Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this second-degree amendment----

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment clarifies a few points in the first-degree amendment. As you noticed, the clerk read section (c) which merely discusses time of enactment and time in which the proposed amendment would take effect. What we have here, of course, is the fundamental question that has been brought by the Senator from Oklahoma: Who should pay for the elections of a private union? The question fundamentally put before this Senate is very simple for all of us. Should it be the taxpayers or should it in fact be the union? I think we are concluding here that it should be the union in this instance. The taxpayers have done what they should do in this instance and should do no more. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. In other words, if Teamsters were concerned, and there was at issue here corruption in the last election, and therefore a reelection to get rid of that corruption, or at least to have an outcome that all would be satisfied with, we could still have the Department of Labor and/or Justice involved in overseeing the rerunning of this election, and your amendment does not prohibit that?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. No objection.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before the debate goes any further, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the pending amendment at 12 noon today, and that the time between now and noon be equally divided in the usual form with no amendments in order prior to the 12 noon vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, each year a small portion of the Medicare budget is devoted to HCFA's Office of Research and Demonstrations for Activities that help guide Medicare policymaking on coverage, financing and other operational issues. This year the Appropriations Committee has approved $47 million for this purpose, an increase, of $3 million over the last year. The Appropriations Committee has urged the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use a portion of this research budget to conduct a 2- year demonstration project on coverage of medical nutrition therapy by registered dietitians under Medicare part B. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my support for this project and to urge the Secretary to move expeditiously to initiate this program. Research has shown that medical nutrition therapy is an effective way to save health care dollars and improve patient outcomes. By reducing and shortening hospital admission, preventing and controlling medical complications and limiting the need for physician follow-up visits, medical nutrition therapy can lower the cost of treating a variety of diseases. Of particular note are the savings that have been documented for patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease, two ailments that account for a staggering 60 percent of all Medicare expenditures. As we continue efforts to modernize and improve the Medicare Program, we should not overlook medical nutrition therapy as an important way to save program dollars and improve patient treatment options. A demonstration project in this area will help us understand how we can best integrate this important service into any future Medicare improvements. amendment no. 1057

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Johnson, Wellstone, and Grassley, the Biodiesel Energy Development Act of 1997. This legislation is an important step in helping achieve a very important goal of this Nation--that of shifting the focus of national energy demand away from imported oil toward renewable or domestically produced energy sources, as stated in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, also known as EPACT. To reach its goal, which is to replace 10 percent of petroleum by the year 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010 with alternative fuels, EPACT requires Federal and State government fleets, and a limited number of private fleets, to purchase alternative-fueled vehicles [AFV's]. Dedicated AFV's are vehicles that can only run on alternative fuels. Natural gas vehicles and electric vehicles are two of the most common AFV's. Flexible fueled vehicles [FFV's] are those vehicles which can run on alternative fuels, such as methanol and ethanol, petroleum fuels, or a combination of the two. Current EPACT mandates, incentives, and grants exclude biodiesel fuel blends from being designated as an alternative fuel or from it being an option for controlled fleet owners and operators. EPACT offers little incentive for the use of heavier duty FFV's where biodiesel would be most appropriate, as fleets may obtain credit for heavier duty FFV's only after they have fulfilled their light duty AFV purchase requirements. In addition, EPACT does not allow the conversion and warranty of existing vehicles to FFV standards when they are overhauled or rebuilt. Mr. President, the exclusion of biodiesel as an alternative fuel only impedes the ability of the fleets to meet EPACT mandates. Let me spell out some of the benefits that biodiesel provides. Biodiesel is a cleaner burning fuel that is made from natural, renewable sources such as vegetable oils, and is domestically produced. From these facts alone it is evident that the use of biodiesel can reduce the United States' dependence upon imported oil. Biodiesel also helps achieve a stated goal of this administration, which is to protect the environment by reducing emissions that may damage the ozone layer and contribute to the greenhouse effect. Biodiesel does just that. When used in a 20-percent blend with petroleum diesel, biodiesel results in a significant reduction in visible smoke and odor and reduces particulate matter by as much as 14 percent. When used in combination with an oxidation catalyst, biodiesel reduces particulate matter by 45 percent, carbon monoxide emissions by 41 percent, and total hydrocarbons by 65 percent. Mr. President, biodiesel does all of this without forcing expensive engine modifications, reducing the payload capacity of vehicles, or reducing the range of vehicles. Biodiesel performs similarly to petroleum diesel in terms of torque, horsepower, and miles per gallon. In short, biodiesel performs just as well as petroleum diesel, and yet provides users with all of the benefits of alternative fuels. In addition, once the biodiesel market takes off, it is estimated that it could add more than $11 billion to the States that grow oilseed crops. Biodiesel is also biodegradable and nontoxic, resulting in little to no environmental threat. The Biodiesel Energy Development Act would solve many of the problems in EPACT, and help fleets reach EPACT's goals. This legislation would designate a biodiesel-petroleum diesel blend as an alternative fuel; equalize incentives between AFV's and alternative fuels; equalize incentives between different types of AFV's; increase the flexibility of EPACT fleet owners and operators in meeting existing mandated AFV purchase requirements; and provide an incentive-based solution regarding flexible-fuel use in AFV's. Mr. President, it is time we enabled the fleets that are mandated by EPACT to purchase AFV's with the option of using biodiesel fuel. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Johnson, Wellstone, and Grassley, the Biodiesel Energy Development Act of 1997. This legislation is an important step in helping achieve a very important goal of this Nation--that of shifting the focus of national energy demand away from imported oil toward renewable or domestically produced energy sources, as stated in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, also known as EPACT. To reach its goal, which is to replace 10 percent of petroleum by the year 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010 with alternative fuels, EPACT requires Federal and State government fleets, and a limited number of private fleets, to purchase alternative-fueled vehicles [AFV's]. Dedicated AFV's are vehicles that can only run on alternative fuels. Natural gas vehicles and electric vehicles are two of the most common AFV's. Flexible fueled vehicles [FFV's] are those vehicles which can run on alternative fuels, such as methanol and ethanol, petroleum fuels, or a combination of the two. Current EPACT mandates, incentives, and grants exclude biodiesel fuel blends from being designated as an alternative fuel or from it being an option for controlled fleet owners and operators. EPACT offers little incentive for the use of heavier duty FFV's where biodiesel would be most appropriate, as fleets may obtain credit for heavier duty FFV's only after they have fulfilled their light duty AFV purchase requirements. In addition, EPACT does not allow the conversion and warranty of existing vehicles to FFV standards when they are overhauled or rebuilt. Mr. President, the exclusion of biodiesel as an alternative fuel only impedes the ability of the fleets to meet EPACT mandates. Let me spell out some of the benefits that biodiesel provides. Biodiesel is a cleaner burning fuel that is made from natural, renewable sources such as vegetable oils, and is domestically produced. From these facts alone it is evident that the use of biodiesel can reduce the United States' dependence upon imported oil. Biodiesel also helps achieve a stated goal of this administration, which is to protect the environment by reducing emissions that may damage the ozone layer and contribute to the greenhouse effect. Biodiesel does just that. When used in a 20-percent blend with petroleum diesel, biodiesel results in a significant reduction in visible smoke and odor and reduces particulate matter by as much as 14 percent. When used in combination with an oxidation catalyst, biodiesel reduces particulate matter by 45 percent, carbon monoxide emissions by 41 percent, and total hydrocarbons by 65 percent. Mr. President, biodiesel does all of this without forcing expensive engine modifications, reducing the payload capacity of vehicles, or reducing the range of vehicles. Biodiesel performs similarly to petroleum diesel in terms of torque, horsepower, and miles per gallon. In short, biodiesel performs just as well as petroleum diesel, and yet provides users with all of the benefits of alternative fuels. In addition, once the biodiesel market takes off, it is estimated that it could add more than $11 billion to the States that grow oilseed crops. Biodiesel is also biodegradable and nontoxic, resulting in little to no environmental threat. The Biodiesel Energy Development Act would solve many of the problems in EPACT, and help fleets reach EPACT's goals. This legislation would designate a biodiesel-petroleum diesel blend as an alternative fuel; equalize incentives between AFV's and alternative fuels; equalize incentives between different types of AFV's; increase the flexibility of EPACT fleet owners and operators in meeting existing mandated AFV purchase requirements; and provide an incentive-based solution regarding flexible-fuel use in AFV's. Mr. President, it is time we enabled the fleets that are mandated by EPACT to purchase AFV's with the option of using biodiesel fuel. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in the last Congress, Members in the Senate and our colleagues in the other Chamber worked hard to reform the laws under which the U.S. mining industry operate on the vast Federal lands of the west. Members on both sides of the aisle, from all regions of the country, acknowledged that the Mining Law of 1872 needed change. This body and the other body passed legislation to reform the mining law only to have our efforts vetoed by the President. I believe it is time to make another effort to pass mining reform legislation and to engage the Clinton administration in meaningful discussion that can bring to a close the long and fruitless debate we have so far had on this issue. Today, I am introducing, a bipartisan bill in conjunction with Chairman Murkowski, Senator Reid, and Senator Bryan and five other of our colleagues to legislatively solve the problems that we see with the mining law. The Mining Law Reform Act of 1997, is a bill which will ensure continued mineral production in the United States. It provides for a fair economic return from minerals extracted on public lands, and will link mining practices on federal lands to State and Federal environmental laws and land-use plans. This bill provides a balanced and equitable solution to concerns raised over the existing mining law. Mining in the United States is an important part of our nation's economy. It serves the national interest by maintaining a steady and reliable supply of the materials that drive our industries. Revenue from mining fuels local economies by providing family income and preserving community tax bases. Mining has become an American success story. Fifteen years ago, U.S. manufacturers were forced to rely on foreign producers for 75 percent of the gold they needed. Today, the U.S. is more than self-sufficient. The combined direct and indirect impact on the economy of our nation by the mining industry in 1995 was almost $524 billion. This is nine times the value of the actual minerals that were mined. Obviously we are talking about a very significant portion of our economy and one that we can not cavalierly assign to the economic antique shed. This information is from a recent report by the Western Economic Analysis Center. I ask unanimous consent that the summary of this report be made a part of the Record. Mining, however, is a business associated with enormous up-front costs and marginal profits. Excessive royalties discourage, and in other countries have discouraged, mineral exploration. Too large a royalty would undermine the competitiveness of the mining industry. The end result of excessive government involvement would be the movement of mining operations overseas and the loss of American jobs. The legislation I am introducing today will keep U.S. mines competitive and prevent the movement of U.S. jobs to other countries. The General Mining Law is the cornerstone of U.S. mining practices. It establishes a useful relationship between industry and government to promote the extraction of minerals from mineral rich Federal lands. Although the cornerstone of this laws was originally enacted in 1872, it remains to function effectively today. The law has been amended and revised many times since its original passage. The legislation I am introducing today preserves the solid foundation provided by this law and makes some important revisions that address the concerns that have been paramount in this debate that I have been involved in for nearly a decade. Specifically, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1997 will insure revenue to the Federal Government by imposing fair and equitable fees and a net royalty. It requires payment of fair market value for lands to be mined. It assures lands will return to the public sector if they are not developed for mineral production, as is intended in this legislation. Furthermore, to prevent mining interests from using patented land for purposes other than mining, the bill limits occupancy to that which is only necessary to carry out mining activities. To ensure mining activities do not unnecessarily degrade Federal lands, the Mining Law Reform Act mandates compliance with all Federal, State and local environmental laws with regard to land use and reclamation. To enforce these provisions, the bill includes civil penalties and the authority for compliance orders. Finally, this bill creates a program to address the environmental problems associated with abandoned mines. Working directly with the States, the Mining Law Reform Act directs fees and royalty receipts to the abandoned mine cleanup programs. It is time we have a workable mechanism to clean up these relics of the past. The legislation we are proposing today is in the best interest of the American people because it provides revenue from public resources, assures mines will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and that abandoned mines from earlier eras will be reclaimed. It is fair to mining interests because it imposes reasonable fees and royalties, and it is good for the environment because it assures that sound land use and reclamation practices are followed. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation and look forward to hearings and Senate legislative action.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in the last Congress, Members in the Senate and our colleagues in the other Chamber worked hard to reform the laws under which the U.S. mining industry operate on the vast Federal lands of the west. Members on both sides of the aisle, from all regions of the country, acknowledged that the Mining Law of 1872 needed change. This body and the other body passed legislation to reform the mining law only to have our efforts vetoed by the President. I believe it is time to make another effort to pass mining reform legislation and to engage the Clinton administration in meaningful discussion that can bring to a close the long and fruitless debate we have so far had on this issue. Today, I am introducing, a bipartisan bill in conjunction with Chairman Murkowski, Senator Reid, and Senator Bryan and five other of our colleagues to legislatively solve the problems that we see with the mining law. The Mining Law Reform Act of 1997, is a bill which will ensure continued mineral production in the United States. It provides for a fair economic return from minerals extracted on public lands, and will link mining practices on federal lands to State and Federal environmental laws and land-use plans. This bill provides a balanced and equitable solution to concerns raised over the existing mining law. Mining in the United States is an important part of our nation's economy. It serves the national interest by maintaining a steady and reliable supply of the materials that drive our industries. Revenue from mining fuels local economies by providing family income and preserving community tax bases. Mining has become an American success story. Fifteen years ago, U.S. manufacturers were forced to rely on foreign producers for 75 percent of the gold they needed. Today, the U.S. is more than self-sufficient. The combined direct and indirect impact on the economy of our nation by the mining industry in 1995 was almost $524 billion. This is nine times the value of the actual minerals that were mined. Obviously we are talking about a very significant portion of our economy and one that we can not cavalierly assign to the economic antique shed. This information is from a recent report by the Western Economic Analysis Center. I ask unanimous consent that the summary of this report be made a part of the Record. Mining, however, is a business associated with enormous up-front costs and marginal profits. Excessive royalties discourage, and in other countries have discouraged, mineral exploration. Too large a royalty would undermine the competitiveness of the mining industry. The end result of excessive government involvement would be the movement of mining operations overseas and the loss of American jobs. The legislation I am introducing today will keep U.S. mines competitive and prevent the movement of U.S. jobs to other countries. The General Mining Law is the cornerstone of U.S. mining practices. It establishes a useful relationship between industry and government to promote the extraction of minerals from mineral rich Federal lands. Although the cornerstone of this laws was originally enacted in 1872, it remains to function effectively today. The law has been amended and revised many times since its original passage. The legislation I am introducing today preserves the solid foundation provided by this law and makes some important revisions that address the concerns that have been paramount in this debate that I have been involved in for nearly a decade. Specifically, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1997 will insure revenue to the Federal Government by imposing fair and equitable fees and a net royalty. It requires payment of fair market value for lands to be mined. It assures lands will return to the public sector if they are not developed for mineral production, as is intended in this legislation. Furthermore, to prevent mining interests from using patented land for purposes other than mining, the bill limits occupancy to that which is only necessary to carry out mining activities. To ensure mining activities do not unnecessarily degrade Federal lands, the Mining Law Reform Act mandates compliance with all Federal, State and local environmental laws with regard to land use and reclamation. To enforce these provisions, the bill includes civil penalties and the authority for compliance orders. Finally, this bill creates a program to address the environmental problems associated with abandoned mines. Working directly with the States, the Mining Law Reform Act directs fees and royalty receipts to the abandoned mine cleanup programs. It is time we have a workable mechanism to clean up these relics of the past. The legislation we are proposing today is in the best interest of the American people because it provides revenue from public resources, assures mines will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and that abandoned mines from earlier eras will be reclaimed. It is fair to mining interests because it imposes reasonable fees and royalties, and it is good for the environment because it assures that sound land use and reclamation practices are followed. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation and look forward to hearings and Senate legislative action.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I recognize the bipartisan nature in which this was created, and I support that. I hope that we can sustain that in years to come to truly get our budget in balance and to do so in a way that remains or creates or participates in a vibrant economy. There is no question that this effort was accomplished not by us alone but in a bipartisan effort. Certainly the ranking member, who stands here this evening, was a major contributor. And I recognize that. I am always a bit surprised when for the 17 years that I have been here I have always heard, ``Oh, we don't need to worry about that. We can balance the budget. We have the will to do it.'' Well, we didn't have the will until the American people demanded it of us. Now we do have that will. It will only come by a bipartisan effort. I recognize that this evening. I appreciate it. I think it is a great accomplishment, and the Senator from New Mexico is to be congratulated for it. I thank both Senators. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. No, not at this time. I'd like to finish my thoughts. I know that 2 years running, with the House having passed a balanced budget amendment and this Senate missing by just one vote--finally, it is recognized by all in a bipartisan gesture that, the closer the people come to changing their Constitution and exerting that control over Congress, the more motivated Congress becomes in doing it, doing it ourselves, and that is exactly what is occurring here. I believe that, without the constitutional discipline, we will always risk the return to more spending and more borrowing. Ultimately, to safeguard the future, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution must come into place. Some may suggest that passage of this year's balanced budget agreement means we no longer need the constitutional amendment. I suggest that is not true. One balanced budget in 30 years hardly means that we have fixed the system or that we have systemically changed the attitude of some who serve here. It will never be easier than it is right now to balance the budget. In the past, the temptation always was to put off the hard choices; Members have thought, it will be easier in the future than it is now. But in fact, it will never again be as easy as it is right now to begin that long march to arrest the growth of a $5 trillion national debt. That is what the long-term economic and demographic trends tell us. This year's budget discipline and hard choices are nothing compared to what Congress must wrestle with in just the next few years. For what we have committed ourselves to tonight and for the balance of this decade will not be easy choices. It was difficult enough to arrive at the agreement that we now have, and I will say, even though I differ sometimes with the President and others, that this is now a bipartisan effort, and I accept that and I honor them in their recognition that, finally, they are willing to offer to the American people what the American people have asked for. When we finally pass this balanced budget and then the balanced budget amendment and send it out to the States for ratification--and I believe that will occur in my lifetime and probably within the decade-- we will show we understand, as the American people clearly understand, that a nation so indebted ultimately cannot survive, and that to clean up our debt, to balance our budget was ultimately the necessary thing to do. