Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place Tuesday, May 23, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 620, Reclamation Facilities Transfer Act. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, attention Betty Nevitt, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Jim Beirne at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt at 202-224-0765. committee on energy and natural resources Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider S. 638, the Insular Development Act of 1995. The hearing will take place Thursday, May 25, 1995, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 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 Jim Beirne at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt at 202-224-0765.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce the Balers and Compactors Safety Standards Modernization Act. This bill would make long-overdue revisions to safety standards set by the Department of Labor's Hazardous Occupation Order Number 12 (HO 12). HO 12 is a regulation issued by DOL in 1954 to protect employees who are under 18 years of age. In brief, it specifically prohibits minors from operating more than a dozen different types the underlying purpose of HO 12, which is that younger workers should not be allowed to operate certain types of machinery when doing so would place them in harm's way. Specifically, this Safety Standards Modernization Act would address problems caused by DOL's interpretation and enforcement of HO 12, with respect to cardboard balers and compactors that commonly are used in supermarkets, grocery stores, and other retail establishments, for preparing and bundling cardboard and paper materials for recycling purposes. DOL's current interpretation of HO 12 goes so far as to prohibit minors from placing, tossing, or loading cardboard or paper materials into a baler or compactor. Such activities take place during a loading phase that is prior to, and separate from, the actual operation of the machine. While such a loading-phase prohibition may have made sense back in 1954, when HO 12 was originally issued, such is not the case today. Technology has brought about significant safety advancements to balers and compactors. Much like a household microwave oven or trash compactor, the newest generation of balers now in use in grocery stores and other locations cannot be engaged and operated during the loading phase. This important design feature is a result of safety standards issued by the American National Standards Institute [ANSI]. An employee is not at risk when placing cardboard materials into a baler that is in compliance with ANSI standards Z.245.5 1990, or putting paper materials into a compactor that is in compliance with ANSI standards Z245.2 1992. Nonetheless, DOL treats all balers and compactors the same, and considers the placement of materials into these machines, if performed by a minor, to be a clear-cut violation of HO 12. Each violation can result in a fine of $10,000 against an employer. If DOL could produce injury data showing that workers are at risk when loading materials into a machine that meets current ANSI standards, I might agree that the current interpretation and enforcement of HO 12 is warranted. However, DOL has acknowledged that it has no injury data for balers that meet the ANSI standard. Despite the complete lack of evidence that workers are at risk in these situations, DOL has cited numerous supermarkets throughout the United States and has assessed several million dollars in fines against grocery owners in recent years. It is difficult to understand the logic behind this kind of enforcement when, in fact, a review of 8,000 compensation cases involving injuries over the past 7 years by the Waste Equipment Technology Association failed to find a single injury attributable to a baler that meets current ANSI safety standards. The present, rigid interpretation of HO 12 is bad regulatory policy and should not continue. It benefits no one, especially workers. Worker protection is not enhanced by issuing large fines against employers that use balers meeting current safety standards. Such a policy also is clearly inconsistent with the goal of creating employment opportunities for young people. Because so many grocers have been fined by DOL for loading violations, the industry has become less inclined to hire younger workers. Originally, DOL applied this interpretation of HO 12 to cardboard balers. As burdensome and objectionable as this policy has been, concerning cardboard balers, DOL more recently went a step farther and now is applying the same interpretation to compactors, a similar piece of equipment that retail establishments use to recycle paper materials. Without the benefit of formal rulemaking and the opportunity for interested parties to file comments, DOL extended the jurisdiction of HO 12 to compactors at the beginning of 1994, and employers found themselves subjected to fines when it was documented that a minor had placed materials into a compactor. This is one more example of the ``speed trap'' mentality of Federal agencies, and the Department of Labor, in particular. Balers and compactors are both governed by ANSI safety standards and cannot be engaged or operated during the loading phase. This means, to re- emphasize, that employees loading machines meeting ANSI standards are not at risk. Clearly, DOL's position on HO 12, as it relates to cardboard balers and compactors, is not in step with the technology being used in the workplace. In view of the fact that this equipment can not be operated during the loading phase, there is no compelling reason to continue treating the placement of materials by minors a violation of HO 12. The old joke goes that, when something is difficult to accomplish, you compare it to passing an Act of Congress. If there is one process more intractable, it must be modernizing Federal agency regulations. HO 12 needs to be revised so that the placement of paper or cardboard materials into a baler or compactor that meets its respective ANSI safety standards by an employee under age 18 is no longer a violation of the regulation. The loading phase should be completely distinguished from the operating phase of the machine. While DOL has solicited comments on its child labor regulations, in general, Congress does not need to, and should not, wait any longer for this one, simple revision to HO 12. Throughout at least two administrations, DOL has promised to reconsider the rule. Their latest offering is the goal of issuing a new, final regulation by February 1996, even through we have yet to see a proposed revision to the rule. We don't need months of agency hearings and reams of paper. I've seen these grocery store balers operate. What's needed is a simple, common- sense change, and the bill I'm introducing today would make that change in a simple, straightforward way. The many young people who will not have summer jobs this year under DOL's status quo interpretation of HO 12 should not have to wait another year or more for the glacier-like process of regulatory change to catch up with technology. By promptly acting on the bill I'm introducing today, we can open up thousands of youth summer job opportunities without relying on government programs and grants. The jobs are there. The young people are there. All we need to do is remove one, unnecessary, regulatory wall between them. This bill would provide a narrow amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that would overrule DOL's interpretation of HO 12 in the limited and appropriate way I've described. My bill would not change the critically important safety focus of the regulation. In fact, I agree that DOL should remain vigilant and enforce the regulation in case when the safety of young workers is compromised by use of equipment that does not meet current ANSI safety standards. The bill would provide only that young workers would be allowed to operate balers and compactors that meet the current industry standards that ensure complete safety in their operation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of my bill in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my heart goes out for the families and friends of those brutally murdered by the senseless bombing in Oklahoma City last week. It was a cowardly act, perpetrated against fathers and mothers, children, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, friends and fellow Americans. While our prayers go to the survivors, the community and the brave soles doing the gruesome work