Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will not object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. I think the leader has certainly appropriately explained where we are with the Craig-Domenici amendment and our efforts. We have met consistently over the last several days with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see if we could strike a bipartisan agreement. At this time we are working with Senator Feinstein and Senator Wyden to see if we can come together so they can come to your caucus to determine whether we can pick up support in a bipartisan way. We would like to have the remainder of the day to work. At the same time, I recognize the frustration holding up the Interior appropriations bill for this purpose. I think both the Senator and I recognize the critical character of what we are trying to do here--or the nature of it--in resolving this issue. If you can give us a little more flexibility, I think at some point--probably by the end of the day--we will know whether we can or cannot go any further.

Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate the Senator saying that. I am certainly willing to look at that and allow other amendments that the chairman would think are appropriate to move on this amendment--to move without it being an obstruction. The Senator is right, this issue is defining it. I will probably want to speak on it, and others may want to do the same. We have at least a 2-hour timeframe to get some work done. I hope we can do it.

Mr. CRAIG. Good. I thank the Senator for saying that. I did not take that characterization in any critical way.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I think all Americans today are pausing, if not for a moment, for a longer time just to think, to kneel and pray. On their mind is a historic incident that occurred a year ago today in this country. Many of my colleagues and I went to the Pentagon this morning to recognize that great tragedy once again and to be there to honor those 184 civilian and military men and women who tragically died in the Pentagon when it was struck by terrorists. There is no doubt in my mind, and my guess is there is no doubt in any American's mind, they again relived the events of the phenomenal and tragic incident that occurred a year ago today, both mentally and visually on television or in ceremonies or prayers or moments of silence around this country. In rethinking that day myself, I thought of my own emotions; that I grew angry at first to realize we were being attacked by terrorists. Then I experienced for a moment on Capitol Hill that day a sense of fear that maybe the Capitol itself would be struck, or our office buildings, and that my staff might be in some way injured or my family may not be safe. Out of that fear, though, grew in my mind, and grew in most Americans' minds, a phenomenal sense of resolve. Since that tragic day, we have seen that resolve take shape in so many forms, whether it is the celebrating of a complete reconstruction of the Pentagon today in almost unbelievable time, or whether it was citizens across this Nation reaching deep in their pocket to give a little or a lot of their personal wealth to help the remaining citizens whose husbands, wives, sons, or daughters were the victims of the 9/11 incidents. As I was listening to our Secretary of Defense and our President today, I thought of two Idahoans who died a year ago today at the Pentagon, one LTC Ron Vauk of Nampa, ID, and one Brady Howell of Sugar City, ID. I have known LTC Hawk only by a piece of paper. When I was a young Member in the House of Representatives, I had looked at his resume. I had studied his grades and I, along with the rest of my colleagues, had decided he was eligible for and ought to be nominated to the Naval Academy at Annapolis. We did nominate him, and he served with honor. He had retired out of the military and was serving in the Navy Reserve, teaching in this area. He was serving only as a reservist at the Pentagon in a temporary status for a few days, having been called from his job to do so when that plane struck. I will never forget the time I spent with his bride and their small son in Maryland. I watched the unity of that family coming around the widow and that small son of LTC Ron Vauk. That was the kind of resolve we have seen repeated time and time again out of the tear- stained faces of Americans as they recognized that they had to commit themselves, as our President and as this Congress has committed itself, to never letting this happen again. I remembered Jennifer Vauk today, and I can only say to that brave widow that I thank her for her courageousness at this tremendously difficult time for her. Resolve and resilience flowing from the veins of Americans into the energy of their souls clearly speaks so well in this country today. It is not just a 9/11 feeling, it is a sense of patriotism and resolve that has grown out of nearly every crisis this great country has experienced down through the years. It comes in all different forms. At this instance, in Idaho, it was the Red Cross sending volunteers all the way across the country to Ground Zero in New York, or it was the numerous churches or memorial services held across the State of Idaho, or it was a marvelous little gal in Pocatello who had saved $1,000 of her own money to buy a horse, and she gave all of it to the 9/11 charities so some other child could have a little bit because that child had lost so much, a mother or a father. It was not just an Idahoan doing it. It was thousands of Americans speaking out from the smallest, almost the poorest, to the tallest and the most wealthy in our country who found the capacity in their heart to experience this resolve and dedicate themselves, as did Leah Wright in Pocatello with her $1,000. I suspect every generation has a defining moment. My guess is that September 11 is the defining moment for America's current generation. Our President, in speaking today, has given a name for all of us who would call it 9/11. It will be a Patriots Day, and I hope that every year we stop to remember Patriots Day and why we now recognize it in that capacity. Congress is now debating legislation to create homeland security as a department, hopefully to bring our country together more cohesively, to allow our law enforcement communities to do so in a way that will give us greater intelligence and therefore greater resolve. In doing so, we must not allow terrorism, or our commitment to stopping it, deny us our own personal freedoms. We should never select security over freedom because it is the very freedom of our country that gives us the resolve we have today. Tragically enough, it was the very freedom of our country that caused terrorists to strike at us because we do not speak of freedom for Americans only, we speak of it for all citizens of the world and citizens of all countries as a right of humankind to be as free as possible, and for this great country to be dedicated to that freedom. In our search for security, let us not deny ourselves the very freedom that is the strength of our country. Many more will speak today, and at the end of the day many tears will be re-shed in memory of the men and women who died on 9/11. I am so proud of my country and so proud to be but a small part of its leadership because I have sensed in the Senate that while we may have our differences politically, a resolve all Americans have at this moment is to never allow this to happen again, never allow our citizens to be the target of an enemy that would choose to strike them down for political expression. So be it 9/11 or be it Patriots Day, I hope on September 11 next year we will once again be speaking out about that day on September 11 of 2001 when thousands of Americans lost their lives, but America found once again a revitalized reason for being what we are and striving to allow the rest of the world to have the same kind of human freedoms we have and cherish. