Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. I agree. This country, this Commander in Chief, and we as Senators cannot be denied the right to take preemptive action when clear evidence indicates that the citizens of our country are at risk.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wood Preservation Safety Act of 2002. If enacted, this legislation would authorize the Forest Products Laboratory of the U.S. Forest Service to study the effectiveness of silver-based biocides as a wood preservative treatment. According to silver experts and academics, silver biocides could serve as a viable, safe and cost effective alternative wood preservative. Given silver's long-standing role as an effective biocide, testing should be undertaken to determine silver's suitability as a wood preservative. Thus, I feel it is important to study and fully explore the potential of silver as a wood preservative. Mining has been an important part of Idaho's history since the late 1800s. It became Idaho's first industry and remains a critical part of Idaho and the nation's economy. Mining in Idaho has supplied the nation with minerals necessary for today's modern lifestyle which many of us take for granted. In 1985, the mines of Idaho's Coeur d'Alene mining district produced their one billionth ounce of silver. The Sunshine Mine was America's richest silver mine, producing over 300 million ounces of silver, more than the entire output of Nevada's famous Comstock Lode. Silver contributes to our quality of life in many ways, and its use as a biocide in wood products is an important application that must be explored. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that would create a comprehensive research program to test the viability of silver-based biocides for the treatment of wood products.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sandpoint Land and Facilities Act of 2002.'' This bill is a unique opportunity to meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in Sandpoint, ID and to provide facilities for the local county government. This bill will transfer ownership of the local General Service Administration building currently housing the Forest Service to that agency. The bill also provides authority for the Forest Service to work with Bonner County, Idaho to exchange the existing building to Bonner County in exchange for a new and more functional building to the Forest Service. This transfer of ownership will not only provide the opportunity for the local Forest Service office to obtain a facility that best meets their needs but also will meet the facility needs of Bonner County. The transfer of this facility will allow the Forest Service to improve service to the public, improve public and employee safety, make the Idaho Panhandle National Forest more financially competitive, and allow increased spending on resource programs that contribute to healthier ecosystems. In turn, Bonner County will benefit by providing to them a building that consolidates county offices so that better services can be provided to the local public, including ADA compliant access to the county courtrooms. Additionally, the GSA will dispose of a building that is only partially occupied and is remotely located from other GSA facilities. This is a win-win situation for the Forest Service, Bonner County, GSA, and the taxpayers and an outstanding example of the federal government at the local level working with the county government to create common sense solutions that result in more efficient operations and better service to the public.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Idaho Panhandle National Forest Improvement Act of 2002. This bill is an opportunity to provide lands for local benefits and to meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley of Idaho. This bill will offer for sale or exchange administrative parcels of land in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest that the Forest Service has identified as no longer in the interest of public ownership and that disposing of them will serve the public better. The proceeds from these sales will be used to improve or replace the Forest Service's Ranger Station in Idaho's Silver Valley. The Forest Service administrative parcels identified for disposal include the land permitted by the Granite/Reeder Sewer District on Priest Lake, Shoshone Camp in Shoshone County, and the North-South Ski Bowl, south of St. Maries. The bill also directs the Forest Service to improve or construct a new ranger station in the Silver Valley. The current ranger station is in dire need of repair or replacement, and this will ensure my commitment to a continued and increased presence of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley. This is a win-win situation for the taxpayers, the Forest Service, the residents of the Silver Valley, and the permittees on the parcels of land to be disposed of.