of recovery, I am sure each of us, in our own way have uttered, why and ``there but by the grace of God go I.'' There is not justification for such an act of barbarism; no circumstances under which our society can tolerate such actions. Those who would wantonly take the lives of innocent citizens, also destroy the fabric of our freedom. They must be caught. If found guilty, they must be dealt the harshest penalty the law will allow. As a nation, we must draw a clear line between what is acceptable disagreement with Government and what is just plain lawless brutality. But in our sorrow and anger, we must be mindful to draw that line carefully. Our Constitution dictates the middle ground between measured justice and reckless retribution. It is a time tested outline for what is too much Government and what is too little. It is the very framework of our liberty. Even so, there are plenty of instances in the history of our Nation where its umbrella of protection was bent by public outrage or fear and the rights of individuals or groups have been suspended for what was viewed as ``the public good.'' And in almost every case, those have been mistakes. In retrospect, few of us can really defend the wholesale incarceration of Americans of Japanese descent at the outset of World War II. It must have seemed the proper action at the time. None of us can now defend Senator Joe McCarthy's witch hunt for communists in the entertainment business, although we were a nation in fear of spreading communism. Few of us who remember the civil disobedience of the late sixties, can defend the excess of Federal investigators who tapped the phones of dissidents, investigated the lives of civil rights leaders or spied on those whose only crime was having strongly held opinions that opposed the official position of our Government. Make no mistake. Those who executed this bombing are outlaws of the worst kind; misguided and sick people hiding behind some cause so they can inflict human suffering on people they don't even know. But they in this case doesn't include everyone in America who opposes Government excess. constitutional right to assemble, right to free speech, right to keep and bear arms, to practice responsible civil disobedience, or to disagree with the Federal Government. Neither the ultra right nor the ultra left, neither conservative radio programs nor the liberal media are guilty of this crime. The criminals who did it are responsible. Those who would use this act of barbarism to lay blame on their political or ideological enemies, do every citizen of this Nation a great disservice. They are attempting to place the blame somewhere other than on the shoulders of the criminals themselves, not because of their grief, but the callous political self interest. It also shows they have a shallow understanding of what makes our country great. In this Nation, the rights of the individual come first. The guilty must be found, tried and punished. The rights of the innocent must be preserved. In this Nation, ideas and beliefs are not crimes. God forbid that they ever will be. That is the constitutional prescription for our freedom. It should not be sacrificed for the short term political gain or national comfort. (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management to review the coordination of and conflicts between the Federal forest management and general environmental statutes. The hearing will take place Wednesday, April 26, at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 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 at (202) 224-2878. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I, too, stand in opposition to Senator Reid's amendment this evening. I think the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Alaska, who is chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has outlined very clearly what this money is intended for, where it comes from, and the commitment of the U.S. Congress to the ratepayers of a variety of utilities around the country, that we would use this money in a responsible fashion to attempt to site and develop a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste. I do not blame the Senator from Nevada for being concerned that the Congress of the United States chose Nevada--Federal land in the State of Nevada for that waste to be located on. This money is now going for the purpose of siting. But to pull it off into substance abuse would not only be an embarrassment for this Congress to all of the ratepayers, it would just flat be wrong. The citizens of my State have something at stake here. We have nuclear materials that would be destined for Yucca Mountain in Nevada if it were to become a permanent repository. But I tell you now, Mr. President, when we have the kind of money that the ratepayers of this country are now paying, in the billions of dollars, for the purpose of establishing a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, and to play games with it on the floor of the U.S. Senate is to break a commitment and to break a resolve that this country has to have to deal with nuclear waste in a responsible fashion for all of our people, not just for the States that have nuclear reactors generating nuclear electricity, and the repositories and the waste materials that are building up there. This is a national commitment. It ought to be directed to where it was dedicated, to the pledge of this Congress, and not sapped away, pulled away for the purpose of substance abuse. It makes no sense. I hope the Senate will oppose the Reid amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand today in support of the Gorton amendment as now amended; certainly in opposition to the amendment of my colleague, the junior Senator from the State of Washington. A good many things have been said this afternoon about what these amendments do and do not do. What I really think is important for all of us to understand is the state of the U.S. Forest Service and why we are engaged in a debate this afternoon in attempting to bring about emergency measures to deal with a very sick problem. I use the word sick because the forests of the inland West are sick. They are the product of 8 years of drought and decades of mismanagement that have resulted in one of the largest fuel buildups, acre by acre, ever in the history of the U.S. Forest Service. When fuel becomes dry and conditions are right, and Mother Nature comes along with thousands of lightning strikes, what happens is what happened in Idaho last summer and what happened in Colorado and Montana and eastern Washington and eastern Oregon and parts of northern California. Millions and millions of acres burn, wildlife is destroyed--in the instance of the infernos of last summer, 35 human beings lost their lives in an effort to stop these. This was not something that just happened. This was not just an ordinary circumstance. There are many who would like to argue this is Mother Nature at her finest. Let me suggest it was Mother Nature at her worst. But it was also Mother Nature who had been assisted for decades by the mismanagement of a Forest Service, by allowing the buildup of a phenomenal fuel structure, of timber across these lands that had not been properly managed or thinned or allowed to be like they were before man came along with the tremendous ability to put out fire. In my State of Idaho before my ancestors came along there were approximately 25 to 30 trees per acre. Today there are hundreds of trees per acre. And as a result of that, there are a million less acres of them and a couple of billion less board feet of them, because they went up in an inferno last summer. So what we are trying to tell Senators here this afternoon is that we have a very sick patient. That patient is called the U.S. public forests of this country, especially in the inland West. For those who counsel comity, and for those who counsel slowness and process and procedure and time and let us work this out, let me suggest when you have somebody in the emergency room and the life support systems are attached and the heartbeat is very faint, you do not counsel long-term relief to resolve some of the problem while you then look at the long term down the road to see if you cannot make it better. The Senator from Arkansas just a few moments ago spoke to the forest health bill I introduced a couple of weeks ago in the forestry subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That is the long-term approach. That is what we ought to be doing, by allowing the Forest Service to manage critical