Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, and also the Senator from Montana, for their comments on this very critical issue. I see two lines of thought when it comes to the White House and the responsibility as it relates to the FBI files and controversy. The first line is that the White House masterminded the request for the FBI files in order to compile a political enemies list and make trouble for their political opponents. That is the first line I think any reasonable person listening might gather. The second line is that Craig Livingstone operated independently, and if the White House is guilty of anything then it is guilty only of incompetence or sheer ignorance. Somehow one of those lines in the hearings that are underway must prevail. Now, if none of those are true, then I would offer a third option, what I call the agricultural approach. Maybe it is from my background, but it goes something like this. In farming country, you should not be too surprised if you are growing wheat and you plant wheat that wheat is what you get. What am I saying here? I am saying that if you plant a political operative as a director of the Office of Personnel Security, and a political operative who boasts about helping in the dirty tricks of the last Clinton campaign, you should not be too surprised if you harvest a crop of dirty tricks and FBI files. In other words, you reap what you sow, and it appears that the White House has sown some pretty bad seed in the Office of Personnel Security. The point is that even if the White House did not plan this operation, it has established the kind of culture that allows and even encourages abuse of power to occur. What do I mean by that? I mean an approach to Government that is fundamentally at odds with the concept of the limited central authority. I mean an elitist view that casually accepts the misuse of power as long as the individuals involved are members of the politically correct circle driven by politically correct goals. I mean an environment where honor and character get lost somewhere in the political spin of the week. It is not just Craig Livingstone or Anthony Marceca. In a previous White House, Republican or Democrat, those two would have been stopped well before any confidential files were ever requested. In fact, someone like Mr. Livingstone, with his background and lack of professional credentials, simply would not have made it to any post in any other White House except this one. Even the President's own party recognized the potential problems that they are now having to live with. Former Senator Dennis DeConcini reviewed White House security operations 2 years previously and recommended a number of changes, including getting a new chief of security who was nonpartisan and professionally qualified. That is a Democrat Senator saying to a Democrat White House: You have a problem down there, and you ought to fix it so you do not have a problem. Of course, he was ignored. But in a culture that rewards political gamesmanship, the most qualified individuals are those with the greatest skills on outwitting the opposition. And in that culture, Craig Livingstone was not just adequate, he was an outstanding candidate for the job. His fellow political operative, Anthony Marceca, was an outstanding candidate for his assistant. In that culture, it was no big deal to abuse the FBI and violate the privacy rights of innocent citizens; just make sure you do it for the right reasons, make sure nobody can prove anything bad came of it. That is the name of the game in this White House, and I think all of this is going to show that is the kind of game Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca were part of. You would think an administration that prides itself on dedication to civil liberties would have shown a lot more concern about the so-called snafu, if it really was any surprise at all. After all, we are not talking about dropping by the local library and looking up some public official in ``Who's Who,'' or asking for an official biography on someone. These are highly confidential FBI files that can contain very embarrassing and even false information. Senators cannot get these files. You and I would need a good, official reason, an authorization, and even then we would have to review the files in a strictly controlled setting in the presence--let me repeat--in the presence of an FBI agent. You and I could not pick up the phone and demand these files but for only official reasons, and then if they were brought to us under those official reasons, that FBI person would remain present so we would never be allowed to copy or take notes from these files. Yet here these files were just dumped at the White House, by all reports, and we have discovered that they were accessible to interns and others without security clearances. Where are the White House civil libertarians, who should be raising the roof about this breach of trust and this abuse of power? The Constitution is not self-enforcing. Our liberties require actual defenders and actual champions. Yet, in the culture of the present administration, this misconduct gets nothing more than labeled as a bureaucratic snafu? How did Mr. Marceca's lawyer put it? He said his client's files ``show a bureaucratic process being carried out by a bureaucrat * * *'' I guess we are supposed to assume that anything a bureaucrat does will be OK because, after all, the Clinton administration's motives, of course, were beyond question, and whatever is done in advance of its goals is, therefore, justifiable. Is that what the American people are being served up at this moment, and is that what they are expected to accept? I do not buy that explanation. I hope no one listening will. Neither does a majority of the American people, I think. If you look at the polls, they are not buying it, thank goodness. Let me repeat that. A majority of the American people do not believe the official White House explanation, and that is despite the fact that the media is doing its best to downplay the entire fiasco. Maybe the American people realize that the bureaucracy is not a thing, it is people, presumably officials, who are accountable to the public for their actions. Maybe they do not agree that supposedly noble motives of the Clinton bureaucracy justify every action. No, I do not think they