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I regret to point out one very important provision that is missing from H.R. 2215: a district judgeship for Idaho. This is a matter of great urgency to the citizens of my State. Idaho has two Federal district judgeships, created in 1890 and 1954. We are one of only three States in the union with two Federal district judgeships. There are three distinct and widely-distant geographical areas in my State: the Southeast, the Southwest and the North. A district judge must travel up to 450 miles between division offices. This distance is greater than that traveled in other rural district courts, including those of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota or Eastern Washington. In fact, only a district judge in Alaska has a greater distance to travel, when comparing these rural district courts. Because of the State's sheer size, its extraordinary increase in population, and tremendous growth in caseload over nearly five decades, the current situation is becoming increasingly unworkable, and we are seeking one additional judgeship. Unlike other States, we have no senior judges to fill in the gaps. We are depending on judges borrowed from other districts to help us, but obviously that can only be a temporary fix for the problem. To remedy this crisis, the State of Idaho has requested a third Federal district judge. All members of the Federal bench in Idaho agree with this request, and the Idaho State Legislature even passed a resolution petitioning Congress for this change. I have been working on this issue throughout the 107th Congress, introducing legislation along with my Idaho colleague Senator Crapo, consulting with the Senate Judiciary Committee and lobbying its members, writing to the Judicial Conference. Our senior district judge in Idaho personally visited Capitol Hill and talked with staff and members of the Judiciary Committee. When it became apparent that H.R. 2215 was the only legislative vehicle in this Congress for the creation of new judgeships, the entire Idaho Congressional Delegation, Senator Crapo and I, as well as our House colleagues Representative Mike Simpson and Representative Butch Otter, wrote to each member of the conference committee on this bill, reiterating our request. To date, not a single member of the Senate or House has opposed our request. Yet at the end of the day, H.R. 2215 fails to include an additional judge for Idaho. It is my understanding that our request was not given priority because the Judicial Conference of the United States refused to endorse it. While Idaho did not originally meet the narrow requirements imposed by the Conference before it recommends an additional judgeship, I have been informed in the last few weeks that we now meet those requirements, and Idaho hopes to obtain that critical endorsement in the future. With that, let me put the Senate on notice that my State will return in the next Congress with this request and will work for a better result. There should not be waiting list for people to obtain justice in our courts, but there is in Idaho until relief arrives in the form of a third Federal district judge.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sandpoint Land and Facilities Act of 2002.'' This bill is a unique opportunity to meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in Sandpoint, ID and to provide facilities for the local county government. This bill will transfer ownership of the local General Service Administration building currently housing the Forest Service to that agency. The bill also provides authority for the Forest Service to work with Bonner County, Idaho to exchange the existing building to Bonner County in exchange for a new and more functional building to the Forest Service. This transfer of ownership will not only provide the opportunity for the local Forest Service office to obtain a facility that best meets their needs but also will meet the facility needs of Bonner County. The transfer of this facility will allow the Forest Service to improve service to the public, improve public and employee safety, make the Idaho Panhandle National Forest more financially competitive, and allow increased spending on resource programs that contribute to healthier ecosystems. In turn, Bonner County will benefit by providing to them a building that consolidates county offices so that better services can be provided to the local public, including ADA compliant access to the county courtrooms. Additionally, the GSA will dispose of a building that is only partially occupied and is remotely located from other GSA facilities. This is a win-win situation for the Forest Service, Bonner County, GSA, and the taxpayers and an outstanding example of the federal government at the local level working with the county government to create common sense solutions that result in more efficient operations and better service to the public.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Idaho Panhandle National Forest Improvement Act of 2002. This bill is an opportunity to provide lands for local benefits and to meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley of Idaho. This bill will offer for sale or exchange administrative parcels of land in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest that the Forest Service has identified as no longer in the interest of public ownership and that disposing of them will serve the public better. The proceeds from these sales will be used to improve or replace the Forest Service's Ranger Station in Idaho's Silver Valley. The Forest Service administrative parcels identified for disposal include the land permitted by the Granite/Reeder Sewer District on Priest Lake, Shoshone Camp in Shoshone County, and the North-South Ski Bowl, south of St. Maries. The bill also directs the Forest Service to improve or construct a new ranger station in the Silver Valley. The current ranger station is in dire need of repair or replacement, and this will ensure my commitment to a continued and increased presence of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley. This is a win-win situation for the taxpayers, the Forest Service, the residents of the Silver Valley, and the permittees on the parcels of land to be disposed of.