situations, be it fires or bug kill or a natural environment that has created this tremendous problem that exists in the West. But in the short term, with billions of board feet of timber at stake and watersheds and wildlife habitat and trying to avoid a cataclysmic situation of massive runoffs in the next couple of years that could result in the loss of fisheries, in the loss of water quality and stream quality, we need emergency measures now that protect the environment. What is the offshoot? Well, the offshoot is some timber and some thousands of jobs and a few hundreds of millions of dollars that might come to the Treasury of this country. That is not the first goal. That is the latter goal. That is the fallout. That is the receipt from what we are trying to do here this afternoon. Here is what we faced in Idaho and across the West last summer. This is not normal. This is one of the hottest fires ever recorded in the history of our environment. It destroyed the soil structure. It created an unnatural problem. Today we are taking one small step back toward a process and procedure that allows Mother Nature, cooperating with human beings, to make a better environment and in the long term solve a problem that now perplexes the intermountain West and creates a cataclysmic environment that could go on for a long time. Let us deal with the emergency problem now as this bill does. Let us deal with the long term, with quantitative and qualitative changes of the public law that allow the proper management of the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. President, a strong 2-year salvage amendment is absolutely necessary to work hand-in-hand with your longer-term forest health bill, S. 391. Salvage and restoration of the 4 million acres of 1994 fire-burned areas must be started immediately. Without this salvage language, it will not happen. Those in opposition will employ every effort to delay, confuse and derail the agencies' attempts to conduct responsible salvage activities. Last year's fires burned 4 billion board-feet of timber. If done quickly, much of this timber can be salvaged at considerable return to the Federal Treasury. But, the value of standing, burned trees deteriorates rapidly. Let me use this display to illustrate the rapid loss of value of trees burned in wildfire:

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in introducing legislation that will clarify veterans health services for ex-prisoners of war [ex-POW]. This bill will amend title 38 of the United States Code, ensuring access to outpatient medical services for any disability of a former prisoner of war. Mr. President, these services are currently being provided in accordance with a directive from the Secretary of the Veterans Administration. This bill is necessary in order to secure, by law, access to these services by our veterans who have suffered as prisoners of war. The law currently covers inpatient medical services for ex-POWs. However, as medical care continues to convert into more outpatient care, we need to ensure that those who are in need of care can obtain it in the most cost-effective manner. In the long-term this should ensure that we continue to provide care in the most cost effective manner as more ailments are treated on an outpatient basis. In short, we will be better able to control costs and provide better delivery of care to those veterans who suffered at the hands of our enemies as prisoners of war. Mr. President, I would like to point out that bills similar to this one have previously passed the Senate. However, they have never completed the process leading to enactment. I hope that my colleagues will see the merit in this legislation and support it so that we can see it signed into law during this Congress.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that would direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the Federal interest in certain Bureau of Reclamation projects to the project beneficiaries. This legislation has already been introduced in the other body by Congressman Skeen. I am introducing the identical legislative language in order to frame what I believe will be an interesting debate. settlement of the West, and it has been extraordinarily successful in that endeavour. There are many instances, throughout the West, where the objectives of individual projects have been fully accomplished. The project works have been constructed and the allocable repayment obligations have been satisfied. Operation and maintenance of the projects have been turned over to the project beneficiaries and the Federal Government simply holds bare legal title with little or no involvement with the project. Those seem to me to be classic examples of the type of projects that should be fully turned over to the beneficiaries. The Federal Government incurs annual costs and is exposed to out-year liabilities for no other reason than it holds title to certain works. Given the downsizing of the Bureau of Reclamation, it seems all the more sensible that the Bureau conserve its personnel and resources. Just to have one person available for a project on which the Federal Government does nothing probably costs over $100,000. Given the needs elsewhere within the Department, each of those personnel could be better used. I do not want anyone to think that this legislation is a final product, but it does serve to frame the debate. Many of our reclamation projects are multiple purpose, and we will need to be careful to ensure that we do not lose sight of those other objectives. Many projects provide important flood control and navigation benefits that are of national interest. That does not argue against a transfer of title, but it is a concern that we should be aware of. A very important consideration, at least to this Senator, will be the issue of the transfer of the water rights associated with the project. Luckily, we do not have to face the issue of Federal reserved water rights since under reclamation law, the Bureau has obtained water rights from the States in conformity with State water law for all its projects. We will, however, need to be careful to make certain that title to those rights is transferred to the appropriate entities or individuals and that the transfer is in conformity with State water law. There are many other considerations as well, and I do not intend to be exhaustive in this statement but one item deserves mention. We dealt with some of those issues when we considered the transfer of the Solano project several years ago, and our inability to fully resolve all those issues, including the recreational responsibilities of the Bureau at Lake Berryessa, was the reason why we were unable to enact legislation. As drafted, this legislation only applies to fully paid-out projects. In particular instances, I think a case could be made to permit prepayment of the outstanding indebtedness much as we have done for other reclamation loans. That is another issue we will have to closely examine. I want to congratulate Congressman Skeen and his cosponsors for raising this issue. All of us in the West, and some from outside the West, have questioned from time to time, the future of the Bureau of Reclamation. Congressman Skeen has proposed one answer for many projects. I fully expect that we may even find agreement within the Department of the Interior that on some projects there simply is no further role for the Federal Government. I do not expect that we will have a complete transfer of all projects, but that should not stop us from looking at the question. A fully paid out single purpose project located solely within one State will be the easy transfer. I hope we do not limit our vision that narrowly.