Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Missouri, John Ashcroft, in the introduction of this legislation, and I thank him for the thoughtfulness and, most important, the foresightedness that I think this legislation represents. The Senator spoke well when he said Americans will not for long tolerate double taxation, and it is unique in the area of Social Security taxes that we allow corporate America, in their partnering in this tax, to deduct it, but we do not allow the individual who must pay that tax do so. So, as a result of the first $62,700 of income, the individual is, in essence, double taxed. My colleague from Missouri today has introduced legislation in essence saying that the time of that fallacy is over and that, if we really want to restore the wage-earning capability of the American worker, we should let them keep the money they have earned, and we do so with this legislation today. For a typical two-income family--and most families are becoming that now--the Federal income tax liability would be dropped by more than $1,000. Here we are at this moment on the floor of the Senate trying to resolve the issue of a Federal gas tax that pulls billions of dollars out of the pocketbook of the American taxpayer. We have seen a frustration expressed by working men and women in this country for the last several years that they just do not get ahead. They keep getting a salary increase, but nothing comes home, which does not translate into money in the back pocket or money to buy the new car or money to help finance their children's education or money to improve their lifestyle in some form. In fact, out of all that frustration, and while our President talks about a strong economy, it is an economy that is just millions of jobs less strong than it ought to be for the very reason that the Senator from Missouri has so articulately spoken: the dragdown, if you will, of the ability of the American producers, working men and women, to retain that which they work so hard for and, therefore, to collect it, to put it in savings, if they will, to spend it for their own purposes, to provide for their children. In other words, the American dream does not quite seem to be as clear as it used to be. I suggest, Mr. President, that one of the reasons is this kind of Government intrusion, if you will, double taxation. The legislation, the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act, introduced today by my colleague, John Ashcroft, that I have cosponsored along with others, in my opinion, begins to, once again, brighten the American dream. It is part of what we are here on the floor debating today. Some of our colleagues argue that the way you solve the human crisis in this country, no matter how that crisis is defined, is to bring about a Government program. I suggest that most Americans in our country today can solve their own crises if they simply have the tools of solution. One of the great tools of solution for problem solving is the ability to retain your own earnings so you can spend it for yourself and your family to improve your lot in society or to correct a problem that has somehow gone wrong. This legislation offers that opportunity, and I hope that it gets heard, gets debated. I relish an opportunity for the Senate to debate it and vote upon it. Mr. President, as we will in the next little while decide whether this Senate is going to vote on a gas tax repeal or whether we are going to find some loophole, as the other side now struggles to do to argue that this is no good, is going to be a unique challenge for all of us. Like you, I did not vote for this gas tax increase. I am a Westerner, and I recognize the kind of burden you place on somebody who must commute the long miles in the West, or the farmer or rancher who uses fuel as a tremendous tool of their production, and we lessen their ability to profit when we increase the cost of their tools, their tools of incomemaking, if you will. That is part of what this debate is all about. But the idea that we would use a gas tax, which we have traditionally directed toward roads and bridges and improving the transportation of our country and, therefore, improving the ability of this economy to expand that my colleague from Missouri talks about--the business of growth in the economy should be the business of Government not getting in the way but staying out of the way and promoting that growth. The gas tax has been one that always has. It has promoted growth in the economy by the building of roads and bridges and allowing the kind of flow of labor that has been the hallmark of our society. But this President, President Clinton, said, ``I need that money to pay for social programs,'' even when in 1992, Candidate Clinton said, ``I won't increase the gas tax. It's the wrong kind of thing to do. It does not allow the economy to grow and expand.'' But of course, promises made, promises broken, tax increase, billions of dollars now pouring out of the economy of our country and into the hands of Government to be spent in social programs. Is it a big part of the gas increase, the fuel costs that consumers are about today? No, it is not, but it is an important issue to be debated and voted upon to return not only the gas tax to its traditional use but to reduce the overall ability of Government to spend and to expand programs. You are going to hear more talk today, as you have had for the last several days, that somehow this does damage to Government. I suggest you just cut the spending of Government in direct relation to the amount of revenue that will remain not as a tax but as an income to the consumer in the consumer's pocket. Right now, every time that consumer pulls up to a gas pump, sticks the nozzle in the tank of their car, they see a tremendous outpouring from the pocketbook. So, if we were to pass legislation of the kind just introduced by my colleague from Missouri, if we were to repeal the gas tax and allow that to remain in the pocket of the consumer, we would see the kind of growth and job creation in our economy that we have not seen, that cannot be talked about by this administration because of the taxes that have been pushed through stifling the overall ability of that economy to grow. Growth, progrowth, work incentives, 500,000 new jobs possibly created by the legislation of the Senator from Missouri, that two-income family being able to retain more of their income, $1,000-plus a year--that is the type of thing this Congress ought to be talking about and doing something about instead of talking about, ``Oh, my goodness, this takes away from our ability to spend. We might have to reduce this program or that program.'' Mr. President, we just left tax freedom day. We just said to the American taxpayer, ``Today is the day when you've paid your taxes, and you can start earning for yourself.'' Last week I stood on the floor of the Senate and said that the first 3 hours of every working day the taxpayer, or the worker, spent their time working for Government, both at the State and Federal level. Somehow that must change if we are to get the kind of productivity in our economy, job creation and self-well-being to once again brighten the American dream instead of progressively dimming it, as Government can so successfully do if it constantly takes away from the individuals their ability to earn, save, invest, retain, provide for themselves and their families. So I thank my colleague from Missouri for his insightfulness and innovativeness in proposing this legislation. I hope that in the coming year this becomes a major part of what this Congress is about and what this Senate is about in providing for the American people.