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, allow me to add my voice to the chorus of regard for the distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms. There is a word we use a lot around here the word ``gentleman.'' Perhaps as a result of the demands of Senate protocol, our colleagues frequently use the word in addressing one another. It is thrown around so regularly that it has almost become as meaningless as ``mister'' in modern Congressional parlance. However, ``gentleman'' is more than a meaningless title in the case of Jesse Helms. I am not alone in referring to him as ``the conservative gentleman of the Senate'' because that is precisely what he is: an unfailingly gentle, kind, and courteous man. Even in the heat of battle, slicing through the opposition as he so often does, he maintains not just the integrity of his principles, but the integrity of his performance. Even when he establishes himself as the immovable object to block bad policy, as he also has done so often, he does it graciously. Senator Helms' restraint is all the more significant in view of the turbulence of the debates he has waded into. This is a man who does not back away from challenges but confronts them. His dedication to principle is unshakeable, and he is an invaluable ally in stormy political passages. As fellow skeptics of the United Nations and particularly, of the International Criminal Court, I appreciated having his support last year in preventing the United States' endorsement of that institution. Surely one of Jesse Helms' lasting legacies will be his mark on our country's foreign policy. But that is only one small part of the profound impact he has had on our laws and our culture. Senator Helms' leadership and articulate championship of conservative ideals have inspired countless admirers of many generations. I can attest to the fact that the ``Jesse Helms fan club'' extends to my own Senate staff, who proudly display the photos they have had taken with Senator Helms, and talk about his generosity in taking time to visit with them--visits they will remember for the rest of their lives. For my part, I consider it a privilege to have served with, and learned from, a man of his caliber. Senator Helms has been an extraordinary advocate for the people of North Carolina and, indeed, this Nation. His clear vision and steady guidance will be sorely missed when he leaves the Senate in the coming months. I join my colleagues today in congratulating Jesse Helms on his distinguished career, thanking him for the contributions he has made to the Senate and the United States, and wishing him all the best in the next chapter of his remarkable life.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last Saturday was National Public Lands Day. It was a time for volunteers in states and communities across the country to give something back to America's public lands. National Public Lands Day is the largest grassroots, volunteer effort mounted on behalf of America's public parks, rivers, lakes, forest, rangelands, and beaches. This year's National Public Lands Day theme was ``Explore America's Backyard,'' recognizing that many volunteers go to nearby public lands for recreation and to enjoy the outdoors. These volunteers will put in a day of real work on needed projects ranging from trail construction and repairs to habitat restoration to making public lands more accessible for disabled visitors. This year's signature event was held at Anacostia Park in Washington, D.C. where over 400 volunteers cleared brush, removed trash and debris, planted trees and grasses, and constructed benches and boardwalk trails. These volunteers were joined by key dignitaries: Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, the current Miss USA, Shauntay Hinton, National Park Service Director Fran Mainella, Forest Service Assistant Chief Sally Collins, and Army Corps of Engineers Brigadier General Carl Strock. The first National Public Lands Day, in 1994, was sponsored by three Federal agencies and attracted 700 volunteers in three sites. This year marks the ninth annual event which involved approximately 70,000 volunteers, who performed over eight million dollar's worth of improvements to our public lands at nearly 500 locations in every state. This effort involved over 19 Federal, State, local, and private partners on sites identified by eight Federal agencies. I believe National Public Lands Day is an opportunity to build a sense of ownership by Americans--through personal involvement and conservation education. In recognition of National Public Lands Day and this sense of ownership we should all have for our public lands, I want to spend a few minutes today and reflect on the value of our public lands and on what the future holds for them. There are around 650 million acres of public lands in the United States. This represents a major portion of our total land mass. However, most of these lands are concentrated in the West, where as much as 82 percent of a state can be composed of Federal land. In fact, 63 percent of my own home State of Idaho is owned by the Federal