Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Nebraska and thank my colleague from Georgia for bringing us this special order as we attempt to analyze the President's State of the Union Message of last evening. America tuned in, and so did we, to hear what our President would say about the State of the Union. And he said what we expected him to say, that the State of the Union itself at this moment in time is very, very good. But, what would a Presidency in crisis try to do at a time that the State of the Union is in excellent shape? My guess is that Presidency would attempt to appeal to his base in a very aggressive way, and to divert attention from the real issue at hand that will transpire once again on the floor of this Senate in less than an hour, and that is an impeachment trial of this President, this Presidency in crisis. But, for a moment, let me talk about the speech and his effort to divert attention. The polls show he did just that. He got excellent ratings in the polls this morning in that snapshot of American opinion about what this President said. The problem in the snapshot is that there were no comparatives. The Senator from Nebraska offered comparatives, the Senator from Georgia has offered comparatives this morning, as to what this President has said in the past and done in the past versus what he said last night. About a year ago now, this President said the era of big government is over. We all cheered that. Most conservatives like myself for a long time have dedicated their energies to reducing the size of government and its impact on our daily lives as citizens and taxpayers of this country. And we have come a long way in doing that in the last several decades. So the President, once again appealing to his ratings in the polls, said the era of big government is over. That was 12 months ago. As we all know, in the last 12 months a great deal has transpired as it relates to this President and his Presidency. Last night this President proclaimed a grand new great society. In fact, he probably proposed more new Government initiatives--75 or 80 new initiatives-- more so than Lyndon Johnson did with his proposal for a great new society. He literally reached out and attempted to touch every American citizen to make them feel good. He is going to correct the schools and change the character of the schools, as to which the Senator from Nebraska referred. Obviously, he is going to attack us on our second amendment rights to protect our citizens, so he says, and it went on and on and on. But the one thing he did not mention was what was he going to do to the taxpayer; more importantly, what was he going to do for the taxpayer. He proposed to do nothing for them but do a heck of a lot to them. Three times or four or five times last night he talked about his balanced budget. I say, ``Mr. President, how dare you.'' I say it with a bit of a smile on my face because this President has no credibility in that area. But he is basking in the popularity of it now, made popular by a conservative Republican Congress that said, ``No more deficits, and we'll fight to get a balanced budget.'' And we did that, even though the President opposed us every step of the way and then takes credit for it. The reason I bring that up in the context of what did he do to or for the taxpayers is that several news reporters said, ``What did you think of the speech?'' My reaction was, Well, for 15 years, I fought for a balanced budget. I and others, collectively this Congress, was successful in getting it, and we built this sizable growing surplus. We built that surplus, or at least we hoped we could build a surplus when we created a balanced budget to do a couple of things: to stimulate the economy by returning to the taxpayers excessive taxes which we had taken from them. Surpluses are not free moneys to spend, they are representative of the fact that we are overtaxing our citizenry, and we ought to return some of the money to them. I won't argue with the President about Social Security reform and the value of that reform and using the surplus for those purposes. But, Mr. President, over $4 trillion worth of surplus in the next 15 years and you don't want to give one dime back to the taxpayer? I think I was right in my initial analysis, this President slipped back last night, because of the pressure and the crisis he is in, to his old base of trying to give something to everybody. It was a feel- good State of the Union speech that did nothing for the taxpayer, nothing for the economy and a heck of a lot to grow big government and, once again, put shackles on the freedom of our citizens to perform independent of their Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go into recess subject to call of the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. As a sponsor of the Udall Act and supporter of Parkinson's research funding, I appreciate the Chairman's interest in these matters. The NIH claimed to spend more than $89 million on Parkinson's research in 1997. The Congress set a baseline authorization of $100 million for Parkinson's research in the fiscal year 1998 bill making NIH appropriations and clearly stated in report language that Congressional intent was to increase the commitment of NIH resources to Parkinson's. Close review of NIH's Parkinson's funding practices indicates that most of the research funding they define as Parkinson's is, in fact, not focused on Parkinson's at all. The NIH claimed to spend more than $89 million on Parkinson's research, in FY 1997. In reality, we later discovered that less than $31 million--just more than one third--of that research was truly focused on Parkinson's. Obviously there seems to be some disconnect here. Congress needs to be as clear as possible when communicating our intent to NIH, and diligent when overseeing their funding practices with regard to Parkinson's. I agree with Senator Cochran that hearings should be held early next year to address these issues, and I look forward to working with him, the Chairman, and others to see this resolved.