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have just sent to the desk a second- degree amendment in my name and that of the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and a good number of other Western Senators who have grown extremely concerned about the fire situation in the Western States primarily, and especially the Great Basin States, where we have seen now wildfires raging since mid-June--some 66.5 million acres, 2,300 homes up in smoke, 28 lives lost, phenomenal wildlife habitat and watershed destroyed. Clearly, it is a time when we need positive action to resolve this issue. Others have spoken to it. Our President, about 3 weeks ago, while in Oregon, spoke very clearly to the need for flexibility within forest policy in this country to deal with the fuel-loaded forests of our Nation, to thin them and to clean them, to restore their health, and to do so in an environmentally sound way. The amendment we offer today--while we still work with my colleagues from Oregon and California and other States that have the same problem, but we are working with a variety of interest groups at this moment to see if we can resolve this in permanent policy--is an expedited process that does not lock the courthouse door, that recognizes the validity of expression and public participation to deal with this issue. We have reached out to incorporate what the Western Governors proposed, along with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, some months ago, to be a collaborative process that brings all of the parties together on a State-by-State basis to recognize these lands and to designate them for the purpose of cleaning up. We have limited this approach to no more than 10 million acres. There are over 33 million acres in the class 3 status, which means they are severely bug-ridden, dead, dying, fuel-loaded forests. Even with that number, we have chosen to be limited, to target the most severe, and to deal with it directly. We also are dealing with the wildland-urban interface, where these homes now in the Western States are, of which we have lost over 2,300 as of today. We are also dealing with urban watersheds. Many of the watersheds that yield the valuable water to the growing urban populations of the West have been devastated by fire this year or are in conditions where they are extremely fire prone. We have also set up a variety of other prescriptions as to how these lands would be dealt with. I will talk no more in detail about it. My colleague from New Mexico is here to speak about it. We are still working with our other colleagues in the West and around the country to see if we can build a bipartisan approach toward resolving this issue. The President, the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief are directly involved with us at this moment to see if we can bind together at least a policy that begins to step us forward into resolving what, in my opinion, is now a critical, if not a crisis, status in our U.S. forested lands. We have now lost an unprecedented number of acres. We are still burning in the States of California and in other States. That could well go on for another month before the wet season hits. We could lose over 7.5 million acres this year, comparable to what we lost last year. That is the intent of this amendment--to bring parties of interest together to resolve this, to bring Western States together to see if we can find a course of action and the shaping of a public policy that begins to return our great forests to a state of environmental health, watershed quality, and wildlife habitat of the kind we would expect. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate D.C. Murphy of Nampa, ID on his recent achievement of driving two million miles without a preventable accident. Put into perspective, that is equivalent to driving around the world eighty times, or driving 275 miles every day for the last twenty years. As I am sure you can imagine, this is an incredible feat. Over the twenty years he has been employed by Yellow Transportation, the roads have become increasingly crowded. To travel as many miles as he has without an avoidable accident is an achievement of which he should be very proud. Over the last twenty years there has been a 39 percent increase in the number of registered large trucks, and at the same time also a 90 percent increase in the number of miles these trucks traveled. It is a credit to the trucking industry, D.C. Murphy, and other truckers with similar responsible driving habits that even though there are more trucks than ever before on the road, the number of accidents has continued to decrease. Again, let me commend D.C. Murphy on this accomplishment. I would like to wish him continued safety for as long as he is on the road.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I will speak only briefly to the resolution. The Senator from Iowa and I share, as I think all Senators who represent rural countrysides must share, a very real frustration in the disparity between urban and rural Medicare payment schedules and the reality that we are dealing with a 20- or 30-year-old concept that does not make sense anymore. We have a phenomenal nursing shortage in our country today. So if a nurse lives on one side of a boundary line created by this law, she or he can well commute to the other side and we cannot afford them. The Presiding Officer represents a city not far from one of my major cities: Spokane, WA, versus Coeur d'Alene, ID. Spokane, WA, has a different payment schedule than Coeur d'Alene, ID, and they are 20 miles of interstate apart. Many people say that living in Coeur d'Alene, ID, because of its beauty, is more desirable than living in Spokane, but they work in Spokane because of the wage scale and/or this particular problem. As a result, the Kootenai Medical Center and, as a result, the rural medical communities of northern Idaho cannot, in effect, compete. It is time that we address this issue evenhandedly across all jurisdictions so that Medicare payments are reflective of current health care needs; not a 30-year-old model that is just flat obsolete and does not make sense anymore, but because we build up these political barriers or frustrations we do not want to address them. I think we must. I think we should. The resolution speaks to trying to move the Senate, the President, and the Congress as a whole in that direction. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 60th anniversary of the Farragut Naval Training Station. Mr. President, over the past year, Americans have rediscovered the importance of our military and renewed their patriotism for our country. I am sure these were not reactions the terrorists desired. We were once again reminded that millions of our fellow Americans have fought, and many died, for the freedoms we enjoy. Freedoms our Founding Fathers found to be self-evident--freedoms we have been fighting to retain ever since, here and abroad. World War II was one of the most significant of those fights, and this Saturday, in Idaho, we are looking back and recognizing the contribution Farragut Naval Training Station made to our efforts. At Farragut, the U.S. Navy built the second-largest naval training facility in the world. Representative of the work ethic evident across America during WWII, 22,000 men, many of them Idahoans, united together and built 776 facilities across 4,000 acres in just 9 months. Then, in just 15 months, Farragut trained nearly 300,000 recruits to be sailors. This Saturday, September 7, 2002, many of those graduates and personnel will be returning to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Farragut Naval Training Station. Just like 60 years ago, they will come from all corners of the country and will arrive with varied memories and expectations. But, one thing is for sure, they will all come because their experience at Farragut affected their lives in profound ways. I am proud and grateful for the men and women who trained and served at Farragut Naval Training Station. Their sacrifice for our freedoms is priceless. As the years go by, fewer and fewer veterans of WWII are around to hear our thanks. For those who are, I hope they hear us loud and clear: Thank you. We are all so grateful.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the last few moments I had the opportunity to listen to the Senator from Massachusetts. Of course, he is well known for his dedication to public education in this country. I applaud him for that. I also want to recognize a President who has seen public education in its current condition to be an issue on which to speak out and on which to lead. And while the private school and the voucher may be criticized, we are creating a dynamic, now, in the marketplace of education, that means the public schools are going to have to compete a little more. In that competition, they will dramatically improve. The condition for educating young people, in my opinion--and I think it is a growing opinion in America--will rapidly increase.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I did not come to the floor this afternoon to speak to education. I came to the floor today to talk about what I saw on the Weather Channel this morning across the Great Basin West, the Weather Channel that spoke of a hot weather pattern that permeates the Great Basin West, that continues to allow it to be dry, and, as a result of the drought conditions, we have a unique weakness in the West this summer that tragically has been played out for a good number of years and will be played out into the future. The western skies are full of smoke today. They are full of smoke from forest fires that started burning in mid-June on the great Rocky Mountain front of the Colorado and down into the southwestern mountains of Arizona. To date, we have seen a fire scenario on our forested public lands that is almost unprecedented in the history of the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Forest Service management. Today, as I speak, as a result of public policy and as a result of the drought conditions in the West, we have seen over 6.3 million acres of public land burned. That 6.3 million acres is not a record, but it is without question a historic record when you compare it with the averages of the kinds of public lands we have seen burned over the last good number of decades. We watched what happened in Arizona earlier this year when nearly 700,000 acres were burned and thousands of homes were lost and lives were lost. Then, during the August recess while all of us were back in our States, we watched the firestorm that struck the eastern slopes of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon. In the State of Oregon, almost a million acres of land have burned. In the State of California, as I speak, 3 fires are burning and over 12,000 acres have been burned. In the State of Colorado, over a half-million acres have been burned. That is a tragedy, without question. Wildlife habitat, watershed, has been destroyed at almost an unprecedented rate. Watershed for urban areas, habitat for endangered species--gone, up in smoke. There is nothing but a pile of ashes today because those fires were so hot, so penetrating, so intense, that they were unlike almost any other kind of fire we have seen on our public lands. Why has that happened? What am I talking about? Is this unprecedented? Or is fire simply natural in our forest systems? Fire is a natural element in our forest systems. But what we are seeing today-- because largely we took fire out of the ecosystems of our forests 70 years ago--is that these are very much abnormal fires, burning hotter than ever, burning entire stands, burning the ground to such an extent that we are caramelizing the soil and burning the humus out of it. By so doing, we are disallowing the ability of those forests to rejuvenate as they would under a reasonably normal scenario. Why is this happening? It is happening because of public policy, because of an attitude that was held right here in this Senate that has crafted public policy over the last several decades that not only took fire out of the forests but didn't allow active management in the forest to replace what fire would have otherwise accomplished. As you know, in the Black Hills of South Dakota you have had this kind of situation. In fact, the Presiding Officer and his colleague, Senator Daschle, have felt the situation so intense and so risky of ecosystems, of timber, of wildlife habitat, of human dwellings and all of that, that you chose to act. I think you acted in a relatively appropriate way to recognize the need for immediate action that would not deny the thinning and the cleaning and the fuel reduction that needed to go on in those forests. I chaired the forest subcommittee for 5 or 6 years here in the Senate. We have spent a lot of time looking at this issue, trying to deal with this issue--largely to no avail. In the early 1980s, a group of forest scientists met in Sun Valley, ID, for a national review of the health of our forested lands. At that time, 1981 or 1982, I believe, those forest scientists, with no bias, simply made the statement that the public forests of the Great Basin West were sick, dead, and dying, and if there was not active management involved to change the character of the forest health, that within a decade or so these forests could be swept by devastating wildfires. Those scientists were not prophets. They didn't have a crystal ball. They simply looked at the facts that were available in the early 1980s and made a determination that, without active management, we could lose these forests in an unprecedented way. During the decade of the 1980s that followed and the decade of the 1990s, we did just exactly the opposite of what those forest scientists proposed. We progressively became inactive on our forests, largely because many thought, and public policy allowed the argument, that no management and no activity would improve the environment. What we failed to recognize was that the environment had deteriorated so that simply could not be the case and that these kinds of fires would be stand altering, stand destructive, and destroying wildlife habitat and watersheds that we see in the West today. The fire seasons in the West are not over. Today, literally thousands of acres are still burning. My guess is that before the fire season is over, we will see over 7 million acres of land burned. Before we left for the August recess, a group of us gathered at a press conference to speak