Government. This can be beneficial, as our public lands have a lot to offer. For starters, there are numerous resources available on our public lands-- from renewable forests to opportunities to raise livestock to oil and minerals beneath the surface--public lands hold a great deal of the resources we all depend on to live the lives we enjoy. Having resources available on public lands affords us the opportunity for a return on those resources to help fund government services, from schools to roads to national defense, and ease the burden on taxpayers. Just as important, though, are the recreation opportunities our public lands offer. Every day, people hike and pack into the solitude of wilderness areas, climb rocks, ski, camp, snowmobile, use off-road vehicles, hunt, fish, picnic, boat, swim, and the list goes on. Because the lands are owned by all of us, the opportunity has existed for everyone to use the land within reasonable limits. However, times are changing. We are in the midst of a slow and methodical attack on our access to public lands. It started with the resources industries. It will not stop there. At the same time some radical groups are fighting to halt all resource management on our public lands, they are working to restrict and, in some cases, eliminate human access to our public lands for recreation. Yes, we must manage our public lands responsibly, which includes restrictions on some activities in some areas. What we must not do is unreasonably restrict or eliminate certain activities. Some people like to hike in backcountry areas where they can find peace and solitude while others prefer to ride ATVs into the woods. Some prefer to camp in more developed facilities while others prefer primitive spots. The point is that recreational opportunities on our public lands should be as diverse as the American public's interests. On the same note, we can use the natural resources we need in an environmentally responsible manner and still have plenty of opportunities to recreate. In fact, recreation, resource, and environmental interests can team together to help each other out. In my own State of Idaho, on the Nez Perce National Forest, representatives of these interests and many others have come together through a stewardship project. These groups are working with the Forest Service to implement a project that works for everyone and addresses all of their needs in some fashion. In order to achieve such success, each group has had to compromise to agree on a prescription that works for everyone. This is just one example of differing interests working together to help each other out and improve the opportunities on our public lands for everyone. We need to see more of this around the country. Public land management has become embroiled in fights, appeals, and litigation. The result is that the only ones who are winning are those who want to ensure we don't use our public lands. This must stop. Differing interests have to come together and realize that we all have one common goal--use of the land in a responsible manner. We can not continue to make the same mistakes of the past on our public lands. That being said, I would like each of my colleagues to think about how public lands benefit their state and how they might work to support the new generation that is working to make each day National Public Lands Day.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, like all my colleagues, I rise today to honor the Senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, who is also America's Senior Senator. Some of my earliest memories of working in the Senate with Senator Thurmond were our efforts on balancing the budget and on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. He was the real father of this Amendment, dating back to his early years in the Senate. And he fought so hard on this issue because he cared so deeply about us leaving our children a legacy of opportunity and economic security. Senator Thurmond told me he liked being around young people because they challenged him with new ideas and kept him young. As the ranking member of the Senate Aging Committee, every day I grow to appreciate a little more what Senator Thurmond has spent a lifetime teaching us: the importance of being young at heart. That positive attitude was evident when, a few years ago, Senator Thurmond told Reuters he was ready to be a back-up space shuttle crew member for Senator John Glenn, saying: ``I always believed that if NASA really wanted to study the effects of space travel on an older American, they should have called me.'' Senator Thurmond has spent almost a century, not only as a witness to history, but as a shaper of history. Today may be Strom Thurmond Day, but if the 20th century was the American Century, then it was also the Strom Thurmond Century. Senator Thurmond was 41 years young, when he climbed into glider number 34 of the 82nd Airborne Division in June 1944 and took part in the Normandy invasion on D-day. Fifty years later, Senator Thurmond showed perspective, when he did not return to Normandy for 50th anniversary commemorations because it was more important to attend his son's graduation. A few years later he ran for President, against Harry Truman and Tom Dewey, as the nominee of the States' Rights Democratic Party, and won 39 electoral votes. A few years after that, he became the only Senator in American history to be elected by a write-in