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to commend the leadership and the members of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on this bill. They had to make hard decisions about scarce resources and have labored to do so fairly. I also appreciate the efforts to make sure the taxpayers hard-earned dollars are spent effectively and efficiently. While there are several provisions within this bill which I wholeheartedly support, I do not agree with every provision of this bill. As you all may be aware, section 315 of the Interior portion of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 authorized the Recreational Fee Demonstration program. The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 1999. Language from the House Fiscal Year 1999 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to extend this demonstration program an additional two years (to the year 2001) has been included in the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. I worked to keep similar language out of the Senate Interior appropriations bill and was disappointed to see the House language prevail in the final omnibus bill. The issue here is that the House action was premature. I am not totally opposed to a fee demonstration program. In fact, when Congress authorized the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in 1996, I voted in support of this legislation and have been a proponent of user-based fees. I believe that the program, in concept, has merits. I envisioned this demonstration program as having the potential to improve the condition and recreation services of public lands by making more financial resources available to areas that are used the most heavily, based on a modest fee allocated to those directly benefitting from the enjoyment of those lands. Recreation is important in Idaho. Because 63 percent of our state is managed by the federal government, a majority of this recreation must take place on the public lands. In some of our premier areas the resource is being loved to death. Appropriated budgets will not see future large increases in recreation programs even though these areas will undoubtedly continue to be a popular local, and tourist, attraction. As a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the authorizing committee with legislative jurisdiction over the fee demonstration program, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I am committed to thorough oversight of this program with an eye toward consideration of any appropriate legislation to improve, continue, or terminate it depending on the information we gather and the experiences of the agencies. On June 11, 1998, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing on the program's first full year of implementation. Valuable information was gathered from the agencies administering the programs and the users of the resource. We will continue to monitor this program during the next two years. A thorough review of the program, with answers to some serious questions, must be completed before extending the recreation fee demonstration program. Then we can accurately assess the merits and problems and decide how to continue. However, considering this issue settled at this early date will only lessen the authorizing committee's responsibility to evaluate the program and make any improvements that are warranted. We should act after, not before, this demonstration program has had a chance to demonstrate. While I voted in favor of this bill for continuing necessary programs, some provisions, such as a premature extension of the recreation demonstration program, are not something I agree with or support. If more time is needed to test the fee demonstration project, it would have been more appropriate to extend the program nearer the end of three-year period rather than after only the first full year of the program. However, I will continue aggressive oversight of this program in an effort to improve it and possibly end it in areas where it clearly is not working.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to commend Chairman McConnell for the work he has done on the foreign operations portion of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. The fiscal year 1999 foreign operations appropriations package is very different in size and character from the wasteful ones passed just a few years ago by liberal Congresses. It represents a sea change in the way Congress does business and a major victory for conservative, commonsense principles. The U.S. Federal budget is now balanced--for the first time since 1969. This is the most positive economic policy development in the world today. There is room within that balanced budget for a limited, responsible program of foreign operations. The chairman's work in this bill advances U.S. leadership and protects our national security, our economic interests, and American jobs, in a rapidly changing world. For example, the way this bill deals with the International Monetary Fund is not the same old way of doing business. This bill imposes new, tough standards of accountability and transparency on the IMF. If American taxpayers are going to invest in the IMF, hoping it will produce a more stable world economy, they should be able to see where their money is going. I know that has been an important priority for Chairman McConnell, as it has been for me. I want to thank the chairman in particular for his support and assistance in making sure the final version of this bill included a provision we have worked on since the beginning of this year. This provision covers autos, textiles and apparel, steel, and shipbuilding, as well as semiconductors. It is of extreme importance to the thousands of workers at Micron, an Idaho company that manufactures computer chips and is a world leader in semiconductor technology. This provision will safeguard many American jobs and is the result of bipartisan efforts. This provision directs the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the U.S. Executive Director at the IMF to exert the influence of the United States to oppose further disbursement of funds to the Republic of Korea unless the Secretary has given a certification that IMF funds are not being used to subsidize industries with a history of committing unfair trade practices against American companies and workers. It is my understanding that the use of the term, ``exert the influence of the United States'' places a very high obligation on our Secretary of the Treasury and Executive Director to use all the means necessary to oppose disbursement of funds unless such certification has been given. This effort needs to be persistent and comprehensive, at all levels, in order to achieve the desired result. It includes the use of the voice and vote of the United States at the IMF. This language also constitutes a commitment by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Congress to see that the influence of the United States is exerted in all respects. I've spoken with the Secretary about this matter. It's characteristic of administration agencies and officials to prefer having broad latitude and not being given such specific direction in legislation. However, I believe the substance of this provision is consistent with the Secretary's own intentions. The final language is the product of negotiation with the Administration. Mr. McConnell. I would concur with the Senator's interpretation of the effect of this provision. This provision creates an ongoing and overarching commitment. Accompanying report language should reassure the people of South Korea that our friendship for them remains strong, and that we are simply seeking to promote honest, open markets and fair competition.

