Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last week several Senators and Representatives held a bipartisan, bicameral press event on the Capitol Grounds. Among other things, we received a letter, signed by more than 250 economists, endorsing the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The letter was put together by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the largest bipartisan individual association of State legislators in the country. These economists, from both sides of the political aisle, have signed an open letter to Congress, asking us to approve the balanced budget amendment. Both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, they have based their support of the balanced budget amendment upon sound reasoning and a concern that America's future will be crippled if Federal deficits are allowed to continue. Among the signatories are James Buchanan, a Nobel laureate in economics, as well as William E. Simon, who served as Secretary of the Treasury from 1974 to 1977. The balanced budget amendment is not a partisan issue--it is an economic and moral issue. We need to recognize that through deficit spending we are selfishly spending on ourselves today the earnings that will be confiscated from future generations without their consent or knowledge. The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution imposes procedural constraints on the making of budgetary choices. It doesn't take away the power of the Congress to spend or tax. The amendment requires only that the Congress and the Executive spend no more than what they collect on taxes. The effects of the balanced budget amendment would be real as well as symbolic. Elected politicians would be forced to act responsibly and make fiscal choices within meaningfully constructed boundaries. Congress would be faced with important decisions regarding the financial fate of programs sooner rather than later. In its simplest terms, the balanced budget amendment amounts to little more than honesty in budgeting. It is time to acknowledge that mere statutes that claim to control Federal spending or deficits have failed. It is time to adopt constitutional control through a balanced budget amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter that was signed by over 250 economists who believe that Congress must place constitutional restraints on spending.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, years ago, we changed our Constitution to assure that never again in this Nation would we have human bondage. We changed our Constitution to allow women to vote. Today, we are asking this Senate to allow the American people to once again change the Constitution to step away from fiscal bondage or the risk of a bankrupt Government, to take off the backs of our children and grandchildren the burdensome, overpowering debt that we are causing them to accumulate. Yes, it is time once again that we ask the American people to change their Constitution to require us to balance the budget, to bring fiscal sanity to our Government, and to ensure the stability of this country, its economy, and the American dream for future generations.

Mr. CRAIG. There are compelling reasons for not excluding Social Security from budget calculations. Some Senators may feel there are good reasons for that exclusion. Some Senators may feel there are good reasons to vote against Senate Joint Resolution 1. But this table and the CRS memo it summarizes convincingly show that several of the reasons offered for voting against Senate Joint Resolution 1 simply do not stand up. In three key respects, S.J.Res. 1 and the amendments to exclude Social Security, such as the Reid and Dorgan amendments, would operate identically. First, neither approach would change the way Social Security surpluses are invested in Treasury bonds. Some have called that raiding the trust funds. But the Social Security Act required that from the start, because Treasury bonds are the safest investment in the world. If the Social Security trust funds are being raided today, and if that so-called raiding continued under Senate Joint Resolution 1, then it would also continue under the Dorgan, Reid, and Feinstein amendments. Those amendments don't change the law in this area. So there's no reason here to vote for those amendments and against Senate Joint Resolution 1. Second, consistent with its two previous memos, this new CRS memo confirms again that the following is equally true for both approaches: The Treasury will redeem Treasury bonds held by the Social Security trust funds; the Treasury will repay cash borrowed from the trust funds; and the trust funds will pay out benefits as promised. I want to emphasize the consistency of CRS here. The February 5 CRS memo was misunderstood and misrepresented. Some continue to make the misstatements today. CRS clarified that misunderstanding in a February 12 memo. But the misstatements continue. This newer CRS memo makes it clear that, if there were a problem drawing upon Social Security surpluses in the future under Senate Joint Resolution 1--and there is not--then the same problem would exist under the Reid and Dorgan amendments. So there's no reason here to vote for those amendments and against Senate Joint Resolution 1. Third, neither version would overturn the current law that protects the balances of the Social Security trust funds. Under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, there are points of order-- a 60-vote point of order in the Senate--against any legislation that would change trust fund outlays or receipts in a way that would erode the balances in the trust funds. So there's no reason here to vote for those amendments and against Senate Joint Resolution 1. Fourth, in a fourth key area, one version, Senate Joint Resolution 1, would take the current, statutory process of protecting the Social Security balances, and elevate it into the Constitution. Senate Joint Resolution 1 prohibits any change that would increase deficits or reduce surpluses--including those in the Social Security trust fund balances. The Dorgan, Feinstein, and Reid amendments, by contrast, would allow the Social Security trust funds to run unlimited deficits. Whether you have been for or against amendments excluding Social Security from the budget calculations, those amendments did not pass. Now, if you really care about Social Security, you will still vote for Senate Joint Resolution 1 on final passage. Under the status quo, we will add another $3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Does anyone think that adding nearly another $3 trillion to the debt is good for Social Security? The debt is the threat to Social Security. The debt is the threat to our children and their standard of living. Passing the balanced budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, is the answer. I ask unanimous consent that the following be included in the Record: A copy of the CRS memo we recently received and bipartisan materials we distributed analyzing the various CRS memos.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. I thank the senior Senator from Utah for his tremendous leadership on this issue and the hours of debate he has conducted in the Chamber in behalf of the passage of a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. Mr. President, I feel compelled to rise one more time to discuss how the Social Security trust funds would be treated under the balanced budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1. Unfortunately, day after day, we hear reference made to what the Congressional Research Service supposedly said about this subject. It is about time to put these issues to rest, once and for all. Therefore, Congressman Charlie Stenholm and I submitted several more questions to CRS. We asked CRS to compare, in several areas, the impact of two different kinds of balanced budget amendments: One that excluded Social Security from budget calculations, as several amendments to Senate Joint Resolution 1 would have; and one that counts all Federal spending in the budget, as does Senate Joint Resolution 1 as reported. I ask unanimous consent that a table summarizing the results of this memo be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. As is pointed out in this letter, congressional passage is just the first step--next, during ratification, in State capitols and coffee shops, the American people would begin one of the greatest debates ever, one of the greatest civics lessons ever, on the size and scope of their Federal Government. Mr. President, 70 to 80 percent of Americans are calling on the Congress to pass the BBA and provide them with the opportunity to, once and for all, put our fiscal house in order. It is unconscionable for us to ignore that call. The wisdom of our Founding Fathers is evident in the construction of our Constitution. They reached a delicate balance by creating a document strong enough to ultimately hold the States, with all their competing interests, together, yet with a mechanism allowing the flexibility necessary for future generations to deal with the unforeseen circumstances they knew would develop. The Constitution of the United States vests the ultimate responsibility to approve or disapprove constitutional amendments with the people, as represented by their elected State legislatures. Mr. President, it is time that Congress tap into the wisdom displayed by Idahoans, the