Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I say to the Senator from Alaska, I am going to relinquish the floor and sit down with the Senator from Washington to see if we can work out a time agreement to accommodate the Senator's concern. I hope we can shoot for the 8 o'clock hour or somewhere near that, recognizing everyone's right.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the Subcommittee Chairman, regarding a specific funding provision in this bill within arms control treaty verification. I have been concerned for some time that our arms control efforts have been focused on treaty negotiation at the expense of treaty verification. The Committee report expressed the same concern. As a result, technological advances in arms control verification made at the national laboratories are not being fully applied or exploited. Accordingly, this bill provides $10,000,000 for this purpose. I want to be absolutely precise about what the Committee has directed in this area so I will quote from the Committee's report accompanying this bill. The report states the following: ``the Committee recommendation provides a $10,000,000 increase over fiscal year 1999 for verification technology.'' Mr. President, I think the plain meaning of this language could not be any clearer and I think my colleague the Subcommittee Chairman would agree with me. That is why I was puzzled to hear from my staff that, in informal conversations, State Department personnel have expressed confusion over how to interpret this language. If my understanding is correct, some in the State Department have expressed their belief that the $10,000,000 increase is intended to be applied first to the President's priorities for increased funding--costing approximately $8,000,000--and that only the remaining $2,000,000, left over after the President's priorities are funded, would be applied to the treaty verification work. Mr. President, I certainly hope that the information I have about the interpretation of agency officials is incorrect. I certainly hope that the State Department would not disregard the abundantly clear direction provided by the Committee. I ask my colleague if my interpretation of the Committee's direction comports with his own, as Chairman of the Subcommittee.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman. I am assured that his understanding of the Committee's intent for these funds is the same as mine. funding for the sba office of advocacy

Mr. CRAIG. this past weekend Senator Crapo, Congresswoman Chenoweth and I conducted a public meeting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho where federal, state, local, tribal officials and citizens give statements and responded to questions concerning the federal, tribal and state governments' involvement in a Superfund site in North Idaho known as the Bunker Hill site. To date there has been approximately $200 million spent on cleanup. Significant progress has been made, but there is a great deal of debate going on between the parties concerning what other areas in the Basin need to be included in the cleanup. I believe the State of Idaho, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe and the federal agencies can work out these questions and resolve the conflicts that have gone on over this issue in the Coeur d'Alene Basin for over a decade. I feel the Department of Justice, Idaho and the Nation as a whole would be well served if the DOJ and the other parties involved in litigation were to work among themselves parties to resolve the issues rather than to continue to litigate.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a discussion with the Senator from New Hampshire, the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee concerning a situation that exists in my home state of Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, at this time we are taking a close look at the Boxer amendment. I have visited with the Senator from California. She is being very straightforward with this amendment. No one out there wants to suggest that anybody in the legitimate business of selling guns in a legal fashion should sell one to an intoxicated person. I am concerned about the section of the code she is amending as it relates to penalties. I certainly do not believe any of us would suggest that anybody in a retail business who sells guns within the context of the Federal law becomes an alcohol expert or has breathalyzer equipment or any of that kind of thing at the point of sale. We want to make sure that is clear, because that is asking a nonprofessional to make a professional determination that could ultimately put them in tremendous liability, up to 10 years in prison. We want to make sure that is perfectly clear. I said to the Senator from California we will work with her to assure that going into conference, that section of the code is clarified so her amendment is as clear as, obviously, she intends it to be. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, regarding an issue associated with the implementation of the Kyl, Domenici, Murkowski amendment. This amendment creates a new semi-autonomous Agency for Nuclear Stewardship within the Department of Energy by collecting together various national security programs and nuclear weapons laboratories and facilities into a new agency. My state of Idaho hosts two Department of Energy laboratories--the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory West. Since these laboratories do not meet the definition of nuclear weapons laboratories, they are not included in the amendment, but I want to raise for my colleagues some of the complexities of implementing this new organizational structure. As I said, the laboratories in my state are not included in the proposal for the new agency but it is important to understand that Idaho's laboratories are making significant contributions to national security. Just as my colleagues from New Mexico have mentioned earlier in this debate, that we must do nothing to impede the continued contribution of the weapons laboratories to the critical civilian missions of the Department of Energy, I want to emphasize and confirm my colleague's agreement that the non-weapons laboratories shall continue to contribute and have their capabilities made available to the national security programs of the Department of Energy. To clarify this point, I would like to use a specific example from the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The Advanced Test Reactor, or ATR, in Idaho is the only world-class test reactor left in the United States. I do not state this as a boast, but as a fact. The ATR has a vital role in both improving the operation of the nuclear Navy and supporting our nation's future nuclear energy research and development endeavors. In addition, this important facility has the potential to attract significant international interest and investment. I am concerned that this amendment, which moves the Naval Reactors program from under the umbrella of DOE's nuclear research and development program to the new agency, will also reassign responsibility for this reactor. Reassigning the responsibility for this reactor to the new agency would be harmful from two perspectives. First, our Naval Reactors program is a user of this facility but should not be burdened with its operation and maintenance. Second, moving responsibility for this reactor out of the nuclear research and development program could inadvertently endanger its use by the U.S. civilian and international research community. Since this latter use is growing and very important to our future civilian nuclear research activities, could I ask my colleague from New Mexico to confirm that it is not the intent of this amendment to move responsibility for the Advanced Test Reactor when moving the Naval Reactors program to the new agency?