Mr. CRAIG. It is agreed that certain language added to the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act after the bill was proposed by Congressman Wally Herger related to grazing within the pilot project areas may have introduced ambiguities that could lead to adverse effects. Is there any intent for the Quincy Library Group legislation to negatively impact grazing in general?

Mr. CRAIG. Will the SAT riparian management guidelines referred to in this measure apply to riparian management projects outside of the pilot project area or to grazing activities within the pilot project area where no riparian management activities are taking place?

Mr. CRAIG. What does ``specific location'' as referred to in subsection (c)(2)(C) of the legislation mean? Can the riparian management or SAT guidelines referred to by this legislation be applied to the entire pilot project area?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have been on the floor for all of about 15 minutes. And I have heard----

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my chairman for yielding. What I have talked about is the reality of the 105th Congress. Will it go down as a do-nothing Congress? Not if you read the facts. If you get caught in the political rhetoric and listen to it, you might be swayed a bit. But if you like balanced budgets, if you don't like to pay more taxes, if you don't want the Federal Government telling you what to do in a variety of areas--including health care--if you want to make sure that we develop and strengthen Social Security and provide for the future of our young people, if you want to assure us that you will work with us as taxpayers to keep the American food supply whole, then you would say that this Congress did something. Now, let me, for just a moment, talk about some of what we ought to do when we get back. There will be a new Congress. It will convene in January. It will be called the 106th. There is no question in my mind that we ought to address change. The rules of the Senate that we operate under today were not written by this Senator. They were, in large part, by Senators from the other side of the aisle. I, and other Senators on this side of the aisle, have not had the votes to change those rules. Some of those rules ought to change. Why should we take 60 votes to lower taxes? Why should we penalize ourselves for wanting to return money to the American people? We shouldn't. It only takes 51 votes to spend money; why should it take more than that to deny Congress the right to spend? Those are some changes that we ought to make. What we saw in this process in the last couple of weeks is something that I don't enjoy. The legislative and the executive branches are coequal branches of Government, but our budget and our appropriations process didn't work the way we wanted it to work. We could never engage the White House until they chose to be engaged. You heard on this floor, and it was a fact of life, that our President spent most of the year out of town. I am confident it wasn't too comfortable in the Oval Office because he spent most of his time out of town either in foreign countries or raising money for his colleagues. It wasn't until the last 3 weeks that we finally got his attention. It was only in the last 2 weeks that the White House finally came to the Hill to negotiate. That isn't the way it ought to be but that is the way it was. Did the President get some of what he wanted? Yes, he did. Did he get all of what he wanted? Absolutely not. In fact, he got little of what he wanted. All you hear about the President's gains are 100,000 teachers. I don't mind spending money for 100,000 teachers as long as it is under a formula where 30 percent of it doesn't stay in Washington to fund the Department of Education; in this instance it doesn't. It is block granted, in large part, back to the States and the local educational units. I don't think that is a Democrat idea. I think that is a Republican idea. I am proud of that. I think most of our colleagues, when they look at it, will be. We did something else that this President did not want. We put more money into defense. In 1986, after 6 years of voting for every defense budget from 1981 forward, I quit voting for defense and started voting against it because I thought we spent too much money. Four years ago, I, once again, started voting for defense appropriations at a time when our President wouldn't own up to the fact that he was sending our troops everywhere around the world and pulling that defense money from current operating budgets and depleting our readiness and denying our soldiers the kind of environment and lifestyle that I think they all deserve. Finally, this Congress and this negotiation process in the last 2 weeks said, ``Mr. President, we are going to stop it whether you want to or not. We cannot deny our military its readiness if you are going to use it as a police force running all around the world.'' And we put in more money. That process shouldn't have happened in a small room with a few negotiators, but it did. By the way, it wasn't in the dark of night; and by the way, the room wasn't closed. But by the character of where this White House caused us to