Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Wyoming for his response. He chairs the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I hope the Secretary of the Interior will cooperate. I think it would be tragic if, in fact, the veteran career civil servants of this great, old organization called the Bureau of Land Management have been pushed into a political activity by the acting director, the national director of the BLM. At least from my cursory observation with the information that is now available, it appears just that. Never in my 14 years in the U.S. Congress have I seen civil servants asking for and gaining interviews with editorial boards, writing editorial or guest opinions in newspapers, advocating a clear position on a given piece of legislation. That simply is not allowed. It may well be a violation of the Hatch Act. There are other, broader ramifications here. At this moment, the kind of look that I have taken, and I think my colleagues in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have taken, is that without question there appears at this moment at least to be a violation of this Senate's appropriations act. The language that the Senator from Wyoming and I read, section 303, is not something new. It goes in every appropriations bill, and it has gone in for a good many years, directing the actions of the agencies involved and the money appropriated and how it should not be used in certain cases. We hope that the Secretary of the Interior would cooperate so we can get to the bottom of this issue, so that the State directors and the information officers of the BLM will not continually be put in a most awkward position over an issue they are now being asked to advocate, when it is the responsibility of the United States Congress to make those decisions, and then for those agency personnel to carry them out and to promulgate the rules and regulations necessary. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this evening, my colleague from Wyoming and I come to the floor to discuss with the Senate what we believe to be a very important issue. It has come to our attention in the last several days that in a letter directed to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management in each of our States across the Nation, coming from the Acting Director, Mr. Dombeck, a letter goes to them instructing them to engage in an outreach informational program about a pending piece of legislation before the U.S. Senate. If this is true, and in the manner in which it has been done, it appears that this Acting Director of BLM, who is a civil servant unconfirmed, may have acted in a way as to have violated the law of this country. I say so because it is very, very clear that section 303 of the 1995 Interior Appropriations Act states, No part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be available for any activity or the publication or distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on which congressional action is not complete. The directive sent to the State directors of BLM, instructing them to perform in certain ways, was about the pending rangeland reform, or the Public Rangeland Management Act that is now pending before the Senate. This instruction went out prior to the committee's action, prior to the markup and the passing out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, this legislation. It is a detailed, instructive act. Since that time, we have seen op-ed pieces, public comments, interviews, and actions taken by State Directors of the BLM and/or their public information personnel. While we are not sure that this constitutes a violation of the act, it clearly appears at this moment, at least to this Senator, that a public information, if not a political campaign was launched to spread what is now misinformation about a pending piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a memo that I have obtained from the Acting Director, going to the States, which outlines a complete campaign of information directed at a pending piece of legislation before the U.S. Senate.