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

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague for that clarification and assurance. The Naval Reactors program has a proud history in Idaho. All spent naval nuclear fuel is sent to Idaho for examination and storage pending its permanent disposition. Although Idaho's facilities are not included in the new agency, I am assured that the many ways in which Idaho's laboratories contribute to our national security will continue under this new organizational structure.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate this morning to report a sad event to my colleagues. This past Saturday, July 17, I received news of the untimely death of Kenneth Christopher Foss, one of the analysts on the staff of the Republican Policy Committee, of which I am chairman. He was 29 years old and had been a lifelong sufferer of diabetes. Since assuming the RPC chairmanship in 1996, I had gotten to know Ken very well. Most recently, I had worked very closely with him on legislation affecting Second Amendment rights. As anyone who knew Ken can attest, he was not a man to compromise on principle. He was an extraordinary individual who stood on solid moral and conservative principles. In an age of relative values and indifference to truth, he will be sorely missed. For Ken, devotion to principle was not an option, it was an imperative. Ken's achievements during his all-too-short time in the Senate and on Earth were truly remarkable. He began his career with former Senator Dan Coats, first as an intern and then as a staff assistant. He moved over to the RPC during the chairmanship of my predecessor, Senator Don Nickles. Many of my colleagues may not fully be aware of Ken's contributions to the operation of the committee's in-house cable television facility, channel 2, which we all know is an indispensable tool for Senators and their staffs to keep abreast of floor action. This past year, Ken was the backbone of channel 2 as its manager. In addition, he had shouldered the increased responsibility of a constantly growing list of issues as a policy analyst, including guns, education, alcohol and tobacco, drugs, immigration, American flag protection, census ``sampling'', prosecutorial ethics and asset forfeiture, and adoption, among others. For Ken, these were not just a list of bureaucratic responsibilities at the RPC--they were to him truly a passion, objects of his deeply held commitment to justice, the rule of law, and the truest values of the American Republic. I might add, his passion extended to the issue of Puerto Rican statehood, where his position was diametrically opposed to mine. Though he was gentleman enough not to be obvious about it, it was very clear to me where he stood. Whatever he worked on, he was meticulous and thorough. Whatever his task, he was the first to volunteer for the heavy lifting, to collect all the background, to consult all the authoritative sources, to do all the detailed reading and analysis, to become a walking library on the issue at hand. As anyone who has been to what we call the ``big room'' at the RPC or down to his basement station at channel 2 in the Capitol, known as ``the cave,'' Ken's desk was a veritable archive, testimony to both his devotion to duty and to his active mind. I want to mention two matters in particular that define Ken and his work in the Senate. To say that Ken was devoted to defending American rights under the Second Amendment is a masterpiece of understatement. As one of the bumper stickers displayed on his desk puts it: ``A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.'' For Ken, those were words by which to live. Ken had a keen devotion to the concept of ordered liberty under constitutional government and the reciprocal rights and duties of the citizens, especially armed citizens. Whatever the gun-related issue--concealed-carry laws, instant background checks, mandatory trigger locks, or any other efforts to circumvent our founders' clear words--Ken was Horatio at the bridge. His assistance to me during the recent debate on gun show restrictions was invaluable. He will be sorely missed by me certainly, and by the Nation. Second, it would be impossible to talk about Ken Foss without mentioning his devotion to the unique cultural heritage of the South, and especially his native State, the Commonwealth of Virginia. In all he did, in his stubborn unwillingness to forsake a cause that he thought was just, he was constantly following, and consciously following, in the footsteps of famous Virginians of the past upon whom he looked as role models: George Washington, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson. Philosophically in agreement with the antifederalism of Mason and Henry, Ken really did believe that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and his tireless work reflected that conviction. His love of Virginia and of the South extended from honoring and emulating the great names of the past and ``Sic Semper Tyrannis,'' the motto of the State of Virginia on the screen-saver on his computer, to his fondness for Allman's barbecue down in Fredericksburg, southern rock music, and Alabama football. Ken prized the distinctive heritage of his State and his region and was afraid that in our modern, homogenized world, we were losing an irreplaceable part of a precious cultural patrimony. In his passing, Virginia and the South have lost a true son, and the Nation is, I think, poorer for it. Ken is survived by his parents, Gary and Andra Foss, and by his brother Eric. I am sure I speak for all my colleagues in expressing our condolences to his family. Ken's father, Gary Foss, is director of the Fredericksburg Christian School. In closing, I should mention that Ken's dedication in his nonprofessional life extended no less to the principles of Christian education and the Reformed tradition. For Ken, service to God, to his church, to his parents, to his fellow man was an expression of the same qualities he demonstrated in his professional life. Whether it was the Ten Commandments or the Constitution, Ken knew his duty and inspired others to respond to the call. This is how I remember him, and this is how I believe he will be remembered. We will all miss Ken Foss. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Arizona for their leadership on the issue of our laboratories and our concern about nuclear weapons security and the work they have done and the vote that will soon be taken in the Senate on that effort. It is of prime national importance.

