Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as I said--and I thank the chairman for yielding--I am pleased to join my colleague from Alabama [Senator Shelby] in offering this amendment to provide for a refundable tax credit for adoption expenses. In short, Mr. President, this amendment will amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a refundable tax credit for adoption expenses. This provision will exclude from gross income employee and military adoption assistance benefits and withdrawals from IRA's for use toward adoption expenses. Some people may ask, ``What does this have to do with welfare?'' It has very little to do with our current welfare system, but a great deal to do with a dramatically reformed system similar to that envisioned in the leader's bill. Through the use of block grants and other reforms, we are moving away from a welfare system that has created dependency, and into a system that encourages independence. As part of that, we also hope to see greater strength in the American family, reduce out-of-wedlock births, control welfare spending, and reduce welfare dependence. It is my concern that as we move in this direction, that the Congress needs to make adoption a more viable option for families. We all read the stories, both happy and tragic, of efforts couples have made to adopt a child. It is my hope that our work here will lead to more happy stories and fewer heartbreaking reports, of the tens of thousands of dollars spent traveling around the world by couples in search of children to adopt to make them a part of their family. I know this firsthand. Not that I suffered those hardships, but I am an adoptive parent and I adopted the children of my wife and we brought together a family unit. Even then, when there were no obstacles in front of us, the process was challenging in all of the hoops and hurdles that we had to go through to make sure it was done right. This amendment will give adoptive families a fairer shake. I have introduced similar legislation with other colleagues here in the Senate and hope that they will support this amendment. Adoption is a viable option that results the best of all worlds: Uniting a wanted child and a loving family. I think we need to keep focused on that fact, and continue our efforts to improve the adoption and foster care approaches that this Senate is so supportive of. Mr. President, before closing, I want to take a moment to discuss something that was not included in the Republican leadership welfare reform bill. There is good reason to highlight this item that was excluded, because it will have a big impact on our ability, as a nation, to ensure that there is a safety net to take care of children. The item that was excluded is the creation of a block grant of the title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance programs. In fact, both the GOP leadership bill, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, and the conservative consensus package maintain the title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance programs as entitlements. Mr. President, we need dramatic reform of our welfare system. And of all of us who have been engaged in that debate here for the last good number of days, the current one-size-fits-all approach of a federally designed and implemented program simply has not served this Nation well nor served those who find themselves in poverty and in need of welfare. It has also been unsuccessful in relieving poverty. Instead, it finds that [[Page S 13586]] we put families in it and somehow they stay there. Here is an opportunity, as we move out to independence to assure greater chances for children without families, to find those families and families without children--to find those children. Instead of a program that reaches out to people and families to give them a hand up, we have a program with a hand out that constantly pushes people down and keeps them in the welfare cycle. The bill we have before us today will provide some of that needed dramatic reform. Changes in programs like aid to families with dependent children [AFDC] may have an impact on foster care services. This will be especially prevalent during the implementation and transition into the reformed welfare system. The impact of any changes to our welfare system is somewhat unpredictable. Therefore, Republicans here in the Senate have acknowledged that fact, and the need to maintain a safety net for children by maintaining title IV-E as an entitlement. Mr. President, this issue has been a concern of mine for some time. In Idaho, we have a number of excellent facilities that work with children in group home settings, with an emphasis on reuniting the family when possible. I have been to these facilities, my staff have seen them. The work they do there is nothing short of remarkable. My concern, Mr. President, is that we have a safety net available to ensure that the children who may be affected will be adequately taken care of through our foster care and adoption assistance programs. If these programs under title IV-E were converted into a block grant with a limited inflation adjuster, there would be little flexibility for States to meet the kind of unforseen demands that can shift children into these programs. There are also issues outside of welfare reform that affect these programs, such as changes in the economy, demographics and natural disasters. For example, Idaho had a 16-percent increase in the number of child abuses cases last year; many of those children ended up in the foster care system. Again, these are things that cannot be planned for, but add to the burden of the system. It is important to note that since the foster care and adoption assistance programs were established in 1980, there have been more than 90,000 children with special needs adopted in the United States. Mr. President, there have been a number of references to those who are affected by what we do here. I would like to take a moment to share a story about we've been able to accomplish in Idaho with these title IV-E