go, that is ultimately how the process got conducted, with fewer than the whole process and fewer than all of those who should have been there. We have our work to do in the coming year, and I hope we can make some reforms. I am one that would like to see us streamline this process a good deal more and change some of the rules that allow for a more predictable outcome. But in the end, I am not going to be one standing on the street corner trying to beckon attention to the fact that the 105th Congress was some Congress that did nothing. We didn't do a lot of what some of our liberal colleagues wanted, and that is probably why they yell out today. We did not address the White House agenda in so many areas; we did not tax middle America; we did not take away flexibility from health care recipients; nor did we handcuff the provided. Most importantly, we balanced the budget. We left a surplus. We are directing it at Social Security. I believe that is a hallmark, and I think the 105th Congress can be credited with doing more for the American economy and more for the working people of our country by keeping them employed in good, high-paying jobs and not taking more out of their pocket than any other Congress in history. That is a record I will stand by. That is a record I think most of our colleagues will want to stand by. If you believe as I do, then I think you ought to vote ``yes'' tomorrow--``yes'' on an appropriations process that is finalized, with all of those hallmarks of accomplishment and success and a balanced budget, and an economy that is strong, and a work force in America that is working, and a sense of security and well-being that has not been felt in decades. I am proud of that, and I credit the 105th Congress for delivering it. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for yielding time. I think he has probably been here on the floor, as I have, for the last few minutes to watch, at least by rhetoric, a very large piece of appropriations grow well beyond the dimension of reality, more into the dimension of hyperbole. Let us talk about reality for a few moments, because I suspect that there is no Senator on this floor who will today or tomorrow express a great appreciation for the process under which we are now concluding this Congress--by the bringing together under an omnibus appropriations bill a variety of appropriations bills that should have been dealt with, one by one, on an individual basis. That would have been the desire of every Senator on this floor. It would have also been the desire of every Senator on this floor, if we had not had 128 filed cloture motions in the last 4 years--cloture motions that were the result of the other side denying or filibustering given provisions of the process that ate up phenomenal amounts of time. That is not an excuse for anything. That is an expression that there is enough blame to go around for any of the process that gets criticized today by any Member who comes to this floor. It takes 60 votes in the Senate--if someone does not want the process to go forward, for that process to be denied to them--to require then the action on any given piece of legislation. Time and time again, we were faced with the reality of having to file cloture. That is substantially more than was ever filed by Democrats because Republicans forced them to do that. It is the character of the difference--or should I say it is the character of the intensity of concern as it relates to the issues that came to the floor of the 105th Congress. I do not deny that. Those are facts. That is the reality of it. I also say, if the measurement is a ``do-nothing Congress,'' you are darn right. We cannot take HMOs and turn the world of medicine upside down, as some of our colleagues on the other side wanted us to do. We did not raise hundreds of billions of dollars of new taxes on middle America through a tobacco provision, as some of the folks on the other side of the aisle wanted us to do. And we did not take the right of free speech away from the average American in campaign finance reform, as most of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted us to do. If we did nothing on those things, we did a heck of a lot for the freedom of the average citizen in this country. And that is what ought to be the responsibility of this Congress: to make darn sure that we do not trample on the constitutional rights of our citizens. And that we did not do, over the loud cry and protest of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Now, what did we do? Because the American public has the right to know what the 105th Congress did. Did we balance the budget? You bet we did. In 1981, I introduced one of the first constitutional amendments to require a balanced budget on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. And the old dogs and the pundits at the time laughed and said, ``Freshman Congressman, not in your lifetime will you ever see a balanced budget. Deficit spending is the way we stimulate the economy of this great country. It's the way we give out pork. It is the way we buy political favor. And it won't happen in your lifetime, Congressman Craig''--at that time. ``You'll not see a balanced budget.'' Well, in 