in a bipartisan way to this issue. At that time, we had not yet quite determined what we needed to do, but we believed the American public was becoming increasingly aware that something had to be done, that we needed to lean on this issue to save our forests, to save wildlife habitat, to have a watershed, and to protect homes in that urban wildland interface. I said at that press conference--the last of July or early August, and at that time--that less than 4 million acres had burned. I said that probably by the time we returned over 67 million acres would have burned. I was no prophet. I simply had studied fires and the way they were burning in the West over the last several years to recognize that was probably a reality. And it became a reality practically enough. Today, 6.3 million acres have burned. Thousands of acres are currently burning, with fires in almost all of the Western States--at this moment actively burning and out of control. We said at that press conference that when we returned, we would try to resolve a bipartisan approach we could bring to the floor so that we might offer it as an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill or some similar vehicle. We are in the final hours of trying to craft that kind of an amendment that would bring us together in a bipartisan way, and in a collaborative way, to solve this problem. Earlier this year, the Western Governors Association, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, met and produced a western fire policy that dealt with these fire-prone acres. They proposed a collaborative process that targeted those critical areas in all of the States involved and that would allow us to move forward in a relatively unrestricted but environmentally sound way to do so. There has been a lot of work going on to try to solve this problem. Late this month, the President was out in Oregon, looked at those fire scenarios, and reported that he, too, agreed that active management was necessary, that our forests were at a critical state, that we were in a state of emergency, and that failure to respond was negligence on our part. The President also said we shouldn't block from the courthouse doors people who would want to appeal or object. While I agree with you, Mr. President, and Tom Daschle, your colleague, chose a slightly different course that would have denied appeals and court actions under certain circumstances, we are working right now to try to see if we can craft that collaborative process that would limit but still allow some degree of protest and/or objection, or appeal based on law and based on the reality of the environment, and at the same time not allow those thousands who would choose to obstruct entirely--to simply use that as a tool to bring any action on our public land. I hope by tomorrow we can bring to the floor that kind of an amendment which will have bipartisan support. We are going to try mightily to achieve that. Let me close with this thought, because to me this is the most frightening of the thoughts about which I have talked. Six point three million acres have burned to date, 2,500 homes have been wiped out, and 25 people have died trying to fight those fires. If this had been Hurricane Andrew, which devastated less, we, with the full force of the Government, would be out there today helping those people rebuild those homes and trying to solve the problem. But some have said: Oh, no, this is just Mother Nature, and this is natural. Well, hurricanes are Mother Nature, and they are very natural. But still we have reacted differently. A hurricane is going on in the forests of public lands--wiping out millions of acres of trees, 2,500 homes, killing 25 people to date, and it is clearly something we have to speak to, and speak loudly. Even if we are able to gain public support to get optimum public activity on our public land, if we are able to thin and clean and fireproof tens of millions of acres a year--even if we do that--our scientists are telling us that the forested lands--the Great Basin West primarily, but all of the public forests of our country--today are in such unhealthy condition that over the next 15 years we could still average anywhere from 5 million to 8 million acres a year being wiped out by wildfire, depending on climate conditions--drought or lack of moisture. Shame on us for having waited so long to attempt to do so little. But we must attempt now to do something. I hope we can bring all of the communities of interest together in a kind of collaborative process to look at these acres, to deal with what we call the class 3 sick, dead, and/or dying bug-infested acres, to look at our urban wildland interface, to talk about and help shape the environment that protects homes while at the same time protecting wildlife habitat and watershed and what can once again be the beautiful forests of this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, and also the ranking member. Mr. President, I rise in support of the trade promotion authority legislation. I will speak briefly about the strong provisions contained within the conference bill that will help the United States preserve the effectiveness of our trade laws. As many of you know, these laws are going to be critical to the ability of U.S. companies, farmers, and workers to combat trading practices that harm our economic interests. As barriers to trade come down around the world, it becomes critically important to uphold the rules that combat government subsidies and predatory pricing practices. As many of you know, and many of you participated with Senator Dayton and I in crafting an amendment aimed at preserving the ability of Congress to have a significant role in shaping our laws, it was not done in an isolationist or xenophobic attitude--not at all. That amendment had overwhelming, bipartisan support, and spoke directly to TPA and the role of the Senate. I tell you, I was disappointed the conference did not deal with the Craig-Dayton provision, but I do believe the conference bill does contain several strong provisions that require the administration to consult with us every step of the way during trade negotiations. First, the bill makes trade law preservation a principal negotiating objective. Secondly, it requires the administration to report to Congress a full 6 months before a trade agreement is initialed regarding any trade law changes that trade agreement would require. In other words, the U.S. Trade Representative must come to the Senate and explain to each of us what will be changed in our laws, and how those changes meet the objectives of trade and also the rights of this Congress. We have gained transparency in the process of negotiation. I think that is critical. And third, if those changes do not satisfy our requirements of preserving U.S. trade law, well, we can vote on a resolution of disagreement. And I will help write it. Make no mistake, our trade laws are under attack at the WTO. First, several countries have put forth proposals that would fire a number of rounds into our trade laws with every intent of sinking them. Our trade laws are also unraveling, on a monthly basis, before the WTO dispute settlement process where bureaucrats in Geneva sit back and tell our trade law agencies how to make their decisions, completely ignoring the standard of review that was agreed to in the last trade round. These are some of the issues. So Ambassador Zoellick, Secretary Evans, hear us loud: Do it right or bring it back here and we defeat it.