Mr. CRAIG. It is.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will to take place Tuesday, July 27, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. S. 439, a bill to amend the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act of 1988 to adjust the boundary of the Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada, has been added to the agenda. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224- 6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Tuesday, July 27, 1999, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 719, a bill to provide the orderly disposal of certain Federal land in the State of Nevada and for the acquisition of environmental sensitive land in the State, and for other purposes, S. 930, a bill to provide for the sale of certain public land in the Ivanpah Valley, NV, to the Clark County, Nevada, Department of Aviation, S. 1030, a bill to provide that the conveyance by the Bureau of Land Management of the surface estate to certain land in the State of Wyoming in exchange for certain private land will not result in the removal of the land from operation of the mining laws, S. 1288, a bill to provide incentives for collaborative forest restoration projects on National Forest System and other public lands in New Mexico, and for other purposes, and S. 1374, a bill to authorize the development and maintenance of a multiagency campus project in the town of Jackson, WY. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coverdell of Georgia for asking for a special order this morning to talk about taxes, where we are with taxes in our country, and where the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee are at this moment as we begin, within a few weeks, a very important national debate on reducing the overall tax burden for the American people. For a few moments this morning, let me talk about that tax burden and try to put it in context with other times in our history when the American people cried out for tax relief and the Congress heard them and the Congress respectfully responded. Today's total tax burden is the highest since World War II, according to the Office of Management and Budget. I know when I came here in the 1980s, the World War II tax level was always used as the index. It was less than we had to pay during the wartime tax of World War II. At that time, that was the highest ever registered in our Nation. But now we have broken that mark. I will repeat that. The OMB now says that the peacetime tax burden of the average American taxpayer is higher than it has been at any time since World War II. Tax receipts as a percentage of the gross domestic product amounted to 20.5 percent last year, will grow to 20.6 percent this year, and will reach 20.7 percent next year. Recently a new administration estimate predicted the largest budget surplus in the history of our country, with the highest taxes ever, and the highest budget surplus ever. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed this optimistic forecast. According to the President's estimates, last year's was the largest surplus in history. It will be larger this year, and will extend for the next 15 years. That is a lot of optimism. But even conservative economists suggest that the budget surplus, as we now know it, is going to extend well into the future. Over the next 10 years, a non-Social Security surplus will be at approximately $1.1 trillion. Over the next 15 years, the non-Social Security surplus could get as high as $2.9 trillion. Once again, these are reasonably conservative estimates on reasonably conservative growth in the Federal budget. Growing surpluses, but still no net tax cut? That is what our President is saying. Look at all of this money we are going to have to spend beyond what would be considered a reasonable level of spending at the Federal level. President Clinton won't recognize the income taxpayers' burdens, despite a $2.9 trillion overpayment over the next 15 years. I am not going to talk about surpluses anymore. I am going to talk about overpayment. The American taxpayer is overpaying what they should have to pay for the Government they are getting at this moment. Yet from the White House there is not one word about reasonable and responsible tax relief for the American taxpayer. That is why our Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee are fashioning tax reductions at this moment. The income taxpayers' burden is the heaviest in history, in terms of a total tax burden. The personal income tax burden stands at 9.9 percent of the gross domestic product, and, that is not just the highest since World War II, but the highest ever. It is higher than the 7.9 level when the President took office. It is higher than the 7.8 level of the gross domestic product when John Kennedy, a new President, came into office, and said: Let's stimulate the economy by producing a major tax cut. Of course, we remember the history of that. It was not unlike the model that Ronald Reagan brought to office and convinced the Congress to produce a tax cut to stimulate the economy. Our President thinks this economy is so good that you don't need to do that. That is not the issue. Our economy is strong, and we want to keep it strong, growing, and providing jobs. The way you do that is to insure that you don't drain the American public of their ability to spend for their families, and to save and invest in the growth of that future economy. The tax burden we have today is higher than the 9 percent level Jimmy Carter left office with, which produced the tax cuts, or at least the stimulus for the tax cuts, that Ronald Reagan brought to this Congress in the early 1980s. It is the highest level since World War II, and that was 1946 when it was 7.2 percent, and we were taxing at a high level to finance a war effort, the most major war effort ever conducted in the history of this country. According to Clinton's own budget office, his 9.9 percent level is the highest recorded level of personal income tax receipts ever reached in the history of this country. Clinton is the undisputed champion of personal income tax burden. You are the undisputed champion of that personal income tax burden and not one word from you, Mr. President, on a right and responsible level of tax reduction on the highest burden ever in the history of our country. Under President Clinton, personal income tax receipts have grown at an average annual rate of 9.7 percent. That is 75 percent faster than the economy's average annual growth rate of 5.3 percent. That is faster than the wages' and salaries' average annual growth rate of 5.6 percent. In other words, Mr. President, your tax rate increase is outstripping all levels of growth in this country--both personal and public. That is faster than personal income's average annual growth rate of 5.2 percent. That is faster than payroll taxes' annual growth rate of 5.6 percent. That is 4\1/2\ times faster than the 2 percent average annual growth rate of gross private savings of this country. Highest surpluses in high history; highest non-Social Security surplus in history; highest non-payroll tax surplus in history; highest personal income tax receipt burden in history. What should we do? Cut personal income taxes, is what we ought to be doing. Yet, Mr. President, not a word from you. What about the marriage penalty that the Senator from Missouri was talking about a few moments ago? What about death tax relief? Every time I walk off from a plane in my home State of Idaho, I hear from the small