1994, the American people spoke. And they spoke in a way they had never before. And that was to change the Congress from Democrat and liberal to Republican and conservative. And not in 10 years, and not in my lifetime--but in 4 years the budget is balanced. And what we are debating here is an appropriations process that balances the Federal budget and still leaves $60 billion, or near that, in surplus, to deal with the strengthening and saving of Social Security, and also to deal with some of the emergency expenditures that the White House said were absolutely necessary and that most of us agreed with. So criticize, if you will--and in any bill this big there is a world of criticism, if you want to be selective--but if you want to look at the biggest picture of all, and that is a fiscal policy in our country and a monetary policy that have meshed to bring one of the strongest economies in the history of the world together into the robust character that it is, then you ought to look at that. And that is called a balanced budget, that is called denying this President his $150 billion tax increase, and leaving more money in the pockets of the average citizens in our country, and especially the lower middle income working Americans. And that was not a Democrat Congress that did it; it was a Republican Congress. I am proud of that. If the Democrats want to call that a do-nothing Congress, then please call it what you think it is, but tell the truth. We don't get it from the White House; we don't get it from the President. We understand the reality of the work we do. The reality of the work we do--whether we like the process at hand --is that the budget is balanced, our Nation is in surplus, we will strengthen Social Security, and we didn't raise taxes on the backs of the American people. There isn't an economist in the world today who doesn't say if it wasn't for the U.S. economy, the world would be in a major recession, but it is because of the strength of our fiscal policy and our monetary policy combined that drives this great economic engine that has more Americans working than at nearly any time in modern history. What about the problems in the farmlands of America in agriculture? Many of my colleagues went home in August, like I did, to talk to our farmers, and found our farmers not in recession but in depression. Nearly every commodity price was at or below break even, and many of them were well below break even. We had tried to respond in June and July in a very bipartisan way. We came back in August, dedicated to responding more, and we did. Democrat and Republican joined alike. Now, we had a difference in philosophy. But in the end, we came together with tremendous benefit for production agriculture --both short term, cash-in-the-pocket to the farmer to pay his banker and to pay for his seed and fertilizer costs and, hopefully, to put food on the table for his family and to get ready to farm for next year. We also did something else. We said what we are doing is short term; let's do some long-term good. Let's do what we promised American agriculture we would do when we passed the 1996 farm policy known as Freedom to Farm. Let's give them some permanent management tools to assure that they can strengthen their economic well-being. We did that in this bill, in this bill that some of our colleagues say they will want to vote against because they haven't read the fine print. Permanent income averaging, accelerated 100-percent reduction for self-employed health care insurance premiums for both agriculture and small business--the same thing that big business has to write off their health care costs. Good management, good business. You are darn right it is. We offered it to them. We have also allowed them to reach back and pick up losses to carry forward, a tremendous help to production agriculture. I am proud of that. I think we ought to be because it was a promise made and a promise kept. We also dropped a couple of sanctions that were denying us the ability to sell some of our product in world markets, with the pledge from our chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee that will do even more of that next year. That was all done in a bipartisan way. We can pick around the edges and we can criticize the process, and my guess is there is lots of room for that. As a conservative, I am as much a critic of that as anyone. But I am also a realist. I am proud of a balanced budget and I am proud we have a surplus. I am excited that the surplus goes to strengthen Social Security and pay down our debt. And I am pleased that in a real sense we were able to address the problems of American agriculture. I am pleased that in a real sense we were able to address the problems of people who had lived in a crisis because of Mother Nature, and we responded to that. I also recognize that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had a lot of heavy lifting to do when it came to trying to represent this White House. They wanted to talk about saving Social Security, yet the President never sent up one bill to address the Social Security problem. They wanted to rail on about taxes and teenage smoking, yet the President did not send up one bill to deal with it.