Mr. CRAIG. Sixty-two Senators said: Do not negotiate away our trade laws, or suffer the consequence. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to say thank you to a patriot and a technical expert, Dave Gerzina, who is retiring from civilian service to the Navy on August 3, 2002. Dave was born in Youngstown, OH and was raised in the Miami, FL area from the age of eight. He attended Florida Atlantic University and received a Bachelor of Science in Ocean Engineering. In 1970, Dave began working for the Navy at the David Taylor Model Basin in Bethesda, MD and has worked continuously for the Navy at three different locations over the past 32 years. Dave's first assignment was working for the Hydro-Mechanics Division in analyzing maneuvering and seakeeping of naval vessels. He worked there for over 5 years when he transferred to the System Development Division in Panama City, FL. While in Panama City, Dave served extensively in the development and testing of the Landing Craft Air Cushioned vehicle, LCAC. He provided in-valuable engineering and technical expertise for the duration of the development program, seeing it to a successful completion during his eight-year stint at the facility. Dave transferred to the Naval Surface Warfare Center's Acoustic Research Detachment at Bayview, Idaho in January 1984. He has worked for the Acoustics Department in numerous roles during his 18 continuous years of service at this facility. Dave initially held the title of Technical Operations Manager, and oversaw all testing and operations performed at the ARD. He was later promoted to the Buoyant Vehicle Operations Manager, where he managed the development and testing of many flow-noise features for Los Angeles Class submarine sonar self-noise improvements. In addition, he re- designed and improved the Detachment's test ranges, and conducted operations in support of the very successful Seawolf Class self-noise program. He was also instrumental in developing the capability to perform full-scale Towed Array testing in Idaho, which saved months and thousands of dollars over at sea testing, culminating in the procurement of a Navy research vessel. Dave achieved his greatest career success during the 1988-1995 period when he was responsible for overseeing the installation of the Navy's unique, world class Intermediate Scale Measurement System (ISMS) at Lake Pend Oreille. As Project Manager he was responsible for obtaining environmental approval to develop the system, interfacing with the numerous organizations, engineers, scientists and contractors to plan and then install the intricate system and associated facilities, and finally, the testing to characterize and verify the site. Since completion of the installation in 1995, Dave has assumed the role of Test Program Manager and has been responsible for the conduct of numerous successful ISMS tests as well as the responsibility of maintaining the system. Dave has improved the ISMS Program's capabilities and reputation into the Navy's premier test site for performing structural, target strength and radiated testing of large-scale submarine models. The underwater range portion has been referred to as the most complex underwater structure in the world. Dave and his wife of 32 years, Robin, have three adult children and two beloved Dalmations. Dave has been an accomplished bass fisherman and elk hunter since his youth, competing in numerous tournaments. He is also an accomplished sailor and plans to take several ocean trips in a Catamaran after retirement. He hopes to apply his carpentry skills to finish and sell his current house, then settle down in Florida for the winters and spring, returning each year to a small cabin in Idaho for the summers and autumns. Finally, Dave is seriously considering obtaining a law degree in his future spare time. Dave Gerzina has been a significant contributor to our nation's research capabilities, as well as numerous performance improvements to quieting operational and future vessels and submarines. I want to wish Dave and Robin good luck, fair winds and following seas in their next endeavors.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce The Choice IDEA Act, which would reform the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. The federal government began dealing with special education in the 1970's, and on the whole what has come to be known as IDEA had proven to be a remarkable success. Before federal legislation, many times a child with a disability received little or no education. And if the child did receive an education, it was often sub-standard. IDEA has undoubtedly been a success, and you will find no stronger champion of educating the disabled than I. However, the success of IDEA should not blind us to the problems it, in its current form, causes. These problems come up every time I meet with educators and education administrators from my state. When we sit down and discuss what we in the federal government can do for them, the discussion invariably turns to IDEA. These educators and school personnel want two things: full funding of the federal government's share of IDEA, like we promised back in the 1970's, and a reduction in paperwork. I have also talked to numerous parents about their experiences with IDEA. While many are happy with the current system, there are also many who are dissatisfied and who want more control and more choice over how their children are educated. Some of the stories I hear are truly incredible and illustrate the serious need for IDEA reform. For example, there is a school district in North Idaho--in a county which has had very high unemployment and below average per-capita income since the early 1990's--which has well above the national average of children in special education. This district is doing a great job educating those children, but the high costs associated with doing so, and the time it takes to complete the reams of paperwork that must be filled out for every child, are severe drains on that district. I've also heard from a school superintendent in Idaho who is going through a particularly sticky due process hearing and who laments that the paperwork required by this hearing is costly, unnecessary, and takes away teachers' time from the classroom. Parents have also contacted me with their stories of how school districts have mistreated them and how they can only find the proper program for their special child at a private school. The Choice IDEA Act would help out these parents, teachers, and school administrators by fully funding IDEA by Fiscal Year 2010, giving parents significantly more control over how their children are educated, and by reducing the onerous burden of paperwork that hampers the special education process. The centerpiece of the bill is a proposal to allow states to set up a special education system based on parental choice. States that want to reform would draw up a list of disability categories and how much it costs to educate and accommodate a child who has that disability. The states would also draw up a menu outlining the educational services each pubic school in the state offers to children with those disabilities, and how much those services costs. These services must equal the quality of the services they offer today, and the states' programs would be approved by the Department of Education. If the Department of Education approves a state's plan, parents of special education children in that state would get a voucher for each child to choose from schools' menus to meet the needs of their children. Or, if parents did not find satisfactory services from the public schools, they could take their vouchers to any private school that could meet their children's needs. As you can see, parents would have the ultimate control over how their child is educated. Since parents would have the option of taking their voucher and leaving a school if their child was not being educated properly, the due process requirements under IDEA would not be