believe that either. Or maybe this is just an implausible story, and maybe it is just one too many, story after story, spin after spin, that has come out of this White House. Thank goodness the American people are starting to disbelieve. Let us not forget how we learned about these files, though, in the first place. While we are trying to understand the spin of false information, the House committee investigating the improper firing of Billy Dale and other White House travel officials or employees had to threaten jail to the White House counsel in order to shake relevant documents loose. It had already been determined that these people had been fired in a false way. It was in those documents, which they had to threaten the highest level of effort on the part of this Congress to get, that we discovered that Billy Dale's files were requested, and that was only the beginning of an effort that uncovered all of this much larger request. Originally, if you remember, Mr. President, we were told it was only 300 files. Then, lo and behold, 400 files. And, my goodness, now it is 700 files. Originally, we were told an outdated list was at the bottom of the bureaucratic snafu. Then we learned no such list could possibly have been generated at the time through the normal resources. We cannot find out for sure who hired Mr. Livingstone, and no one has yet to explain why this work on confidential files of Republican appointees and former National Security Council staff was given priority well beyond the publicized backlog of an unfinished check on security clearances of hundreds of Clinton appointees. I must tell you, none of it makes sense. None of their stories seem to fit. All of their stories are a bit different. How, then, can Mr. Marceca take the fifth? Why would he take the fifth? Is it his own files he is concerned about? Something is wrong, dramatically wrong. Mr. President, to their credit, members of the President's party have denounced this as a clear abuse of power. ``Whose power, the President's?'' ``Well, of course not. Bill didn't know about it''--excuse me--``the President didn't know anything about this. It was somebody down the line.'' Let me suggest a culture, a style, a way of doing business in this White House that starts at the top. It starts with the President. He was the one who said we will have the most ethical White House and the most ethical administration in the history of our country. Mr. President, you did not keep any of your campaign promises. This is one promise as a President that you have not kept either. This is a White House and an administration that is now ripped and torn with controversy. Now a hit list, a campaign list, to go after Republicans or anyone else who might get in their way. I am sorry, this one does not wash. I think the American people recognize it does not wash, either. I think it is time the White House comes clean. Obviously, I think it is time this administration, and maybe this President, tell us the truth. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last evening I introduced S. 1921, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain facilities at the Minidoka project to the Burley Irrigation District. The introduction of this legislation results from a hearing I held in the Senate Energy Committee on May 23, 1995, on S. 620, a generic bill to transfer reclamation facilities. At that hearing, it became obvious a general transfer bill would not work; each reclamation project has unique qualities, and projects should be addressed individually or in distinct groupings. S. 1291 addresses one specific project in Idaho. The Reclamation Act of 1902 was part of the history of Federal public land laws designed to transfer lands out of Federal ownership and settle this Nation. The origins of that policy predate the Constitution and derive from the early debates that led to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The particular needs and circumstances of the arid and semiarid lands west of the 100th meridian led to various proposals to reclaim the lands, including the Desert Land Act and the Carey Act. In his State of the Union Message of 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt finally called for the Federal Government to intervene to develop the reservoirs and works necessary to accomplish such irrigation. The reclamation program was enormously successful. It grew from the irrigation program contemplated by one President Roosevelt to the massive works constructed four decades later by the second President Roosevelt. For those of us in the Northwest, there is a very personal meaning to a line from Woody Guthrie's song about the Columbia that goes: ``Your power is turning our darkness to dawn, so roll on Columbia, roll on.'' If what is known now had been known then, some projects may have been constructed differently. However, that is not the question we have before us. The central question is whether and to what extent the Federal Government should seek to transfer the title and responsibility for these projects. Has the Federal mission been accomplished? As I noted in my introductory statement to S. 620, the best transfer case would be the single purpose irrigation or municipal and industrial [M&I] system that is fully repaid, operation has long since been transferred, and the water rights are held privately. That is the case with the Burley Irrigation District transfer. The transfer of title is not a new idea. Authority to transfer title to the All American Canal is contained in section 7 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. General authority is contained in the 1955 Distribution Systems Loan Act. Recently, Congress passed legislation dealing with Elephant Butte and Vermejo. The Burley Irrigation District is part of the Minidoka project that was built under the authorization of the 1902 Reclamation Act. By a contract executed in 1926, the district assumed the operation and maintenance of the system. All construction contracts and costs for the canals system, pumping plants, power house, transmission lines, and houses have been paid in full. Contracts for storage space at Minidoka Dam, Jackson Dam, American Falls, and Palisades have been paid in full, along with all maintenance fees. This project is a perfect example of the Federal Government maintaining only a bare title, and that title should now be transferred to the project recipients who have paid for the facilities and rights of the Burley Irrigation District.