Mr. CRAIG. Ten minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as you know, hurricane Georges recently caused great damage to the island of Puerto Rico. I would like to take this opportunity to personally express my sympathies to those who suffered loss due to this natural disaster. I would also like to clear up some confusion regarding the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency currently working to alleviate the pain and suffering caused by the hurricane. I recently learned that erroneous reports regarding the funding of FEMA have been circulating in Puerto Rico. A few elected officials in the commonwealth have stated to the press that funding for the FEMA program is obtained from local taxes and user fees within Puerto Rico. These reports are simply not true. On the contrary, the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies has sole jurisdiction over the funding of FEMA, and the funds appropriated by the committee come from the general fund. The general fund is composed of the collection of federal taxes and user fees from taxpaying citizens of the United States. The United States Congress is committed to continuing our efforts to aid our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico in their time of need. We will continue to seek additional emergency disaster relief funding for FEMA before Congress adjourns.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:30 p.m. today.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I assume we remain in morning business until 1 o'clock; is that correct?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have just heard the Republican majority leader outline in brief the negotiations between the White House and the Congress as it relates to a final package of fiscal affairs for this Government for the coming year. Over the course of the last several days, I have had the opportunity to attend a variety of those negotiations, and on occasion, based on my certain areas of knowledge, to be consulted as to what directions we might head. I thought for a few moments this morning I would discuss briefly the agricultural package, because it is one of those major areas of concern and dispute for a period of time up until late last evening--that, of course, and the educational package that most of our colleagues are now becoming aware of. While the final language on the agricultural package is being put together, there are some fundamental principles we adhered to that I think are important for our colleagues to understand when they begin to examine this package for their final consideration of it tomorrow. First and foremost, it is important to recognize that this Republican Congress back in May and June began to recognize the very critical situation that American agriculture was in and the character of the decline in commodity prices that was evident out there, along with loss of foreign markets, that was producing what I consistently called on the floor of this Senate and across my State of Idaho an ``agricultural crisis.'' It was in late June that I, along with six other Senators and the majority leader, sat down with about 15 commodity group representatives in this community, representing national agricultural commodity groups, to examine the crisis from their perspective and to look at a variety of things that we might do here within current policy and current budget constraints to deal with the crisis, recognizing that if we weren't responsive, we would see many of our farmers on the edge of bankruptcy, and potentially by next crop season they would be out of production. That is not good for America. It is not good for our economic base or for the food-consuming public. Fewer farmers mean larger farmers, usually, or fewer farmers with larger acreages. And in many instances what we find is large corporations buying up smaller production units that find themselves in bankruptcy. Consistently we have looked at farm policy recognizing the need to keep farm families intact and a production unit in American agriculture that was sympathetic to the American farm family. So it was with that spirit in mind that we met with these commodity groups and came up with a list of items that we would attempt to be responsive to. First and foremost in the general discussion with that commodity group was to keep the current farm policy in place, keep the 1996 farm bill, better known as Freedom to Farm, in place. It is working. It gives farmers greater flexibility to decide what to farm, what to grow, and how to deal with market trends. It does so with less Government interference, less opportunity to farm to a Government program instead of farm to what the market is demanding, what the consuming market is demanding. That became a premise of operation for us here in the Senate--that we would not violate or attempt to go in and offer dramatic changes to farm policy. Immediately before the August recess, we responded by reaching out and putting more of what we call the AMFTA payments into this year's current payment to bump up some money that would go directly back to that farmer and to that production unit. Most of us, of course, in August visited our farmers, and we came back clearly with the understanding that we were in a crisis, that the commodity prices were at a 20-year low, many times below the cost of production, and that the loss of Asian markets, the loss of markets in Central and South America, was also driving this decline in commodity prices. There was also a large influx of product coming in from Canada, which was part of a program of opening the borders for the North American Free Trade Agreement. And we had to be sensitive to that. But, most importantly, what our farmers were telling us, along with the decline in commodity prices, was that when we had put the 1996 farm policy in place, we had also said at that time there would be other things we would have to do. We would have to review trade policy. We would have to look at the cold war policy coming out of World War II that put sanctions on a variety of countries and basically took 13 to 20 percent of the world market out of reach of production agriculture by one or another sanctions that were built up as a product of foreign policy statements and/or policy laws in this country that we had to review. Most immediate, when we came back in August, was the need to deal with the inability to trade with Pakistan and India based on the confrontation they were having and the nuclear tests they were engaged in, which was a direct violation of the nuclear test ban and, of course, the provisions we had put in there that would disallow us trading with or dealing with countries that were in violation. We were able to strike those two sanctions down immediately, which then in a near immediate sense put in play major sales of soft white wheat out of the Pacific Northwest. Those sales have gone forward, and they have been very