vote, demonstrating the devotion of South Carolina voters to Strom Thurmond that has never wavered, as his dedication to them has never wavered. Lyndon Johnson said the Senate has show horses and work horses. Senator Thurmond has always been a work horse. The experts tell us that one of the keys to a long, healthy life is being adaptable and being able to renew oneself. Over the years, Senator Thurmond also has displayed a firm foundation of principles, in his devotion to family, faith, and freedom. Like all the great persons of history who have had staying power, Senator Thurmond has shown that great balance of having a firm moral foundation and being able to renew himself. In fact, he is the only Member of this body to have served in the majority as a Democrat, in the minority as a Democrat, in the minority as a Republican, and in the majority as a Republican. That is adaptability. I would also add, he has always shown unfailing graciousness to colleagues, to constituents, and to all the Senate staff. I remember our former Senate Republican Leader, Bob Dole, being asked what his health care plan was. He replied: ``I'm in favor of the Thurmond plan. I want to do what he does. I used to follow him around and if he ate a banana, I ate a banana.'' All of us could not do much better than to follow the example of Strom Thurmond. In Jack Bass and Marilyn Thompson's biography of Senator Thurmond, they quoted a woman who knew him since boyhood, who said: ``He hasn't changed. Everything he's done has been done to the full. There's no halfway doings about Strom.'' Today we honor our colleague, friend, and mentor, for a full career of accomplishment, for his full dedication to America and South Carolina, and for a full life, in every respect.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand that between now and 5:30 we have been allotted time to debate the Craig-Domenici amendment as it relates to the cloture motion on the Byrd amendment on the Interior bill.

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you. Mr. President, I will allot myself 10 minutes to debate this issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for several weeks now, the Senate has been considering the Interior appropriations bill, of which the Byrd amendment to that bill would put critical fire money back into our Forest Service budgets that have been badly depleted by the season that we are hopefully beginning to leave, which is known as the fire season, especially in the Great Basin West. That money is critical. But it was because of our concern about fires and the wildfires that have swept through the West this summer that I and Senator Domenici and a good many other western colleagues joined in working with the administration, and for a good long while in a very bipartisan way, to see if there was not some middle ground to create some flexibility to go into those worst fuel-laden lands and to develop a thinning and cleaning process that would be environmentally sensitive and at the same time effectively reduce the fuel loading that has gone on there that has precipitated in some of these very dramatic wildfires that have occurred out West this summer. I recite, again, for the record, we have burned well over 6.5 million acres to date of wildlife habitat and watershed, possibly several million acres of old-growth forests. We have lost about 3,000 homes, private homes of our citizens. Over 25 people, I believe--26 or 27 at least--have been killed in relation to these fires. It is without question a national emergency, a national crisis. I almost have the sense that we have fiddled a bit over the last couple of weeks while our forests have burned. There are still fires burning in California. As we speak, acreage burning in a national forest outside of Los Angeles over the weekend has consumed over 12,000 acres and has threatened numerous homes. Yet because of some special interests here and phenomenal allegations or statements made in the media over the last several weeks, you would think I and others were trying to precipitate a whole new logging program for the forests and that somehow was evil, instead of the very limited, targeted thinning and cleaning that we think could and should be utilized to reduce the fuel loading on these forests that has created these firestorms. I have here a variety of editorials and news comments from major papers across the Nation. I am fascinated by words such as ``nose under the tent,'' ``intent to allow logging companies to be turned loose once again in our national forests.'' My reaction is, can those who write the news read the news? Can they not read the Craig-Domenici amendment and understand that it is phenomenally limited, that it would require very specific language by the U.S. Forest Service, that there would be the right to go to Federal court and block any of these actions, that we have tied no one's hands other than to say that on these limited, targeted acres, we will not allow appeals, nor will we allow a temporary court injunction that has locked up tens of thousands of acres already, many of them that burned this summer, from the ability to get in and thin and clean them? No. Those who write the news can read the news. But oftentimes those who write the news choose a bias that they think is popular, and in the end our forests burn. Thousands of homes are lost, lives endangered, and we struggle here at the Federal level to attempt to