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 4, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act, as modified by the Dole compromise amendment. This landmark legislation promises to bring some long overdue progress in fiscal responsibility and in our war on government waste. When it finally becomes law in the coming weeks: It will help reduce the deficit; It will subject a lot of questionable pork provisions to the withering bright sunlight of Presidential and public scrutiny; and It will also subject the President to increased scrutiny--we'll see if his veto pen matches his promises. I recognize that the Daschle amendment--which we tabled earlier today--is essentially the same as S. 14, which was cosponsored by several Senators on this side, including myself. I was an original cosponsor of both S. 4 and S. 14 as introduced, because I wanted to increase the chances of the Senate passing a legislative line item veto, passing the strongest one we can, passing one that was carefully crafted, and passing one that is bipartisan. I voted to table the Daschle amendment--as did some of the other cosponsors of S. 14; This is because we now have a chance to pass a bill that is stronger than S. 14, and like S. 14, is carefully crafted to do the variety of things that the large majority Senators want to do. That is what we now have in the Dole amendment. As in the original McCain-Coats S. 4, we have a \2/3\ vote required to override an item veto. As in both S. 4 and the original S. 14, we now have a process that prevents circumventing the veto by passing a one-line appropriation bill and putting hundreds of detailed directions in a committee report; and we will avoid extending the item veto to policy items that are non- dollar items. As in S. 14, and somewhat similarly to the Bradley proposal, we apply the line item veto to targeted tax breaks. As in S. 14, we apply the item veto to new direct spending, and will include a deficit-reduction lockbox. As in bills introduced by Senators Hollings and Bradley, in a bipartisan spirit, we use the process of separate enrollment. I said before that I preferred a strengthened rescission process to separate enrollment; I still do; but taking each proposal as a whole, taking all the provisions in each, the Dole amendment is the best package to come before this body. Of all the versions discussed, the Dole amendment is the least likely to be subject to constitutional problems and court review. It is clear that, under Article I of the Constitution, the Congress determines the form of bills it sends to the President. This approach does not involve any of the issues raised in the past that might question the constitutionality of legislative vetoes or impoundment powers that might cross the barriers separating the legislative and executive powers. Some Senators supported the Daschle substitute as being the ``middle ground'' version. But now, by extending the veto to targeted tax breaks and new direct spending, the Dole amendment also is in the middle ground and covers a range of Senators' concerns. The only material difference remaining between the Dole and Daschle versions is whether you want a line item veto to be overridden by a majority vote or a \2/3\ vote. I agree with President Clinton on this one: I want the stronger line item veto. In this case, it is possible to pass the better of 2 proposals, and a \2/3\ override is better than a majority override. It is that simple. In all other important respects, the Dole amendment and other amendments that we are accepting incorporate the other positive aspects of S. 14 and the Daschle substitute into the bill we are going to pass. The bottom line is this: The principal difference between separate enrollment and enhanced rescission in how the papers are bundled. That is all. As improved here on the floor, that difference in bundling will not be a problem. Separate enrollment under the Dole amendment would wind up accomplishing essentially the same ends a the McCain-Coats type of enhanced rescission process in S. 4, with improvements from S. 14 added. I also wanted to address some of the concerns about separate enrollment raised by Senator Nunn and others. Some Senators are concerned that moving the details of committee reports into separately enrolled bills would present the President with 10,000 appropriations bills to sign or veto instead 13 or so. If writer's cramp truly becomes a concern, the Constitution allow the President simply to let the least controversial or least notable of the these bills become law without signature or veto. Article I, section 7 says, in part: If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, . . . This simple answer is more than this concern deserves. Some Senators are concerned that, conversely, to thwart the President and the line item veto, bills may be reduced to one-line appropriations, with the details, earmarks, requirements, directions, and requests that now appear in committee reports being moved instead into floor colloquies and letters. Senators who raise this kind of concern are assuming that business as usual will not change, but will just get more difficult under the new rules. They are missing the point: This bill will change how we conduct business around here. The new rules mean it is a whole new ball game. Senator Nunn correctly points out that, as a matter of accommodation, currently, report language is treated as ``sort of binding'' on agencies as they spend appropriations. The point is, this part of the process should change. Now, so-called ``earmarks'' will have to appear right out there in the open--not hidden from view by an obscure comment in a conference report that the lack of mention of contradiction in the Senate committee report means that the Congress expects an agency to honor a direction given in the House How many of my colleagues even understand that this is the way we do business now? I can guarantee that most Americans do not know that--and would be incredulous if they did. The current process leads to ambiguity at best, evasion of responsibility at worst. Here is an actual example of how the current system breaks down--it happened to this Senator: In 1994, the House report on one appropriation bill took position on a matter of agency discretion; several Senators entered into a Senate floor colloquy directly contradicting the House position; the conference committee should have resolved that disagreement but did not. As a result, the agency had no idea what, if any, guidance it had from Congress or how binding it was. Well, under this bill, if we put it in law, we know it is binding. If it is in a floor colloquy, we know it is advisory, interpretative, clarifying. That is well-known and well settled. There is no doubt--no doubt--that no court ever would find a floor colloquy to have the binding effect of law. So, what this line item veto means is that a lot of unimportant earmarks and so-called ``directions'' simply will disappear from the formal parts of the process. The important ones will become law or be vetoed. That is the way it should be. What a novel idea--that we should put into law the instructions that we expect agencies to carry out. Some Senators are concerned that reprogrammings would have to be accomplished through an act of Congress instead of over the telephone among committee chairman and ranking members. The possible problems pointed out with reprogramming, once again, are only problems if you keep trying to do business as usual under the new procedure. Now, under this bill, we will have to decide when micromanagement of an item is so important that it should be in law, and when we are just going to let the agency have some discretion in how it does its job. We will need fewer reprogrammings, because this new process creates a disincentive for Congress to micromanage agencies through the appropriations process. When we do handle that reduced number of reprogrammings, they ought to become routine legislation, basically technical corrections. And, after all, if an item of reprogramming is so controversial that it would be subject to contention on the floor of the Senate, then it is too important to go through the status quo's ``informal'' process. line-item veto