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the benefit of Members and the public that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing on several measures relating to the Bureau of Reclamation. The measures are: S. 931--To authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes. S. 1564--To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide loan guarantees for water supply, conservation, quality, and transmission projects, and for other purposes. S. 1565--To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 and to supplement the Federal Reclamation Laws by providing for Federal cooperation in non-Federal projects and for participation by non- Federal agencies in Federal projects. S. 1649--to extend contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigation districts in Kansas and Nebraska, and for other purposes. S. 1719--To require the Secretary of the Interior to offer to sell to certain public agencies the indebtedness representing the remaining repayment balance of certain Bureau of Reclamation projects in Texas, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 30, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to testify or submit written statements for the record should contact James Beirne or Betty Nevitt of the subcommittee staff or write the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to table. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey by his amendment is attempting to block or wipe out an action that this Senate took in 1996 in the Defense authorization bill to create the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, and in doing so to privatize the Civilian Marksmanship Program. As a result, the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety was created. This is a private, nonprofit, self- sustaining entity. It will have a board of directors appointed by the Secretary of the Army. The corporation will be allowed to raise money, just like any other not-for-profit association. Of course, the intent of this organization is to instruct marksmanship, conduct national matches and competition, to award trophies, prizes, badges and insignias, and to promote the sale of firearms, ammunition, and equipment. Under this new action, in addition, the corporation would be permitted to sell an existing 373,000 rifles and use money to fund the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Senator from New Jersey has for a good number of years tried to discontinue this program. The Senate clearly recognized the value of it and in so doing recognized that it probably ought not subsidize it anymore and allow it to be privatized so that it could continue in that nature. I hope that the Senate would reject the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey and vote to table this action. We are now in the midst of organizing this Civilian Marksmanship Program as a private nonprofit. I think it ought to be allowed to move forward in that direction.

Mr. CRAIG. With that agreement, I ask that I be allowed to proceed no longer than 2\1/2\ minutes on the issue of the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the amendment that the Senator from New Jersey has brought before us--certainly the Senator from California has just spoken in behalf of--in my opinion rests largely on a matter of opinion and not as much on fact. I say so because, if you really are antigun--and that appears clearly to be the case of the two Senators and the votes that they have cast over the last several years, and certainly the Senator from New Jersey has made no secret about the fact that he has been opposed to the Civilian Marksmanship Program and has for many years tried to terminate it--I would not be surprised that this amendment would come at this time. What happened last year was a recognition of the concern of the Senator from New Jersey. But as important as getting it off from the Government role, if you will, is the recognition as we have gone down through the decades that we really did find it a legitimate and a responsible position for our Government to promote firearm safety and, certainly, legitimate civilian marksmanship. Whereas, the Senator from California stated when this program was originally organized we found our need to defend ourselves as a country but we found a civilian population who did not know how to handle firearms, and the length of time in training them was such that it was inadequate for the need for protection. Since that time we have had a department of civilian marksmanship, a program that has been participated in, yes, by the National Rifle Association, but by a lot of other civilian groups, private groups, who have been interested in responsible firearm handling and safety and accurate marksmanship. As the Senator from Ohio so clearly spoke, this program is privatized. It is being moved out of the area of subsidy. So if you are against a safety program, a responsibly controlled program, and you are just antigun, then my guess is you would want to vote for this amendment. But if you recognize the need for gun safety, for a well-organized program and for our military, the Army in this instance, to be a participant in selecting the board of directors of this civilian, nonprofit group to handle the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the sale of these obsolete firearms, then I would ask you to oppose this amendment; to do responsibly what we did in 1996 in the defense appropriations bill, and that is to move it out of the Government and allow the sale of the M-1 and the ammunition that remains, which is by all definition an obsolete military weapon, to fund the program. Some would argue that is subsidy. I would argue something different than that. I suggest that right now the storage of these obsolete military weapons is costing us well over $2 million a year. We are paying for that on an annualized basis. If we destroy the arms, which the Senator from New Jersey is advocating, we do not know its cost--millions of dollars to go out and destroy not only the firearms but the ammunition. That has a fixed-cost to it. Or we can do as we are suggesting here and legitimately fund this program by the controlled sale