Nation's State legislators, and our country's Founding Fathers by passing Senate Joint Resolution 1 and sending the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the States for ratification. [Exhibit 1] Legislature of the State of Idaho, Senate Joint Memorial No. 102 Whereas, the annual federal budget has not been balanced since 1969, and the federal public debt is now more than five trillion dollars, or twenty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in America; and Whereas, continued deficit spending demonstrates an unwillingness or inability of both the federal executive and legislative branches to spend no more than available revenues; and Whereas, fiscal irresponsibility at the federal level is lowering our standard of living, destroying jobs, and endangering economic opportunity now and for the next generation; and Whereas, the federal government's unlimited ability to borrow raises questions about fundamental principles and responsibilities of government, with potentially profound consequences for the nation and its people, making it an appropriate subject for limitation by the Constitution of the United States; and Whereas, the Constitution of the United States vests the ultimate responsibility to approve or disapprove constitutional amendments with the people, as represented by their elected state legislatures; and opposition by a small minority repeatedly has thwarted the will of the people that a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution should be submitted to the states for ratification; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the members of the First Regular Session of the Fifty-fourth Idaho Legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives concurring therein, That the Congress of the United States expeditiously pass, and propose to the legislatures of the several states for ratification, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring, in the absence of a national emergency, that the total of all federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, the congressional delegation representing the state of Idaho in the Congress of the United States, and to the Secretary of State and the presiding officers of both houses of the Legislatures of each of the other states in the Union. [Exhibit 2] Open Letter From State Legislators to Congress Dear Member of Congress: As members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) we would like to take this opportunity to welcome the 105th Congress. It is both an exciting and challenging time to be an elected official in this great nation. During the next few years, you will be faced with many historic opportunities to advance the American dream of freedom, opportunity and prosperity. But none will be as significant as enacting and sending to the states for ratification a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment. As state legislators who must balance our state budgets each year, we understand the difficult choices you will face. Unfortunately, as the past 29 years have shown, it has been impossible for past Congresses to withstand the political pressure of special interests and make the tough choices necessary to balance the budget. Clearly, the federal budget process is broken and needs fixing. As the experience in the states shows, balanced budget amendments work, and a federal Balanced Budget Amendment is the only way to guarantee the fiscal integrity of this nation and a solvent future for our children and grandchildren. Therefore, we call on you to exercise the courage and fiscal responsibility to stand up to the special interests who are willing to place their interests ahead of the nation's future. We hope that the 105th Congress will make the Balanced Budget Amendment its first priority. The nation cannot afford to wait. The federal government cannot continue to borrow from future generations to pay for current consumption. If deficit spending is not curbed now, when it can be done sensibly and gradually, it will have to be done under desperate circumstances. The only way to ensure that programs like Social Security and Medicare are there for us and our children is to set a course of fiscal responsibility today. As you may know, ALEC is the nation's largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators, with nearly 3,000 members. ALEC is dedicated to the Jeffersonian principles of individual liberty, limited government and the free enterprise system. We believe that reducing the devastating $5 trillion national debt is central to these principles and critical to the strength of the nation's economy. The historic opportunity to provide a brighter, more prosperous future lies in your hands. We in the states are up to the challenge and ready to ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment. This is not about whether you are a Democrat or Republican or a liberal or conservative--this is about what you must do for the future of this great nation. It is up to you to make the right choice for this country, the fiscally responsible choice--pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. (Signed by 572 State Legislators.)

Mr. CRAIG. Idaho is not the only State in the Union with wise citizens who have requested Congress send them a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Yesterday, along with a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives, I accepted a letter delivered by the bipartisan American Legislative Exchange Council in which nearly 600 State legislators from across the country urge Congress to approve a Federal BBA. These State representatives have eloquently articulated the momentous nature of, and need for, the BBA. They state that we ``will be faced with many historic opportunities to advance the American dream of freedom, opportunity and prosperity. But none will be as significant as enacting and sending to the states for ratification a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment.'' Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of the American Legislative Exchange Council's Open Letter from State Legislators to Congress be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, during this year's debate on the balanced budget constitutional amendment the Senate Republican Policy Committee prepared more than 20 papers to assist Republican Senators with our deliberations. Some of these papers have particular importance for the constitutional and political debate which has been going on for decades and which is going to continue. I ask unanimous consent that several of these papers be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague from Utah for the tremendous leadership he has displayed. I yield the floor. (Mr. Kyl assumed the chair.)

Mr. CRAIG. The question of whether Congress should pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is one of the few truly momentous votes facing this country and the Congress today. The decision we face is in a class of votes like that of a declaration of war. The vote this afternoon will be a vote to end a war. For more than 28 years, the national debt and the special interest groups that feed off the taxpayers have waged a war against our economy and, most importantly, a brutal war against the integrity of the investment of the senior citizens and the opportunity of our children and our Nation's future. The spoils of that war is a $5.3 trillion debt. That debt fuels inflation and squeezes the senior community that lives on fixed incomes. That debt already depresses wages and living standards of the working families. More than one-half of all personal income taxes paid--let me repeat that, Mr. President--more than one-half of all personal income taxes that are paid today go to pay interest on debt alone. The costs of unbalanced budgets will be the most oppressive to our children. A child born today will pay nearly $200,000 in additional taxes, not to pay down the debt, but to pay interest on that debt. Under today's trends, when a child born today is fully grown and reaches his or her most productive years, not just the Government, but the entire economy could well be in bankruptcy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts it this way: The Federal ``debt would exceed levels the economy could reasonably support.'' In other words, somehow, a generation from now, we could actually see that generation having to jettison a debt under a declaration of bankruptcy as a nation. That should not be allowed to happen, and this Congress and this Senate this afternoon have an opportunity to make the kind of change that is needed. We can offer to the American people an opportunity for them to debate this issue and, in every State's capital around the Nation, reclaim their authority over their central Government, by placing into the Constitution the restriction and the positive guidelines that this and every Congress must balance its budget. Some who vote ``no'' today may claim that they want a balanced budget, or even a balanced budget amendment. They may use some other amendment as an excuse. But it should be said, and it should be said often, until the vote occurs this afternoon, a ``no'' vote today is a vote for the status quo, which means a growing Federal debt and a borrow-and-spend policy that has dominated this Government and this Congress for well over 30 years. No wonder our former colleague Paul Simon calls it ``fiscal child abuse'' to