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that in addition to the hearing on ``the Mining Law Reform Act of 1995'', S. 506, ``the Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 1995'', S. 504, will also be considered before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands Management. The hearing will take place in SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Thursday, March 30, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. in Washington, D.C. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands Management, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C 20510. For further information, please call Michael Flannigan at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation on behalf of Matt Clawson of Pocatello, ID. Mr. Clawson has been required to pay dearly for mistakes made by his Government. His plaintive appeal for help is a proper place for Congress to begin redressing and reforming profligate regulatory excesses, abuses, and injustices by this Government against its citizens. Mr. Clawson obtained from the U.S. Forest Service all of the required approvals for his mining claim and plan of operations on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River near the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho. He spend what was for him an enormous sum of money to develop and begin working the claim according to Forest Service requirements. Shortly thereafter, however, and before he could recover any of his investment, he was required to cease operations. The reason was a lawsuit and subsequent court rulings that found the Forest Service had erred in granting the approvals. This bill simply reimburses Mr. Clawson's expenses with interest any purported value of the claim. He has exhausted all of his legal remedies, necessitating this private relief bill. I believe the compensation is more than warranted. Moreover, U.S. Claims Court Judge Wiese commented on the record that Mr. Clawson's case had ``been a very troubling case'' for him and he believed ``this man should be given some relief somewhere.'' That somewhere can only be, and must be, here.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon I rise in support of S. 4, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act. What is now ongoing is, in my opinion, the long overdue and what I hope is a historic debate toward resolution of this very important issue. Let me recognize both Senator Coats and Senator McCain, as well as Chairman Pete Domenici and Majority Leader Dole, for their willingness to work together to bring us to a point of compromise that I think has produced a line-item veto product in S. 4 that can pass the Senate, work through the conference with the House, and ultimately be placed on the President's desk with the degree of confidence I think we now have that he will sign it. This is one of those items that an overwhelming majority of the citizens of our country say they agree with. It is certainly something that most Senators have agreed with in principle, and now that we have been able to refine it, we have a product that I think the majority can support. The issues, of course, were the two-thirds override: What kind of authority would the President have in the ability to veto and in our ability to react to that veto? I think it has to be a tough vote, a supermajority vote. The idea of a simple majority, while I supported a concept like that a year ago, now clearly, if we can get the tougher version, we ought to do so. The idea of separate enrollment or rescission is an issue that has been discussed. To extend the line-item veto authority in new, direct entitlement spending as well as appropriations is another issue that we had to work our way through. And, of course, to extend the targeted tax benefits, again, is another one of those issues that I am extremely pleased to see that we have been able to deal with. Let me first talk about the majority versus the two-thirds override which is really at the heart of all of this. It is the heart of the division of authority and responsibility and the power associated with that authority. As I have mentioned, I have supported both approaches in the past, but I have always argued in doing so it was extremely important that the Congress of the United States pass the strongest possible line-item veto. In fact, as Senator McCain read earlier yesterday, that is exactly what the President has now said publicly he wants--the the strongest possible product that the Senate of the United States or the Congress collectively can yield. Last year's House passed a majority override. This year, an overwhelmingly bipartisan House, by a majority of 294 to 134, passed the two-thirds override, an important signal from that new Republican House. Now that Senators know we are firing with what all of us know are real bullet votes, it is an opportunity to get our two-thirds. That is the product at hand now. That is why I am extremely pleased that we can deal with it. The second issue I mentioned, the idea of separate enrollment versus rescission--as I say, I have sponsored both and cosponsored both because, whether I was in the majority or whether I was in the minority, I have always argued that we had to get to the President's desk and into his power some form of line-item veto. The stronger versions were always greatly appreciated by this Senator, but at the same time I felt it was critically important that we move the issue. Now my preferences lie clearly with a strengthened rescission approach. It is simpler. In enrollment, transmission to the President, and at signing of a law, it could be used as a scalpel instead of the idea of a butcher knife, because rescissions can reduce as well as zero out an item. I think that is the way we want to handle this. But I will vote for a separate enrollment--or I would have, if that had been It should not sacrifice the good at the altar of the perfect. We have worked out what can be called near perfect on this issue, and I am pleased that all of the Senators came together to strive to build the compromise. The only line-item veto that will become law is the one that we can send to a conference with the House and work out our differences on. From what I am hearing from some of my former colleagues in the House, we can get that done now with the work product that we are debating here at this time. Separate enrollment was a second-best approach. That still makes it definitely preferable to the status quo. Senator Bradley and Senator Hollings have introduced a version of that concept. The Senate Budget Committee reported one out several years ago. The Senate considered a separate approach in 1985. It is not mysterious, last-minute kind of work. It is simply the kind of product that had to be looked at as we worked our way through the differences with this kind of legislation. Opponents can have it both ways, I guess, in their arguments. Some of those who criticized us for defending a balanced budget amendment as reported from the committee now are complaining that the committee- reported bill may be changed on the floor. We now have built a majority consensus so that kind of issue will not have to be worried about or dealt with as we work our will in the final debate, moving through cloture, I hope, to final passage. At a policy lunch today the leader, Leader Dole, mentioned it was possible we could get to a unanimous-consent agreement that would not take us through cloture. I hope that will be the case. This ought not be a contentious debate, or protracted. When an overwhelming majority of the American people want their Government to perform in a certain way, then we ought to make every effort to get that done. And certainly both Senators McCain and Coats, working with the other Senators mentioned, I believe have tried to accomplish that. And S. 4, I think, clearly embodies that kind of effort on the part of the Senate. Extend it to targeted tax benefits, the other issue I have mentioned. It is important to remember that taxing and spending are fundamentally different kinds of things. When Congress reduces someone's tax burden we are not giving out something that is the Government's, although there are some here who would like to argue, when we talk about this kind of thing, that somehow it is taking money away from the Government. I strongly argue taxpayers' money is theirs in the first instance. It is a majority issue of Government, when Government decides to ask the citizens of this country to give a certain amount of their hard-earned effort in behalf of Government. But the idea that we are giving something back, to me has always been an astounding attitude on the part of many in Congress. I simply have argued the opposite and always will continue to do so. I believe in a free society it is the citizens who govern and not the government. In this instance, I think we are caught in a debate of that kind of argument when we deal with the differences. It is why I support the concept of a flat tax and always have. The line-item veto should extend to the tax side of the budget, and that is what we are trying to do now. If it is limited to a veto over narrowly targeted tax benefits--in other words, tax pork--then we ought to look at that. That is what this ought to do and that is exactly what we will be attempting to accomplish. Generally applicable tax relief, like rate reduction, indexing, or deductions or exclusions that apply to all taxpayers who are similarly situated, should not be the subject in some instances of a line-item veto. It should apply only in cases where similarly situated taxpayers within a group are targeted directly and are arbitrarily dealt with in tax legislation. Let us debate substance in this instance