of the M-1. And I hope we would choose to do so. Certainly, I think that remains a responsible choice. This new program and the director of civilian marksmanship that would be created by it have this responsibility: the instruction of marksmanship and the conducting of national matches and competition-- and out of those national matches and competition grow our Olympic athletes who compete in this legitimate international sport, the sport of marksmanship shooting, competition shooting--the awarding of the trophies, the prizes, the badges and insignias, the sale of firearms, ammunition and equipment. That becomes the responsibility of this civilian-based, nonprofit corporation, and I think that is what we ought to be doing. That is responsible. I think this is an amendment that ought to be tabled, and I hope that sometime this afternoon we could get to that and my colleagues would join me in such tabling action. As the Senator from Ohio, who outspokenly said he was an advocate of gun control, has said on this floor minutes ago, the M-1 is not a weapon that we find in crime, used on the streets today. It is a collector's item in large part, and it is also used for marksmanship. Many of our veterans of World War II like to collect them as memorabilia. It is a way of raising money from an obsolete item that our Federal Government now has. I certainly hoped that the words of the Senator from New Hampshire, the recognition that we heard the Senator from New Jersey and responded by taking this out of the Government role and making it a private corporation, would have satisfied him. Apparently, by his presence and this amendment in the Chamber this afternoon, that simply is not the case. He wants to terminate this program altogether and then withstand the expense of the destruction of these firearms and the ammunition involved. I hope that is something we would not do. Yes, there is value to the weapon. There is no question about that. The Senator from California cited statistics from gun shops around the country, but only if it is in that shop and only if it is for sale. Right now, stored in a warehouse, it is of no value except it costs the Government annually over $2 million, about $2.5 million to store and to maintain these weapons. So I certainly hope that as, once before, the Senate spoke clearly on the value of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, we would again concur as we did last year. It is time to privatize. That we are doing. We have moved in the process to create the nine-member board of directors, initially, as I said, appointed by the Secretary of the Army. The civilian director, also chosen then by that board, will continue to provide services to affiliated organizations and to follow through with those items with which I mentioned this director is charged. I hope we could conclude this debate and move on with other issues directly affecting certainly the legislation before us, the defense authorization bill. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me close by thanking all of my colleagues for the cooperation and their participation in getting this amendment to the floor. Without the help of Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, this amendment would not be here today. They are the host States, but they have also been extremely diligent in assuring the citizens of their State that once this is in place, it is environmentally sound and certainly protects, in all ways, their citizens. In my State of Idaho, the Governors' agreement is now negotiated and completed by a Federal court order. It could not go forward without this amendment. Now we have this amendment in place, protecting all of the environmental concerns involved, solving many of the environmental problems we have in our State. Let me thank my colleagues for their participation. I ask that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Domenici from New Mexico.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I now yield to Senator Bingaman from New Mexico.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been offered by myself, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Johnston. It deals with a very important part of our nuclear waste management in this country, specifically the waste isolation pilot plant in Carlsbad, NM. In working with all of our colleagues, our effort has been to remove the unnecessary delays and bureaucratic requirements to achieve the major environmental objectives that are so critical to the State of New Mexico, and to save taxpayers' money, while at the same time showing our country that we can move and act responsibly in the area of transuranic waste. The amendment that we have before us, that will become a part of this pending legislation, will amend the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 in several ways. It deletes obsolete language of the 1992 act. Particularly important is the reference and requirements for ``test phase" activities. Since the enactment of the 1992 act, the Department of Energy has abandoned the test phase that called for underground testing in favor of above ground laboratory test programs. This amendment, Mr. President, is agreed to by the Department of Energy and by the Environmental Protection Agency. It allows the kind of phase necessary to test to completion to assure all of our citizens, and especially the citizens of New Mexico, that this is a safe and sound facility. Most important, along with all of this, in streamlining the process, it would remove duplicative regulation and save the taxpayers' dollars. We hope that it will have that effect. Mr. President, my amendment will clear up several unnecessary and delaying bureaucratic requirements that currently exist in the Waste Isolation Pilot Land Withdrawal Act, Public Law 102-579, so the WIPP facility can be opened. It also meets a major environmental objective while saving the taxpayer money. The purpose of the WIPP is to provide for the safe disposal of transuranic [TRU] radioactive and mixed wastes resulting from defense activities and programs of the United States. These materials are currently stored at temporary facilities, and until WIPP is opened, little can be done to clean up and close these temporary storage sites. Idaho currently stores the largest amount of TRU waste of any State in the