this treaty. The convention does nothing to better our security, but may even open the door to increasing risks against our vital security interests and infringing on the rights of innocent citizens. For these reason, I am compelled to vote against the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for yielding, and I recognize and appreciate the patience of the Senator from Ohio. I will be brief. It is very important that it not be suggested that all who are in favor makes it so lopsided that there is nobody in opposition. May I quote Donald Rumsfeld or James Schlesinger or, most important, Edward O'Malley, who was the Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, chief of counterintelligence under Ronald Reagan. He speaks of many companies' great concerns about both economic and secret espionage and expresses his opposition to it. Here are the names of 25 major CEO's of chemical companies who stand clearly in opposition to this treaty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these ladies and gentlemen and their statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Wall Street Journal that I think speaks very openly to the concerns that many in the chemical industry have as it relates to what they would be required to do, which is open their doors wide and embrace an international inspection team, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my point is simply this. There are reasonable people on both sides of this issue who differ and are very loud about the concerns they have. The chemical industry is not monolithic at all when it comes to support for this. There are a substantial number within it who are extremely concerned that they may expose their companies to tremendous economic risk and to the liability of the loss of their secrets that relate to the formulas for the production of peaceful goods and services to our country. I think it is important that that be said at this time and that the names and quotes of these ladies and gentlemen become a part of the Record. I yield back any time.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield myself 1 minute off the time of Senator Helms.