make some slight adjustments in public policy to return a state of health to our national forests. Last week, our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, came to the floor and offered an alternative amendment. He did not introduce it. He laid it before us as something that could be viewed as an alternative. I began to study it to try to see if it was a reasonable alternative or whether in fact it would deny any activity, if it was simply a Trojan horse in the reality of, would it do something similar to what the other Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and I had proposed. After thorough examination of that, I must tell you I believe the Bingaman amendment to be just that, a Trojan horse. Not only does it limit dramatically what you could be able to do, it creates some categorical exemptions. And then it does something else that is very important in the language of the law or the policy we are debating as to whether it frees the hands of the forest managers within these limited areas to do what is necessary to limit this fuel loading. It is a term called extraordinary circumstance; in other words, there won't be any appeals based on the standards of the National Environmental Policy Act, or any temporary court injunctions, unless there is an extraordinary circumstance. That is a provision in administrative regulations that governs the management activities of forests that is really quite clear. Let me count the number of ways an extraordinary circumstance could occur. It is literally in the eye of the beholder, in the eye of the person who wants to file the appeal. It probably broadens the effective opportunity to bring an appeal to any of these actions on our public lands when, on the other hand, the Senator from New Mexico would suggest he was creating greater flexibility. Organizations such as the NRDC or the Earth Justice Defense League, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Southwest Center for Biodiversity clearly could use this as the opportunity for which they have already used the law, to lock up any effort or nearly all efforts in attempting to deal with what we would hope would be an effective way of thinning and cleaning. You have heard me speak in the last days about the total amount of acreage out there that is in crisis at this moment. We have about 74.5 million acres that are at high risk, and while we have that many, Senator Domenici and I, and many of the colleagues who have joined with us--I now see the Senator from Arizona in the Chamber, who is a cosponsor, and the Senator from Montana--have asked that we only be able to deal with about 10,000,000 acres, not opening the forest wide open but a limited number, for a very real reason. I believe it is fundamentally important that we show the American people that when we stand on the floor of the Senate and talk about not entering roadless areas and protecting old growth and merely thinning and cleaning and bringing down the fuel loads and moving them out of the forest, we want to prove it, we do want the American people to see that what we say is, in fact, what we mean, and that the U.S. Forest Service will go forward in a limited way to do just exactly that. Do I want to prove the editorial writers of some of America's press wrong? You bet I do. Because they are wrong, and they flat know it. In fact, it reminds me of that news reporter from NPR who e-mailed some of our environmental groups and said: Get me the worst case scenario so I can disprove the logic or the arguments of the Senator from Idaho. And the environmental group writes back and says: We can't give you any worst case scenarios because we have them all on appeal and we have it shut down so they don't exist. So in other words, when we are concerned that the appeals route would be used in these limited cases, the environmental groups have responded that they are already using them, that they are not tolerating the activities of thinning and cleaning. So it is obvious why we would want to step forward and say, let us use this limited opportunity to thin and clean and then show the American people that there is a better way of conducting forest health and allowing our forests to once again rejuvenate themselves for watershed, for wildlife habitat. My colleagues are here in the Chamber to speak. Let me conclude. Even if the public policy of our country allowed it, 8 to 10 million acres to be thinned on a 1.5- to 2-year basis, and average that out over the next 20 years, we would still--because of the health of our forests today and the fuel loading that exists and the bug kill and the dead and dying--lose anywhere from 5 to 6 to 7 million acres a year to wildfire. That is the reality of the environment in which we live, the reality of the environment we are now trying to change so slightly to return forest health. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I know the vote is pending. We all want to see the Interior appropriations bill move on. I have said to Senator Reid what we normally do with a second-degree amendment is give it a vote. We certainly would like that vote on our amendment. We think it is appropriate. We think it is within the rules. It is a responsible way to dispose of this issue and move on. I hope we get to that vote. We think it is right. It is appropriate. It is within the rules. It is important for the Congress and this Senate to speak to the issue of forest health and do so in some form. We think the amendment is adequate in that.