Union, but Idaho is not alone. Washington, Colorado, South Carolina, and New Mexico also temporarily store TRU waste. The agreement recently negotiated between the State of Idaho, the DOE and the U.S. Navy states that the TRU currently located in Idaho will begin to be shipped to WIPP by April 30, 1999. This legislation will assure this commitment is fulfilled by clearly stating that it is the intent of Congress that the Secretary of Energy will complete all actions needed to commence emplacement of TRU waste at WIPP no later than November 30, 1997. We cannot solve the environmental problems at sites such as the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Rocky Flats Weapons Facility, Savannah River and others without WIPP. The reason is obvious. Without a place to dispose of the waste, cleanup is impossible, and without cleanup, further decommissioning can not occur. The goal of this bill is simple: To deliver on Congress' longstanding commitment to open WIPP by 1998. This bill amends the Waste Isolation Land Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 in several very significant ways. It deletes obsolete language in the 1992 act. Of particular importance is the reference and requirements for test phase activities. Since the enactment of the 1992 act, the Department of Energy [DOE] has abandoned the best phase that called for underground testing in favor of above ground laboratory test programs. Thus the test phase no longer exists as defined in the 1992 law and needs to be removed so it does not complicate the ongoing WIPP process. Most important, this amendment will streamline the process, remove duplicative regulations, save taxpayers dollars--currently the costs to simply watch over WIPP exceed $20 million per month. This bill does not remove EPA as the DOE regulator of the WIPP. DOE has stated numerous times that it does not want to self regulate. The Department believes that having EPA as the regulator will instill additional public confidence in the certification process and the facility itself, once it opens. I am skeptical regarding EPA. EPA has a poor record of meeting deadlines. The WIPP, as a facility, is ready to operate now and is basically waiting on EPA's final approval. The schedule DOE has established to meet the opening dates is an aggressive but not entirely workable timetable. It is aggressive only if EPA can accomplish its tasks on time. Because of EPA's demonstrated inability to meet schedules and to avoid imposing unnecessary large financial burdens on the taxpayer, there is a strong sentiment in the Congress to remove EPA from the WIPP regulatory role. Based on assurance made to me by the EPA, my amendment does not follow this course. However, if EPA again falters, I will have to reconsider this position in future legislation. Idaho and the Nation need to have the WIPP opened sooner rather than later. Each day of delay is costly, nearly $1 million per day in taxpayers dollars, and the potential dangers to the environment and human health resulting from the temporary storage of this waste continue. It is time to act. We must, if we are to clean up sites such as Idaho's. We must act to dispose of this task permanently and safely for future generations. This amendment clears the way for action.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes, this amendment would alter the language of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Arkansas for yielding me this valuable time. Amendment No. 4085 (Purpose: To amend the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act)

Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl amendment and the pending committee amendments be laid aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I urge adoption of my amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will keep my remarks brief because it is my understanding that the amendment I have just sent to the desk has, in fact, been cleared by both sides. Mr. President, as we surf the Net, drive our car to work, or complete a training mission in our F-16 fighter, we do not ask ``How is this possible?'' We simply go about the task at hand. However, there is a common thread that drives technology in our lives, the everpresent semiconductor. Semiconductors are an increasingly pervasive aspect of everyday life, enabling the creation of the information superhighway and the functioning of everything from automobiles to advanced medical equipment. Semiconductors are also the linchpin of our national defense capabilities. For example, the current design of the F-16 fighter includes 17,000 electronics components. Mr. President, that is why I am offering an amendment today, with Senator Bingaman and 11 of our colleagues, that express the sense of the Senate that the United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement should be renegotiated. The United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement is due to expire in July of this year. This trade agreement has a successful track record in opening Japanese markets and discouraging the dumping of semiconductor products by Japanese companies in the United States. Mr. President, the United States and Japan have had a long history of difficulty in this area of trade relations. In 1986, when the first United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement was signed, foreign share in the Japanese semiconductor market averaged only 8.4 percent annually. In the mid-1980's, the International Trade Commission determined that Japanese companies had dumped DRAM's, a commodity memory chip, into the United States market in an attempt to gain market share through predatory pricing. As a result, 9 of 11 American DRAM manufacturers were driven out of the market. The United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement has made significant progress in countering these unfair trade practices. The agreement has opened the Japanese semiconductor market to foreign producers, with foreign market share growing to 25 percent in 1995. The agreement has also discouraged dumping practices by requiring Japanese firms to have appropriate data regarding costs available on a standby basis. This allows the Department of Commerce to conduct a fast track investigation, so that there is a swift imposition of a remedy if dumping is found, or ends the possibility of