businessperson, or a farmer, or a rancher, who are at a time in their lives when they want to transfer the ownership of their life's work to their son, or to their daughter, and can't because the Federal Government steps in and destroys the American dream by saying: Give me at least 50 percent of the value of the life's work, and then I will let you pass the rest of it on to your family; and, in doing that, the son, or the daughter, or the son-in-law or the daughter-in-law spends the rest of their life trying to pay once again for that business, for that farm, for that ranch, and, in the end, they have to sell it just to pay the tax. Mr. President, please. What about the American dream? Join with us in eliminating the death tax. The fact that we have a $2.9 trillion surplus totally apart from Social Security means we can still protect Social Security and buy down the public debt. In addition to these things, we could cut income taxes and return income tax surpluses to the overburdened taxpayer. Everyone can see this connection. It is not a difficult thing to understand the highest income tax burden and the highest surplus in our country's history. When I say it is easy to see, that is everyone except President Clinton. Right on this Hill, his defenders won't even talk about a tax reduction. Clinton wants to raise taxes. Understand me. Here is the President, after all of the statistics and facts I have just given you, who brings the budget to the Hill this year, and in it are tax increases. According to the Congressional Budget Office, President Clinton's budget raises $96 billion in new taxes over the next decade. I mean, Mr. President, where in the heck are you coming from? With surpluses unlike we have ever had before, certainly in this Senator's history, and you want to raise taxes? That is roughly a 10-percent surplus surcharge over the next 10 years on the American taxpayer. In case you haven't forgotten, let me give you a little of the Clinton tax history. It is important the Senate understand this is a President who campaigned in 1992 on the promise to cut taxes. Then, in 1993, once elected, he raised taxes by $240 billion. After that, in 1995, President Clinton confessed--I was not in the room at that time, but here is the quote: ``People in this room are still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much.'' His own quote: ``Well, it might surprise you to know I think I raised them too much.'' That is the inconsistency of this President on this issue, and now with 2 years of a budget surplus under our belt, and with $2.9 trillion over the next 15 years in non-Social Security budget surpluses, Mr. President, join us in reducing the overall tax burden on the American people, and work with us to give a strong, responsible tax reduction to the taxpayers and to the economy of this country. Bill Clinton breaks promises to cut taxes and makes promises to raise them. No wonder Bill Clinton is the undisputed champion of personal income taxes. Bill Clinton may have a choice--whether to keep his word or not, whether to raise taxes when there is a surplus or whether to veto a tax cut when there is a surplus. For this Congress there should be no choice. This Congress should cut taxes on the overtaxed American people. We should do it if we had to cut spending to do it--as we have before. We do not even have to cut spending to cut taxes when there is trillions more than is necessary to run an already bloated government. When not one cent of this surplus comes from Social Security. We have nothing short of a moral imperative to return the money to the taxpayers who sent it. While it may be Clinton-able, it is unconscionable to do otherwise.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me, first, thank one of the true leaders in the Senate on the issue of health care for yielding me time, and to say how much I have appreciated his work in the last month and in the last few days during this critical debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am pleased the Senate is, once again, debating the issue of health care reform. I am pleased because here we have an opportunity, I think, to reclaim for the American people their right to control their health care. I am excited we have this opportunity to talk about medical savings accounts, restoring patients rights, and making health care insurance affordable--or at least this should be the essence of the debate. I must tell you that I am disappointed to see only one side is interested in truly talking about patients' rights instead of more regulation, more government, and, somehow, more control. While Republicans are talking about giving all Americans access to health care insurance and letting them control their medical health care, our Democrat friends are talking about driving up costs, canceling health care coverage for millions of Americans, and putting American health care under the control of more Federal Government. I am aware my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, has an amendment on the floor. I will speak to that amendment in just a few moments. But I think it is important to set that amendment in the context of the debate on the bill yesterday, today, and the balance of the week. First, I want to look at what it is our Democrat friends on the floor of the Senate are asking us to swallow. I believe this will help us better understand the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. We have heard a lot of talk about the cost of the Kennedy bill--some of it on this floor. Yesterday we even saw our colleagues parade out the President of the United States to downplay the cost of the Kennedy bill. Our Democrat colleagues have a mantra when it comes to the cost of the bill. Over and over again, they say, well, it is less than a Big Mac; it is less than $2 a month. Let me look at this chart for a moment, and maybe you will join with me in it. It is ``less than a Big Mac.'' That is what Senator Kennedy said. They even say the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says this bill will cost less than a Big Mac. If you look at the Congressional Budget Office report--and I recommend you read it in its entirety--you will see it says nothing about a Big Mac. But this is what it does say: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Kennedy bill will increase premiums an average of 6.1 percent over and above the normal inflationary costs of health care. For instance, let's read from the CBO report because an awful lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be confused about what the Congressional Budget Office has said about this bill. I am quoting the CBO report: Most of the provisions would reach their full effect within the first 3 years of its enactment. The CBO estimates the premiums for an employer-sponsored health plan would rise by an average of 6.1 percent in the absence of any compensating changes on the part of the employer. What are the ``compensating changes''? There is a clear history in health care that, as costs go up, people either leave or are dropped from the system. The CBO says of the Kennedy bill on compensating changes: Employers could respond to premium increases in a variety of ways to reduce their impact. They could drop health care insurance entirely. Yes, that is an option. CBO says it is. ``Reduce the generosity of the benefit package.'' That is quite typically what happens. They keep narrowing the scope of the coverage. ``Increase cost sharing by beneficiaries.'' We know what that