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, while our leaders are deciding the outcome of the evening and, more important, the outcome of a most important vote on the repeal of the gas tax, I guess I am surprised that the minority would not allow us to go forward to consider H.R. 2137. We talk about the lack of security within the American family today, be it income security or job security. I know one thing that the American family is extremely concerned about, and that is the security and well-being of their own children. The House overwhelmingly has just voted on a law that will deal with the issue of sexual predators, Megan's law. I am amazed that we could not move swiftly, as the House has moved, to deal with this issue. I hope that we can deal with it. I hope that the minority will not block us from dealing with it in the future. Clearly, it is something that has to be dealt with. The American people need to know that when these kinds of problems arise, and there are glitches within the legal system that allow young people like Megan to be destroyed, their lives to be taken by people who clearly never should have been let out of incarceration, that this Congress will deal with it. Mr. President, on Monday of this week, I was reading in USA Today an article by Tony Snowe, where he was talking about the concern and uneasiness of the American family, whether it is the issue of sexual predators, or the loss of a job, or working a multiple of jobs to get ahead, or whether it is the fact that in his article the American family was experiencing income stagnation. I thought it was interesting when he pointed out that prior to President Clinton being elected, the average family was looking at about 31.3 percent of the gross national product of this country being taken away in taxes. Now, that is up 1\1/2\ to 2 percent in this administration. And one of the greatest bites out of that, which dragged down the ability of the family to use their income or to use their salary increases, was the gas tax increase. In my State of Idaho, with 1.3 million people, it is a big bite. This gas tax hike that, for the first time in our Nation's history, goes to welfare programs instead of roads, bridges and transportation systems, costs $32.1 million. And, boy, anybody who serves large rural States like mine knows that it strikes right at the heart of the productive sector of my State, whether it is the farmer, rancher, or the people who commute long distances, as nearly everybody in my State does, to the supermarket, to the business center, to visit, and to work. Those who are the working people of our society are the ones that are now paying even more. I am amazed that our administration keeps talking about sticking it to the rich, soaking it to the rich. I am amazed they do not say, ``And we soaked it to the worker, to the wage earner because we are sucking away from them at the gas pump an ever increasing amount of their income.'' I also find it uniquely ironic that while taxes have ticked up aggressively in this administration from 30 percent of GDP to 31.3, that candidate Clinton in 1992 said he opposed increasing a gas tax, that he opposed increasing those kinds of taxes, he said they were regressive and unfair to working families, I am amazed that he somehow through what he may think is slight of hand or subterfuge created an omnibus tax bill and then, of course, says the way you pay them back is to force everybody to pay higher wages. In my State of Idaho, that does not work because most of the people did not get higher wages, and a minimum wage increase would affect few of these kinds of people who are our farmers and ranchers and small business people and commuters who travel hundreds of miles daily, not 20 or 30, not down the street in the commuter bus, not on the Metrorail, but 50 miles one way to work and 50 miles home at night. And when it starts costing $20 or more, or $25 to fill the gas tank a couple of times a week, that is one very large bite out of the pocketbook of the American family. I am amazed that this administration would even begin to drag its feet on that kind of reality. And while this Congress should be holding oversight hearings on the ramp up in gas prices, we ought to be responding immediately in the areas that we can respond in, and that is in the area of bringing this tax down and doing it in a way that makes sense. I respect highly the move that our majority leader has made. That is the kind of responsiveness and leadership that we ought to be hearing from this Congress, and now we are locked up again, blocked, if you will, by the minority because they want it their way when the American people are saying: Wait a moment. Your way was to increase our taxes. Your way was not to give us economic opportunity. Your way was to create through the 1993 tax act and the budget an economy that did not produce like it should, that could have produced billions of dollars more, that lost 1.2 million jobs it otherwise would have created if the tax act pushed by, endorsed by, recommended by President Clinton had not gone through. Now, that is from 1993 to 1996 that I use that figure. Those are real figures just being brought out by the Heritage Foundation. Absent the tax increase in 1993, this economy would have created 1.2 million more jobs. Last month, we did not create a job. Something is wrong in an economy, a growth economy like ours when our President says that the economy is good and we create no jobs, zero jobs. I am sorry; I do not figure it the way you figure it, Mr. President. I look at these kinds of figures and while they may be statistics, in my State of Idaho they are real jobs; they are food on the family table; they are a little more gas in the gas tank; they are a few more dollars in savings; it is the new house purchased or the clothes bought for the kids. That is what job creation and economic vitality is all about. When I mentioned 1.2 million jobs lost, not created by the tax increase, when we carry that through next year, that will be an estimated 1.4 million jobs. That is 40,400 new business starts that did not start, that did not happen. Those are real figures in this country. Why? Because the risk of taking that opportunity just was not there, the money was not available because it was drained into the public sector to go out in ways that some of us would question whether it was productive or not. That is a loss of $138 billion in personal savings or maybe 1.3 million new cars and light truck sales. If you sell the cars, you have to produce the cars. That is what the economy now tells us could have happened had we had not taxed it at the rate that Bill Clinton and the Democrats taxed it in the 1993 tax act. That is $42.5 billion in durable goods orders that were not ordered. The list goes on and on. We have always known that the way you get out of the financial troubles our Government is in is to expand the economic pie, create new jobs and from that take a reasonable tax to pay for the largesse of Government while at the same time trying to reduce the growth rate, trying to control it. You do not continue to tax or you get the kind of uneasiness that I think is now being experienced by the American people when they say: Well, yes, I still have my job but the reality is I did not get a pay increase. More importantly, I still have my job but I am paying higher taxes with no pay increase. So what I have is less buying power, less ability to provide for my children, and in this instance for working women in our society they took the greater hit once again in a slow, flat economy of the kind that was produced by this tax increase. So let us move on. Let us repeal the gas tax. Let us return billions of dollars to the American consumers, to the American entrepreneur, to the American small business person, to the job creators and to the workers of our society. That is where productivity comes from. That is what will grow us out of our problems. I urge this Senate, most importantly I urge my colleagues on the other side to work with us to solve this problem, not to block us, not to force us into stagnation and not to say to the American people once again we hear you but we just do not feel your pain. I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. President. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will not take that much time this morning. I have a few moments before I have to be to another commitment. Let me thank my colleague from Texas for her statement and for taking out this special order. Let me read two quotes that I think speak volumes about what our President has caught himself in--that is, doublespeak. Mr. President, today you are not telling the American people the truth. For the last several months, you have been caught in a very difficult and very deceptive game of doublespeak. Your representative, Richard Holbrooke, who immediate repudiated the Dayton peace accord was quoted on May 3 in a Reuters article saying: I will state flatly for the record that this policy was correct-- He is referring to allowing the Iranians to move arms into the former Yugoslavia. and that if it hadn't taken place, the Bosnian Muslims would not have survived and we would not have gotten to Dayton. That is an absolute opposite from what our President has been telling us. Mr. President, that is double speak. The next quote from Richard Holbrooke: We knew that the Iranians would try to use the aid to buy political influence. It was a calculated policy based on the feeling that you had to choose between a lot of bad choices, and the choice that was chosen kept the Sarajevo government