continue this binge of borrow-and-spend. This is a moral issue. The money being borrowed and spent today belongs to our children. They will pay the bill for years of profligate spending. Thomas Jefferson said it well: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me say to the Senator from Arkansas, if our Founding Fathers were here today, they would suggest that Thomas Jefferson was right. They would also have suggested that tinkering with the Constitution gave us the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery. I know the Senator from Arkansas would agree with me that it was a good amendment. He would probably also agree that the 19th amendment, when Congress tinkered with the idea that women should have a right to vote, was the right thing to do. Tinkering, generationally, has produced 27 amendments to our Constitution that, my guess is, the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Idaho would agree were generally the right things to do at those times in our Nation's history. Mr. President, I rise in support today of what could become the 28th amendment to our Constitution. Let me thank the leadership that has worked so hard on this. Of course, there is Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; our majority leader, Trent Lott; majority whip, Don Nickles; the President pro tempore; certainly, the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan; Senator Graham from Florida; the Senator from Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun. They deserve recognition for bringing this critical issue to the floor. It is not a sunshine amendment. I first helped introduce this in 1982. It will not go away tomorrow. If we fail today, we will be back next year and the next and the next, until the American people gain their wish, which is to convince this Congress, with the power of the Constitution, that we should become fiscally responsible. Let me also recognize the national, grass roots coalition that was formed under the leadership of Al Cors of the National Taxpayers Union in support of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from that coalition be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. In speaking in morning business this morning, I want to express my concern, actually for the first time, on an issue that has been brewing publicly and not so publicly for well over 2 months now. As the Senate struggles to try to develop a mechanism under which we can effectively investigate the alleged wrongdoing at the White House as it relates to Presidential campaign fundraising, the issue gets larger and larger by the day. Yesterday, I finally believed it was time to speak out in relation to the Justice Department appointing independent counsel. I say so because it is obvious to me now that the public does not want the Congress to grind itself into gridlock and partisan fracturing in an effort to do what it should responsibly do, and that is investigate alleged wrongdoing or violations of law on the part of the executive branch. Be that as it may, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are also finding themselves in what I believe to now be a most embarrassing situation, having to argue that we probably ought not to do this, or to reduce the scope of what we should legitimately do, all in defense of a President who, by the hour, appears to be increasingly more involved in what is allegedly wrongdoing or violation of Federal campaign law. So, yesterday, I asked the Attorney General in a press release to appoint independent counsel and to move ahead with what she and the Justice Department must responsibly and rightfully do. The New York Times editorialized, and they said this: Janet Reno's insistence that she is waiting for creditable evidence before appointing an independent counsel has now reached a point of mindlessness. By the standards that applied to the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations, the threshold for appointing an independent counsel has been reached and passed. If she will but look, Ms. Reno will see a pervasive pattern of reckless behavior and an array of suspicious incidents that cry out for an independent counsel. That editorial went on to say--it speaks of the White House, and it says: Presidents and their White House aides are inevitably involved in campaign planning, as certainly U.S. Senators are in the planning of their campaigns. But, by openly bartering Presidential invitations for political contribution and by relentlessly mixing official and political, this administration has gone so far beyond the normal rules of political behavior and the traditional interpretation of Federal law that even so dogged a Democrat as Pat Moynihan. . . . And so on and so forth. And it speaks again for Ms. Reno to appoint that independent counsel. This morning in the Washington Times, again, headlines, ``Reno Not Ready for Outside Probe.'' My question today is to Ms. Reno. When will you be ready? When there is a massive public outcry of wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing? When the evidence piles so high at the door of the White House that you cannot step across the threshold to go see your friend, the President, Mr. Clinton? Ms. Reno, wake up. Listen to what is being said in public. It is time to act. It is time we develop an independent counsel, bipartisan, nonpartisan, to investigate what is now verging on a major scandal. Someone asked me while I was traveling in Idaho last week, ``Why is the President out advocating campaign finance reform when it appears that he is the greatest violator?'' I said, ``There is an old adage that those who sin the most are the first to the altar.'' We find it increasingly embarrassing to read in the newspapers everyday that somehow the White House, the very image of this country, was used for personal gain in a way that no other President has used it. So, once again, today I call on the Attorney General to do what she must responsibly do. The allegations grow by the day. Ms. Reno, do what you should do. Appoint an independent counsel to investigate, in a nonpartisan way, what should be done, for the sake of the Presidency and the White House itself. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Irate Clinton Blasts Moves for Counsel'' be printed in today's Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire, is the Senate in morning business?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. I will not take much more time to discuss the Graham amendment other than the disagreement that he and I might have as relates to the ceiling that is created, and while I would argue that what he wishes to accomplish is impossible to do, and that is a buy down of debt, unless by this whole character of activity here from now until the year 2019 we have changed the whole culture of political pressure in this country and interest group activity, my guess is that the pressure to spend money, if the system would allow it, beyond the balance because of the limit on the debt ceiling, would be great. He and I recognize the tremendously laudable goal of trying to buy down debt, and I think Americans are all asking us, well, if you in fact can get the budget balanced in the timeframe that you are suggesting, does that mean then we are going to get rid of some of this debt, because interest on debt is going to be even higher by the year 2002 than it is today because we are still creating debt. Even under our scenario, as conservative as it is and as damning as this administration thinks it is, we are still going to be creating lots of debt out there because we are still deficit spending. Although ours is declining and the President's is in reality increasing, we are still creating debt. So I do not blame the Senator from Florida for wanting to find a time in which we can buy down debt. I would like to do the same. But his is not an obligation to do that; his is only an opportunity to do that. And therein lies the difference in why I think what we do today is the right thing by not amending the proposed amendment. Social Security is a concern of all of ours and it has been, and you have heard a lot of debate in the Chamber in the last 3 weeks about Social Security. It is a social contract and a financial obligation that we hold to the senior citizens of our country. None of us want to deny it or walk away from it. We want to deal with it responsibly and straightforward and we want to create the fiscal environment in which we can honor that debt. I am one of those who believes that if we fail to balance the budget, there will come a day when we cannot honor that debt. We should not suffer the illusion that a bankrupt government can send checks out. Tragically enough, there are some Social Security recipients who believe that somehow they will be held whole while the rest of the world collapses, the world of a Government that is so badly in debt that it cannot honor its commitments or, more importantly, at a time when the public would simply reject it. Gross interest payments this year reached $344 billion, fiscal year 1996. The debt grows, the mandatory interest payments grow. Here are the figures. Social Security, we spent $347 billion on Social Security this year; gross interest on debt, $344 billion; defense, $266 billion; all the domestic discretionary programs, $248 billion; Medicare, $191 billion; Medicaid, $92 billion; net interest on debt held by