necessary and the school personnel would have their paperwork burden dramatically reduced. Parents and school personnel could work together to find a proper diagnosis for a student who had a disability and to find the right ways to educate this child, instead of being forced into an adversarial relationship as they are today. It is important to point out, though, that this bill has no mandate on states that they must design the system outlined above. My bill would strengthen states' rights by allowing states one more option in dealing with special education. If states want to design such a special education system, they should have the freedom to do so. As welfare reform has shown us, states are often more innovative than the federal government in solving problems. This bill would give them one more tool to deal with the problems that are associated with IDEA. Another important provision of this bill is that it would set up a grant program (up to $1 million) within the Department of Education to help school districts which have 15 percent or more of their students in special education hire para-professionals to help deal with the paperwork. The Choice IDEA Act is not intended to be the final say on IDEA reform. I agree with many of the Presidential Commission's suggestions for IDEA reauthorization and hope to see them enacted into law; however, this reauthorization should include a provision giving states the option of pursuing their own reforms within the structure outlined above. When the Senate begins debating IDEA reauthorization, it is my hope that my bill will be considered and the Senate will reform IDEA so that the concept of ``no child is left behind'' truly includes every child.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce The Choice IDEA Act, which would reform the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. The federal government began dealing with special education in the 1970's, and on the whole what has come to be known as IDEA had proven to be a remarkable success. Before federal legislation, many times a child with a disability received little or no education. And if the child did receive an education, it was often sub-standard. IDEA has undoubtedly been a success, and you will find no stronger champion of educating the disabled than I. However, the success of IDEA should not blind us to the problems it, in its current form, causes. These problems come up every time I meet with educators and education administrators from my state. When we sit down and discuss what we in the federal government can do for them, the discussion invariably turns to IDEA. These educators and school personnel want two things: full funding of the federal government's share of IDEA, like we promised back in the 1970's, and a reduction in paperwork. I have also talked to numerous parents about their experiences with IDEA. While many are happy with the current system, there are also many who are dissatisfied and who want more control and more choice over how their children are educated. Some of the stories I hear are truly incredible and illustrate the serious need for IDEA reform. For example, there is a school district in North Idaho--in a county which has had very high unemployment and below average per-capita income since the early 1990's--which has well above the national average of children in special education. This district is doing a great job educating those children, but the high costs associated with doing so, and the time it takes to complete the reams of paperwork that must be filled out for every child, are severe drains on that district. I've also heard from a school superintendent in Idaho who is going through a particularly sticky due process hearing and who laments that the paperwork required by this hearing is costly, unnecessary, and takes away teachers' time from the classroom. Parents have also contacted me with their stories of how school districts have mistreated them and how they can only find the proper program for their special child at a private school. The Choice IDEA Act would help out these parents, teachers, and school administrators by fully funding IDEA by Fiscal Year 2010, giving parents significantly more control over how their children are educated, and by reducing the onerous burden of paperwork that hampers the special education process. The centerpiece of the bill is a proposal to allow states to set up a special education system based on parental choice. States that want to reform would draw up a list of disability categories and how much it costs to educate and accommodate a child who has that disability. The states would also draw up a menu outlining the educational services each pubic school in the state offers to children with those disabilities, and how much those services costs. These services must equal the quality of the services they offer today, and the states' programs would be approved by the Department of Education. If the Department of Education approves a state's plan, parents of special education children in that state would get a voucher for each child to choose from schools' menus to meet the needs of their children. Or, if parents did not find satisfactory services from the public schools, they could take their vouchers to any private school that could meet their children's needs. As you can see, parents would have the ultimate control over how their child is educated. Since parents would have the option of taking their voucher and leaving a school if their child was not being educated properly, the due process requirements under IDEA would not be necessary and the school personnel would have their paperwork burden dramatically reduced. Parents and school personnel could work together to find a proper diagnosis for a student who had a disability and to find the right ways to educate this child, instead of being forced into an adversarial relationship as they are today. It is important to point out, though, that this bill has no mandate on states that they must design the system outlined above. My bill would strengthen states' rights by allowing states one more option in dealing with special education. If states want to design such a special education system, they should have the freedom to do so. As welfare reform has shown us, states are often more innovative than the federal government in solving problems. This bill would give them one more tool to deal with the problems that are associated with IDEA. Another important provision of this bill is that it would set up a grant program (up to $1 million) within the Department of Education to help school districts which have 15 percent or more of their students in special education hire para-professionals to help deal with the paperwork. The Choice IDEA Act is not intended to be the final say on IDEA reform. I agree with many of the Presidential Commission's suggestions for IDEA reauthorization and hope to see them enacted into law; however, this reauthorization should include a provision giving states the option of pursuing their own reforms within the structure outlined above. When the Senate begins debating IDEA reauthorization, it is my hope that my bill will be considered and the Senate will reform IDEA so that the concept of ``no child is left behind'' truly includes every child.