alive. But it left a problem--were the Iranians excessively influential on the ground? Mr. President, President Clinton once again was caught in double speak. This Congress gave our President an option, a viable, responsible, well-thought-out option, to allow the arms embargo to be lifted so that parity could be built on both sides. He chose not to do that. He chose to openly and publicly deceive the American people. Mr. President, part of the debate on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia has been over the arms embargo, first imposed against the Yugoslavian Government in 1991. I was part of the majority in Congress that supported lifting the arms embargo and felt it was a preferable alternative to the deployment of our troops to Bosnia. Along those same lines, I voted against the President's proposed deployment last year, and voted against funding for that deployment. Mr. President, some very disconcerting information has been coming to light during the last few months. The importance of these developments has led to the establishment of a select committee in the House or Representatives. Therefore, I would like to take a moment this morning to express some of my concerns and frustrations about the situation in Bosnia. As I mentioned, a main part of the debate on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia has involved the arms embargo, first imposed against the Yugoslavian Government in 1991. Information continues to surface, showing that while the Congress was openly debating the lifting of the arms embargo, the administration was giving a green light to Iran, allowing them to circumvent the arms embargo. Richard Holbrooke, the administration's representative who helped to mediate the Dayton Peace Accord, was quoted in a May 3, 1996, Reuters article saying: I will state flatly for the record that this policy was correct and that if it hadn't taken place, the Bosnian Muslims would not have survived and we would not have gotten to Dayton. Mr. President, I would agree with the comment made by Mr. Holbrooke. Allowing Iran to circumvent the arms embargo was not this administration's only choice--it was certainly not a correct choice. The Congress, just last year, provided President Clinton a viable alternative by the passage of S. 21, legislation that would have unilaterally lifted the U.N. arms embargo illegally enforced against Bosnia. There was ample reason to question the enforcement of the 1991 embargo against Bosnia. The original embargo was not imposed on Bosnia, because it did not exist in 1991. Rather, it was imposed on Yugoslavia. In addition, enforcement of this embargo could arguably violate Bosnia's right to self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. charter. The legal, unilateral lifting of the arms embargo that was called for in S. 21, would have allowed rough parity to exist in this conflict. The President chose to veto S. 21, citing concerns that it would be breaking from an agreement with our allies, and diminish our credibility with Europe. Mr. President, the only credibility that has been diminished here has been through the administration's efforts to allow one of the strongest supporters of terrorism around the world, Iran, to violate the arms embargo and gain a foothold in Europe. In addition, Iran only provided light weaponry to the Bosnian's, which was fine for providing a little protection. However, it was not enough to provide the needed shift in the strategic military balance, altering Serbia's enormous advantage in the conflict. Therefore, even after this evasion of the arms embargo had begun, thousands of Bosnians were still being killed, and the Serbian forces continued to capture more territory. Mr. President, as we continue to see this situation unravel, we now face an extended deployment of our troops. After repeated assertions by administration officials that our troops' deployment in the IFOR mission would be for only 1 year, we now are informed that time will be extended. On May 1, the Clinton administration endorsed a recent NATO recommendation that IFOR remain at full strength to maintain peace until after the Bosnian elections. Mr. President, these elections will not occur until September at the earliest. It is, therefore, likely that our troops will not be withdrawn until January 1997. Mr. President, Richard Holbrooke made another assertion about the administration's decision in the May 3 reuters article, with respect to the risks of dealing with Iran. We knew that the Iranians would try to use the aid to buy political influence. It was a calculated policy based on the feeling that you had to choose between a lot of bad choices, and the choice that was chosen kept the Sarajevo Government alive. But, it left a problem--were the Iranians excessively influential on the ground? The article continues with Mr. Holbrooke claiming that this problem was adequately dealt with through the negotiations of the Dayton accord, by including in the agreement that all foreign forces would have to leave the country. This is precisely one of the problems that our troops have had to face: the removal of foreign forces including Iranian forces. In addition, it is my understanding that this arms transfer operation was allowed to continue until January of this year--after our troops were beginning to be deployed as peacekeepers in Bosnia. In closing, the Iranian presence that the Clinton administration helped to promote is now actively threatening the Dayton accord, the American and NATO peacekeepers seeking to enforce it, and the military viability and democratic character of Bosnia itself. Mr. President, this situation needs to be addressed, and our troops need to be brought home. I thank my colleague from Texas for taking out this special order. I hope the select committee in the House will thoroughly investigate what this President is failing to do in foreign policy. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my purpose here today is to introduce on behalf of myself and my cosponsors Senators Bryan and Bennett, a bill to reauthorize the highly successful National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. The act established a cooperative geologic mapping program among the U.S. Geological Survey, State geological surveys, and geological programs at institutions of higher education in the United States. The goal of this program is to accelerate and improve the efficiency of detailed geologic mapping of critical areas in the Nation by coordinating and using the combined talents of the three participating groups. Detailed geologic mapping is an indispensable source of information for a broad range of societal activities and benefits, including the delineation and protection of sources of safe drinking water; assessments of coal, petroleum, natural gas, construction materials, metals, and other natural resources; understanding the physical and biological interactions that define ecosystems, and that control, and are a measure of, environmental health; identification and mitigation of natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, subsidence, and other ground failures; and many other resource and land-use planning requirements. Only about 20 percent of the Nation is mapped at a scale adequate to meet these critical needs. Additional high-priority areas for detailed geologic mapping have been identified at State level by State-map advisory committees, and include Federal, State, and local needs and priorities. Funding for the program is incorporated in the budget of the U.S. Geological Survey. State geological surveys and university participants receive funding from the program through a competitive proposal process that requires 1:1 matching funds from the applicant. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me to ensure the continued efficient collection and availability of this fundamental Earth-science information.