means--the consumer pays more of the bill. Or ``increase the employee's share of the premium.'' If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think the CBO had a nice thing to say about their bill, I suggest they read the entire report. ``They could drop health insurance entirely'' is a quote. This is perhaps the most frightening part of the Kennedy bill to any American family. So many families across America are struggling to get by--we know that--even in prosperous times. There is a very large chunk of America that does not share totally in that prosperity. They depend on their health insurance to protect them when things go wrong. Yet every Democrat Member of this Chamber has thrown their support behind a bill that would take protection away from an estimated 1.9 million Americans. That is one estimate. Here is another estimate commissioned by our friends at the AFL-CIO. They indicate that the Kennedy bill could cancel health care coverage for approximately 1.8 million Americans. I suggest a new slogan for my colleagues when they talk about the bill. I am talking now about ``golden arches.'' Over 1.8 million Americans are uninsured by the Kennedy bill. That is a Big Mac attack directly at the American consumer and directly at the American family. A few weeks ago when I made the same comment on the floor of the Senate, my colleague from North Dakota--who happens to be on the floor now, Senator Dorgan--made a very remarkable statement. I don't think I have heard it yet in the debate. My friend said the Kennedy bill might actually increase coverage because it would make health care so attractive that people who are now uninsured would sign up to get its coverage. I say this is a remarkable statement for a very obvious reason. First, my friend seems to think we in the Senate can repeal the law of supply and demand. Raise the price, and more people are going to come and get it? I doubt it. History shows quite the opposite. So instead of demand decreasing as price goes up, consumers will buy more of the product because it is more pricey and, yes, it does have more benefits or possibly more? I don't think so. Divide the dollars each family spends. They have to put food on the table; they have to take the risk when it comes to health insurance. While 14 percent of the public want Congress to reform medical care or to reform managed care, a whopping 82 percent of America wants Congress to make health care more affordable. That is what we ought to be about: Extending coverage, protecting the patient, and while doing it, certainly not raising costs but hopefully making it more affordable. That hardly fits my friend's description of a ``public clamor'' for a more expensive health insurance program. Finally, if my colleagues know so much about health care insurance and how attractive they can make it to the consumers, I suggest they resign from the Senate and go run a health care insurance company because obviously they know a new formula and they could make a killing. Enough about Big Mac attacks. That is what the Kennedy bill ought to be called--a Big Mac attack. We have seen the number of uninsured Americans rise from 32 million to 43 million in just 10 years. Since 1995, the uninsured in my home State of Idaho has risen from 15 to 18 percent of the population. That is higher than the national average. Every year we add 1 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured. The Kennedy bill would speed up that process instead of slow it down. What the Senate ought to be about right now and what our Government ought to be about is trying to slow it down and make it more affordable. My colleague from Connecticut has offered an amendment that he says will improve access to cancer treatment. Before we vote on this amendment, I will discuss the impact of the Kennedy bill and what it would do in the context of this amendment in our fight against cancer. We have heard from my colleague from Florida who, thank goodness, survived cancer. Most Members have not had to go through that trauma. What he said was critically important. The 1.9 million Americans who would lose their health care coverage under the Kennedy bill represent more than 1 out of every 100 Americans with private coverage. Private health care insurance in this country pays for millions of Americans to undergo cancer screening meant to catch the deadly illness quickly, when it can be treated and defeated. The Centers for Disease Control say every year private health insurance pays for 33 million American women to undergo exams meant to detect breast cancer. The Kennedy bill would cancel coverage for, it is now estimated, 189,000 such breast exams every year. I don't really believe that is what they intend, but that is the unintended consequence of this kind of legislation. Mr. President, 189,000 women could go without breast exams if the Kennedy bill became law. The Centers for Disease Control say each year private health insurance pays for 9 million American women to have a mammogram. The Kennedy bill would cancel coverage for 53,000 of those mammograms on an annual basis. Run the statistics, run the percentages, run the figures. If you are going to take 1.8 or 1.9 million Americans out from under coverage, statistically I am accurate. Yesterday my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, said, ``Republicans are turning their backs on America's women.'' She was on the floor just a few moments ago repeating that. I want to know how Senator Boxer and all sponsors of the Kennedy bill reconcile their commitment to women and women's health with the fact that they are supporting a bill that could cause thousands of malignant lumps to go undiagnosed every year. The Centers for Disease Control says each year private health insurance pays for 41 million women to have pelvic exams and 24 million Pap smears. These tests are meant to detect ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancers. Yet the Kennedy bill would cancel coverage for 238,000 pelvic exams and 135,000 Pap smears. That is every year, according to the statistics, according to CBO, and according to the examination and study by the AFL-CIO. I want to hear the Kennedy bill supporters begin to reconcile these numbers, if their mantra is to fight cancer. We are talking about access to the system. We want people to have these tests. We want them protected. Yet if you shoot the cost up, people will take the risk. There are only so many fungible dollars in every citizen's life. They have to make real choices. My friends, that is the marketplace. I am afraid that is the unintended consequence of the Kennedy bill. It does not harm just women. The Kennedy bill could and would cancel--if you run the statistics, there it is again--23,000 prostate exams every year. As a final example, the Kennedy bill could cancel coverage for 439,000 skin cancer exams every year. I say this is a final example because the list is not exhaustive. It would be impossible to track all the ways the Kennedy bill threatens the health of 1.9 million Americans who it would leave without protection from the life-threatening diseases they will face. When my Republican colleagues raised the cost issue yesterday, I believe my colleague from Massachusetts called it a red herring. If this passes, I wonder what he will say to the women and the men who will lose their fight against cancer because they did not get the early detection. Because they did not have the money, they did not have the coverage to walk through the door and get the exam.