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in an unprecedented alliance today, introducing legislation to improve the National Instant Background Check System (NICS). While we have frequently demonstrated our differing views of second amendment issues, we stand together when it comes to enforcing laws against criminal gun violence, and that is the subject of our legislation. The vast majority of gun owners in our country today understand that the right to keep and bear arms comes with a grave duty to use firearms responsibly and within the law. The NICS system deals with the tiny but dangerous fraction of Americans who have lost their firearm rights because they are proven lawbreakers, convicted felons--or because they do not have the capacity to understand their responsibilities as firearm users. Our federal laws prohibit these individuals from possessing or acquiring firearms, and the NICS system is made up of the records of these ``prohibited persons.'' This is the list against which prospective gun purchasers are checked when the law requires a background check. State and local agencies still play a big role, conducting checks on almost half the applications based on their own records. We want the system to be fast, so that it does not unduly burden individuals in the exercise of their second amendment rights. That means the records need to be automated, so we don't have the kind of delays that happen when local law enforcement has to manually check written records. It is equally critical to all of us that the system be accurate. Accuracy means we need to be able to remove a record if it is no longer relevant--for example, if it's a record of an indictment on charges that were later dropped. It also means we need all relevant records-- records pertaining not only to convicted felons, but also those who are adjudicated mentally incompetent and drug abusers, and all other categories prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. Accurate, automated records means truly instant checks, fewer delays for law-abiding gun purchases, and better use as a tool to prevent violent criminals from obtaining firearms. U.S. taxpayers have spend hundreds of millions of dollars in less than a decade, helping to improve all States' criminal history records for law enforcement purposes. It is time to focus our national strategy on getting the job completed, to the benefit of not just the gun- purchasing public but all Americans concerned about the safety of their communities. Our bill sets out the objectives needed to complete the NICS system, and it provides incentives and strategies for accomplishing those objectives. We have been working in tandem with like-minded members in the other body, and the bill we introduce today reflects the changes made by the House Judiciary Committee in the original proposal. Among other things, this bill specifies the records still needed from federal agencies to fill in the gaps, and requires the removal of records that are no longer relevant. It provides inventive for States to improve their systems through grants and waivers of current matching fund requirements. It calls on DOJ and the mental health community to develop privacy protocols so that mental health records can be properly added to the system. I am also pleased that the bill incorporates a provision of great importance to law-abiding gun owners, making permanent the prohibition against charging a federal fee for background checks. Congress has supported this prohibition repeatedly, acknowledging that any such check is being done for law enforcement purposes and not as a service or convenience to gun purchasers. It makes good sense to codify that prohibition, once and for all. In sum, this is an important and timely measure. I appreciate the work that the cosponsors have done to get us to this point, and I urge all our colleagues to support the bill's enactment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in an unprecedented alliance today, introducing legislation to improve the National Instant Background Check System (NICS). While we have frequently demonstrated our differing views of second amendment issues, we stand together when it comes to enforcing laws against criminal gun violence, and that is the subject of our legislation. The vast majority of gun owners in our country today understand that the right to keep and bear arms comes with a grave duty to use firearms responsibly and within the law. The NICS system deals with the tiny but dangerous fraction of Americans who have lost their firearm rights because they are proven lawbreakers, convicted felons--or because they do not have the capacity to understand their responsibilities as firearm users. Our federal laws prohibit these individuals from possessing or acquiring firearms, and the NICS system is made up of the records of these ``prohibited persons.'' This is the list against which prospective gun purchasers are checked when the law requires a background check. State and local agencies still play a big role, conducting checks on almost half the applications based on their own records. We want the system to be fast, so that it does not unduly burden individuals in the exercise of their second amendment rights. That means the records need to be automated, so we don't have the kind of delays that happen when local law enforcement has to manually check written records. It is equally critical to all of us that the system be accurate. Accuracy means we need to be able to remove a record if it is no longer relevant--for example, if it's a record of an indictment on charges that were later dropped. It also means we need all relevant records-- records pertaining not only to convicted felons, but also those who are adjudicated mentally incompetent and drug abusers, and all other categories prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. Accurate, automated records means truly instant checks, fewer delays for law-abiding gun purchases, and better use as a tool to prevent violent criminals from obtaining firearms. U.S. taxpayers have spend hundreds of millions of dollars in less than a decade, helping to improve all States' criminal history records for law enforcement purposes. It is time to focus our national strategy on getting the job completed, to the benefit of not just the gun- purchasing public but all Americans concerned about the safety of their communities. Our bill sets out the objectives needed to complete the NICS system, and it provides incentives and strategies for accomplishing those objectives. We have been working in tandem with like-minded members in the other body, and the bill we introduce today reflects the changes made by the House Judiciary Committee in the original proposal. Among other things, this bill specifies the records still needed from federal agencies to fill in the gaps, and requires the removal of records that are no longer relevant. It provides inventive for States to improve their systems through grants and waivers of current matching fund requirements. It calls on DOJ and the mental health community to develop privacy protocols so that mental health records can be properly added to the system. I am also pleased that the bill incorporates a provision of great importance to law-abiding gun owners, making permanent the prohibition against charging a federal fee for background checks. Congress has supported this prohibition repeatedly, acknowledging that any such check is being done for law enforcement purposes and not as a service or convenience to gun purchasers. It makes good sense to codify that prohibition, once and for all. In sum, this is an important and timely measure. I appreciate the work that the cosponsors have done to get us to this point, and I urge all our colleagues to support the bill's enactment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce. The Permanent Tax Relief for School Construction Act to make permanent the tax benefits we enacted last year relating to private activity bonds for school construction. Last year, we approved a tax bill which had many important provisions. Unfortunately, these provisions only last until the end of 2010. That's a pretty poor way to engineer the tax code. American families and businesses only have nine years to reap the benefits of lower taxes, and right when they are getting used to the current tax code, it will revert to its pre-2001 level. That is simply unfair. In order to plan for the long term, families and businesses need to know that the lower taxes we enacted last year will be permanent. An important part of the tax package that we approved last year was the inclusion of elementary and secondary public