Mr. CRAIG

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 immediately following the vote at 6:45 this evening, Senator Kassebaum be recognized, and the time prior to a motion to table the Kennedy amendment be limited to 5 minutes to be divided between Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy, and that at the conclusion of that time, Senator Kassebaum be recognized to move to table the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my purpose here today is to introduce the Canola and Rapeseed Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act. I am pleased to report that this piece of legislation is backed by the strong support of those in the canola and rapeseed industry. Canola and rapeseed products are an important and nutritious part of the human diet, and the crops are in all regions of the United States. This crop is produced by thousands of growers and consumed by people all over the world. A total of 35 states grow over 330,000 acres, and that level is rapidly increasing. States such as Idaho see well over 40,000 acres devoted to this particular crop. As you can see, Mr. President, it is important that these readily available commodities are marketed efficiently to ensure that consumers have an adequate supply at a reasonable price. Currently, a number of established State and national organizations exist [[Page S 10892]] whose primary goals include the research and promotion of their respective commodities. The cooperative development, financing, and implementation of a canola and rapeseed research, information, and promotion program is necessary to maintain and expand the existing markets, and to develop new markets for these important products. In addition, this act will establish an orderly procedure for financing through assessments on domestically produced canola and rapeseed, and the development and implementation of a program of research, promotion, consumer and industry information. It is the policy of this act to establish a concise and uniform method of requesting, issuing and amending orders relative to the canola and rapeseed industry. It will provide for a national canola and rapeseed board of 15 members who will administer and carry out programs and projects which provide maximum benefit to the industry. Under this act, assessments will be levied on those products produced and marketed in the United States and will be deducted from the payment made to a producer for all canola or rapeseed sold to a first purchaser. The assessment rate shall be 4 cents per hundredweight of canola or rapeseed produced and marketed in a State, or a rate of 2 cents per hundredweight for States with a State checkoff. Essentially, this act will enable the industry to create a commodity driven and commodity controlled checkoff program. The idea of a checkoff is not new, and generic promotional and research programs funded through voluntary checkoff contributions have been working at all levels of government for over 50 years. Considering the limited resources of the Federal Government in all areas, especially agriculture, I believe that programs of this nature will become increasingly important. I highly commend everyone involved in the canola and rapeseed industry for their efforts in bringing this checkoff to the attention of the Congress. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in enabling this industry to shape its own future. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I inquire as to what order we are in?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it has been 1 year since the start of the terrible wildfires which burned through Idaho last summer. Lightning strikes ignited our forests, already suffering from poor forest health, and raged through Idaho, causing devastation to 738,000 acres, one- fifth of the nationwide total acres burned in 1994. I am here to tell the story, as it has been written so far, of the 1994 Idaho fires, and the slow progress of reforestation and timber salvage. The fires began in late July, and by early September, 14,000 firefighters had been employed across the State. Early on, Dave Alexander, forest supervisor on the Payette National Forest, called to alert me that with the dry conditions and already-dead forests adding fuel, the fires could not be stopped short of [[Page S 10872]] reaching the Salmon River after a run of 25 to 30 miles. Dave Alexander was right. The fires were stopped at the Salmon River and extinguished only when the snows arrived in October. By then, Idaho's fires had cost $150 million to fight and an estimated 2 billion board feet of timber had burned. And, of course, the habitat for the wildlife of the area was devastated. By Forest Service estimates, as much as 665 million board feet of the burned timber was salvageable, with a potential revenue of $325 million. Remember, 25 percent of this revenue would be returned to local counties for schools and roads. In Idaho, Shoshone County officials have watched their budget drop sharply because of the lack of national forest timber sales. They are desperate for some solutions to their situation. They are among many who have pointed out the absurdity of no timber sales being offered while dead forests abound. Equally concerned are the 100 former employees of the Ida-Pine sawmill which closed for lack of timber supply, while watching the nearby forests burn up. Unfortunately the value of burned trees drops rapidly over time. Time is the primary factor in accomplishing timber salvage and replanting the burn. The consequences of leaving burned forests untreated are both environmental and financial. Not only is it a waste of potential revenue to the U.S. Treasury and the counties, it encourages future wildfire. If left standing, dead trees become conduits for lightning and may cause a re-burn, fueled by the ready supply of fallen trees never removed from the first fire. This scenario is no boon to fish and wildlife habitat, either. So, it made sense to mount an aggressive timber salvage program on the Boise and Payette National Forests. On the Boise alone, an estimated 2,600 jobs would be created by the salvage operations. These two forests have been moving as quickly as possible under current law. But the laws and regulations, prior to enactment of the fiscal year 1995 rescissions bill with its salvage provisions, simply did not permit the Forest Service to act quickly enough. Rather, they constituted a formula for inaction and delay. Let me tell you why. First, both forests have been slogging their way through eight separate NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] documents, five of them environmental impact statements. Consider the fact that the Forest Service even finds it necessary to prepare five environmental impact statements. When NEPA was enacted in 1969, EIS's were to be done only in the case of a major Federal action. Now, driven by the courts, the Forest Service is compelled to conduct an EIS just to sell dead, burned trees. You tell me how this makes sense. Consider also, that preservation groups have found a new method to delay and obstruct completion of these NEPA documents. They deliberately use the Freedom of Information Act as a harassment tool. The Boise National Forest has responded to 45 separate FOIA requests at a cost of more than $50,000. On the Payette, the number of FOIA requests has quadrupled, and a new, full-time position was created at a cost of $20,000 to handle the responses. One FOIA request was expected to take 670 hours of staff time to respond, thereby diverting staff away from salvage preparations. It is this type of delay and added expense which causes me and other Senators to argue the need for streamlining the current rules as we have done in the rescissions bill, which is now law. Without the help of the Congress to clear some of the procedural path, timber salvage would be nearly impossible to accomplish. The continuing story of the 1994 Idaho wildfires is a case in point. As of July 1, not one stick of burnt timber had yet been salvaged from the Boise or Payette National Forests. Not 1 acre of the burned forest has been replanted with trees, because the reforestation would be paid for by salvage receipts. The State forests had been salvaged. The adjoining private ownerships had been salvaged, but not the Federal lands. Now those decisions are finally being made on the EIS's, those decisions have been appealed and held up by proponents of gridlock. I intend to come to the floor again soon to continue this story. I will follow the story as it unfolds. It will demonstrate why it is imperative that Congress provide relief in some form to free salvage sales from the burden of the unnecessary and costly procedures in place now. Salvage provisions in the rescission law are only temporary. They will expire in December 1996. With that in mind, I will press forward with S. 391, the long-term forest health bill I introduced in February. More on that with the next chapter of this story. For now, please take note--665 million board feet awaits salvage; as of July 1, no timber salvage had done; no reforestation had been done; and 11 months had passed in preparing NEPA documents. Now those decisions are being appealed. Soon I will be back to talk about the fires of 1994, the devastation and the destruction, and ways this Congress and this country can move to a better procedure to manage our national forests. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. And that the time not be used by either side.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will yield the floor then if time has been allocated for this purpose.