litigation if there is no evidence of dumping. Mr. President, the agreement has been very effective in easing the problems associated with this area of United States-Japan trade relations. Earlier this week, the United States Trade Representative's office announced that the foreign share of Japan's semiconductor market increased during the first quarter of 1996 to a record high of 30.6 percent. Acting USTR Charlene Barshefsky responded in a written statement, that this improvement ``demonstrates the progress that can be achieved when the United States and Japan work together in a cooperative spirit and is a tribute to strenuous efforts that both sides have made to improve market access and strengthen industry cooperation under the United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement. It is essential that we preserve and continue this effort.'' Mr. President, this, and other recent developments are positive news. However, they provide added incentive to ensure that this important trade agreement be renewed. Given the range of trade issues currently being addressed between the United States and Japan, it would not be in our interest for another area of contention in trade to develop. There is some evidence that the worldwide semiconductor industry may now be entering into a period when supply will exceed demand. Renewal of the United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement has become even more important because of the recent drop in DRAM memory semiconductors. Prices, which have fallen by over 70 percent since the beginning of the year, are now at levels which are below many producers' costs. This kind of dumping has thrown the market into uncertainty and has injured U.S. producers. This type of injury and uncertainty is what the agreement is designed to address, and has done so successfully for years. If current trends continue, the United States-Japan agreement becomes even more vital to our national interest, since the protection it provides is doubly necessary to discourage dumping in a period of oversupply. American semiconductor manufacturers are among the most efficient in the world, but they cannot be expected to compete against unfair trade practices. More important, it is vital to our defense interests, because we cannot afford to lose this important industry as a result of predatory dumping, similar to what existed prior to the agreement. In his speech at the Semiconductor Industry Association's annual awards dinner, Secretary of Defense William Perry noted the importance of this industry in meeting our defense and security needs. In short, the competitiveness and health of the U.S. semiconductor industry is of critical importance to the overall economic well-being and high technology defense capabilities of the United States. the case for renewal of the agreement The purpose of both the 1986 and the 1991 United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreements is to allow foreign manufacturers equitable access to the Japanese semiconductor market, and to discourage Japanese dumping in the United States market. In short, the goal of the agreement is to open the Japanese market to the point where sales generally occur without respect to the nationality of the supplier. U.S. semiconductor manufacturers are extremely competitive in all open markets across a wide range of applications and a wide range of products. However, there remains a sharp disparity, between the market share United States manufacturers account for outside the United States and Japan, and the share they account for inside Japan. In the world market, excluding the United States and Japan, American manufacturers accounted for 40 percent of all semiconductor sales in 1995. United States semiconductor makers accounted for only 18 percent of sales in the Japanese market that same year. The significant disparity between United States sales outside Japan and sales inside Japan indicates that sales in that country are not always made solely on the basis of market forces such as technology, price, quality, service, and delivery. It is important to note that the disparity is not explained by the argument that the United States industry does better in the United States and the Japanese industry does better in Japan. A comparison of the 40-percent share United States firms earn in world markets outside both the United States and Japan with the 18- percent share United States firms have in Japan demonstrates that a significant gap remains. But there is only a small difference between the 23-percent share Japanese firms have in the United States market and the 27-percent share they have in world markets outside both the United States and Japan. key points for a renewed agreement Mr. President, as I already mentioned, the current semiconductor agreement expires July 31, 1996. It is essential that a new government- to-government agreement be negotiated with Japan before that time. The Japanese electronic industry has proposed an industry-to-industry agreement with no government involvement as a replacement for the current agreement. An industry-level agreement is completely unacceptable. It would not ensure continued progress in increasing foreign market access in Japan, nor would it provide the necessary guarantee against Japanese dumping in our market. Important features of a new government-to-government semiconductor agreement are: It should provide for joint United States-Japanese Government calculation and publication of foreign market share in Japan; And, it should provide for regular government-to-government consultations to assess progress in increasing foreign market access. These provisions regarding the governments' oversight roles are critical to ensuring continued progress. Market access in Japan is critical for the continued growth and strength of the United States semiconductor industry. In 1995, the Japanese semiconductor market was $39.6 billion. It is expected to grow to $57.1 billion by 1999. Every percentage point increase in United States market access in Japan is therefore worth hundreds of millions of dollars in increased United States exports, thousands of additional jobs in the United States, and a stronger domestic industry to meet our growing national security and defense needs. status of negotiations Mr. President, bilateral talks are