public, a subset of gross interest or gross debt, the kind that the Senator from Florida was talking about, $241 billion. The reality of what we do is damning the future of this country, damning the future of the obligations we hold to the seniors of our communities if we fail in balancing the budget. The President, I believe, 12 times in his State of the Union said he was going to produce a balanced budget, and we all held our breath and did not criticize and waited for that budget to come to the Hill. And, voila, the words did not meet the fine print--$120 billion of deficit straight lined until the end of his term and then, guess what? He leaves office and says: Now it is time to do the heavy lifting. You either have to take away the tax cuts I have given or cut spending dramatically. I am sorry, Mr. President. Once again your rhetoric just does not match up to your performance, and that budget does not work, and you have not dealt with a balanced budget in the honest and straightforward way that the Senator from Florida or the Senator from Idaho or the majority of Congress or a supermajority of the American people want us to deal with it. And that is a declining deficit structure to the year 2002 when all of this comes into balance. The reality of the obligation to Social Security does not go away, but the honesty of budgeting materializes, and because we have created a unified budget the real pressure to cut so that we can honor the debt obligation to Social Security is there. We must get our fiscal house in order. We cannot, nor should we ever, allow interest on gross debt to become the greatest single expenditure in the Federal budget, and yet we are clearly headed in that direction. By most reasonable budget guesstimates we have missed that by only $3 billion this year. I know what any good business person or any good analyst of a business would say if the figures were like this in a business. They would say you are out of business; you are bankrupt; you cannot service your debt; you cannot afford to operate in this manner. However, because we can create debt in the nature that we have now for nearly 30 years, we continue. Of course, that obligation gets immediately transferred outward into the future to our children, to our grandchildren, and somehow we are fair weather; we just go on saying we have done our job in a responsible way. I was saddened yesterday that the Senator from New Jersey would not honor his obligation and his verbal commitment to the citizens of his State. That is a tragedy, but he has made his choice. We all make our choices. Those are tough choices. The pressures are great here, but they are not so great as to walk away from your commitment to your citizens, to your public and to the oath of office. What we are trying to do is enshrine within the Constitution an obligation that Thomas Jefferson was so very clear about when he said there should have been an 11th amendment to the Bill of Rights and that was that we could not borrow. Now, we could have borrowed inside the budget but we could not borrow from outside the budget. What we are suggesting is that we cannot borrow from outside the budget. We can borrow from inside the budget, and that is what we are doing now, and that is the unified budget. It does not make the obligation go away. It does not make the legal commitment go away. It does not say to the baby boomers that, when you get ready to retire your check won't be in the mail. What says to the baby boomers that your check may be threatened and may someday not be in the mail is the perpetual increase of debt, that which the Senator from Wyoming pointed out a few moments ago with all of those books stacked before him. It is one budget piled upon another budget piled upon another budget. Regarding half of those 28, half of those 28 budgets, the politicians who assembled them, interestingly enough, had the public tenacity to say they are heading toward balance. For 3 years we have been saying we are headed toward balance. The President's State of the Union Address before the American people assembled: ``I will produce balanced budgets.'' Oh, come on, Mr. President. We have read the fine print. You do not produce a balanced budget and you are not trying. You raise taxes, you raise revenue, you spend more for new programs, and after you have left office you say, ``Now, if you want to get it balanced, you either raise taxes or you cut spending.'' Big-time stuff, $50- billion, $60-billion-type stuff--tough to do. Most important, he knows it's impossible to do. It is impossible to do unless Senate Joint Resolution 1 is the organic law of the land. It is the Constitution through which the public views its Government and controls its Government and tells its Government what to do. That is the test before us. While the Senator from Florida in a responsible way attempts to address that, I ask that we reject his amendment because of the risk of increasing debt by at least another $1 trillion or more inside what we could definitionally call a balanced budget. We dare not do that to our public. Most important, we dare not allow that kind of latitude in future Congresses. I am not going to be here then. The Senator from Florida is not going to be here then. But his action, my action, the action of this Senate, whether it is on Senate Joint Resolution 1 amended by the Senator from Florida, or if it is left as it is presented, will be the law of the land that dictates to the Congress and to the Senate in the year 2019 or 2028: This is how you operate. These are the parameters within which you must perform, in which you must make priorities for spending. It must be balanced, it must be honest, it must be fair. What we do here is going to be important both in the short term and in the long term. What we do must be honest and must be clear and undefinitional to future Congresses so, just like the first amendment or the second or the third, they are not arbitrary, they are not capricious, they do not create those kinds of actions. They are real and we honor them. So our language must be clear and unambiguous. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join us in opposing the amendment by the Senator from Florida. I do not believe it creates the environment in which we must operate. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for yielding. Let me say at the outset of my comments that I am pleased to join with Senator Graham today in a discussion about an area of the balanced budget amendment that he admits is not necessarily viewed with the kind of critical nature that other parts of the amendment have been. The Senator from Florida has, in a very sincere way, taken a close look at this and tried to offer an alternative that maybe on the outset bears some attractiveness. I was approached by the Senator and in good faith took a detailed look at his amendment, and my reaction in the next few minutes are as follows. I do not question the sincerity at all of the Senator from Florida for what he is attempting to do here, to assure that the trust funds of Social Security are held solvent from his perspective and yet to deal with the issue of debt. Our amendment is straightforward. Section 1 contains the balanced budget rule, total outlays should not exceed total receipts except by a three-fifths vote. Section 6 allows good-faith use of reasonable estimates in planning a balanced budget. In Senate Joint Resolution 1 the numbers match up. The balanced budget rule and the enforcement of that rule correspond with each other. Over the years, as we have worked to refine this amendment, and I must say that the amendment that we have before the Senate has been well over a decade in refinement so that if we enshrine this in the Constitution we believe it will work in a total sense, while I say all of that, section 2 requires a three-fifths vote to increase the limit on debt held by the public. If the Congress balanced the budget every year, the debt held by the public will not increase. That is, in reality, the balanced budget. That is what the public would expect that is what we would accomplish by the language of the amendment. Therefore, freezing the limit on debt held by the public directly enforces honest and accurate estimates to produce a balanced budget. That, of course, is another one of our goals, to engage the executive and the legislative branches, the Office of Management and Budget with the Congressional Budget Office and the appropriate budget members to make as accurate as possible the projections that produce the revenue to offset the expenditures. The relationship among deficit debt and trust funds is important here and this is the crux of the Graham amendment. Debt held by public is Federal debt owed to debtors outside Government. When an official trust fund runs a surplus, by law it must invest the surplus funds in Treasury securities. For example, the Treasury is required to borrow those funds--money moving inside Government, not outside Government. These interagency or intragovernmental borrowings, plus debt held by public, money we borrow from the public with the selling of Treasury notes, is included in gross debt. If the budget is balanced, debt held by public does not change. If the budget is balanced and all trust funds continue to run a surplus, then the gross debt goes up. By the very nature of the money in those surpluses, of those trust funds being loaned to