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a mixed bag. I don't support every portion of it. I have reservations about some of it. It creates new social spending; it locks in, in the form of entitlements, that social spending. It could use stronger enforcement provisions. For example, I continue to support the idea that caps on spending should extend to spending overall and not only to annual appropriations. It does not address the long-term economic and demographic trends that drive entitlement spending and cry out for reform. The chairmen of our committees and some Senators tried hard to get those reforms. That was bipartisan. Some partisans on my side, too, could not accept that. But, ultimately, we will get there. We have to get there. I don't want my grandchildren turning to me and saying, Grandpa, we love you dearly, but we can't afford you and afford to provide for ourselves. We want to buy our own home, educate our children, and we cannot afford the amount of money that would come from our paycheck to go to the Federal Government because that government promised to provide for everyone's future. I don't want that to happen, and the chairman doesn't want that to happen. The future demands that we address it, that we help people prepare themselves for it, and that we will try to do. Today, annual discretionary appropriations make up only one-third of the total budget, and that share will continue to shrink. The Kerrey- Danforth entitlement commission of a couple of years ago estimated that in just 14 years, 2011, entitlement spending and interest payments will consume all available tax revenue. That means we will either have to borrow incredible amounts for deficit spending; or go without defense, highways, law enforcement, parks, forestry, education, science, and medical research; or raise taxes to ruinous levels. We are not going to do that. We are smarter than that. More important, we wouldn't be here to do it if we tried, because the American people won't tolerate it. They will demand reform before we get to that point, and if we can't give it to them, they will find the candidate willing to do so. While this bill before us today does establish another commission to address the need for long-term entitlement reforms, we have already had that kind of commission, chaired by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. We already know what the current trends are and have some idea of what needs to be done. But there is also considerable good in this bill. It does accomplish more in the way of spending control and entitlement reform than many thought possible even a year ago. There are significant repairs to the Medicare System. Medicare will be solvent for at least another decade and will continue to be there for seniors who need it. Last, we will begin the process of injecting consumer choice into the system. Why should our seniors not have some of that? The Medicare System, based on market principles, means better care and more economic care. I am always amazed when the bureaucracy thinks it can outperform the marketplace. We know it can't, we know it never has, and, in this instance, we finally recognize that by putting some market principles in. The fundamental reforms in last year's historic welfare reform bill will remain in place. We continue to move toward a system that rewards work and allows the States the freedom to develop new and better approaches. Enforceable caps on discretionary appropriations spending--virtually the only thing out of the 1990 budget agreement that worked--will continue through the year 2002. Overall, the growth in spending will slow by $270 billion over the next 5 years and $1 trillion over the next 10 years, a saving that will be locked in by permanent law and not be subject to year-to-year political whims. New spending will be accomplished with a minimum of bureaucracy and a maximum of State flexibility. This is far from the ideal balanced budget bill. But it takes the first major step away from demagoguery and toward genuine entitlement reform. It delivers on and locks in the promise of a balanced budget, something I have demanded and worked for my entire time here serving the State of Idaho. Why do I demand that? Because the citizens of my State know that a government that continually spends beyond its means, a government that mounts a $5 trillion debt, a government that allows interest on debt to rapidly move toward becoming the largest single item in its budget, is a government that cannot sustain itself. That we recognize. The chairman of our Budget Committee and the chairman of our Finance Committee recognize that. We all recognize that. That is what our party has stood for. That is what the majority here in Congress has demanded because the citizens of our country have said it is a requirement of government. I must say that the Balanced Budget Act of this year and the Taxpayers' Relief Act of this year are responses to demands of the American people. I am proud to have been a part of helping craft them. I look forward to the opportunity to vote for them, to cause them to become law, and to see this economy remain dynamic, create jobs, and provide opportunities for this generation and generations to come. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding, and let me also recognize him this evening and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for the work that both Senators have done with their ranking members over the last good many months to craft the legislation that is before us today, tomorrow, and through the balance of the week dealing both with the budget and with tax cuts. I rise in support of H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Madam President, in 1993 and 1994, we had a President who said balancing the budget probably was a bad thing to do. We had a high administration official who actually had written a book that said it was a loophole whenever children could inherit some of their parents' money. Congress had increased spending and joined with the President in the passing of the biggest tax increase in the history of our country. That was not a decade ago. That was just a few years ago. Then came November 1994. And what a difference an election makes. What a great transformation of the mind and the political thought can occur when the American people have spoken and said, ``We've had enough.'' We asked the Congress to change their thinking. And we changed the Congress to think differently. And the first Republican Congress in 40 years began in 1995, with promises to do several very important, necessary things--to reform welfare, to cut back bureaucracy, to balance the budget, and to provide some tax relief for American taxpayers who work hard, have families, and create jobs. In 1996, the voters rewarded a Congress and President who accomplished the first two of these items and who promised to bring about the rest. This week, the Republican majority in Congress, joined by now many reform Democrats in a bipartisan majority, will deliver on those promises. Madam President, this week, as we consider the Balanced Budget Act, and especially the Tax Relief Act of 1997, we are talking about more freedom for more of America's people. Freedom is not something that the Government gives the people. Our Nation's founders knew that the people's freedom is, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, ``self-evident,'' ``unalienable,'' and ``endowed by their Creator.'' Freedom