helpful to production agriculture nationwide. We also said--and Chairman Lugar, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said--we have to look at the overall need to review sanctions, the attempted sanctions legislation. There were some modifications in it, but it was not complete. He knows it; we know it. One of our jobs coming back next year will be to take a serious look at the post-World War II era sanctions that have taken a large chunk of the world market away from our farmers, because in Freedom to Farm we said: You are going to be free to farm, and we are going to use the political clout, the governmental clout, of your country to open up these world markets to assist you. And we would look at another provision. That is the very provision that the negotiations moved toward in the past several days. That was a tax component--a tax provision that said to production units: You are cyclical by nature. By that I mean, 1-year commodity prices are at an all-time high and the next year they are at an all-time low. Those who have ever farmed--and I farmed during my other life as a private citizen--know that very well, that some years you make money and in other years you lose a lot of money. It is simply because of oversupply and then undersupply of certain commodities within the market. As a result, we had historically said, up to 1986, that tax laws should reflect that you ought to be able to reach back and pull forward some of those losses into a crop year where there are high profits; you ought to be able to income average those kinds of things out. In 1986 we took that out--or I should say a Democrat Congress took that out--of the tax policy of that year, in my opinion badly handicapping and creating long-term injury to production agriculture. Last year we did some tentative work in that area putting income averaging back. But the package that our colleagues will have a chance to review tonight and tomorrow as a final work product of this Congress will have made permanent the permanent income average, which is a key component to agriculture. Someone on the other side suggested to us that doesn't solve the immediate problem. No, it doesn't. But we put $5.97 billion in to solve the immediate problem directly flowing through to production agriculture. But what we have to look at is the long-term character that we had promised production agriculture when we changed the farm bill. And we do that--permanent income averaging, a 5-year carryback provision allowing farmers to account for, as I expressed a moment ago, the cyclical character or future of production agriculture. Then we went in and did some technical corrections to IRS tax laws, because, for example, when a farmer is guaranteed a Government payment but the payment doesn't come until a certain time, the Government wants to tax you on the payment at the moment that you are eligible for it. We say no; that payment should occur at that time. The bill that is being reviewed now also recognizes the kind of drought that your State of Florida had, Mr. President, and Texas and other parts of the southeastern part of the United States, Georgia. And there are $3 billion in there to deal with economic disasters. That will be critically important. Between the payments that were scheduled in the Freedom to Farm 1996 farm policy, along with recognizing the crisis created by loss of foreign markets and the typical natural cycling of our environment and our weather, we are going to recognize all of that. I will conclude by saying this. We preserve current farm policy because American agriculture told us they needed that to happen for the flexibility of future years. We have also kept some promises that we made in 1996, to begin to look at sanctions and to free up opportunity in world markets. And also, most important, the third passage dealt with tax--tax law flexibility, so that that production unit, that farmer or rancher, can deal with the cyclical character of his or her markets on good years versus bad years. So they pay their fair share in taxes but they do not pay taxes one year on substantial profits and then the next year have tremendous losses that put them in a bind. They used to understand that. That is the way the law used to be. With that flexibility, you kind of store it up in the good years to offset your needs in the bad years. That is the way agriculture ought to operate, and that is the way our tax laws ought to allow them to operate. I thought I would give that synopsis of what we are doing and what I think is important for our taxpayers to understand. Keeping this tremendous production unit in our country--known as agriculture-- healthy and producing is of critical importance to our country. The American consumers today pay less for food than any other item they buy. As a result of that, our consuming public has more spendable income to buy cars, to buy homes, to provide for their children's education. They are not paying 30 percent or 40 percent or 50 percent or 60 percent of their income for food. They are paying 13 to 14 percent, for the highest quality, safest, richest foods in the world. That is a result of this marvelous production unit we call American agriculture. I am proud that this Republican Congress, working with our colleagues on the other side, represented that understanding in the current policy that is embodied in this omnibus bill with which we will be dealing. It is an important area. I am glad our leaders were sensitive to it and that we can turn to agriculture and say: We didn't save you, we didn't guarantee you, but we recognize the need to shore up, in those areas of disaster, and to assure that those units of production--and those are family farms; these are people, men and women and their children who oftentimes work from daylight to dark--are going to be held as whole as we can possibly keep them at a time when farm commodities, because of certain situations here and around the world, have plummeted to nearly 25- and 30-year lows. Mr. President, let me run through a few unanimous consent requests cleared by both sides of the aisle.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1525) to provide financial assistance for higher education to the dependents of Federal, State, and local public safety officers who are killed or permanently and totally disabled as the result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1525) entitled ``An Act to provide financial assistance for higher education to the dependents of Federal, State, and local public safety officers who are killed or permanently and totally disabled as the result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the Senate agree to the amendment of the House-passed bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3055, which is at the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 677, S. 2539.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2370, which is at the desk.