the Government, so the Government general fund, if you will, owes. Therefore, it has debt, debt back to the trust funds. If the budget is balanced and the trust funds run a deficit, the gross debt goes down. That is the frustration of the Graham amendment. Under the Graham amendment the numbers, in my opinion, do not match up. The Graham amendment places a section 2 limit on debt held by the public with a limit on gross debt. That is the crux of his amendment, changing public to gross. Congress can only comply with the section 1 balanced budget rule and still be significantly out of compliance with section 2 limits. That creates the schism, if you will, in the amendment to the Constitution, in my opinion, if the Graham amendment were to become a part of it. Therefore, if Congress precisely balances the budget, then it must either repeatedly muster a three-fifths vote to allow the trust funds to run a surplus, or to avoid a three-fifths vote on the gross debt limit raid and reduce the trust fund surpluses. That would be the ultimate outcome in my opinion of how Congress would have to react to the Graham amendment if it were to become a part. If Congress does not want to reduce the trust fund balance, then it must run large surpluses by cutting spending in the nontrust fund part of the budget or by raising taxes. For the years 2002 to 2007, that means up to $435 billion in additional cuts or taxes, in my opinion. Long-term impact of the Graham amendment on debt and deficit would then be as follows. It would be politically difficult for Congress to continually outperform the balanced budget rule in section 1, that is, run large surpluses. It may be much easier to muster the three-fifths vote to increase the gross debt limit and say it is a ``technicality,'' a ``necessity,'' to allow trust funds to run a surplus; therefore, there will be upward pressure on debt. Senator Graham is right, this is complicated. That is why not a lot of people focus on it. But I disagree with him not only on the frustration of it, but on the outcome of it. Without a section 2 limit on debt held by the public that directly enforces honest and accurate budget estimates, Congress and the President will continue to face political pressure to use the rosy scenario estimates; therefore, it will still be easier to deficit spend. One of the things I believe the amendment that we have introduced on the floor forces is as accurate and as honest estimates as you can get, because if, in fact, you produce a deficit, the ability to move that deficit in the debt is a tough vote, and it really forces the fiscal constraints and the tough decisions that we want our balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to cause this Congress to deal with. Even if the gross debt limit under the Graham amendment remains frozen at $6.7 trillion, as his chart would suggest, it still leaves room to add an additional $2.9 trillion to debt held by the public between the years 2019 and 2029. My argument is simply this, Mr. President, and I will take the Graham chart and simply extend the line, because this is discretionary on the part of the Congress. It is arguable, by his figures, that there is a decline, but the ceiling remains upward. I know the Congress, and I think Senator Graham knows the Congress. If they have room to spend, oh, boy, do they love to spend. That $2.9 trillion gives them that opportunity, to actually increase real debt. So what would happen down here in debt held by the public, potentially, under this? This line turns upward. This category of debt held by the public versus the green category, which is debt held by other trusts, and the red, of course, is the Social Security trust funds, that line begins to move up. In the year 2029, the Graham amendment allows a $6.7 trillion debt, while our amendment as proposed, Senate Joint Resolution 1, allows a $5.8 trillion debt--almost a trillion dollars less. I figure that a trillion dollars is a lot of money, especially when it's borrowed, it's debt, and you are paying interest on it. That is one of the great frustrations we are dealing with today --that finally debt has caught up with us. We used to argue that debt was a good stimulus to the economy and, oh, well, the public owed it to themselves, it was no big deal. But, today, it is the second largest item in the Federal budget, soon to shove them all out if we continue this kind of debt creation under deficit spending. This is why I have to oppose the Graham amendment, because I don't believe that it gets us to where we want to go. I think I now understand what the Senator from Florida tries to do, and it is not a criticism of what he tries to do; it is an observation of what he tries to do. Where I think its weaknesses rest--because, if you talk gross debt but you don't talk debt held by the public, it changes the whole dynamics of the process, as I understand it, and in this outyear period. Somebody might say, ``Senator Craig, why are you worried about 2029?'' We are talking about the 28th amendment to the Constitution. We are talking about a process that we have been well over a decade in trying to create, and it will not be changed easily, or overnight, if it is in error or if the Graham amendment were to become part of it and then we were to find it creates this kind of glitch. We would struggle for decades trying to solve that, with the potential of increasing the debt structure by well over a trillion dollars. The last I checked, interest on a debt of a trillion dollars is significant--probably around $50 billion a year. That is the reality of the amendment, as I see it, and certainly I stand to be corrected. Of course, he knows his amendment a great deal better than I. I tried to study it because I knew the Senator was sincere in his effort to deal with this in a legitimate way and at the same time recognize, as we all want to recognize, the protection of the trust funds, which now help finance the debt structure of this country. I believe, if you keep it within the unified budget, if you recognize all debt, then you create the kind of honesty that you must play with in a sincere and direct way and force both the executive branch of our Government and the legislative branch of our Government, in each and every budget cycle, to produce the kind of honest estimates that drive the budget process to produce actual spending at or near balance on an annualized basis. With those comments, I stand in opposition to the Graham amendment and certainly urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Kennedy amendment points to a problem that doesn't exist and then solves it with a loophole. Why are we debating the balanced budget amendment in the first place? Because past Congresses have built up a national debt of more than $5.3 trillion, in an abuse of their power of the purse. So what does the Kennedy amendment prescribe? It says, let's put the fox in charge of the henhouse. It says Congress doesn't have to comply with this amendment unless it wants to. It says, if Congress says it is complying with this amendment, then no one else can question that. I do believe Members of Congress take their constitutional responsibilities seriously. I do believe that most Members really would prefer balanced budgets to running up another $5 trillion in debt. But I don't believe that every particle of every possibility of independent review should be removed from this amendment. We will win the war against debt, the war for our economic future the same way we won the cold war: Not by fighting, but by being strong enough to deter. We need to defeat the Kennedy amendment to keep the balanced budget amendment strong enough to deter future fiscal abuse. Senator Hatch has spoken eloquently about the legal precedents and judicial doctrines that demonstrate there will not be a problem with judicial activism under Senate Joint Resolution 1. I will only touch on the broadest of those. In our Constitution today, we have something called separation of powers among the three branches of government. It already gives Congress exclusive power of the purse, saying, ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. * * * '' Only the Congress can make law; only the Congress can decide how to spend money. It already gives Congress exclusive power to tax. It says, ``All bills to raise revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. * * *'' Only the Congress can tax, founded upon the Revolutionary War principle of ``No taxation without representation.'' It already gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, in article III of the Constitution. It already gives Congress the power to limit, by law, what budgetary actions the President can take, as it did in the Impoundment Control and Budget Act of 1976, as it did in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and as it did in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. The balanced budget amendment does not in any way change the current balance of power among the three branches of Government. It does not grant the courts or the President any power they don't already have. To clarify the matter, the amendment already says, in section 6, ``The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation. * * *'' But, in some very limited cases, the possibility of outside review should be left open. For example: Under our Constitution, the courts have already addressed the issue of