comes from limiting Government to its necessary functions. Freedom is what remains when Government is not excessively burdensome or coercive. This week, we take modest but very significant steps toward restoring freedom to the American people--freedom from the most severe tax burden on families in our Nation's history, freedom from an oppressive national debt, freedom from the growth of an ever-larger, ever-more intrusive Federal Government. A couple from Idaho and their four daughters visited my office just this week and we discussed taxes, and particularly death and inheritance taxes. They told to me they run a small farm in Idaho that their great-grandparents had established in 1882. And they reminded me that people turned to Government to take care of them when the Government, usually through taxes, takes away their ability to take care of themselves. And as Ronald Reagan said: A Government big enough to promise you everything you need is a Government big enough to take away everything you have. The Tax Relief Act that we will begin debating tomorrow, combined with balancing the budget, will help more families take care of themselves the way they want, by keeping more of their own hard-earned money; by bringing about the ability to save more for their retirement, their children's education, and other priorities they have; by making it easier to own your own family farm or small business or home; by making it easier to do the kinds of things that Americans like to do, without having to think twice or three times whether they can afford to, or worry whether the Government will take more of their money; by creating, in other words, the economic atmosphere that will allow Americans to invest in creating more and better jobs for themselves, their children, and the future of our country. The bills we will pass this week mark the triumph of the principle that the Federal budget should be balanced and should stay balanced. In 1994, when the American people spoke so clearly about changing the political thought in this country and the political attitudes, the Dow Jones was hovering at about 3000. Today, it is at 8000. We have, by these efforts to balance the budget and provide tax relief, unleashed a dynamic of this economy that is, without question, historic. We are now seeing the reverse of what happened about 40 years ago, when an elite group of liberal economists sold liberal politicians on the idea that you could promise your voters a free lunch. Their intellectual justification was the so-called enlightened discovery that unlimited borrowing could pay for unlimited social spending without much consequence. It's easy to understand the political appeal of this proposition. What is incredible is that anyone really believed it, or that they would follow it for nearly 40 years and create a $5 trillion borrowed debt--almost beyond understanding. But that is where we are today. That is clearly why the American people have spoken, and that is why this Congress and this Senate finally said we have to change the way we do business. You can't borrow your way to prosperity over the long term. We tried and we saw our economy grow even more sluggish. We saw people become even more dependent on Government largess. Thank goodness, Americans, enlightened as they always are, recognizing that they are the Government, took charge and said, ``No more.'' A huge national debt means our Government has spent the last generation mortgaging the future for the next generation. That is not a matter of green-eyeshades accounting; it really is an immoral assault on the well-being of our children and their ability to produce for themselves and their prodigies. Balancing the budget is not about numbers, it is about people. Balancing the budget means more and better jobs, making it more affordable to buy a home, and more families affording a good education for their children without having to come to the Government and say, please help me. They can do more of it for themselves. Balancing the budget means that essential Federal programs like Social Security and Medicare will be there for those who need it and not become a liability and a burden on future generations. There will be more freedom because of a balanced budget, because people will get no more Government than they are willing to pay for. Balancing the budget means Americans--all Americans--win. And we have the actions of the last 3 years now--an economy responding to spending restraint and real efforts to balance the budget and cut taxes--to demonstrate that what I am talking about tonight has a very strong foundation of truth. I want to pause for a moment and review one critical reason why we are here this week passing legislation that promises to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002. This die was cast when Congress, by the narrowest of margins, defeated the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Only the threat of the ultimate legal sanction--a constitutional amendment--and the overwhelming public support for that amendment finally convinced Congress, most important, some of my colleagues and some in the administration, that we had to quit talking the talk and start walking the walk. In other words, I have heard so many on the other side throw up their hands and say, we do not need a constitutional amendment to make us balance the budget; all we have to do is do it; all we have to do is exert fiscal responsibility. But we also have to have this program and we have to have that program, and we have to spend here and there. And 2 years running, by one vote, the people almost began to take control of their Government again. It frightened the Congress. A President who once said a balanced budget is a bad idea is now out strutting around talking about his balanced budget and all of the wonderful things that will be reaped by it. Well, it is always surprising to me that people like our President think the American public has such a short memory. They don't. His record suggests he doesn't believe it is a good idea. He also knows politically that he has to do it. And there are some in Congress who sometimes choose to do something differently than we otherwise may like to do, but who know what they have to do because the American people expect it. Balancing the budget has always been the right thing to do. We are here tonight because it is now also, at last, the politically correct thing to do, and I suggest that that vote occur.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to recognize Mr. Chris Yoder, a fellow Idahoan, who will be leaving his professional staff position at the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs to accept a new challenge with the Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance. A veteran, himself, of the Vietnam War in Army Intelligence, he continued his dedication to the colleagues by serving 13 years with the Veterans Administration in Boise, ID. There he worked in various capacities as a benefits councilor, claims examiner and education specialist. Except for the 102d Congress when he worked for the Veterans Affairs, in Washington DC as a staff assistant to the Deputy Secretary, Mr. Yoder has been with the committee for 12\1/2\ years. During that time he served with distinction, helping to fashion policies that serve America's veterans. He has always accepted challenges, faced them head on and worked diligently in providing the critical answers that have shaped the positive direction the Veterans Committee has taken. Mr. Yoder's efforts have always represented his personal commitment to constituents, the veterans service organizations and members of the committee. His timely initiatives and extraordinary abilities will have lasting results for years to come. I have high praise for Chris's leadership, dedication, professionalism and accomplishments. On behalf of myself and the veterans of Idaho, we wish him well in his new endeavor, and wholeheartedly thank him for his outstanding service.