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my purpose here today is to introduce on behalf of myself and my cosponsors Senators Bryan and Bennett, a bill to reauthorize the highly successful National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. The act established a cooperative geologic mapping program among the U.S. Geological Survey, State geological surveys, and geological programs at institutions of higher education in the United States. The goal of this program is to accelerate and improve the efficiency of detailed geologic mapping of critical areas in the Nation by coordinating and using the combined talents of the three participating groups. Detailed geologic mapping is an indispensable source of information for a broad range of societal activities and benefits, including the delineation and protection of sources of safe drinking water; assessments of coal, petroleum, natural gas, construction materials, metals, and other natural resources; understanding the physical and biological interactions that define ecosystems, and that control, and are a measure of, environmental health; identification and mitigation of natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, subsidence, and other ground failures; and many other resource and land-use planning requirements. Only about 20 percent of the Nation is mapped at a scale adequate to meet these critical needs. Additional high-priority areas for detailed geologic mapping have been identified at State level by State-map advisory committees, and include Federal, State, and local needs and priorities. Funding for the program is incorporated in the budget of the U.S. Geological Survey. State geological surveys and university participants receive funding from the program through a competitive proposal process that requires 1:1 matching funds from the applicant. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me to ensure the continued efficient collection and availability of this fundamental Earth-science information.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire, what business is the Senate in at this moment?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, then I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to continue as in morning business.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, May 3, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent for the full committee to conduct a hearing on Friday, May 3, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m. in room SD-215.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for all the right reasons our Nation has been a generator of radioactive material for nearly five decades. Most of this material is a byproduct of two principal activities: national defense activities and commercial nuclear powerplants, which generate more than 20 percent of America's electricity. These two major activities have worked to benefit all Americans. Therefore, I believe managing these radioactive wastes is a national concern and responsibility. We cannot and must not walk away from this responsibility. To not address this responsibility would be unwise, irresponsible, and unsafe. With specific regard to electrical generation, every American benefits from the richness and diversity of our country's natural resources and their use. Through interconnecting transmission lines that traverse the land, we have one of the world's most reliable and powerful electricity supplies that drives our economy. Nuclear powerplants are at work in more than 30 States in every region of the country. Supplying more than 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, nuclear energy is part of the foundation for our Nation's high standard of living and economic growth. For this reason, there is broad consensus and support for ensuring that the Federal Government meet its responsibility to provide a central storage facility for used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive material from the defense program. Senate bill 1271 allows and directs our Federal Government to meet that responsibility. As I know many of my colleagues have discovered in meetings, phone calls, and in their mailrooms, support for S. 1271 is coming from all quarters, including State and local government officials, public utility commissioners, newspaper editorial boards, labor unions, chambers of commerce, national trade associations, and electric utilities, just to name a few groups. I am very pleased to have the bipartisan support of 28 cosponsors for my legislation. Lawsuits have been filed by 18 States against the Federal Government over inaction of the Government to follow their statutory direction to manage radioactive material. This clearly demonstrates the importance and urgency of fulfilling the Federal Government's obligation to accept spent fuel. That obligation has been directed in law since the 1982 Nuclear Waste Act, and it is reaffirmed by my legislation. Since the late 1950's, scientists have been studying, testing, and successfully employing storage technologies. And since the early 1970's, the Nevada test site was singled out as one of the nine leading sites to consider for a radioactive waste repository. Hasty decisions are not being made here. S. 1271 is directing action be taken as a result of the science and technology and testing. Electric customers have committed nearly $12 billion solely to study, test, and build a radioactive waste management system. Already more than $4.6 billion has been spent, much of it to assure public safety. Now is the time to act on the Nevada site. Broad-based national support for the nuclear material waste management program and S. 1271 is based on the fact that this issue is clearly a national concern requiring a national solution. Furthermore, support is buttressed by the positive work that is ongoing at the Nevada test site, which is an isolated, unpopulated, dry desert location that has a long history of uses for some of the most extreme research known to man. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join with the many State and local officials, labor leaders, business leaders, and scientists throughout the country in support of S. 1271. Allow our citizens the comfort of knowing our Government has acted responsible to assure safe, environmentally sound long-term storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive material. Mr. President, with that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding and in assuming the Chair so I could speak for a few moments on this very important issue. I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee for relating, I think, the kind of concerns that all of us have today about the future of our young people and the kind of environment in which they live and survive in. I use the word ``survive'' because I think when the Presiding Officer and I were growing up, the kinds of stresses in the communities, the kind of peer pressure we had, was so significantly different than it is today. There is no doubt that access to drugs, the availability of drugs, the kind of statistics that we have heard quoted here in the last little while prey heavily upon young people and provide them not only with unique opportunities, but with tremendous courses toward disaster if they choose to make themselves available to these drugs. I must say that when I look at the statistics today, when I see there was an effort begun in this country in 1979 and early 1980 and throughout the 1980's by Members of the Senate and Members of the House, the administrations of that time, to focus Federal law enforcement and dollars to the interdiction of drugs coming into our communities and into our economy, and in doing so, we found out that it was working. We found out that illicit drugs plummeted in their usage from 24 million in 1979 to about 11.4 million by 1992. The so-called casual use of cocaine fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 1990, while monthly cocaine use fell 55 percent between 1988 and 1992. It was not by accident, Mr. President, that that was happening. It was happening because this country, its Government and its law enforcement community, was focused. We recognized the crisis in urban America and the crisis on the streets that was dragging our young people into it. It was a drug crisis. That is why Americans told us, ``Something has to be done. We are concerned about the future of our country and the future of our young people.'' As recently as December of this past year, in a Gallup poll, an issue that had begun to slide on the polling of Americans as to a No. 1 issue was up again, to show that 94 percent of Americans viewed illegal drug use, again, as a crisis and a very serious problem for our society, and that something must be done about it. That is what was going on out there. Of course, you have heard speakers here on the floor today speak of the President's initiatives announced today in a backdrop of something or nothing having been done for the first 3 years of his administration--or, I should say, a great deal being done, but none of it right: a near collapse of the drug program in this Government, the laying off of employees and personnel in the area of drug enforcement, and the focus of this administration largely disappearing from a high priority to a very low priority, showing very clearly that when you focus and when you direct resources