moneys. The Idaho youth ranch runs a family preservation program. Gina was a 7-year-old girl who was removed from her home by child protective services because her parent neglected to care for her. The goal of the referral was to see if the youth ranch could help the mother respond to the point that Gina and her two younger sibling could return home. The youth ranch staff began an assessment of the family situation and developed a plan in conjunction with the Child Protective Services staff, mom, and the children. Through the parent training, supportive services, and help the youth ranch provided, this family is now getting back on track. Mother is now working in a job close to home, has a healthy home environment set up, ready for the children's return, has the kids enrolled in school, and a responsible day care for her youngest child. The staff at the youth ranch will continue their work after the reunification of the children. It is a happy ending for the family, for the State, and most important, for Gina. Mr. President, that was quite a lengthy comment, but I felt it was important to note in this debate. In closing, I would just add that I hope my colleagues will support improving access to adoption, and will vote for the Shelby amendment. So I am proud to support and to be a cosponsor of the amendment of my colleague, Senator Shelby, and his concerted effort.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Five minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Excuse me, Mr. President.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Alabama [Senator Shelby] in offering this amendment to provide for a refundable tax credit for adoption expenses.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding staff member of mine, Valorie J. Watkins who has served diligently as my regional director in eastern Idaho over the last several years. Valorie's tenure as a congressional staff member has been long and distinguished. She has worked in the U.S. Congress for close to 25 years but now moves on to another position as director of alumni relations at Idaho State University in Pocatello, ID. I have enjoyed working with Valorie over the years. Her leadership, insightful recommendations, and attitude toward serving others have been indispensable to my responsibility of effectively serving the great people of the State of Idaho. Valorie was born in Pocatello, ID. A long time resident of eastern Idaho, she [[Page S 13307]] graduated from Pocatello High School and received her degree from Idaho State University in 1966. In 1966 as a bright-eyed and enthusiastic graduate of Idaho State University, she left Pocatello and boarded a plans for Washington, DC and arrived in our Nation's capital without having yet obtained a job. She was quickly hired by the Democratic Congressman from Idaho, Compton White Jr. After Congressman White's defeat in 1966, she immediately came on board Republican Congressman George Hansen's staff. From 1967 to 1969 Valorie proved to be an outstanding staff member for the Congressman and excelled in this capacity. In 1969 she returned with her husband Bill to Pocatello and became a teacher in the local school system and was involved in local education issues. In 1973, her knowledge and work experience helped her to land a position as district director with one of the great leaders of Idaho, my predecessor, Senator James A. McClure. In this capacity she came to be well respected and looked upon for advice by Senator McClure. She worked for Senator McClure until his retirement in 1991. Valorie Watkins' work for the people of Idaho is earmarked by her astute ability to keep in close contact with constituents by being involved in her community. She served in many capacities over the years in Pocatello; she has done a immense amount of work with the Greater Pocatello Chamber of Commerce, serving on over eight committees, including serving as a member of the board of directors from 1993 to 1996. She has been heavily involved in the Soroptimist International of Pocatello, from which she received several awards and also served as its president from 1993 to 1994. In the 16 county region of which she oversaw, Valorie has come to be well respected by many leaders on both sides of the political isle. Valorie has traveled throughout southeast Idaho to small communities like Preston, Montpelier, Soda Springs, and Malad and gained the respect of many Idahoans because of her help. Many leaders have sought her help and advice, including mayors, city councilman, county commissioners, educators and administrators, and Idaho State representatives. She is also well respected by many of the Federal Government agency heads in the area, and has worked closely with some of those individuals to resolve trying cases. Whenever southeast Idahoans have sought help from my office with a problem with a Federal agency, they most likely have found it with Valorie Watkins. In a more memorable and recent incident, Valorie took the lead in my office's involvement with Tom Johansen, a Pocatello scrap metal dealer who was brought into the national spotlight when he unknowingly bought several thousand tons of sensitive nuclear hardware and blueprints from the Department of Energy at an auction. Valorie's involvement with the case and persistence played a part in forcing the DOE to provide an equitable resolution in what might have otherwise been a disaster for Mr. Johansen. Valorie's service to the people of Idaho I believe can be summed up from an editorial written by the editor of the Preston Idaho Citizen, a local small town newspaper in eastern Idaho: Over the years while Valorie was an aid to Senator Jim McClure and to Senator Larry Craig, she has been a wonderful intermediary for just about anyone who had a challenge that concerned the Federal Government. She is one of the most personable persons that we know and we have been so grateful for her listening ear and her assistance in cases where there has been a need for contact with the Federal Government. Valorie Watkins is most approachable. . . . We see her move as a gain for Idaho State University and a loss for Senator Larry Craig! And so, Mr. President, as Valorie brings to a close her long and productive career in service to the people of Idaho and this Nation, I wish her and her husband Bill nothing but the very best wishes for happiness and prosperity.