Mr. CRAIG. I will not yield. I find it astounding that this is what my colleagues have contributed to the debate on patients' rights. How can a patient have a right if a patient cannot have access? Every study shows a 6.1-percent increase in premiums above inflation will drive 1.9 million Americans out of health care. My Republican colleagues and I support a different approach, a substantially different approach. We have a bill that puts patients in control of their own health care and that makes health care simply more affordable. Our bill achieves it by giving all Americans access to medical savings accounts, along with all of the other kinds of health care insurances that are now available. Since we introduced the limited MSA, or the Medical Savings Pilot Program, something really very wonderful in health care has happened. I know the other side does not want to recognize it. I am so frustrated, trying to understand why they would ignore that the General Accounting Office estimates that 37 percent of medical savings account buyers previously had no coverage whatsoever, and 82 percent of the American public rate the high cost of medical health care coverage their chief concern. Medical savings accounts meet that concern. Our bill has that in it. That is not driving people out of the system. That is reaching out, bringing people into the system, into the system for their Pap smears, into the system for their pelvic exams, into the system for early detection of cancer. There is the difference, driving people out or encouraging people to come in, making health care more affordable. A medical savings account gives you 100-percent coverage, 100 percent of doctors to choose from. My Democratic colleagues have gone to great lengths to say our bill does not generate direct access to specialists; that our bill does not generate direct access to OB/GYNs; that we do not guarantee access to pediatricians; that we do not let patients choose their doctors; that we do not ensure that medical decisions will be made by a patient and that patient's doctor. They could not be more wrong. If you own a medical savings account and you own insurance, you choose your own doctor, always. If you feel you need a specialist, then you go to the specialist. If you need direct access to an OB/GYN, you have it. If you need direct access to a pediatrician, nobody is sitting there as the gatekeeper they like to talk about; you are the person in power. You have the direct access. Once again, for mandatory referral, you are in control of your destiny and the destiny that comes in cooperation with your primary care physician. That is what we are talking about, about personalizing health care and taking the Federal Government out of it. That is why Republicans have always supported MSAs. We are not saying everybody ought to have them. We are simply saying open up the option. Make it available as a matter of choice so you can choose between what you can afford and what has now become even more affordable. So we are not thrusting the Federal bureaucracy on the system and shoving up the cost by every legitimate estimator's estimation. We are, in fact, potentially driving those costs down. A program that decreases the number of uninsured and gives patients direct access to their doctors is what this Senate ought to be about. If my Democrat colleagues truly want Americans to have affordable medical care that patients control, they should be clamoring for a medical savings account. How can my colleagues stand up for a patient's right to greater access to cancer treatment when they are supporting a bill that leaves millions without health care coverage? I quoted the statistics, and they are very easy to extrapolate out of those figures. We are talking about hundreds of thousands fewer exams for potential cancer under what is now being proposed. The answer is they really have not thought their bill through. They do not think the marketplace works, that somehow you can reform it and change it and control it by simply enacting a Federal regulation. Will costs not go up? We know they will go up. We know every time we have tampered with health care for the better benefit or for the less, we have had the direct impact on the marketplace that has driven health care costs up. Every time it is driven up, it is driven beyond the point of access by some Americans. Why would they do this? I am not sure why they do this. I guess I could quote President Clinton at the defeat of health care last time, when he said: Now what I tried before won't work, maybe we can do it another way. That's what we've tried to do, a step at a time, until eventually we finish this. I think that is the essence of what the Kennedy bill does, one step at a time, toward a greater sense of Federal control driving the cost up so the American consumer says, OK, give me Federal health care; I can't afford it any other way.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1235

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, July 22, 1999, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony from the U.S. General Accounting Office on a recent GAO report, 99-166, regarding Forest Service land management priorities. Within this context, GAO will also provide an evaluation of title I and title II of S. 1320, a bill to provide to the Federal land management agencies the authority and capability to manage effectively the Federal lands, and for other purposes. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. committee on indian affairs committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, July 21, 1999, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1184, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to dispose of land for recreation or other public purposes. S. 1129, a bill to facilitate the acquisition of inholdings in Federal land management units and the disposal of surplus public land, and for other purposes, and H.R. 150, a bill to amend the act popularly known as the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to authorize disposal of certain public lands or national forest lands to local education agencies for use for elementary or secondary schools, including public charter schools, and for other purposes. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today represents a significant modification of S. 1253, which I introduced in the last Congress. This effort represents a large body of work--both oversight and legislative--to modernize the laws governing our stewardship over federally-owned, multiple-use lands. For those of you who have just tuned in, this bill is the result of 15 oversight hearings that my Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management held during the 104th Congress. These hearings involved over 200 witnesses, representing all points of view, and reviewing all aspects of the management of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. The overwhelming conclusion from all of these witnesses--developers and environmentalists alike, public and private sector employees alike--was that the statutes governing federal land management--the 1976 Federal Land and Policy Management Act and the 1976 National Forest Management Act--are antiquated, and in need of updating. These statutes were passed by Congress in the mid-1970s to help solve land management problems. Today, they are a large part of the problem. I look at laws as ``tools'' for use by professional land managers and resource scientists that help establish priorities and make management decisions. These two tools are as antiquated as the slide-rule and computer punch cards that were the tools used by land managers at the time that these statutes were passed. As a consequence of this oversight review during the 104th Congress, and subsequent oversight hearings since, I drafted S. 1253 and circulated it at