on a problem of this nature, you can have a substantial impact. We were beginning to show the real results of the availability of these drugs on the streets, and, of course, if they are on the streets, then there is an opportunity for our young people to have access to them. Perhaps 820,000 of the new crop of youthful marijuana smokers will eventually try cocaine. That is a statistic that has just come from a study done by the Senate Judiciary Committee, published by the chairman, Orrin Hatch--a horrible statistic, in light of the fact that we are now being told by the criminologists of our country, ``Get braced, America, for the greatest juvenile crime wave in the history of our country.'' What is it driven by? In part, it is driven by drugs, or the desire to have access to them and, therefore, the willingness to commit crimes to have the resources to pay for them. These are horrible statistics that we must become aware of. I am so pleased today that the Senator from Georgia has taken this special order to speak to this issue. I say, Mr. President, thank you for waking up. But shame on you for turning your back, in the last 3 years, on an initiative that was working well and removing drugs from our streets and was creating a better environment for our youth. Better late than never? I hope so, because I think the American people want it, and I certainly hope this President will focus the resources of our Government, once again, toward aggressive interdiction and a program worthy of this country in getting drugs off of our streets and making the environment in which our children live a safer place. I yield the remainder of my time. (Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.)

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have filed an amendment at the desk on behalf of myself and the Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton]. Let me start by publicly thanking my good friend, Al Simpson. The senior Senator from Wyoming has been tireless in his efforts to maneuver this legislation through the 104th Congress. While, I am very appreciative of his efforts in general, I want to address an issue that is of utmost importance to this country's farmers and ranchers. That issue is the impact of immigration reform on the supply of agricultural labor. There is very real concern among Idaho farmers and throughout the countryside that these reforms will reduce the availability of agricultural workers. Farmers need access to an adequate supply of workers and want to have certainty that they are hiring a legal work force. In 1995, the total agricultural work force was about 2.5 million people. That equates to 6.7 percent of our labor force that is directly involved in production agriculture and food processing. Hired labor is one of the most important and costly inputs in farming. U.S. farmers spent more than $15 billion on hired labor expenses in 1992--one of every $8 of farm production expenses. For the labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural sector, labor accounts for 35 to 45 percent of production costs. The competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, especially the fruit, vegetable and horticultural specialty sectors, depends on the continued availability of hired labor at a reasonable cost. U.S. farmers, including producers of labor-intensive perishable commodities, compete directly with producers in other countries for market share in both United States and foreign commodity markets. Wages of U.S. farm workers will not be forced up by eliminating alien labor, because growers' production costs are capped by world market commodity prices. Instead, a reduction in the work force available to agriculture will force U.S. producers to reduce production to the level that can be sustained by a smaller work force. Over time, wages for these farm workers have actually risen faster than nonfarm worker wages. Between 1986-1994, there was a 34.6-percent increase in average hourly earnings for farm workers, while nonfarm workers only saw a 27.1-percent increase. Even with this increase in on-farm wages, this country has historically been unable to provide a sufficient number of domestic workers to complete the difficult manual labor required in the production of many agricultural commodities. In Idaho, this is especially true for producers of fruit, sugar beets, onions, and other specialty crops. The difficulty in obtaining sufficient domestic workers is primarily due to the fact that domestic workers prefer the security of full-time employment in year round positions. As a result the available domestic work force tends to prefer the long-term positions, leaving the seasonal jobs unfilled. In addition, many of the seasonal agricultural jobs are located in areas where it is necessary for workers to migrate into the area and live temporarily to do the work. Experience has shown that foreign workers are more likely to migrate than domestic workers. As a result of domestic short supply, farmers and ranchers have had to rely upon the assistance of foreign workers. The only current mechanism available to admit foreign workers for agricultural employment is the H-2A Program. The H-2A Program is intended to serve as a safety valve for times when domestic labor is unavailable. Unfortunately, the H-2A Program isn't working. Despite efforts to streamline the temporary worker program in 1986, it now functions so poorly that few in agriculture use it without risking an inadequate work force, burdensome regulations and potential litigation expense. In fact, usage of the program has actually decreased from 25,000 workers in 1986 to only 17,000 in 1995. Our amendment will provide some much needed reforms to the H-2A Program. I urge my colleagues to consider the following parts of our amendment as a reasonable modification of the H-2A Program. First, the amendment will reduce the advance filing deadline from 60 to 40 days before workers are needed. In many agricultural operations, 60 days is too far in advance to be able to predict labor needs with the precision required in H-2A applications. Furthermore, virtually all referrals of U.S. workers who actually report for work are made close to the date of need. The advance application period serves little purpose except to provide time for litigation. Second, in lieu of the present certification letter, the Department of Labor [DOL] would issue the employer a domestic recruitment report indicating that the employer's job offer meets the statutory criteria and lists the number of U.S. workers referred. The employer would then file a petition with INS for admission of aliens, including a copy of DOL's domestic recruitment report and any countervailing evidence concerning the adequacy of the job offer and/or the availability of U.S. workers. The Attorney General would make the admission decision. The purpose is to restore the role of the Labor Department to that of giving advice to the Attorney General on labor availability, and return decisionmaking to the Attorney General. Third, the Department of Labor will be required to provide the employer with a domestic recruitment report not later than 20 days before the date of need. The report either states sufficient domestic workers are not available or gives the names and Social Security Numbers of the able, willing and qualified workers who have been referred to the employer. The Department of Labor now denies certification not only on the basis of workers actually referred to the employer, but also on the basis of reports or suppositions that unspecified numbers of workers may become available. The proposed change would assure that only workers actually identified as available would be the basis for denying foreign workers. Fourth, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] will provide expedited processing of employers' petitions, and, if approved, notify the visa issuing consulate or port of entry within 15 calendar days. This will ensure timely admission decisions. Fifth, INS will also provide expedited procedures for amending petitions to increase the number of workers admitted on 5 days before the date of need. This is to reduce the paperwork and increase the timeliness of obtaining needed workers very close to or after the work has started. Sixth, DOL will continue to recruit domestic workers and make referrals to employers until 5 days before the date of need. This method is needed to allow the employer at a date certain to complete his hiring, and to operate without having the operation disrupted by having to displace existing workers with new workers. Seventh, our amendment will enumerate the specific obligations of employers in occupations in which H-2A workers are employed. The proposed definition would define jobs that meet the following criteria as not adversely affecting U.S. workers: 1. The employer offers a competitive wage for the position. 