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself and Senator Shelby.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment has received recognition from both sides and is acceptable. The amendment would simply allow the States to establish good cause and other exceptions and thus will not override State laws defining paternity. Moreover, it requires all hospital bed programs providing for voluntary acknowledgment of paternity to take into account the best interests of the child. It provides consistency between Federal AFDC law and the laws regarding in-hospital paternity establishment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support and as a sponsor of the amendment. It is absolutely crucial that the situation that has arisen over the fueling and defueling of fuels from the nuclear Navy be resolved. This amendment, putting this body on record as supporting good faith negotiations between the Secretary of Defense and the Governor of Idaho for the purpose of pursuing an agreement on the issue of naval spent nuclear fuels, is a step in the right direction. Idaho has always recognized the importance of a strong nuclear Navy defense deterrent. Idaho takes a back seat to no one when it comes to supporting the defense of this Nation. At the same time, however, Idaho will not become a de facto spent nuclear waste repository. The facilities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory were never designed nor intended to be a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. I will not stand for that to happen and will always fight to assure Idaho does not become a nuclear waste dump for the Navy and the Department of Energy. [[Page S 12651]] This Nation must stand up and commit itself to addressing the final disposal of commercial, military, and DOE nuclear fuels. This amendment will go a long way to assure we reach the goal of a functioning Navy and Idaho does not become a permanent nuclear waste repository.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce the Cuprum Townsite Relief Act of 1995. In 1909, President William Taft accepted payment and granted a tract of land contained within the townsite of Cuprum, ID, to the occupants. Cuprum was a mining community and remains a community to this day. The quarter corner locating the community was established in 1891. A private survey of the town was done in 1899 for the purpose of providing a basis for a townsite [[Page S 12401]] patent. A townsite patent was issued in 1909 that was based on the private survey. A recent Federal survey of the area has discovered inconsistencies between the description contained in the patent and the updated survey. This has called into question the boundaries of several lots within the townsite that now are surveyed as extending into the National Forest System lands adjacent to the townsite. This legislation will resolve the problem brought on by the incorrect description of the original boundaries granting the land. This legislation will allow the correction of the boundary of the Cuprum Townsite and place the boundary at the location that has been relied upon since the turn of the century. The citizens of Cuprum deserve to have this error corrected by speedy action of the Congress.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent the underlying committee amendment be set aside.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the amendment I send to the desk today for the Senate's consideration is one that is the result of what I think can best be known as ecoterrorism and the reaction that this Congress and this Senate some years ago had to that very problem. The issue is known as tree spiking. Mr. President, for some years individuals and interest groups that have opposed the legitimate, lawful timber sales on our public lands have oftentimes actually gone onto the land and into the trees and spiked them, sometimes with metal spikes, hoping that the sawyer who went in to cut the tree would hit it with his saw blade and stop. And in some instances the chains came loose from those saws and killed or maimed the individual sawyer. That happens to be a Federal property, a Federal tree. Now they are using porcelain spikes because, of course, metal spikes could be detected by a metal detector. They use porcelain spikes. They cannot be detected. Either the sawyer hits the spike or as the tree got to the mill and as the tree went through the process of being cut, oftentimes the saw blade at the mill, the large band saw hit this porcelain spike and shattered and sent flying metal shrapnel all over the mill and has killed or maimed additional workers. So, some years ago, the Congress said that is every bit as much an act of terrorism as it would be to put a bomb in front of a Federal building. So, therefore, we passed laws requiring certain penalties as a result of that. That occurred in 1988. My predecessor, Jim McClure, had passed Public Law 100-690. What I do today is to close a loophole in that law that the courts argued existed as it related to the cumulative damages and the ability of the courts to prosecute an individual who was found guilty of tree spiking. The closure of the loophole in the current law, which caused the courts to throw it out, needs to happen. I am provoked into doing this because of recent reports in my State, again, by unnamed groups calling themselves fictitious names, announcing that they have spiked certain timber sales. Of course, their desire is to keep those timber sales from being sold by the U.S. Forest Service or it to be bid. As a result of that, that causes tremendous difficulty. In the last 10 years, there have been 44 incidents of tree spiking. There have been 21 cases of major machinery damage, and there has been the