education under the private activities for which tax exempt bonds are issued. This provision will make it easier for States and school districts to raise money to build schools. In a State like mine, where there is a pressing need for school construction and not much revenue to fund it, this tax provision is very important. To see it end in 2010 would prevent many necessary facilities from being built. The harm caused by the sunsetting of this tax provision is clearly illustrated by the plight of many of my State's school districts. During may travels throughout Idaho, I visited quite a few schools, many of which were the products of New Deal work projects in the 1930's. These schools are falling part now, though, and school districts have a very difficult time raising the necessary revenue to construct new buildings. Idaho, like many States, is suffering from reduced tax revenue, so aid from the State is just not available to supplement school districts' revenue. Another problem is that it takes a super-majority to pass a levy to raise property taxes to finance school districts, and in quite a few of Idaho's districts, taxpayers are already paying high taxes. In many instances, the revenue isn't there for school districts. We recognized that problem last year and helped out school districts by providing tax incentives for school construction bonds. This type of tax relief is the best way we in Washington can help school districts. Even though we've been increasing the Federal role in education over the past few years, education matters such as school construction are still primarily a local function, as they should be. Every step we take to insert a Federal role into this local authority is a step that must be carefully considered. By providing tax incentives for these local school districts, though, we are not undermining their authority. We are giving them tools to help themselves, and help the children they are serving. Let's make sure that the tax code lets them continue to help these children after 2010, so that no child is ever left behind.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Nebraska and Nevada for bringing to the floor what is a valuable piece of legislation to address the issue of prescription drugs. As chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, I had not engaged in this debate on the floor from the time it began several days ago largely because, while it is a phenomenally important debate, it was a play, a drama to be acted out and ultimately to close with no result. That does not mean that those who come to the floor, such as my colleagues from Nebraska and Nevada, to put forth a substantive piece of legislation aren't well meaning. It does not mean that at all. It means that the majority leader of the Senate set up this play with the purpose of never accomplishing anything in the end but to allow those who wish to make a political statement and to shape themselves for the November election to have that opportunity. That in itself is a tragedy in the formation of public policy. It allows those to come to the floor and talk about all kinds of other things except that which is very meaningful; that is, a good prescription drug program for the seniors of America. If this bill had been formed by the Finance Committee in a bipartisan manner, it would be on the floor. It would receive a majority vote, it would be in conference with the House to work out our differences, and the seniors of America would have a drug prescription policy. That is not a statement of myth; that is a statement of fact. It would not be a drama; it would not be a play with all the characters hustling down to the curtain call; it would in fact be an action of positive legislative effort to produce a bill. The Senator from New York has talked about tax cuts. My goodness, what he has suggested is die and take everybody's money and put it into a social welfare program. No, sir, not on my watch. You bet the Senator from New York and the Senator from Idaho are different people, coming from different States. I don't believe in that.

Mr. CRAIG. I will not yield at this time. I do believe that people who work hard all their life and build an estate ought to have a right to take a little of it, because it is after tax money that builds an estate, and they want to pass it on to their children. That is right. That is reasonable. We call it the American dream. I don't think we ought to step back in and swoop it up for the Government to spend, all in the name of a social welfare state. That is wrong. It is fundamentally un-American. Debate it, if you wish. The reality is, use that as an excuse. That is law today. It is only an excuse not to have to face the reality of why we are here and not getting anything done. The reality of why we are not getting anything done is that the majority leader would not allow the chairman of the Finance Committee to do what he should have done at a very important time in American history, at a time when pharmaceutical drugs have become a part of the American health care culture. The seniors of America who are living longer and healthier today are finding that a very important part of their lifestyle. Medicare doesn't address that issue. The Senator from New York and the Senator from North Dakota said it right: If we were writing a Medicare Program today, prescription drugs would be in it. It would be in it, and I would vote for it, and they would. At the same time, we are not going to cram in a proposal that costs hundreds of billions of dollars, to the tune of $700 or $800 billion, doesn't take effect until 2004, terminates in 2008 or 2009, and call that something we want to take home and say: Look what we have done for you. Why not something that our country can afford, that our seniors will find a reliable approach toward acquiring the necessary pharmaceutical drugs to deal with their health care in a way that will not break them? That is not going to be allowed to happen in the Senate in the 107th Congress. There are 40 million-plus seniors. Put them all in one room and ask them this question: Do you want a pharmaceutical drug program now? The answer is: Yes, we do. We want it now, not 2004. No, we don't want it to terminate in 2008. Most importantly, we don't want it to bankrupt our country. Yes, we would pay a small deductible and, yes, we would even pay a small premium because a small deductible of maybe $100 a month to pay for a $400 drug bill is a right and reasonable thing to ask. The Senator from Nevada put it well when he said there are State programs--that wasn't counted--that can offset the truly needy. And there are many. Those who have little to no money--and there are many seniors in this position--could have full access. It wouldn't have to come through the Medicare Program or, I should say, the Medicaid Program that oftentimes is administered by the State.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask for 1 more minute.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senators from Nebraska and Nevada for bringing a realistic amendment to the floor, one that could take effect now, one with which we could go home to New York or Idaho and say to our seniors: We have cut your drug bills well over a half or two-thirds. You have it now, not wishes 4 years from now, not wishes 3 years from now, a program that won't bankrupt the country and won't demand that those who have saved and earned all their life have to give up their estates so that you can live well. That is not what this country ought to be about. More importantly, that is not what this debate ought to be about. It ought to be about a substantive, affordable program that truly allows America to say to its seniors: We have changed the dynamics of health care from a 30-year-old model to a modern model that allows pharmaceutical drugs to be affordable, to be fitted into the program. I strongly support the effort of my colleagues from Nebraska and Nevada. I yield the floor.