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a matter that I find deeply troubling. An ``Inside the Beltway'' column in the September 19, 2002, Washington Times reveals that a correspondent working for National Public Radio, in what appears to be a flagrant violation of all standards of professional journalism and ethical conduct, has set about to enlist the help of environmental radicals in order to concoct a story concerning thinning projects on our national forests. I find this abhorrent for two reasons. First, it reveals the desperate lengths to which the environmental community is willing to go to their quest to lock up our public forests and prevent efforts aimed at protecting and restoring health to our public forests from going forward. Second, and perhaps more troubling to me, it suggests the complete lack of intellectual honesty and the apparent complicity of a nonprofit organization, established by Congress for the purpose of educating our public, in fabricating stories and spinning the news in a manner that is devoid of objectivity and at odds with the fundamental tenets of sound journalistic practices. Let me read from a message that was sent out by a news correspondent working for National Public Radio seeking assistance from members of the environmental community. The message reads as follows: Hey there. Put on your thinking cap and give me your best example of a `thinning project' where they went in and did the opposite. I'm working on a story about trust, which is at the heart of all this . . . and I want to use just one example of where the FS [Forest Service] and the industry flagrantly abused the public's trust on a thinning project . . . in short, concrete evidence as to why the environmental community is distrustful of the FS and industry's so called thinning projects. In 1967, Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act. This act authorized the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB. The Act called on CPB to encourage ``the growth and development of noncommercial radio'' and to develop ``programming that will be responsive to the interests of the people.'' National Public Radio, NPR, was established in 1970 as a private, nonprofit organization to provide leadership in national news gathering and production and broadcast of radio programming responsive to the interests of American citizens. I would ask my colleagues how is this biased effort at attempting to sway public opinion in the public interest? NPR appears to have allowed its news people to sink to new lows to scrape together a story to incite and inflame public opinion. Is this the kind of reporting we should expect from a national news organization established by Congress to promote news gathering in the interest of American citizens? I think not. It is a sad day when our national news organizations must engage in fabricating stories by listening solely to one side and a sadder day still when these stories are presented by these organizations to an unsuspecting public as a balanced reporting of the facts. This message authored by the NPR correspondent was distributed by way of an environmental group mailing list. The forwarding message from an organization called ``Wild Rockies'' is also revealing. The sender reveals that environmental groups have ``successfully appealed/litigated'' many thinning projects and also ``tied up'' many more thinning projects. In short, the author of this message is making plain the fact that these groups have been successful in causing the very sort of unnecessary delays that we are attempting to prevent with the amendment introduced by Senators Craig and Domenici. These environmentalists have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing--even shamefully dishonest practices--to impede, delay, and quash efforts by the Forest Service and Department of Interior land management agencies to restore health to our forests. We cannot let our precious American forests be held hostage by these extremists, nor should we stand idly by and allow these zealots to continue to hold our forests hostage by employing these sort of unethical and distasteful tactics. Shame on NPR for what appears to be an utter and complete lack of balance in news gathering practices. Shame on Wild Rockies and the other environmental groups that would conspire to mislead the public in this way. And shame on us, if we fail to enact legislation that will enable us to protect our precious public forests from these irresponsible sham artists and unethical charlatans who seek to deceive rather than truthfully inform our citizens on the conditions that exist on our forests and what needs to be done to move them toward a healthier state. Madam President, we have just heard from another one of our colleagues, in this case Senator Ensign from the State of Nevada, talk about the conditions and situations that exist in that State and in the northern end of the High Sierras of California and Nevada. The conditions he talks about are real and very severe. I used to chair the Forestry Subcommittee in the Senate. During that period of time, we examined the condition of the Sierras and especially what is known as the Greater Tahoe Basin area. In fact, our colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, grew very concerned as to the state of health of those forests. It was, at that time--a couple