and quit playing the politics of this. Let us pass a bill and send to the conference and to the President a document that truly works with the kind of issues we deal with and gives the President substantive participation in the processes of budgeting. I hoped what happened on the balanced budget amendment is not going to happen here. It now appears we have been able to strike a compromise that will allow it. But there is also something else important to remember. Balanced budget amendments require two- thirds votes. This will require a majority of the Senate voting in favor of this. If we had been able to solve the problem of cloture, if we have been able to pass through that now with a unanimous-consent agreement--and I hope we can get there in the next few hours--let me tell you, it is going to be awfully important in resolving this issue and showing the American people the Congress of the United States and the Senate can be responsive to the issues at hand. Promoting fiscal responsibility--that really is the issue underlying all that we do with the line-item veto. In 1974, from then until October 1994, the President requested 1,084 rescissions totaling $72.8 billion. Of the 1,084 rescissions, Congress approved 399, or about 37 percent. That amounted to $22.9 billion or 31 percent of dollar volumes requested. Alone, a line-item veto process is not going to be enough to balance the budget. But it is widely estimated it can save at least an additional $10 billion a year in the current budgeting scenario. To paraphrase Senator Everett Dirksen: $10 billion here and $10 billion there, and pretty soon we are talking about real money. Interestingly enough, while we might forget that, thank goodness, the taxpayers and the American public have not forgotten it. That is why the line-item veto constantly over the years has increased in popularity as a concept and an important device for the executive branch of Government to have. Does it yield exclusive power to the President or to the executive branch? Absolutely not. But what it does, whether it is a Republican President or Democrat President, it gives that President the opportunity to single out some of the budgeting and expenditure activities that have gone on here on this Hill far too long. The special project of the special Senator, knowing full well that project alone could not come to the floor and sustain itself with a majority vote of the Senate itself, but because it has been tucked away in an appropriations bill, because it was give a little here and get a little from another Senator--that game has been played for years. And literally hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent for very questionable projects in individual States that should never have been allowed. That is the goal of a line-item veto. That alone would save us billions of dollars a year, but that is not the only goal of a line- item veto. The other goal is for the President himself or herself to participate directly, to deal with broader issues, if they will, to cause the targeting of the debate when it comes to the expenditure of tax dollars in ways that simply have not been targeted. I have served in State government where Governors had line-item vetoes. I have had to go against a veto, take it to the floor of the State Senate in Idaho, and argue why we ought not to sustain the Governor's veto in many instances. Let me tell you. It really works to refine your thinking. It forces you to do your homework. It forces that issue to the floor in a laser kind of direction of the conference or in this instance the Senate's attention on a given legislative issue, a given appropriation issue. All of us who have served here for any length of time know very clearly that when many of these appropriation bills come to the floor they are very large in nature, and the balance on them that has been created is oftentimes very precarious. So the question of legislative accountability, as I have been talking about, has to be one of the other most important issues in bringing about a line-item veto. As I have said, many of these appropriations bills involve hundreds of pages of detail, and it is virtually impossible for every Senator and for all staff to read every bill, every page, every area of fine print. Certainly, if it has happened to me once, it has happened to me many times over the course of my years in home and to hold a town meeting and to have someone come and say, ``Senator, did you know that in that bill you just passed there was that provision in it?'' In all fairness I have to say, ``You know, I did not know that. If I had known it, it might have changed my vote or it might have changed the attitude in which I dealt with a given issue.'' That is the responsibility that comes about as a result of giving the President the kind of authority that is now offered in S. 4, this very critical piece of legislation. Very simply, that is why the American people by an overwhelming majority have supported this concept. So as we have worked out our differences in dealing with the style of vote, and the way we handle different items that target the President's attention and his authority under the line-item veto, in all fairness, Mr. President, I am extremely proud of the work that we have been able to do and what I think will show on the final vote to be a very bipartisan issue. One of my voters in Idaho said the other day, ``Well, Senator, do you really think this is the time to give the President a line-item veto? I mean he is a Democrat, you know.'' I laughed and said, ``There is no good time, and there is no bad time. I have always supported this idea, and if it is good enough for Ronald Reagan and George Bush, it is good enough for Bill Clinton, and all of the other Presidents who will serve after them.'' Why? Because it is good public policy. It is the right thing to give the executive branch of Government because it fine tunes, it brings about accountability, and it causes the Congress of the United States and the Senate to do its homework in the kind of detail that we have not been producing in the past. In the final analysis, when I mentioned that 1,084 rescissions that Presidents have asked for and the 300-plus that we have been able to agree on, and the tens of billions of dollars that have been saved, and the more that will be saved by the kind of effort that we are involved in today, that is the bottom line. That is the bottom line we all strive for. That is why this line-item veto embodied in S. 4 is good public policy. I hope that we can work out the necessary unanimous consent so that we do not have to march down the road of a cloture vote and that we can then bring ourselves to the finality of the debate and final passage. But in the end, if we cannot, then I will certainly support cloture. It is time we bring this issue finally to the floor for debate or for a vote, and I hope we can accomplish that. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues in proposing a constitutional amendment to protect the flag of the United States. We Americans are not one race, nor are we one creed. We are an amalgam of the world's people come together to form a nation. And to symbolize that union, we have chosen a fabric that weaves together our many races, customs, and beliefs: the American flag. No other emblem, token, or artifact of our Nation has been defended to the death by legions of patriots. No other has drawn multitudes from abroad with the promise of freedom. No other has inspired generations with the belief that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the birthright of every human being. Old Glory holds a unique place in the hearts of Americans, and that is why they have requested--indeed, demanded--unique protection for it. Several years ago, Congress attempted to fashion legislation for this purpose, but it just did not work. Some people probably thought that was the end of the story. They were continued to debate and discuss this matter. And they succeeded in passing memorials in 43 States urging Congress to take action to protect the flag from physical desecration. Some of my colleagues may recall last year, on Flag Day, I placed those memorials in the Congressional Record for all to see. Mr. President, the legislatures submitting those memorials represent nearly 229 million people--more than 90 percent of our country's population. They did not pass these memorials easily or swiftly. In legislature after legislature, the record shows these memorials were given serious and thorough consideration. Now it is time for the U.S. Congress to match that resolve. Today, in response to the demand of the American people, we are offering this amendment. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting this necessary and appropriate measure to safeguard the flag of our Nation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Let us support the amendment and bring about a moratorium and stop this rush to judgment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Texas for offering this amendment and bringing to the floor of this Senate for the first time in this session what I think will resolve. Let me say that there is nothing wrong with this amendment and it ought to be enacted. We ought to vote to support a moratorium on further listings until the Senator from Montana, the Senators from Oregon and Idaho, and the Senator from Texas, have a chance to resolve a very bad law that needs dramatic fixing at this moment. We have heard rhetoric on this floor for the last 5 years that the Endangered Species Act is not working. It is costing hundreds of millions of dollars of lost economy and lost jobs, and we have done nothing about it. And now on the doorstep of an opportunity to change it, what is wrong with just stopping for a moment, stepping back from this administration's rush to judgment and in a panic throe list thousands of species simply because they think the Senate and the House are now going to change a law that has needed to be changed? So I applaud the Senator from Texas for offering this amendment. We have heard arguments on the floor to say, well, that is a local issue, that the Senator from Texas does not understand she has a local problem, so why does she not deal with it locally? It is not legal in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Montana, for this very act at this moment is dislocating people, economies, farmers, ranchers and business people with the cavalier attitude on the part of the implementing agencies that ``so be it.'' It is all in the name of the species, and to heck with people. I think it is time that this Congress resolve the issue, and do it quickly, first of all, with a moratorium and, secondly, with the responsible authorizing committees' handling of a reauthorization of the act. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, yesterday, hosted a hearing on the very viability of a regional power system that is now being directly threatened by the impact of a decision and a proposed management plan by a Federal agency on the Endangered Species Act. That regional power organization has spent over $1.5 billion trying to save a variety of species of fish in the Columbian Snake River system. The process has been driven more by politics than by the good science that ought to make the decisions. If it is politics that is listing species instead of science, what is wrong with the amendment of the Senator from Texas?

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there will now be a period for morning business for not to extend beyond the hour of 10 a.m.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the majority leader has indicated that the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 889, the supplemental appropriations bill, if an agreement can be reached with respect to a limited number of amendments. Senators should, therefore, be aware that rollcall votes are expected throughout today's session.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this morning, the leader time has been reserved.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have asked for, and received, this time today so a good many Members of the Senate can talk about one of the most important issues that the Senate will consider this year; that is, the issue of tax cuts. And certainly promises made are promises to be kept. Those of us in the Republican Party are absolutely committed to providing a budget package that will produce a respectable tax cut to the American people, and especially to American families--families and family groups--who for some years have not received the benefit of the kind of consideration under our current tax law that we think they ought to. Certainly no policy of the Federal Government, no Federal law, should conflict or make it difficult for the family unit of our society to exist, and we believe the current tax structure does just that. This special order this morning will be conducted by two Senators who have led the issue of family tax cuts and family consideration, Senator Coats and a freshman Senator who was one of the leaders in the House in the past few years on this key issue, Senator Grams. So at this time, I yield to Senator Coats to allocate the time accordingly.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, in submitting a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that President Lee Teng-Hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan [ROC] should be allowed a private visit to the United States. This concurrent resolution makes an important statement in the future direction of United States/Republic of China relations. The State Department's refusal last year to allow President Lee, a freely elected leader from a democratic nation, an overnight layover in Hawaii during his trip to Costa Rica, was very unfortunate. It is hoped that, with the passage of this legislation, the indiscretion that occurred last year will not be repeated. And, Mr. President, it is important to note that this bill expresses support for a private visit to the United States. Last May I had an opportunity to visit the Republic of China on Taiwan. It was a wonderful experience forging new friendships and strengthening the many ties between the Republic of China and my home State, Idaho. I was very much impressed by the public officials with whom I met and enjoyed the engaging conversations about the politics in the Republic of China and the recent elections. During my meeting with President Lee Teng-Hui, I learned of his genuine interest in seeing his country play a larger international role, which is a goal befitting Taiwan's economic power and place within the international community. President Lee urged all nations, especially the United States, to give their support to Taiwan's campaign to return to the United Nations. It is my hope that this goal will someday be realized. In addition, President Lee expressed a very sincere desire to travel privately to the United States. I shared with him an invitation extended by one of my constituents, who was concerned about the incident in Hawaii. In addition, I expressed my hope that he would be able to visit Idaho. Mr. President, Idaho and the Republic of China have enjoyed the mutual benefits of a long and close relationship. During my visit last year I had the pleasure of joining then Governor of Idaho Cecil Andrus and Governor James Soong of the Taiwan provincial government to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the sister-state relationship between Idaho and the Taiwan Province. Through this friendship my State has greatly benefited by expanding trade, cultural, and educational exchanges. Idaho exports to the Republic of China range from agricultural and wood products to electronics. In addition, the growth in trade has been enhanced by the placement of an Idaho trade office in the world trade center, in Taipei. Eddie Yen, the gentleman that operates the office for the Idaho Department of Commerce has been an asset to our State and has played an essential role in furthering the Expansion of Idaho's trade to Taiwan. The United States also benefits from a stable relationship with the Republic of China on Taiwan. After extensive internal review, there has been recent progress toward upgrading the relations between the United States and Taiwan, which was good news from the Clinton administration. The administration has agreed to help Taiwan enter certain international organizations, especially those that deal primarily with trade and commerce. I applaud and encourage that endeavor. The Clinton administration has also agreed to allow the Republic of China to change the name of its offices in the United States from the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. These modest improvements in relations between our two countries are certainly a step in the right direction. It is hoped that we will see this pattern of improvement continued. The concurrent resolution submitted by Senator Murkowski is yet another step in the right direction. Mr. President, I hope that remaining issues or obstacles can be resolved so that President Lee Teng-Hui can be allowed to visit the United States. It is my understanding that a number of my colleagues have extended invitations to President Lee and other leaders from Taipei, to visit Capitol Hill. I know for a fact that President Lee has much insight to share with us, especially on East Asian affairs, and, Mr. President, since the Republic of China on Taiwan is a tremendous example of economic prosperity and democratic freedom for developing nations around the world, we would undoubtedly benefit from the insights of a leader such as President Lee Teng-Hui, who has played a central role in the achievements of the Republic of China on Taiwan.