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and friend from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in the introduction of the National Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act of 1997. This important piece of legislation is designed to help make the United States competitive in the expanding world market for aquaculture products. The United States is poised to become the world leader in aquaculture, yet it remains far beyond other nations, including many with fewer resources and less developed infrastructure. Already there are more than 1,000 Idahoans whose jobs are either directly or indirectly connected to aquaculture. They represent a $92 million industry for my home State: An industry committed to a cleaner environment, a safer food supply, and community development. However, much more lies ahead of us if the United States is to become a world leader in this growing industry. Despite recent growth, America's annual trade deficit in seafood remains stable at approximately $3 billion--a reduction of which could mean a stronger domestic industry, more jobs, and less dependency on others for our food supply. Mr. President, it is for these reasons I am pleased to join my colleague in introducing this measure today.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and friend from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in the introduction of the National Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act of 1997. This important piece of legislation is designed to help make the United States competitive in the expanding world market for aquaculture products. The United States is poised to become the world leader in aquaculture, yet it remains far beyond other nations, including many with fewer resources and less developed infrastructure. Already there are more than 1,000 Idahoans whose jobs are either directly or indirectly connected to aquaculture. They represent a $92 million industry for my home State: An industry committed to a cleaner environment, a safer food supply, and community development. However, much more lies ahead of us if the United States is to become a world leader in this growing industry. Despite recent growth, America's annual trade deficit in seafood remains stable at approximately $3 billion--a reduction of which could mean a stronger domestic industry, more jobs, and less dependency on others for our food supply. Mr. President, it is for these reasons I am pleased to join my colleague in introducing this measure today.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you very much. And let me thank the Senator from Georgia for bringing us to the floor this afternoon to discuss what hopefully by the end of this week will be a bit of history. And I believe it will be the right kind of history, written by the House and the Senate and the White House, that deals with significant tax relief for the American taxpayer and some very major budget reform. I have had the privilege of now serving in the Senate a good number of years and also in the U.S. House. And since the early 1980s, I became an outspoken advocate for a balanced budget. I watched as our debt and deficit grew, becoming increasingly alarmed that somehow we would pass on to our children and their children a legacy of debt that would be almost insurmountable, that could cripple the economy of this country and lead us down a road to economic deterioration and a second- or third-rate Nation. Because of concern, shared by many here in the Congress, and by a growing number of American taxpayers, throughout the decade of the 1980s and into the early 1990s, we continued that drumbeat to where it is without question a majority sentiment among the American people today, such an overwhelming majority sentiment that in 1994 they changed the character of the U.S. Congress, and they significantly altered the attitude of a President who came to town not to balance the budget and not to give tax relief but to be able to do quite the opposite, to increase the Federal dominance over the American character, to raise taxes, and to continue a liberal Democratic legacy of an ever-increasingly larger Government taking an ever-increasingly larger chunk of the American worker's paycheck. Thanks to Americans, thanks to Republicans, thanks to conservatives, that message got altered. Throughout the last several weeks, because of a budget proposal and a tax proposal put together by the Republican leadership and this President, voted on with the substantial bipartisan support of the U.S. Senate, the White House, the Finance Committees, the Budget Committees, along with the leadership, have been in internal negotiations to bring that about, again, reducing the overall size of Government, moving us toward a balanced budget, and for the first time in 16 years giving tax relief to the American people. That agreement is not at hand yet, but we are told that that could well become the case this week. And I hope it is. I hope it gives to the American working family the kind of relief they deserve during a period when they are being taxed at the highest rate ever, that it gives to the American investor an opportunity to change the character of his or her investment to create even more jobs, to keep the economy even stronger than it is today for a longer and a more sustained period of time and that says to the less fortunate in our country, you too will benefit, you too will benefit by being able to keep more of your hard-earned dollars. And it says to those who are concerned about education, you can put a little more away to provide for that day when you will want to help your children gain a higher level of education so they can advance themselves in our society. All of that is historic. We may, while serving here on a day-to-day, year-to-year basis, lose that perspective, but I do not think the American people will, because we are saying to them, we heard you, we heard you loudly and clearly. And while a marathon race is not won by a single lap around the track, or the Super Bowl is not won by a single victory at the beginning of the season, this is in itself a victory, a significant victory in that long march away from an ever-larger Government that takes more and more away from the average taxpayer, both in his or her earnings and in his or her freedoms. So I hope that the work that has gone on the last 2 weeks, in fact, bears fruit. I am excited about the opportunity to debate these issues on the floor of the Senate this week and to vote by week's end on a historic budget package that continues to bring us toward a balanced budget and a historic tax package that offers tax relief to the average taxpayer again for the second time in 16 years. So let me again thank the Senator from Georgia for his continued leadership on this issue, coming to the floor day after day to inform the American people about what we are about and what we are striving to achieve, oftentimes behind closed doors because of the nature of the kind of negotiations that have gone on, but must require ultimately in the end to be made public. So let me thank my colleague from Georgia. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding, and let me thank Senator Hagel and Senator Byrd for bringing this resolution to the floor in a timely manner. I know several of my colleagues wish they could have spent a longer period of time this morning debating the issue, and I can't blame them. Let me suggest to them that this is only the beginning of a long and very important debate for our country to become involved in. It also was very important, though, that the Senate of the United States, the ratifying body of our Government and our country, speak out clearly and boldly before the ad hoc climate change negotiating group convenes next Wednesday in Bonn, and carries their meetings through August 8. The reason it is important that the Senate speak out is because we do not believe the sky is falling. We are not sure if the sky is cracked, and if it is, maybe we need to build a superstructure to hold it up. But this country cannot commit itself to this kind of binding agreement unless the science is clearer and the understanding of the American people is fairly reached when it comes to this issue. Let me speak for a few moments about my frustration that our President has decided to use his bully pulpit, in my opinion, to terrorize the American people into supporting the administration's quest for commitments for energy use reduction that are legally binding on the United States. The President has been quite frank about building a propaganda campaign about calamities of future global warming, beginning with yesterday's White House meeting on climate change. The President has indicated his propaganda drive will culminate in a White House conference on global warming in October. The conference is not likely to be a thoughtful roundtable. It may now be more thoughtful, because I think the administration has finally recognized that the Senate in fact will become engaged and must become engaged. Why did I use the words I just used? Here is the reason. Here is the plan that our administration is now supporting: That they would cause us to enter into a binding agreement that the United States would be responsible for 48 percent of the world's obligation to reduce energy use. We said a long time ago that any climate change agreement that affects the United States should not be binding, but voluntary on the world. Is the administration's plan a dramatic departure from where we were? Here is where it is. It is dramatic because when we arrive at the year 2010, to achieve our 1990 levels, the United States will be contributing about 20 percent of the world's emissions, while the rest of the world will be contributing 80 percent. Yet China and India and other Asian nations and developing countries, by this administration's negotiations, would be exempt. That is why it is time we come to the floor to speak about this. Senate Resolution 98, under the authorship of Senator Byrd and Senator Hagel, says just that, that we cannot become involved unless we are all involved and that we should not become involved unless the science is sure, or so sure that we will commit this country and the rest of the world into a course that could bind us and reshape our economies and clearly design a different destiny for the American people than one that we might otherwise choose. The President and the Vice President stand next to flooded homes in the Dakotas and suggest that this unfortunate event is a product of global warming. That is not fair, because the science doesn't prove it. So when I use the word ``terrorize,'' or I use the word ``propaganda,'' it is not by chance that I use those words. The science simply doesn't support the claims being made by this administration, it is important to understand that. Last year, in the Leipzig Declaration, 100 scientists from around the world, climate scientists--not politicians, but scientists--expressed their doubts about the validity of computer- driven warming forecasts. Why? You heard the Senator from Oklahoma just now say the reason is the science isn't bearing it up. People who watch our satellites say that our satellites tell us we are getting cooler. Yet people who watch our ground temperatures suggest we might be getting warmer. Instead of sponsoring a fair debate, the administration is only using part of the available science, while denegrating the other side. What is so important for this country to understand, what is more important for the parliamentarians of the world to understand, is that the President does not necessarily speak for this Senate. But what is critically important is that this Senate will speak for itself. And it is, without question, the responsibility of the Senate of the United States to approve treaties. What we do not want to happen is the lifting of the level of expectation projected by the rhetoric and the selective science by an administration that would bring us into negotiations to produce a treaty in Kyoto in December that simply would not speak to the realities or the responsibilities that we ought to be engaged in. The administration must realize that a strong American economy is essential to our Nation if we are going to spend upwards of $2 billion a year on climate change research, if we are going to adapt to changing climate, if needed, and if we are going to adjust our economy and our economic base for those purposes. So, I am pleased to endorse, and I hope Senators will join with me in a strong endorsement, of Senate Resolution 98. It is important that we speak now. I view, as others do, that this is a preliminary statement in what will be a long and complex debate for all of us to become involved in, because I don't know where our science will lead us. But if it, in fact, can show us the way and clearly demonstrate that there is a climate change responsibility for this Nation, then all the rest of the nations in the world must participate. We cannot shoulder 48 percent of the burden for the rest of the world. Mr. President, let me close with this last chart. If you were to turn the United States into a forest with no emissions whatsoever, by the year 2100 here is the problem with the rest of the world. The problem is that we want to be at 1990 levels by 2010. If you take the United States out of the equation, the total concentration of greenhouse gases hardly changes. Yet this administration, at least by their rhetoric of the last several months, would take China out of it, the other developing world nations out, and leave us to bear the burden. That is why S. Res. 98 is so critical for us today, for the world tomorrow, as we march toward Kyoto in December.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Cable News Network announced this week that it would provide live television coverage of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearings on campaign finance activities. But, Mr. President, their decision was based only on the fact that former Republican National Committee chairman, Haley Barbour, is scheduled to testify. CNN has been suspiciously absent in its live coverage of the hearings, only allowing its viewers to see the opening statements of the chairman and the ranking member during the past 2 weeks of the hearings. As I understand it, CNN based its decision to provide live coverage of Mr. Barbour's testimony on the judgment that he has celebrity status. Or, as CNN's own Washington Bureau chief, Frank Sesno, called them yesterday, ``major players''. That is a decision more fitting of the program ``Entertainment Tonight'', instead of a network which prides itself on being the world's leader of news. I am certain that I am not the only one disappointed by CNN's decision to forgo live coverage of the hearings. In fact, on CNN's own Internet web page, an overwhelming number of CNN's viewers are distressed over the network's failure to provide live coverage. One viewer wrote, and I quote: Although I am very pleased that you are carrying the campaign finance hearings through your Web site, I must say after all of the interminable O.J. hearings you carried live on CNN, why on God's earth aren't you carrying the hearings as well? I am very disappointed. It was signed by Jim Merrick on July 16. Mr. President, there has been such sufficient controversy over the CNN's lack of live coverage of the hearings--and even the lack of regular coverage of the hearings by the other television networks--that CNN devoted a substantial portion of its program ``Inside Politics'' on Tuesday, to discuss the uproar. In a roundtable discussion, where journalists interview each other about what a great job they're doing, CNN's Judy Woodruff asked ABC's Hal Bruno about the difference of these hearings as compared to the Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings. Hal Bruno replied, and I quote: Government was at a standstill in Washington as a result of Watergate and the whole country was immersed in it. And the same was true to a lesser degree with Iran-Contra. These were major stories of revelations of criminal wrongdoing. Mr. President, Hal Bruno's comment is an outrage. For one, the country was immersed in these events because the television networks were carrying the hearings live. And furthermore, the campaign finance hearings have uncovered much more serious charges and allegations. They include: Espionage, foreign influence peddling, campaign corruption and even money laundering. Just look at this summary by the staff of the Governmental Affairs Committee on what has been revealed so far during 2 weeks of hearings. Hal Bruno's statement is ludicrous, and CNN's lack of live coverage of the hearings proves that they are ignoring a major news story. Mr. President, I have written a letter to CNN president, Tom Johnson, and CNN Washington Bureau chief, Frank Sesno, expressing my disappointment and anger over their decision. This is the same network that covered endless hours of the O.J. Simpson murder trial--a news event that affected relatively few Americans. I have not yet received a reply from my letter, and I doubt I will. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the summary of highlights of the first 2 weeks of hearings by the Governmental Affairs hearings, and my letter to CNN's president and Washington Bureau chief.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding in opposition to the Feinstein amendment and hope that the Senate would concur with the findings of the committee. Commerce, State, Justice appropriations has dealt in what I believe is an appropriate way with the issue of the ninth circuit court. There should be no surprises. This is simply not a new issue. I have always felt, and I think many concur, that if you want to not resolve an issue, you create a commission and study something once again, and we know that this has been studied and recommendations have been made. In 1973, the Hruska Commission suggested that the ninth and the fifth circuits be split, and the fifth circuit was split, the ninth was not. There was simply too much political controversy around it. My guess is today it is a lot more about politics than it is about justice, justice to the citizens of our country who deserve a timely process in the courts, and certainly with the ninth circuit court being as large as it is, as other Senators have spoken to this afternoon, justice appropriately and timely rendered is the question. It has been mentioned--I believe the Senator from Montana mentioned that the ninth circuit averages 429 days and that the medium national time average is 315 days. When you are in the midst of a lawsuit, do you set it aside? Do you quit spending money? Do you stop the retainer of the attorneys representing you? I doubt it. And that clock ticks on and the money accumulates, and the cost is high and justice goes unrendered. Then the question in this very extended court is to whether the justice is appropriate. The Senator from Utah referenced the number of times the Supreme Court this year has overruled the ninth circuit. Those are all part of the issues that brought the citizens of Idaho to me and to my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, to suggest that it was time we dealt with this issue, that it had been since 1973 that the issue was found to be one of division, one of the appropriate allocation of States, money, and judges, and that simply has not occurred. I hope that we would deal with this. The bill before us today would put California, Nevada, Guam, and the Northern Marianas in the ninth circuit. It would also create a new twelfth circuit including Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. I am currently a cosponsor of Senator Murkoswki's bill, S. 431, which splits the ninth circuit a little differently. However, I find the division in the Gregg-Stevens amendment to be very well though out and fair. I think either split of the ninth circuit would work much better than the current organization of the ninth circuit. The subject of dividing the ninth circuit split has been discussed now for many years. In fact, as long as 1973, the Hruska Commission suggested the ninth and fifth circuits should be split. Although the fifth circuit was divided, the ninth was not. Ever since then, the debate about splitting the ninth circuit has roared on. Frankly, Mr. President, I am perplexed why there is any question about this proposal. The ninth circuit is by the largest circuit in the United States. It currently employs 28 judges--11 more than any other circuit. The U.S. Judicial Conference has called any circuit with more than 15 judges unworkable. I guess that means, in the opinion of the Judicial Conference, we have an unworkable situation. The ninth circuit currently serves 45 million people. This is 60 percent more than the next largest district. The Census Bureau has estimated that by 2010, the population in the ninth circuit will top 63 million people, an increase of 40 percent. The situation has worsened since the Hruska Commission suggested a split of the ninth circuit--a trend certain to continue with further delay. Over the years of debate on this issue, there has been much discussion of inconsistency and unmanageable caseloads. I would like to change the focus of the argument for just a moment and instead look at the impact on the people of the ninth circuit, which includes the people of Idaho. The size of the ninth circuit also has quite an effect on these individuals. The ninth circuit averages 429 days from filing to concluding an appeal. This is much longer than the national median time of 315 days. This affects the individuals who resort to the judicial system to resolve a dispute in their lives. It's been said that people in this country want and expect swift, efficient justice and I think they deserve it. It is not fair for the people in the ninth circuit to be subjected to this inefficiency. People want their disputes to be solved quickly so they can go on with their lives. A lawsuit has the ability to consume everything else in one's life. In the ninth circuit, it consumes their lives for a longer period of time. Also, during this extended process, these individuals are forced to continue paying legal fees. Mr. President, I ask you if 100 extra days in litigation sounds like swift justice. The huge backlog that develops can lead to different sorts of problems in the Northwest. The economic stability of the Northwest is threatened when suits involving, for example, the timber industry are forced into the backlog of inefficiency. It is unquestioned that the ninth circuit covers a huge area. However, when that is combined with the 7,000 new filings the circuit had last year, it becomes almost impossible to keep abreast of legal developments in the circuit. The result is everchanging judicial patterns that inevitably make conflicting rulings. This leads to judicial inconsistency, which is not good for the system, or the people who seek relief through the system. This might help to explain the fact that the ninth circuit has an 82 percent rate of reversal by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. President, I ask you if this sounds like efficient justice. Opponents of this legislation argue that the extreme size and population of the ninth circuit is not enough of a reason to support a split. However, that was the exact reason for the split of the former eighth circuit, which created the tenth circuit. It was also the exact reason for dividing the fifth circuit and creating the eleventh circuit. In fact, as I said before, when the fifth circuit was split, it was suggested that the ninth circuit be split as well. Opponents also argue for the need of a new commission to determine the need for a split of the ninth circuit. Twenty-five years ago the suggestion of just such a commission was to split the ninth circuit. It has grown since then, and is continuing to grow. The proposed split has been discussed for many years now, including Senate Judiciary hearings. There is more than enough data currently in the record to make an informed decision, and that decision should be to split the ninth circuit. Mr. President, this situation has been a long time in coming. It is now time for us to act. The split of the fifth circuit worked 25 years ago, so there is no reason we should not expect similar success with the ninth circuit. It is time that we recognize the competing interests of the differing regions in the ninth circuit and split them up. I ask that my colleagues support the split of the ninth circuit in the interest of returning swift, efficient justice to the people of the ninth circuit.