loss of a life. That is why we acted in 1988 as we did, and why I am asking the Senate today to close the loophole by including the threshold of $10,000 of preventive costs required to prosecute a case in Federal court. The difference is between actual cost and preventive cost, because the court said it was the costs of the loss of a piece of equipment or, in the case of the loss of a life, of course, that was a different issue. What happens is oftentimes the Forest Service--but especially private companies who have brought these sales--spend a lot of money trying to detect if these sales of trees have been spiked. And that costs considerably more than $10,000, but it could never be used as an accumulative cost in the court's deliberation. So my amendment allows these cumulative or preventive costs to be included in the threshold, and, of course, it also allows for the judge in his penalties greater flexibility in bringing the penalties down on the individual if the individuals are found guilty. I hope the Senate will join with me in agreeing that this is a Federal law that not only deserves to be preserved but deserves to be strengthened because those kinds of incidents still go on today, and they are every bit an act of terrorism whether they are the spike in the trees or the bomb in front of the Federal building. They are Federal properties and they can, and have, cost life. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague. I want to associate myself with his remarks. I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for working out what could have been a very difficult situation and for recognizing, as I think the Senate always has, that there are public moneys for the arts, and there should be. But what my colleague from Idaho just said, we have also recognized that there is a clear difference between censorship and sponsorship and the use of public dollars. Certainly the use of public dollars ought to meet the broad test. And the broad test is, can the general public view these experiences or can they view these acquisitions or these sponsorships? I think when you are using public dollars, you have to say yes. While I appreciate some artists' expressions that others do not, I think it is important to recognize that we have the responsibility as the guardians of the public treasury and trust, that all that we do meets the broader test. Where there is an expressive individual who chooses to go in another direction, they ought to seek private sponsorship and not public sponsorship for such an expression. I agree with my colleague from Idaho, that while our funds are limited and while this amendment represents a substantial cut, it also says very clearly that the Senate, the Congress, wants to continue the National Endowment and all that it does for our communities, and especially for rural States as has been so eloquently expressed by some, where small communities have little to no access to what larger communities have and the National Endowment has brought them the arts in very unique and positive ways. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my purpose here today is to introduce a bill that would amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to include seed crops among the list of crops specifically covered under the noninsured crop disaster assistance program. It was my understanding that seed crops were to be covered under the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation [FCIC] changes that were implemented as part of the USDA reorganization in the 103d Congress. Since my understanding differs from the current implementation, I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and rectify the situation. As the origin of all crop production, a stable supply of seeds is an absolute necessity. If seed producers are to continue supplying a valuable product, they must have access to risk management tools, which includes insurance coverage. In my State of Idaho, we are proud to produce the Nation's largest supply of seed for sweet corn, field beans, garden beans, and teff. In addition, Idaho is among the top producers of alfalfa, popcorn, and turf grasses. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in enabling this industry to utilize the insurance coverage that is provided to other agricultural commodities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CRAIG. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, does the Senator from Arkansas wish to complete his argument? Does he wish to yield back his time?

Mr. CRAIG. I would offer the Senator from Arkansas the opportunity to complete his time before I close.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I had hoped the Senator from Arkansas, because this is my amendment, would allow me the respect of allowing me to close debate. But I will go ahead and close out the remainder of the time that I have left. It is interesting that the Senator from Arkansas would choose to argue royalties. Royalties are not an issue before this Senate at this moment. We have used the authorizing committee to attempt to resolve that issue so that the Government could receive some return on the value of the subsurface asset, and we are still working on that. But what this amendment does--separate from that as a step and a process along the way--is that it asks those who are asking for a patent through the process of mining law to pay fair market value for the land--not $2.50 an acre, but whatever the appraisal process goes forward as. Once that is established, once the mine completed its work, the property reverts back to the Government. This is not a total answer to the problem of reform of the 1872 mining law, but it is a step down the path toward arriving at that solution. I hope my colleagues will support us in this second-degree. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, with the consent of the leaders on this issue at the moment, I would, if I could break for a moment, ask unanimous consent to speak on another issue for no more than 10 minutes as if in morning business.