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business for no longer than 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have before me at this moment the National Journal's Congressional Daily. It is a report of the activities of Congress on a daily basis, referring to what committees are doing both in the House and the Senate and also reporting on the executive branch of Government. It is one of those documents that many of us often refer to as an accurate accounting of the day-to-day activities of the U.S. Congress. I thought it was appropriate to bring before us at this time. A week ago, we finalized debate and voted on a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. At that time, we failed to get the necessary 67 votes by 1 vote. Immediately following that, we saw a precipitous drop in the value of the dollar on world currency markets, which actually continued through most of this week, only to be abated by Alan Greenspan coming to Capitol Hill and talking to a House committee on the need for congressional action as it relates to deficit reduction. That seemed to, at least for a time, level out the decline of the dollar. One of the things that has concerned me--and I see the Senator from Illinois on the floor at this moment, who was one of the major leaders in the balanced budget amendment issue--and has concerned the Senator from Illinois for so long is the inability of Congress to manage the deficit. And even though there have been many tries made over the last several years, it was this inability that brought me, several years ago, to the conclusion that only a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would change this scenario. I am not going to speak of the intentions of this President, but I will only say that this President, since he came to office, convinced this Congress that with a major tax increase in what was called a deficit reduction package, that he could reduce the deficit, he could control the out-of-control Federal budget. Yet, this year we saw this President bring to the Hill a budget that is not reflective of a declining deficit. In fact, most assume that this administration has largely given up on their ability to bring the deficit near balance and that it is now moving up again. The reason I thought it was appropriate at this moment to mention that is that, in today's Congressional Daily, it says President Clinton's fiscal 1996 budget would cause the Federal deficit to climb $82 billion higher by the year 2000 than the administration has estimated, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The article goes on to talk about preliminary studies or examinations which show that, by 2000, the deficit will still be in the $276 billion-and-climbing range. The point I want to make is very simple. Once again, it is clearly reflective that this Congress and this President cannot and have not been able to control the Federal deficit. While this President may have tried, it is obvious that, under their own budget figures, whether it is lack of an adequate estimate or whether simply a failure to make the necessary cuts, he, too, is missing a Federal budget deficit projection in his own budgets by $82 billion. That is a phenomenal amount of money under anyone's estimation and certainly it is by ours. If the budget were out of balance by $82 billion, then I think the Senator from Illinois and I would say, well, that is a major and a good-faith effort. But this is the estimate of a budget that is out of balance by nearly $300 billion, as it will be $82 billion higher. Those are the problems we face that I think so clearly dramatize, day after day, year after year, why we need a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding. I will not use the 5 minutes, but I did want to make a few comments in relation to the Kassebaum amendment and what I believe to be its importance in this issue that we are debating here on the floor. Mr. President, I will also add to my statement a letter from NFIB [National Federation of Independent Business], for in that letter are several quotes that I think are extremely valuable to this debate. One of those quotes which is important, and I will mention it at this moment, as it relates to what our President has just done and the meaning of that act as it relates to a balance that we have held in labor law now for a good long while. It says: This balance of labor's right to strike with management's right to stay in business using temporary or permanent replacement workers during economic strikes has not been challenged by any President since 1935. Are the working conditions and are the labor conditions of America today so different, have they changed so dramatically since we placed quality labor laws on the books of our country since 1935 that our President would act as he has acted? I simply do not believe that is true. What our President has said by this act is, ``Give in or go out of business.'' No President has said it that way, nor should they. It is unilateral disarmament of employers at the bargaining table. And that has never been public policy and it should never be public policy. What was then was then; what is now is now. The world has changed significantly. And it is important that the laws that still work be allowed to work. Certainly, the action that was taken by this President is to disallow fundamental labor law in this country and the unique balance that has been created and held for so many years. The amendment to prohibit funds from being used to implement any Executive order that bars hiring Federal contractors who hire permanent worker replacements is an amendment that should be passed by this Congress, and I support it strongly. If there had been a pressing need for such an order, why did this President not issue it more than 2 years ago? What has changed over the course of this President's administration that would cause for this destabilizing act to occur when no President has taken this stand for 35 years? Nothing has happened. That is the answer. So why would he do it? If the President actually had a clear legal authority to issue such an Executive order, why did he not do it earlier? Well, he does not have, in our opinion, that legal authority. Why, instead, did he put all of his eggs in one basket of striker replacement legislation during the last Congress? One has to wonder if the answer does not lie more in politics than in policy. I concur with the Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] that the President has exceeded his constitutional and legal authority. The Executive order flies in the face of 57 years of settled employment law as written by Congress, as consistently applied by the courts, and as consistently enforced by 10 Presidents and their administrations. No President has ever launched such a full frontal attack on settled Federal laws governing employer-employee relations; on fair and flexible bargaining in the work place; on the rights of employers and employees to determine their own negotiating behavior on a level playing field; and on the Federal Government's role as impartial referee, rather than coach and cheerleader for one side. This Executive order will be costly to taxpayers, as strikes are encouraged and prolonged against contractors the economy, as the ripple effect of these strikes cause bottlenecks elsewhere in the economy, affecting suppliers, subcontractors, carriers, and others. Like so many other clever schemes that erupt within the Capital Beltway, this one will not help workers, it will hurt them; will not create jobs, it will destroy them; was designed to court a few elite lobbyists, not rank and file workers and their families; will shut the door to Federal contracting on many small businesses who will find this condition economically impossible to meet. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the NFIB be printed in the Record.