the outset of the 105th Congress. That draft, and the subsequently-introduced bill were, in turn, the subject of six informal workshops and another eight formal, legislative hearings to review the concepts embodied in both the first draft and the introduced version of S. 1253. The ideas that emanated from the oversight hearings were modified to reflect the suggestions of witnesses, and in recognition of how resource management problems have subsequently evolved. Also, during the course of the last eighteen months, we have held additional hearings, reviewed subsequent correspondence, and enjoyed additional dialogue about how to best modify the 1976 statutes. For instance, we held one hearing where all four of the former Chiefs of the Forest Service and one former Bureau of Land Management Director shared their views about the current state of federal land management, and where legislative action could assist their successors in discharging the public trust more effectively. During this time period there has been at least one seminal decision from the Supreme Court. In Ohio Forestry Association versus Glickman, the Supreme Court has, in my view, significantly devalued the importance of the land management planning process authorized under the National Land Management Act, and probably FLPMA as well. In that decision, the Court denied standing to challenge resource management plans, essentially on the basis that no real decisions are made. While properly decided on the basis of existing law, I believe that decision produced the wrong result insofar as effective resource planning is concerned. The bill I am introducing today would explicitly set a new course, reversing the effect of this decision in order to make resource management plans more meaningful documents. In various other ways of a less significant nature, the bill I am introducing today also reflects the product of court decisions that have been rendered during the period that we have been reviewing these issues. The bill that I am introducing today is also the direct result of four important pieces of information. Let me describe each of these in turn. First, we held an extraordinary pair of hearings with the President of the Wilderness Society as the sole witness. These hearings were significant in the sense that we were not limited to the usual, five- to-ten minute exchange to communicate with one another. Instead, we actually discussed the Wilderness Society's concerns and views about National Forest management for several hours. Second and equally important was the assistance provided by the Society of American Foresters. The Society laudably took on the task of appointing a working group of resource scientists and professionals to review the current state of federal land management and the proposals that we made in the last Congress, and to offer suggestions for improvement. I commend their report as an authoritative guide to needed changes in the current system. Most notably, the Society is emphatic, as am I, that many, if not most, of the problems that plague federal land management today can be resolved only through a cooperative effort between the Administration and Congress to produce a revised legislative charter for the land managing agencies. Third, we were in many important respects guided by Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman's, Committee of Scientists Report, also issued earlier this year. I commend this report to the attention of Senators as well. In many areas, we find ourselves in agreement with the Committee of Scientists, particularly with regard to defining a new mission for the Forest Service. We would submit that this is needed for the Bureau of Land Management as well--even though that was beyond the Committee's charter. One area where the Committee's views are unclear is whether or not these improvements can be made exclusively through the rule-making process. The Committee seems to be of two minds about this. It is clear to us that the kinds of changes the Committee seeks cannot be accomplished through regulation. They must involve fundamental statutory changes to the agencies' missions. Any other path is, in our view, doomed to failure. Finally, we were informed at the time of the Administration's budget submission that the Administration would be sending forward a series of seven important legislative proposals governing federal land management. We were pleased that the Administration had at last come to the conclusion that legislative changes are necessary. This has been a source of intense dialogue between myself, Secretary Glickman, Undersecretary Lyons, and others in the Administration for more than two years. Given this recognition on their part, we felt duty-bound to wait for these proposals before going forward. In the bill I am introducing today, we have adopted, in pertinent part, five of the Administration's seven legislative proposals. A sixth proposal is the subject of a separate piece of legislation that was introduced in the House yesterday (HR 2389). I am working on a companion Senate bill to introduce shortly. Thus, I found the Administration's proposals something that I could agree with, and want to be responsive to. So, my work product is the result of a number of sources of information. It has taken at least six months longer to produce than I anticipated it would, but in the interest of: (1) securing the advice of Secretary Glickman's Committee of Scientists; (2) evaluating the Society of American Foresters' report; and (3) being responsive to the Administration's legislative proposals, I believe the wait was worthwhile. We will now move forward with additional hearings on this proposal confident that we are on the correct path to improve the quality of federal land management and, through a variety of means, increase public support for the future management of our federal forest lands. We invite both the Administration and Members on both sides of the aisle to join us in this effort. We move forward knowing that this proposal, like any other, is a working draft that will by necessity change, probably significantly, as we move forward. However, we also move forward knowing that legislative change in this area is both inevitable and vital. It is clear to me that this area of public discourse vitally needs a vibrant legislative debate and a new legislative charter so that our federal land managers can be provided with tools a little more modern than the slide-rule and mainframe computer punch cards. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today represents a significant modification of S. 1253, which I introduced in the last Congress. This effort represents a large body of work--both oversight and legislative--to modernize the laws governing our stewardship over federally-owned, multiple-use lands. For those of you who have just tuned in, this bill is the result of 15 oversight hearings that my Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management held during the 104th Congress. These hearings involved over 200 witnesses, representing all points of view, and reviewing all aspects of the management of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. The overwhelming conclusion from all of these witnesses--developers and environmentalists alike, public and private sector employees alike--was that the statutes governing federal land management--the 1976 Federal Land and Policy Management Act and the 1976 National Forest Management Act--are antiquated, and in need of updating. These statutes were passed by Congress in the mid-1970s to help solve land management problems. Today, they are a large part of the problem. I look at laws as ``tools'' for use by professional land managers and resource scientists that help establish priorities and make management decisions. These two tools are as antiquated as the slide-rule