2. The employer will provide approved housing, or a reasonable housing allowance, to workers whose permanent place of residence is beyond normal commuting distance. 3. The employer continues to provide current transportation reimbursement requirements. 4. A guarantee of employment is provided for at least three-quarters of the anticipated hours of work during the actual period of employment. 5. The employer will provide workers' compensation or equivalent coverage. 6. Employer must comply with all applicable Federal, State and local labor laws with respect to both U.S. and alien workers. This combination of employment requirements will eliminate the discretion of Department of Labor to specify terms and conditions of employment on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the scope for litigation will be reduced since employers--and the courts--would know with particularity the required terms and conditions of employment. Eighth, our amendment would provide that workers must exhaust administrative remedies before engaging their employers in litigation. Ninth, certainty would be given to employers who comply with the terms of an approved job order. If at a later date the Department of Labor requires changes, the employer would be required to comply with the law only prospectively. This very important provision removes the possibility of retroactive liability if an approved order is changed. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and avoid actions that would jeopardize the labor supply for American agriculture. Thank you, Mr. President. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of our amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for his willingness to look into and address this problem. I look forward to working on this issue with the chairman and our other colleagues in the coming weeks and months. Senators Wyden, Kyl, Leahy, and others, including this Senator, also have filed an amendment, which I understand will be included in the managers' amendment. That amendment: Expresses the sense of the Congress that-- The potential impact revising our immigration laws will have on the availability of an adequate agricultural work force should be assessed; and any needs in this area should be met through a workable H-2A program; and provides for the GAO to promptly conduct a study and report back to Congress. I commend that amendment to my colleagues' attention and strongly urge adoption. If that amendment is adopted, then I do not intend to pursue the Craig-Gorton amendment at this time, and will continue to work further with the chairman and the committee on this issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have filed, and have been prepared to offer, an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Gorton. Mr. President, there is an old joke about the tombstone engraved with the words, ``I told you I was sick.'' There are many of us in this body who do not want to come down to the floor of the Senate in October and say: We told you so. We told you the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program was broken. And now there are crops rotting in the fields and supermarket bins are empty or produce prices are going through the roof. There is no satisfaction in being able to say ``I told you so,'' when we have an opportunity to fix a problem before it becomes a crisis. This is the first Congress in my memory that has made some real attempts to do just that--practice preventive legislating--most notably in our attempts to enact the first balanced budget in a generation. We have an opportunity to prevent a crisis this year by reforming the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program in our immigration law. The H-2A program was created because agriculture has a need, in many cases, for workers on a seasonal basis. This creates a unique combination of opportunities and problems for employer and employee. Most growers are able to employ employees who are citizens or otherwise in this country legally. And many growers earnestly believe they are doing exactly that. But, when a job applicant shows up with apparently valid documents showing the applicant is a citizen or is here legally, the employer has no choice but to accept those documents. This usually means he or she has no choice but to hire that applicant, for at least two reasons: First, to avoid costly and lengthy litigation or prosecution over an alleged civil rights violation. And, second, because there is no other qualified applicant for that job. This Senate should and will, under the leadership of the chairman, Mr. Simpson, pass legislation that tightens up our borders and stems the tide of illegal immigration. When that happens, many innocent employers are going to be surprised when their labor pool contracts or disappears. When that happens, as early at this fall, American agriculture--that sector of the economy that puts the food on all our tables--will face a crisis. Therefore, we are offering today a compromise amendment that would help prevent that crisis. I note that our amendment is a compromise. The House considered and rejected a broader, new program. Our amendment merely reforms the current H-2A program. It would-- Streamline and simplify administrative procedures; expedite processing; and provide basic worker protections that both ensure that temporary immigrant workers do not displace American workers and protect those workers from exploitation. I want to emphasize: The original H-2A program was needed, and these reforms are needed, because there simply are not enough American workers who are available to take these seasonal, temporary jobs. We propose to allow the legal employment of a legal, temporary immigrant, only when there is not an American worker available for that job.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. My colleague from North Dakota is right. We are not talking tough. We are not even beginning to talk tough on behalf of the victims. The families that have been destroyed, torn apart by acts of violence of the type that this legislation will be directed toward. I think the American public expect us to talk tough. If Federal tax dollars are going to be used under the assumption that the communities of our Nation will be safer when those dollars are appropriately spent, then it is our responsibility as Senators that those dollars get well spent. What we are saying to the States in this instance, if you have a revolving door in your criminal justice system where known hardened criminal repeat offenders are back on the streets, then you are not going to get as much of the Federal dollar as is now available. You have to examine the way you handle these criminals and keep them in and let them do their time. Only under special circumstances where it is clearly evident that rehabilitation has worked and this person can return to society and live a safe and law-abiding life, can they or should they be returned. I hope that all Senators would take a look at this legislation as we introduce it today. We would certainly hope that all would become cosponsors of it. We think it is responsible and tough when it comes to dealing with the criminal element of our society. It just does not make sense to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to support policies that might actually increase crime. The SAFER bill provides an important incentive for States to get rid of the early release programs for violent offenders we know will only push the crime rate higher. As long as those programs are on the books, States would only have access to 75 percent of the funds available to them under the Truth in Sentencing Grant Program. Access to full grant amounts would be available to States that eliminate those programs and only allow early release if approved by the Governor after a public hearing in which the victims and other members of the public have an opportunity to be heard. These States would also have access to a portion of the remaining undistributed grant funds. The SAFER bill is a measured, responsible strategy for reducing one of the most significant causes of crime in our society today. I hope all of our colleagues will join in supporting this bill.