expected to begin this week. There is reason to be cautiously optimistic about this development; however, it is imperative that the Japanese Government be prepared to discuss in good faith the role that government must continue to play in deregulating the Japanese semiconductor market and continuing the process of opening that market. Mr. President, the deadline for the expiration of the United States- Japanese Semiconductor Agreement is fast approaching. No new progress toward renegotiation of this important trade agreement has been made. Meetings have now occurred, which is certainly a step in the right direction. However, Japanese and American officials just ended 12 days of unofficial semiconductor trade talks yesterday in Tokyo that yielded little progress. The next step will be a sub-Cabinet-level meeting held here in Washington tomorrow and Friday between MITI Vice Minister of International Affairs Yashihiro Sakamoto and Ira Shapiro, Ambassador in Charge of Japan and Canada at the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Mr. President, these current events emphasize the importance of the message being sent today by the Senate, and that is that the United States-Japanese Semiconductor Agreement should be--and, most importantly, must be--renegotiated. Given the range of trade issues currently being addressed between our two nations, it would not be in either of our interests for another area of contention in trade to develop. Therefore, it is essential that a new government-to-government agreement be negotiated with Japan before the current agreement expires on July 31. Mr. President, I have no further comments on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there are a few issues which I think must be considered during what I expect will be complicated and controversial deliberations on the 1997 Defense authorization bill. First and foremost, this bill defines national security--the Government's primary obligation to its citizens. The United States military is the greatest military power in the world. In a time of rapidly evolving technology, sufficient yet judicious funding authority is absolutely essential to maintain the status quo. The committee budget is $12.9 billion higher than fiscal year 1996 levels. However, adjusting this figure for inflation, the Department of Defense will actually see spending levels reduced by $5.5 billion from last year. The administration in 1994 and 1995 promised outyear funding would increase to recover the shortfalls driven by deep cuts in earlier budgets. Yet, for the second straight year, the Presidential budget is less than projected in previous years. I am confident that DOD will meet its assigned mission, but I am concerned at what cost. If we are to continue sending our soldiers into harm's way, this Nation has a responsibility to provide them with the highest level of technology. I often overhear comments that since the fall of the Iron Curtain, America has no significant enemy. However, since 1989, America has deployed more forces than at any time since 1964. Yes, the Soviet Union is no more, but renegade factions continue to threaten our Nation's security and vital economic interests. While we are the only remaining super power, our armed forces shouldn't be used in the role of the world's police force. In the past 7 years, American forces have deployed to Panama, Grenada, and Saudi Arabia to protect our National interests. Additionally, peacekeeping operations have sent our troops to Haiti, Somalia, and most recently Bosnia. This Nation has a responsibility to scrutinize each mission carefully and send American Forces only when absolutely necessary. The threat is still there, but its face has changed. America will continue to send her young soldiers and sailors to foreign shores to protect our peace, but we must be judicious in those assignments. As we examine the 1997 authorization, we must consider that the Defense budget has decreased to the lowest spending levels in 40 years. As we debate these issues, we must strive to produce a budget which defines national security and guarantees the Department of Defense has the necessary funding to complete all assigned, carefully chosen missions, obtain all training vital to success, and secure the best technology available. When this is finished, our military forces will continue to be the most influential military in the world and this Nation's security unquestioned.

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, July 11, 1996, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1738, a bill to provide for improved access to and use of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and for other purposes. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Judy Brown or Mark Rey.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I will not keep us long in the closing hours of the U.S. Senate in what will certainly be recognized and reported as a historic day. Madam President, this evening I want to add to my earlier remarks two thoughts that I think are appropriate as many of our colleagues have come to the floor today to express their sadness, their reminiscent thoughts, and in some instances our joy that Bob Dole is now free to lead our party, my party, the Republican Party, in his quest for the Presidency. Over the last 2 years I have had the privilege of developing a unique relationship with leader Bob Dole. I chair the steering committee here in the Senate, better known as the conservatives, or a group of conservatives, and there have been many occasions when I have been instructed by that group to go sit down with our leader and express our concern over a given issue. It has been over the course of that time that I have gotten to know Bob Dole for the person that so many have spoken to today: a man whose leadership, and his concern about our country and this institution, the Senate, was always foremost. He did so in style and dignity. Bob Dole is one of those people who could tell you no with as much sincerity as he could tell you yes; that he would take your issue and carry it forward, or that he did not believe what you were discussing with him was appropriate at the time and that sometime in the future it might fit. That was the kind of person who I have grown to know and respect in my first term here in the U.S. Senate. Another