Mr. CRAIG. No more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. It does not deal with this issue.

Mr. CRAIG. If there is no objection, it could be divided equally.

Mr. CRAIG. I would choose it not be divided from either side.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1842 for further modification of the second-degree amendment.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the purpose of the second-degree amendment is to make clear what, by some people's concern, was not clear, and that is what is the intent of the Simpson amendment. We are addressing section 501 of the IRS Code and, in particular, the 501(c)(4) not-for- profit advocacy groups who receive Federal grant money. What we are saying and what the second-degree amendment clarifies is the difference between their options under this amendment; that is, they could continue to hold their 501(c)(4) status and lobby, but they could not receive Federal moneys under that status. If they chose to want to continue to receive Federal grants, they would have the election, under the 501 section of the IRS Code, to become a 501(c)(3), and in that category, not only is the definition of ``lobbying'' very clear, but the method by which they must handle and account for their Federal dollars. The IRS is very strict and very clear as to the accounting and the management of those dollars so that they are not commingled, so they are kept separate, so that the organization, without question, divides the use of those dollars, so there is not the intent or the ability to use Federal dollars for the purpose of lobbying. That is, without question, the intent of the Simpson amendment. We thought it was important that it be clarified. I believe the second- degree amendment so clarifies.

Mr. CRAIG. The term is unlimited versus the percentages of total revenue base. The IRS Code already established that. 501(c)(4) is an unlimited category.

Mr. CRAIG. Absolutely.

Mr. CRAIG. Because there is an entirely different qualifying mechanism under the IRS Code for them, and they are watched very closely and their audits are held very tightly.

Mr. CRAIG. I think it is important to cite here that we are not amending the Tax Code. We are using the Tax Code to identify the group in lobbying, and that clarification is how I read what we are doing. I think it is also fair to say that any 501(c)(4) that chooses not to get a grant and feed at the Federal trough is exempt.

Mr. CRAIG. I will be more than happy to yield for the purpose of a question.

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