of years ago--very obvious those forests were in rapid declining health conditions, bug kill was rampant, and at some time in the very near future that forest could be consumed in wildfire that would wipe out the whole of the Tahoe Basin. Of course, as the Senator just spoke, it is a beautiful area. Lake Tahoe is renowned for its beauty. That is why folks from all over the country have gone there to build phenomenal homes, to enjoy that beauty. And, of course, at risk at that time in the investigation was the reality that wildfire would wipe out many of those multimillion- dollar homes that were sprinkled around the lake, both on the Nevada side and on the California side of that lake, and the whole tourism and resort industry that exists there--another example of a forest crying out for a thinning and cleaning and management program that could reverse the state of the health of that forest. We struggle mightily to solve a problem that has come upon the Interior appropriations bill, of which my colleague from Montana, who has now joined us, is the ranking member of that subcommittee which funds Interior issues. I submitted some days ago a second-degree amendment to Senator Byrd's amendment to increase fire funding, to try to find a compromise, to develop some degree of active management in these very critical areas of concern that are, in part, driving the wildfires of at least the western forests at this moment and are realities of growing conditions in all of the public land forests around our country. And that is a state of health, a state of fuel loading, and dead and dying trees, and therefore optimum fuels that, under the right conditions, ignite into the catastrophic fires that we have experienced this year. But yesterday I became aware of an interesting episode going on aside but a part of this debate out on the public side of things--I should say the private side of things--that I find very interesting. This morning that was highlighted in the ``Inside the Beltway'' column of the Washington Times, an article by John McCaslin. It is worth your time and interest to read it because I do believe it demonstrates something that is in an apparent complicity of efforts between national radical environmental groups and an organization funded by this Congress, National Public Radio. It is obvious to me that there was an effort underway to try to show to the public that what I was debating, and others were debating, simply was not the case. And the e-mail transaction that was going on out there demonstrated quite the opposite because fundamental to what Senator Daschle did for his home State of South Dakota, and what we are trying to do here, is to design a way to create a more active process that disallows the obvious and constant use of the appeals process and temporary court injunctions to deny any activity on our public lands, and especially in these critical areas that are so fire prone. And, of course, the article is fascinating in what it says because what it basically says is: Can you show me a thinning process?--calling the environmental groups that would give us the worst case scenario, in other words, a contradiction to what I and others have been saying is being done, and can be done effectively, in the thinning and the cleaning of these fuel-loaded areas. And the answer is, I think, quite fascinating. The answer is: No, we can't show you any because we have them all under appeal, and we have them all blocked. The very thing we have been arguing is the very thing that is reality, by the admission of the environmental groups themselves.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Sure.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. Sure.

Mr. CRAIG. Sure.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct, as I recall. I do not, in any way, question the Senator's sincerity. You offered to solve it in one way, and I reciprocated by offering to solve it in another. I would go immediately to a unanimous consent for an up-or-down vote on the Craig second degree. That is an immediate solution that could occur in the next 35 or 40 minutes. That is a clear and clean and within-the-rules solution to a problem. I believe my side feels that I deserve a vote. And I know that the Senator is a stickler for the rules of the Senate and an advocate of them and strongly supportive of them. I want to facilitate this process. The money you have so generously helped us get----

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. CRAIG. To fit into this Interior appropriations bill is critical, to pay back the funds within the Department of Agriculture and in the U.S. Forest Service that have been expended for the very fires about which we are concerned. This has to happen. Clearly, it is critical for the operation of the Forest Service. What is also critical, in my opinion, is that the Congress respond in a responsible way to the crisis. You, as chairman, and if you are chairman again in the new Congress or someone else is, should not have to be asking the taxpayers to pay out an additional $1 billion to $1.5 billion to $2 billion more a year because clearly a public policy is failing out there at this moment to address a crisis and, therefore, we are asking the taxpayer to pay for it. That is really what hangs in the balance here. They are intricately locked, I do believe. That is why I think it is so fundamentally important we vote on it at this moment.