issue that Bob Dole has been more than fair to this Senator on is the issue of my leadership on the balanced budget amendment. I had started that effort in the House in the 1980's, but it was some years after Bob Dole had already presented the idea here in the U.S. Senate. I, along with the Presiding Officer at this moment, had felt the importance of this issue and had worked hard to make it a national issue. When I arrived here in the Senate in 1990 as the citizens of Idaho chose me as one of their U.S. Senators, Bob Dole was very quick to say, ``Larry, that is your issue, and we want you to lead.'' As our committee meetings went forward, or as there were press conferences, or as there were other gatherings in behalf of a balanced budget amendment, Bob Dole attended them religiously. But with his seniority and with his prestige, he was always willing to step back and say to people like myself, or Orrin Hatch, or others, or Paul Simon, ``This is your issue. You lead with it. You carry it.'' When we convened the historic 104th session, as Bob Dole become the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, he was very quick to say to me and others, ``This is an issue that will be one of our lead issues this year, and I want you, Larry Craig, or Orrin Hatch, or Paul Simon, to lead me.'' What I am saying is that in all of the opportunities that Bob Dole had to be in the forefront, there were many occasions when he was very willing to step back and let others lead, and I think that is the sign of a leader. I think that is the expression of the confidence that he had in himself, but at the same time the willingness to share that with all of us as he saw the importance of broadening our base and carrying these issues forward. I, along with every Senator in this body, will miss Bob Dole as our majority leader. But I say that I am excited about the future. And I am excited about the opportunity someday, as I believe I will have that opportunity, to say to Bob Dole, ``Mr. President, it is my pleasure to serve you.'' With those thoughts, I yield back my time with the understanding that the Senate will stand in adjournment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to honor and remember our distinguished majority leader, our colleague, and our friend, Bob Dole, as he prepares to leave the Senate. When you work with or around Bob Dole, you soon realize: He has consistent values and an unwavering commitment to them. He's been in there fighting for a balanced budget--not because of some green eyeshade interest in the numbers, but because he knows its a moral issue. He's been fighting for years, consistently, for a balanced budget constitutional amendment because he understands this is a principle of fundamental fairness, and he understands how the Constitution really works, protecting the basic rights of the people by preventing the Government from abusing its powers. I've worked with Bob Dole on other constitutional issues, from protection of second amendment rights to private property rights. When Congress passes the 28th amendment--the balanced budget amendment--some time in the near future, even though he will have left the Senate, it will be, in part, a monument to Senator Dole's years of hard work. I remember many events, many battles, high points and defeats, as Bob Dole and I have worked together for the balanced budget amendment. When I was in the House, in the early 1980s, Charlie Stenholm, a Democrat from Texas, and I started CLUBB--Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget. Pete Wilson was our Senate Co-Chair and Bob Dole was a charter member. When we met with taxpayer groups, and stood on the steps of the Capitol with mail bags full of hundreds of thousands of letters and petitions from Americans everywhere--Bob Dole was always there with us, promoting the balanced budget amendment. CLUBB worked with taxpayer groups to schedule Members of Congress around the country to meet with local leaders, State legislatures, and others on behalf of the balanced budget amendment. I remember back to 1985-86 and how it impressed me that, here was the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, a man busy with every issue before Congress--and he took the time and effort to travel whenever he could, wherever he could, to bring the balanced budget crusade to Americans everywhere. And last year, after our constitutional amendment fell one vote short, and then again this year, he showed that the Senate could break with history and make history, could muster enough courage, under his leadership, to actually produce a balanced budget. Citizen, Senator, Majority Leader Bob Dole has worked, fought, and spoken to the Nation for the balanced budget amendment because he cares about the future of our Nation; because he cares about our children, and what kind of opportunity we leave for them; because he cares about having a country that provides for the security of our seniors and the best possible jobs for our working men and women. Many, many aspects of Bob Dole's life have demonstrated how much he cares about people, especially the helpless, and about our country. Much has been said about his record as a war hero and his war injuries. And, of course, much has been said about his public service. Unlike many in politics, he has not just sympathized with people's pain, he has been there. Doctors first said he would not live because of his war injuries. Then they said he would never walk again. But he did much more than walk--he soared on the wings of self- sacrifice and service to others. Because of the values he learned growing up in Russell, KS, because of the lessons of life, he understands people and cares about people. This understanding has shown through in his leadership here in the Senate, where he has been perceptive about the strengths of his colleagues and what things are important to them. It has particularly struck me how he, as leader, has always looked to match those strengths and interests with the tasks at hand to give his colleagues leadership opportunities, and to accomplish something good for the Nation. The Senate will miss his leadership, his dedication, his integrity, and how he cares about people. And in the coming months the Nation will learn much more about those qualities, and will call upon him for one more heroic mission.