whether a bill that originated in the Senate, and had the incidental effect of increasing revenues, should have originated in the House. Similarly, under Senate Joint Resolution 1, if the Congress passed a bill to increase taxes by voice vote, instead of a majority of the whole number on a rollcall vote, and claimed the bill would not raise taxes, it is fair and reasonable for the Supreme Court to say, no, that bill is unconstitutional, and it is struck down. Under Senate Joint Resolution 1, let's say some future Congress set up a shell game to get around the 3/5 vote on the debt limit. Perhaps they could set up a super Fannie Mae that borrows from the public, and then lends to the Treasury. It is fair and reasonable for the Supreme Court to say, no, that is an obvious attempt to subvert the Constitution, and it is struck down. In no case, under this amendment, would--or could--the courts rewrite the details of a budget or order a tax increase. They simply couldn't, period. But the courts could do what they do today: If a case is obvious, if a party has specific standing, if a controversy is justiciable, and if the political question doctrine does not apply-- Then the Court could look at an act of Congress, or an action of the Executive, and say, no, that violates the Constitution. Stop. Do not pass ``Go''. Do not collect $200 billion. Start over again. In short, the rule has been, ought to be, that the Court can simply say what the law is, not make new law. Some may raise the specter of the Missouri versus Jenkins court case. But that case, however dubious on its own merits, has nothing in common with the arguments being raised here. In that case, a Federal court ordered a local school district to raise revenues to pay for a federally mandated desegregation plan. In other words, the Federal court was ordering someone else to comply with Federal law. That case had nothing to do with Congress, with Federal taxes or with constitutional separation of powers. Finally, the Kennedy amendment would only feed public cynicism. When the Senate adopted a less sweeping limitation on judicial review in the last Congress, the Nunn amendment, I heard from Idahoans who felt that that amendment had put the fox in charge of the henhouse. People will realize that the Kennedy amendment says, the same branch of government that has run up $5.3 trillion in debt should be the sole arbiter of what does, and what does not, comply with a rule against running up another $5 trillion. The Kennedy amendment is being offered by opponents of the balanced budget amendment, not to improve it, but in an attempt to kill it. The amendment should be defeated.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Public Law 94-199, designating the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, was signed into law December 31, 1975. Section 10 of the act recognizes that the use of both motorized and nonmotorized river craft are valid activities on the Snake River within the recreation area. The language seems clear. However, assurances by the Congress and the Forest Service 22 years ago that the long-established and traditional use of motorized river craft would be continued are now being callously disregarded by the agency. The most recent indication of this attitude has arisen during a review and revision of the river management plan for the NRA. Despite the lack of any demonstrable resource problems, and in the face of overwhelming public support for motorized river craft, the agency has again decided to close part of the river to powerboats. The new river management plan would close the heart of the canyon to motorized river craft for 21 days during the peak of the recreation season. Such a closure would also prohibit traditional motor use of the wild river segment to reach privately-owned lands within the scenic river segment of the NRA. The revised management plan is still in dispute as the result of appeals filed by commercial motorized river users. The vast majority of people, over 80 percent, who recreate in the Hells Canyon segment of the Snake River do so by motorized river craft. Some are private boaters, but most travel with commercial guides on scenic tours. This popular form of recreation is accomplished with a minimum of impact to the river, the land or other resources. Most river users, motorized and non-motorized, are willing to share the river. However, a small group of non-motorized users objects to seeing powered craft even though they have a rich choice of nonmotorized alternatives in this geographic area, such as the Selway and Middle Fork of the Salmon Rivers. Motorized users, however, don't have that luxury. The only other white water rivers open to them in the entire Wild and Scenic River System are portions of the Rogue and Salmon Rivers. Without a single doubt, the Hells Canyon portion of the Snake River is our Nation's premier whitewater power boating river. Mr. President, the Snake River is different from most rivers in the Wild and Scenic System. It is a high-volume river with a long and colorful history of use by motorized river craft. The first paying passengers to traverse its rapids on a motor boat made their journey on the 110-foot Colonel Wright in 1865. Later, the 136-foot Shoshone made its plunge through the canyon from Boise to Lewiston in 1870 and was followed by the 165-foot Norma in 1895. Gasoline-powered craft began hauling people, produce, and supplies in and out of the canyon in 1910, and the first contract for regular mail delivery was signed in 1919, continuing today. The Corps of Engineers began blasting rocks and improving channels in 1903. They worked continuously until 1975 to make the river safer for navigation. Mr. President, as you can see, the use of motorized river craft is deeply interwoven in the history, traditions, and culture of Hells Canyon. That is why Congress deliberately created a non-wilderness corridor for the entire length of the river in the authorizing legislation. During debate, Congress tried to make it clear that use of both motorized and nonmotorized river craft would be valid uses of the river within the recreation area--the entire river for the entire year. It was not their intent in 1975 to allow the managing agency to decide that one valid use would prevail to the exclusive use over the other. Quite clearly, the issue of power boating's validity will not be settled unless decided by the courts or unless Public Law 94-199 is clarified by Congress. The courts are already burdened by too many cases of this type, resulting in a waste of time, energy, and financial resources for both the United States and its citizens. The only practical and permanent resolution of this issue is to clarify congressional intent in a manner that will not allow any future misunderstanding. This is what I propose to do with this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Public Law 94-199, designating the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, was signed into law December 31, 1975. Section 10 of the act recognizes that the use of both motorized and nonmotorized river craft are valid activities on the Snake River within the recreation area. The language seems clear. However, assurances by the Congress and the Forest Service 22 years ago that the long-established and traditional use of motorized river craft would be continued are now being callously disregarded by the agency. The most recent indication of this attitude has arisen during a review and revision of the river management plan for the NRA. Despite the lack of any demonstrable resource problems, and in the face of overwhelming public support for motorized river craft, the agency has again decided to close part of the river to powerboats. The new river management plan would close the heart of the canyon to motorized river craft for 21 days during the peak of the recreation season. Such a closure would also prohibit traditional motor use of the wild river segment to reach privately-owned lands within the scenic river segment of the NRA. The revised management plan is still in dispute as the result of appeals filed by commercial motorized river users. The vast majority of people, over 80 percent, who recreate in the Hells Canyon segment of the Snake River do so by motorized river craft. Some are private boaters, but most travel with commercial guides on scenic tours. This popular form of recreation is accomplished with a minimum of impact to the river, the land or other resources. Most river users, motorized and non-motorized, are willing to share the river. However, a small group of non-motorized users objects to seeing powered craft even though they have a rich choice of nonmotorized alternatives in this geographic area, such as the Selway and Middle Fork of the Salmon Rivers. Motorized users, however, don't have that luxury. The only other white water rivers open to them in the entire Wild and Scenic River System are portions of the Rogue and Salmon Rivers. Without a single doubt, the Hells Canyon portion of the Snake River is our Nation's premier whitewater power boating river. Mr. President, the Snake River is different from most rivers in the Wild and Scenic System. It is a high-volume river with a long and colorful history of use by motorized river craft. The first paying passengers to traverse its rapids on a motor boat made their journey on the 110-foot Colonel Wright in 1865. Later, the 136-foot Shoshone