and computer punch cards that were the tools used by land managers at the time that these statutes were passed. As a consequence of this oversight review during the 104th Congress, and subsequent oversight hearings since, I drafted S. 1253 and circulated it at the outset of the 105th Congress. That draft, and the subsequently-introduced bill were, in turn, the subject of six informal workshops and another eight formal, legislative hearings to review the concepts embodied in both the first draft and the introduced version of S. 1253. The ideas that emanated from the oversight hearings were modified to reflect the suggestions of witnesses, and in recognition of how resource management problems have subsequently evolved. Also, during the course of the last eighteen months, we have held additional hearings, reviewed subsequent correspondence, and enjoyed additional dialogue about how to best modify the 1976 statutes. For instance, we held one hearing where all four of the former Chiefs of the Forest Service and one former Bureau of Land Management Director shared their views about the current state of federal land management, and where legislative action could assist their successors in discharging the public trust more effectively. During this time period there has been at least one seminal decision from the Supreme Court. In Ohio Forestry Association versus Glickman, the Supreme Court has, in my view, significantly devalued the importance of the land management planning process authorized under the National Land Management Act, and probably FLPMA as well. In that decision, the Court denied standing to challenge resource management plans, essentially on the basis that no real decisions are made. While properly decided on the basis of existing law, I believe that decision produced the wrong result insofar as effective resource planning is concerned. The bill I am introducing today would explicitly set a new course, reversing the effect of this decision in order to make resource management plans more meaningful documents. In various other ways of a less significant nature, the bill I am introducing today also reflects the product of court decisions that have been rendered during the period that we have been reviewing these issues. The bill that I am introducing today is also the direct result of four important pieces of information. Let me describe each of these in turn. First, we held an extraordinary pair of hearings with the President of the Wilderness Society as the sole witness. These hearings were significant in the sense that we were not limited to the usual, five- to-ten minute exchange to communicate with one another. Instead, we actually discussed the Wilderness Society's concerns and views about National Forest management for several hours. Second and equally important was the assistance provided by the Society of American Foresters. The Society laudably took on the task of appointing a working group of resource scientists and professionals to review the current state of federal land management and the proposals that we made in the last Congress, and to offer suggestions for improvement. I commend their report as an authoritative guide to needed changes in the current system. Most notably, the Society is emphatic, as am I, that many, if not most, of the problems that plague federal land management today can be resolved only through a cooperative effort between the Administration and Congress to produce a revised legislative charter for the land managing agencies. Third, we were in many important respects guided by Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman's, Committee of Scientists Report, also issued earlier this year. I commend this report to the attention of Senators as well. In many areas, we find ourselves in agreement with the Committee of Scientists, particularly with regard to defining a new mission for the Forest Service. We would submit that this is needed for the Bureau of Land Management as well--even though that was beyond the Committee's charter. One area where the Committee's views are unclear is whether or not these improvements can be made exclusively through the rule-making process. The Committee seems to be of two minds about this. It is clear to us that the kinds of changes the Committee seeks cannot be accomplished through regulation. They must involve fundamental statutory changes to the agencies' missions. Any other path is, in our view, doomed to failure. Finally, we were informed at the time of the Administration's budget submission that the Administration would be sending forward a series of seven important legislative proposals governing federal land management. We were pleased that the Administration had at last come to the conclusion that legislative changes are necessary. This has been a source of intense dialogue between myself, Secretary Glickman, Undersecretary Lyons, and others in the Administration for more than two years. Given this recognition on their part, we felt duty-bound to wait for these proposals before going forward. In the bill I am introducing today, we have adopted, in pertinent part, five of the Administration's seven legislative proposals. A sixth proposal is the subject of a separate piece of legislation that was introduced in the House yesterday (HR 2389). I am working on a companion Senate bill to introduce shortly. Thus, I found the Administration's proposals something that I could agree with, and want to be responsive to. So, my work product is the result of a number of sources of information. It has taken at least six months longer to produce than I anticipated it would, but in the interest of: (1) securing the advice of Secretary Glickman's Committee of Scientists; (2) evaluating the Society of American Foresters' report; and (3) being responsive to the Administration's legislative proposals, I believe the wait was worthwhile. We will now move forward with additional hearings on this proposal confident that we are on the correct path to improve the quality of federal land management and, through a variety of means, increase public support for the future management of our federal forest lands. We invite both the Administration and Members on both sides of the aisle to join us in this effort. We move forward knowing that this proposal, like any other, is a working draft that will by necessity change, probably significantly, as we move forward. However, we also move forward knowing that legislative change in this area is both inevitable and vital. It is clear to me that this area of public discourse vitally needs a vibrant legislative debate and a new legislative charter so that our federal land managers can be provided with tools a little more modern than the slide-rule and mainframe computer punch cards. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Very briefly, I was a bit surprised last week when the Senator came to the floor and offered the Patients' Bill of Rights to the ag bill, because I know of his commitment to agriculture. I know of our joint belief about the farm crisis and the reality of it. What this Senate has not done yet with the Department of Agriculture is shape the size and the scope of the farm crisis. We agree that crisis exists. You and I agree that it exists. The Presiding Officer comes from a farm State. We agree it exists. But we don't know the magnitude of it yet. We have asked the President and the Secretary of Agriculture to engage with us. That is why it is not attached to this appropriations bill. We are not going to start legislating into a vacuum. We have to legislate because we are dealing with billions of dollars. And the Senator is right about farmers' and ranchers' incomes. That has to be done accurately. But I am a bit confused. Being the farm State Senator that he is, he seems to be offering the Patients' Bill of Rights to this ag approps bill.