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me say how blessed I am to be a cosponsor of the Stop Allowing Felons Early Release Act, known as the SAFER Act. Let me, in a very sincere way, congratulate my colleague from North Dakota for what is a very sensible approach to crimefighting and for his outspoken leadership on this issue. This bill that he has just outlined for us all this morning would help stop one of the most significant causes of crime in America. It is amazing to me, but it is true by fact and statistic, that the way our criminal justice system is operated today, Mr. President, results in increased crime. We know that a relatively small percentage of our population is responsible for a relatively large percentage of violent crimes. Study after study has shown that a vast number of violent crimes are State crimes committed by repeat offenders--repeat offenders. Although there are many causes of violent crime and many factors contributing to our crime rate, it appears that the most immediate and significant is the career criminal. Since that is the cause, we clearly have an opportunity to save lives and prevent crime-related losses by getting the hard-core criminals off the streets and out of our communities. Even though crime-fighting is primarily a State and local responsibility, as my colleague has referenced, Congress has had endless debates over the best way to protect our citizenry from these dangerous predators. We have explored how crime can be prevented or deterred and how it should be punished. We have looked at better tools to help law enforcement stop criminals. We have provided significant resources for State and local governments to attack crime at its roots. Many of those efforts have produced success at some level, but what we are finding, however, is all this good work can be undermined by programs of early release and parole that send violent felons back out into our communities to prey again and again on our citizenry. Senator Dorgan has spoken here in the Senate on the horrifying consequences, citing example after example of these policies. The impact reaches far beyond the victims of repeat criminals, their families and communities. Justice itself is imperiled when punishment is uncertain and unpredictable. We can argue about the value of imprisonment in terms of rehabilitating criminals. Some even argue about the value of imprisonment in terms of deterring crime. But there can be no serious argument that any rehabilitation or deterrent value is reduced in prison--if prisoners are subject to the revolving door and, as a result of that, become the repeat offenders. More important, there can be no serious argument that early release programs destroy the most effective outcome of imprisonment: incapacitating the violent criminal by separating him or her from society and the opportunity to commit additional crimes. All too often early release and parole programs are being driven by financial considerations at the State and the local level rather than solid evidence of rehabilitation. I understand those concerns in my own State of Idaho. Our inmate population is estimated to be increasing at about 27 inmates per month. We will need to double prison space in the next 6 years in my State. It is not necessarily bad for Government to innovate or find cost-conscious alternatives in this area. Again, my colleague from North Dakota cited some of those for the nonviolent-type criminal or the nonviolent offender. We can find alternative methods of incarceration for them in facilities that are oftentimes already built, that can simply be modified for a new purpose. Clearly, these programs cross the line when they send hard- core violent offenders back to the streets before serving their full sentences. Congress has established programs at the Federal level that help State and local governments with financial and human resource needs in fighting crime. Among other initiatives, we have provided financial incentive grants to States, to enact truth-in-sentencing laws to ensure that the time actually served by convicted felons reflects the sentences they were given. It just does not make sense to me, and I know it does not make any sense to the taxpayer if we support policies and provide taxpayers dollars that actually increase crime. The SAFER bill provides an important incentive for States to get rid of the early release program for violent offenders we know will only push the crime rate higher, and the statistics prove it. As long as those programs are on the books, States will only have access to 75 percent of the funds available to them under the truth-in-sentencing programs. Again, my colleague from North Dakota has outlined how this bill would affect those States. It is important to let those States know that these kinds of policies are no longer acceptable when the Federal tax dollars are involved. Access to full grant amounts would be available to States that eliminate those programs, only dealing with it in the way that we have outlined. If approved by a Governor after a public hearing in which the victims and other members of the public have an opportunity to be heard, then you might look at some consequences for an early release program. There are ways to deal with it in the legislation as set forth. These States would also have access to a portion of the remaining undistributed grant funds. The SAFER bill is a measured response, strategy, to reducing one of the most significant causes of crime in our society today. I hope my colleagues would join with me and the Senator from North Dakota in what we believe is a very important piece of legislation. Mr. President, it is not complicated. It is straightforward. It is just a heck of a lot of common sense when you look at the facts and you look at the statistics--hardened criminals are oftentimes repeat offenders. They ought to stay and do the time. That is what our legislation would require.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me say how blessed I am to be a cosponsor of the Stop Allowing Felons Early Release Act, known as the SAFER Act. Let me, in a very sincere way, congratulate my colleague from North Dakota for what is a very sensible approach to crimefighting and for his outspoken leadership on this issue. This bill that he has just outlined for us all this morning would help stop one of the most significant causes of crime in America. It is amazing to me, but it is true by fact and statistic, that the way our criminal justice system is operated today, Mr. President, results in increased crime. We know that a relatively small percentage of our population is responsible for a relatively large percentage of violent crimes. Study after study has shown that a vast number of violent crimes are State crimes committed by repeat offenders--repeat offenders. Although there are many causes of violent crime and many factors contributing to our crime rate, it appears that the most immediate and significant is the career criminal. Since that is the cause, we clearly have an opportunity to save lives and prevent crime-related losses by getting the hard-core criminals off the streets and out of our communities. Even though crime-fighting is primarily a State and local responsibility, as my colleague has referenced, Congress has had endless debates over the best way to protect our citizenry from these dangerous predators. We have explored how crime can be prevented or deterred and how it should be punished. We have looked at better tools to help law enforcement stop criminals. We have provided significant resources for State and local governments to attack crime at its roots. Many of those efforts have produced success at some level, but what we are finding, however, is all this good work can be undermined by programs of early release and parole that send violent felons back out into our communities to prey again and again on our citizenry. Senator Dorgan has spoken here in the Senate on the horrifying consequences, citing example after example of these policies. The impact reaches far beyond the victims of repeat criminals, their families and communities. Justice itself is imperiled when punishment is uncertain and unpredictable. We can argue about the value of imprisonment in terms of rehabilitating criminals. Some even argue about the value of imprisonment in terms of deterring crime. But there can be no serious argument that any rehabilitation or deterrent value is reduced in prison--if prisoners are subject to the revolving door and, as a result of that, become the repeat offenders. More important, there can be no serious argument that early release programs destroy the most effective outcome of imprisonment: incapacitating the violent criminal by separating him or her from society and the opportunity to commit additional crimes. All too often early release