made its plunge through the canyon from Boise to Lewiston in 1870 and was followed by the 165-foot Norma in 1895. Gasoline-powered craft began hauling people, produce, and supplies in and out of the canyon in 1910, and the first contract for regular mail delivery was signed in 1919, continuing today. The Corps of Engineers began blasting rocks and improving channels in 1903. They worked continuously until 1975 to make the river safer for navigation. Mr. President, as you can see, the use of motorized river craft is deeply interwoven in the history, traditions, and culture of Hells Canyon. That is why Congress deliberately created a non-wilderness corridor for the entire length of the river in the authorizing legislation. During debate, Congress tried to make it clear that use of both motorized and nonmotorized river craft would be valid uses of the river within the recreation area--the entire river for the entire year. It was not their intent in 1975 to allow the managing agency to decide that one valid use would prevail to the exclusive use over the other. Quite clearly, the issue of power boating's validity will not be settled unless decided by the courts or unless Public Law 94-199 is clarified by Congress. The courts are already burdened by too many cases of this type, resulting in a waste of time, energy, and financial resources for both the United States and its citizens. The only practical and permanent resolution of this issue is to clarify congressional intent in a manner that will not allow any future misunderstanding. This is what I propose to do with this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding. I stand in opposition to the Torricelli amendment. I think it is critically important we maintain a unified budget to assure fiscal solvency and responsibility in this country. I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Iowa for the tremendously important statement he has made. I am amazed at what I think many of us would call gimmickry when it comes to the legitimate and responsible debate over the balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. There is not a Senator on this floor who is not committed to upholding the fiscal integrity and the solvency of the Social Security system of our country. Many of us have voted to do that time and time again, and those votes have produced, in fact, a strong, stable, and secure system to ensure supplemental income for the senior community of our country. But that does not deny us the responsibility of being fiscally responsible. The amendment of my colleague from Nevada, while I believe he is sincere, is frustrating to me and at times angry, that it appears at this moment, by press conferences recently held, that there is an effort to game this issue, much like the administration attempted to game Medicare in the last election, when this Congress was legitimately and responsibly involved in trying to save and secure our Medicare system, a system that provides a critical need for the senior community of our country. There is absolutely nothing, in my opinion, in the years I have studied the balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, and I find myself reasonably knowledgeable as it relates to the budget itself, that you should separate any portion of the budget from its responsibility of being balanced under a unified budget. The week before last, prior to the recess, we saw many of our colleagues on the other side of this issue rush to the floor, claiming that the Congressional Research Service memo confirmed their argument and confirmed their logic that somehow Social Security had to be removed from this amendment, or this proposed amendment. The Congressional Research Service came back with these words: ``We have been and are being misrepresented in what we believe to be our findings of the facts and our interpretation.'' If this is so, then there is reason to be frustrated and there is reason to be a little angry that some would game the system, actually attempting, in my opinion, to distort what is, in fact, the representation of the Congressional Research Service. While I at times have taken legitimate criticism directed toward the Congressional Research Service, I have not tried to say what they said is not what they said that somebody else said. That, of course, is part of the argument that some are using now with the issue of Social Security. Oh, it is a way out and it is a way to hide. It is a way to hide from the legitimate vote, up or down, on a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Why should you be frightened of it? If you are not for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, vote no. If you really do not believe in it, vote no. If you believe in deficit spending, vote no. But don't try the gimmickry that we have seen. I will repeat the use of that word. We have seen a multitude of amendments come to the floor, and if each one of them had been attached to the constitutional amendment, three- quarters of the Federal budget would be off-budget again, outside of a balanced budget amendment, and able to run free and in deficit for any length of time the Congress so chose. I don't believe that is the intent of the Congress itself. I do believe we are listening to the American people at this moment. And, again, the President eloquently, and I believe 12 or 13 times, in his State of the Union Address, said he was sending up a balanced budget. We all, quietly, appropriately, and respectfully, waited for his budget to come to the Hill. We got it, but I must say that it is not in balance. It is a $120 billion deficit across the board. Yet, he calls that balanced. Mr. President, get a new set of glasses. I know you are getting to be middle-aged. You better get bifocals because the fine print says that isn't what you are saying. Of course, after he leaves office, then the tough cuts are made to argue his point of a balanced budget, or the tax relief he has proposed would simply be taken away. Social Security deserves to be a legitimate and responsible part of the total budget. This job I hold, to which I have sworn an oath of office, also makes me a member of the board of directors of the Social Security system, in essence. The Senator from Nevada and I are dedicated to the long-term stability of the Social Security system. Taking it off budget, allowing it to run deficits, disallowing its responsible and reasonable management through the budget process, does not make a lot of sense. I don't argue separate accounting, I don't argue the legitimate approach that shows or demonstrates to the Social Security recipients what is legitimately his or hers. That is all right and responsible, and we can agree on that. But I suggest that the amendment before us is subterfuge, that it does not resolve the problem. Social Security officials have continually said, ``How do you save Social Security?'' You balance the budget. A bankrupt Government is not going to write a check to anybody in any way. It is a Government who is fiscally responsible, a Government whose budgets are balanced, that can write Social Security checks. It is not independent of any portion of the Federal Government, and it must be taken in the whole of the context of that Government. I am disappointed to have to address what are blatant scare tactics that some groups are using on the balanced budget amendment and Social Security. Recently, we were hit with a press item that claimed the Congressional Research Service had issued a memo confirming a so-called study by an outside advocacy group--the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--concerning Social Security and the balanced budget amendment. This group has always opposed the balanced budget amendment and consistently opposed reducing the deficit with meaningful domestic spending restraint. I say I am disappointed, but I am also angry. I hate to say it, but what CRS actually said has been misrepresented. I have not read everyone's press releases, so I simply assume it was that outside group that was overreaching. CRS did not endorse any study or paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. CRS did not reach the same conclusion that the balanced budget amendment would in any way impair drawing down the Social Security trust fund surpluses to pay promised benefits when the time came. We've all heard the term ``G-I-G-O--garbage in, garbage out.'' CRS apparently was handed a narrowly written request. They responded, appropriately, with a technically precise memo on February 5. Others released that memo to the press on February 12. Part of what CFR said was misrepresented and part was left out. The CRS memo was about accounting. It was about what would and would not be included in the calculations of a budget deficit, surplus, or balance under Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. But the spin from opponents of the balanced budget amendment was that the amendment might cause some Social Security checks to be held up. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But the original CRS memo was written in technical language. That made it easy for someone to fabricate a scare story about what it meant. On February 12, CRS issued a clarifying memo, also technically precise. They told my staff that, clearly, there was what they charitably called ``a misunderstanding.'' First of all, let's be clear: The first CRS memo talks about the year 2019 and after. Curiously, I have not seen much about that date, 22 years from now, in press reports. We might be tempted to think the intent was to scare today's senior citizens about their Social Security. Now, what happens in the year 2019? Social Security outlays are projected to start exceeding receipts. Under the balanced budget amendment, the rest of the Government would have to run a surplus to make sure the overall budget is balanced. That is good--it means that, in the long run, assuming for the moment no other reforms are made in the meantime, the balanced budget amendment would make sure we do not abandon our commitment to Social Security beneficiaries. The real balanced budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, requires us to make sure that a non-Social Security surplus covers any Social Security deficit in the future. That is good for seniors, good for Social Security, and good for the economy. So, it all sounds like scare tactics to me. When you are losing on substance, terrorize the senior citizens. Let us look at what CRS really said: In its original February 5 memo, CRS said, ``(T)his does not mean that Social Security benefits could not be paid, if the rest of receipts into the Treasury for a particular year exceed outlays, this amount could be used to offset the Social Security deficit.'' Well, this is exactly what our balanced budget amendment requires-- that those other, non-Social Security accounts run a surplus. That would protect seniors. The February 5, CRS memo continues, ``And of course, tax or expenditure provisions, or both, could be altered to create a new balance.'' Well, that's exactly what the President's Advisory Council, and the minority leader, and others have talked about. Those are the parts of the original CRS memo that get left out when balanced budget amendment opponents quote that memo. Now, let us look at the February 12, CRS memo: We are not (CRS emphasizes ``not'') concluding that the Trust Funds surpluses could not be drawn down to pay beneficiaries. The BBA would not require that result. . . . Only if no other receipts in any particular year could be found would the possibility of a limitation on drawing down the Trust Funds arise. In other words, if the Federal Government was otherwise totally broke would this possibility arise. And of course, we know the way to prevent the Government from going totally broke: Pass the balanced budget amendment. It has been said here on the floor that CRS did not change its original position. That is right. Its original position has been misunderstood and misrepresented. I see my colleague from Texas has arrived, and I believe he has the time until 12:30 under a unanimous-consent request. My guess is if his comments extend beyond that, he can find the cooperation of some of our colleagues here on the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask that a eulogy written in honor of President George Washington be printed in the Record in recognition of President's Day on Monday, February 17. My constituents from Cocolalla, ID, brought this piece to my attention, and I believe it is an appropriate tribute to our first President. The eulogy follows: Washington, The Defender of his Country, The Founder of Liberty, The Friend of Man History and Tradition are explored in vain For a Parallel to his Character. In the Annals of Modern Greatness He stands alone, And the noblest Names of Antiquity Lose their Lustre in his Presence. Born the Benefactor of Mankind, He was signally Endowed with all the Qualities Appropriate to his Illustrious Career, Nature made him great, And, Heaven-directed, He made himself Virtuous. Called by his Country to the Defence of her Soil, And the Vindication of her Liberties, He led to the Field Her Patriot Armies; And, displaying in rapid and brilliant succession The United Powers Of Consummate Prudence and Heroic Valor, He triumphed in Arms Over the most powerful Nation of Modern Europe; His Sword giving Freedom to America, His Counsels breathing Peace to the World. After a short repose From the tumultuous Vicissitudes Of a sanguinary War, The astounding Energies of Washington Were again destined to a New Course Of Glory and Usefulness. The Civic Wreath Was spontaneously placed By the Gratitude of the Nation On the Brow of the Deliverer of his Country. He was twice solemnly invested With the Powers of Supreme Magistracy, By the Unanimous Voice of A Free People; And in his Exalted and Arduous Station, His Wisdom in the Cabinet Transcended the Glories of the Field. The Destinies of Washington Were now complete. Having passed the Meridian of a Devoted Life, Having founded on the Pillars Of National Independence The Splendid Fabric Of a Great Republic, And having firmly Established The Empire of the West, He solemnly deposited on the Altar of his Country His Laurels and his Sword, And retired to the Shades Of Private Life. A Spectacle so New and so Sublime, Was contemplated by Mankind With the Profoundest Admiration; And the Name of Washington, Adding new Lustre to Humanity, Resounded To the remotest Regions of the Earth. Magnanimous in Youth, Glorious through Life, Great in Death, His highest Ambition The Happiness of Mankind, His noblest Victory The Conquest of Himself. Bequeathing to America The Inheritance of his Fame, And building his Monument In the Hearts of his Countrymen, He Lived, The Ornament of the Eighteenth Century; He Died, Lamented by a Mourning World.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a series of five workshops have been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management to exchange ideas and suggestions on the proposed ``Public Land Management Responsibility and Accountability Restoration Act.'' The first workshop will take place on Tuesday, February 25, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The topic for this workshop will be titles I (part A), III, and V focusing on how we would restructure the resource management planning, eco- region planning, and Resource Planning Act systems. The second workshop will take place on Wednesday, February 26, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The topic for this workshop will be subpart B title II which addresses changes to administrative appeals and judicial review procedures. The third workshop will take place on Wednesday, March 5, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The topic for this workshop will deal with administrative and related provisions of title IV. The fourth workshop will take place on Thursday, March 6, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The topic of this workshop will be mechanisms for transfer of management responsibility of Federal lands to the States in Title VI. The fifth and final workshop will take place on Tuesday, March 25, in the State of Idaho. The exact time and place have not been determined, but will be announced in a subsequent notice. This workshop will deal with title II, which addresses coordination and compliance with other environmental laws. Testimony at these workshops is by invitation only. They are open to the public and the press. For further information please write to the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510 or call Mark Rey or Judy Brown of the subcommittee staff at (202)-224-6170. committee on small business

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand those Senators will be on the floor in a few moments. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing on behalf of myself and my cosponsors Senators Bryan, Cochran, and Bennett, a bill to reauthorize the highly successful National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. The act established a cooperative geologic mapping program among the U.S. Geological Survey, State geological surveys, and geological programs at institutions of higher education in the United States. The goal of this program is to accelerate and improve the efficiency of detailed geologic mapping of critical areas in the Nation by coordinating and using the combined talents of the three participating groups. Detailed geologic mapping is an indispensable source of information for a broad range of societal activities and benefits, including the delineation and protection of sources of safe drinking water; assessments of coal, petroleum, natural gas, construction materials, metals, and other natural resources; understanding the physical and biological interactions that define ecosystems, and that control, and are a measure of environmental health; identification and mitigation of natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, subsidence, and other ground failures; and many other resource and land-use planning requirements. Only about 20 percent of the Nation is mapped at a scale adequate to meet these critical needs. Additional high-priority areas for detailed geologic mapping have been identified at State level by State-map advisory committees, and include Federal, State, and local needs and priorities. Funding for the program has been incorporated in the budget of the U.S. Geological Survey. State geological surveys and university participants receive funding from the program through a competitive proposal process that requires 1:1 matching funds from the applicant. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me to ensure the continued efficient collection and availability of this fundamental earth-science information.