and parole programs are being driven by financial considerations at the State and the local level rather than solid evidence of rehabilitation. I understand those concerns in my own State of Idaho. Our inmate population is estimated to be increasing at about 27 inmates per month. We will need to double prison space in the next 6 years in my State. It is not necessarily bad for Government to innovate or find cost-conscious alternatives in this area. Again, my colleague from North Dakota cited some of those for the nonviolent-type criminal or the nonviolent offender. We can find alternative methods of incarceration for them in facilities that are oftentimes already built, that can simply be modified for a new purpose. Clearly, these programs cross the line when they send hard- core violent offenders back to the streets before serving their full sentences. Congress has established programs at the Federal level that help State and local governments with financial and human resource needs in fighting crime. Among other initiatives, we have provided financial incentive grants to States, to enact truth-in-sentencing laws to ensure that the time actually served by convicted felons reflects the sentences they were given. It just does not make sense to me, and I know it does not make any sense to the taxpayer if we support policies and provide taxpayers dollars that actually increase crime. The SAFER bill provides an important incentive for States to get rid of the early release program for violent offenders we know will only push the crime rate higher, and the statistics prove it. As long as those programs are on the books, States will only have access to 75 percent of the funds available to them under the truth-in-sentencing programs. Again, my colleague from North Dakota has outlined how this bill would affect those States. It is important to let those States know that these kinds of policies are no longer acceptable when the Federal tax dollars are involved. Access to full grant amounts would be available to States that eliminate those programs, only dealing with it in the way that we have outlined. If approved by a Governor after a public hearing in which the victims and other members of the public have an opportunity to be heard, then you might look at some consequences for an early release program. There are ways to deal with it in the legislation as set forth. These States would also have access to a portion of the remaining undistributed grant funds. The SAFER bill is a measured response, strategy, to reducing one of the most significant causes of crime in our society today. I hope my colleagues would join with me and the Senator from North Dakota in what we believe is a very important piece of legislation. Mr. President, it is not complicated. It is straightforward. It is just a heck of a lot of common sense when you look at the facts and you look at the statistics--hardened criminals are oftentimes repeat offenders. They ought to stay and do the time. That is what our legislation would require.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. My colleague from North Dakota is right. We are not talking tough. We are not even beginning to talk tough on behalf of the victims. The families that have been destroyed, torn apart by acts of violence of the type that this legislation will be directed toward. I think the American public expect us to talk tough. If Federal tax dollars are going to be used under the assumption that the communities of our Nation will be safer when those dollars are appropriately spent, then it is our responsibility as Senators that those dollars get well spent. What we are saying to the States in this instance, if you have a revolving door in your criminal justice system where known hardened criminal repeat offenders are back on the streets, then you are not going to get as much of the Federal dollar as is now available. You have to examine the way you handle these criminals and keep them in and let them do their time. Only under special circumstances where it is clearly evident that rehabilitation has worked and this person can return to society and live a safe and law-abiding life, can they or should they be returned. I hope that all Senators would take a look at this legislation as we introduce it today. We would certainly hope that all would become cosponsors of it. We think it is responsible and tough when it comes to dealing with the criminal element of our society. It just does not make sense to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to support policies that might actually increase crime. The SAFER bill provides an important incentive for States to get rid of the early release programs for violent offenders we know will only push the crime rate higher. As long as those programs are on the books, States would only have access to 75 percent of the funds available to them under the Truth in Sentencing Grant Program. Access to full grant amounts would be available to States that eliminate those programs and only allow early release if approved by the Governor after a public hearing in which the victims and other members of the public have an opportunity to be heard. These States would also have access to a portion of the remaining undistributed grant funds. The SAFER bill is a measured, responsible strategy for reducing one of the most significant causes of crime in our society today. I hope all of our colleagues will join in supporting this bill.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public the scheduling of a hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management on S. 1662, the Omnibus Oregon Resources Conservation Act. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 7, 1996 at 2:00 PM in SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Testimony will be received on the two major titles of the bill; Opal Creek Wilderness and Scenic-Recreation Area; and Coquille Forest Proposal. Those wishing to testify or 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 Mark Rey of the subcommittee staff at 202-224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this bill contains extremely important funding for the State of Idaho, along with other items I must clearly support. For that reason, I will be voting in favor of this bill. However, I think it is important to make a record of some of the shortcomings of this bill. First, I am extremely disappointed that this bill ignores the concerns of many communities and citizens in the Columbia Basin who worked honestly and deliberately over the years to develop local forest management plans. Those plans will now be summarily overridden by two gigantic environmental impact statements which will dramatically alter all the existing local plans on 144 million acres. It remains my opinion that these EIS's represent an inappropriate application of the National Environmental Policy Act. They are too big; they are too remote for comment by the citizens who will be affected; and they are too complex for any reasonable understanding by any affected party. I am told that this project will have cost the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management up to $30 million. I submit that the advancement of science through this project has been worth but a fraction. Despite my efforts and those of Congressman Nethercutt to interject some common sense and fiscal responsibility, the language we worked hard to support has been dropped. As a result, I am very apprehensive that our local governments, our citizens who depend upon the public lands for livelihood and recreation, and many others who use the forest will be locked out of the forest for reasons none of us will ever understand. Another item missing from this agreement that concerns me is my amendment, passed by the Senate, relating to the Legal Services Corporation. Let me acknowledge the efforts of the Senate conferees-- and particularly, Senator Gregg--to protect this amendment. As my colleagues will recall, this amendment was aimed at what some of us believe is a pattern of straying from the important mandate of providing legal services to the poor, instead pursuing a political agenda. In the case I highlighted, the Legal Services Corporation grantee drove my constituents to the edge of bankruptcy in a 6-year battle over an adoption that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and twice to the Idaho State Supreme Court. Eventually, my constituents prevailed and the adoption was finalized. If anyone benefited from this gross waste of taxpayer funds, I have yet to discover it. It's my intention to continue pursuing my amendment to redress this unfairness in another forum.