Larry Craig

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.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. President, the Dodd amendment is more loophole than law. Whatever the Senator's intentions, this amendment actually would put a two-step loophole in the balanced budget amendment and in the Constitution: Step one: Declare a military threat with a simple majority; Step two: Deficit spend as much as you want, on whatever you want. That's it. The plain words of this amendment actually do nothing to help military preparedness. The relevant wording of the amendment, as it would be amended by Senator Dodd's words are as follows: The provisions of this article may be waived for any year in which the United States faces an imminent and serious military threat to national security as declared by a joint resolution. Nothing in the Dodd amendment requires its deficit spending to be dedicated to defense. Nothing in the Dodd amendment requires its deficit spending to be dedicated to meeting the ``imminent and serious military threat.'' After declaring a military threat, Congress could then vote to cut defense spending--maybe with the argument that a gesture of peace and good will would defuse that imminent military threat. Then Congress could vote, by simple majority, for unlimited deficit spending for any and all non-military spending programs. Would Congress use this loophole cynically as an excuse to deficit spend? I'm reminded of the movie, ``Field of Dreams,'' in which the lead character was told, ``If you build the ball field, they (the players) will come.'' When it comes to the hard choices of balancing the budget, you could say, ``If you build the loophole, they will borrow and spend.'' The Dodd amendment still follows that old, status quo, borrow-and- spend mentality. There are those who really cannot conceive of a world without deficit spending. They believe the American people want to have their cake, eat it too, and send a big credit card bill to the next generation. They believe you can have everything, if only you keep deficit spending. The trouble is, if we don't stop deficit spending, we will lose everything: our prosperity, millions of jobs, economic security for our senior citizens, and the American Dream of a better life for our children. I suggest we really can have an adequately prepared defense and regularly balanced budgets, too. In fact, the more we balance our budgets, the more we will have to spend on defense--and every other priority--because of a healthy, growing economy, because we'll stop devoting about 15 percent of our annual budget just to net interest payments. And, in fact, at the very height of the cold war, during the 15\1/2\ years of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, we still managed to balance the budget 7 times before spending on domestic social programs really took off in the 1960's. The debt is the threat to defense. Escalating interest payments crowd out all other priorities. In 1976, 7.2 percent of the Federal budget went to make interest payments on the Federal debt. In 1996, net interest consumed 15.5 percent of the budget. As a result, Defense and other programs have already felt the budget knife. According to the report of the National Entitlement Commission chaired by our colleague Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, and our former colleague Senator Danforth: By 2012, unless appropriate policy changes are made in the interim, projected outlays for entitlements and interest on the national debt will consume all tax revenues collected by the federal government. That means no money left for defense--or capital investment, education, the environment, national forests and parks, law enforcement, science, or other domestic discretionary programs. The balanced budget amendment is the best friend our national defense could have. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that moving toward a balanced budget during fiscal year 1998-2002 will reduce Federal debt service costs over that period by $36 billion and improve economic performance enough to produce a ``fiscal dividend'' of another $77 billion in revenues and interest rate savings, making more money available over the long-term for priorities within a balanced budget. Committing to a balanced budget--and it's not a convincing commitment without this constitutional amendment--actually helps pay for itself. The balanced budget amendment places trust in the people--the Dodd amendment distrusts the people. I am willing to risk my priorities under a balanced budget. That's the whole point of balancing the budget--it requires us to set priorities. When former Senator Simon used to join us on this floor in sponsoring the Balanced Budget Amendment, he was quite clear in his priorities under a balanced budget: Raise taxes, cut defense, increase social programs. And I have been quite clear in my priorities under a balanced budget: Restrain the overall growth of spending; cut wasteful domestic social programs; safeguard our national defense; and cut taxes to be fairer to families and spur economic growth, if possible. But Paul Simon and I both felt it was so imperative that we require balanced budgets, that we were both willing to risk our individual priorities for the greater good--the economic survival of our Nation and the security of our children. If we balance budget, we take the risk that our individual priorities may or may not prosper. If we don't balance the budget--if we don't pass this amendment--we risk the future of our Nation and our children. I trust the American people to have the right priorities--and to elect Senators and Representatives who reflect those priorities, at last, in a series of balanced budgets. The balanced budget amendment--Senate Joint Resolution 1 unamended-- already takes national security into consideration. Look back at our history. Traditionally, our Nation ran deficits during wars and paid back its debts during peacetime. Senate Joint Resolution 1 would restore exactly that norm of behavior. Only in the last few decades has the Government borrowed and spent in good times and bad, in war, peace, and cold wars. Senate Joint Resolution 1 is careful and precise: A waiver may be had by a simple majority in the case of a declared war. There are serious consequences--both to the people here at home and in terms of international law--when you declare war. It is an act of survival, an act of the highest urgency. Next, Senate Joint Resolution 1 requires a vote by a ``majority of the whole number''--a constitutional majority--to deficit spend if we are actually in a military emergency and engage our armed forces. This is a slightly higher threshold--added by former Senator Heflin, who was both a deficit hawk and a defense hawk--and it is appropriate, since we are talking about a conflict here that is still legally not a declared war. Finally, in all other cases, we require a three-fifths vote to deficit spend because deficit spending has become a cancer on our economy and it should be hard to run up ever-higher debt. Mr. President, what the amendment does, and I think the Senator from Connecticut is well aware, is it returns us to the traditional pattern of defense spending. We used to, in times of war and national emergency, deficit spend only to pay it off afterward because we believed in the fiscal solvency and the fiscal importance of a balanced budget. Somehow, about three decades ago, we went screaming away from that idea. We borrowed through World War I and then we paid it back. We borrowed through World War II, and we worked every effort to pay it back. That is exactly what the constitutional amendment does. In neither of those cases did we find ourself in imminent danger, other than our own philosophy as a nation. But, when it came to rally to the cause of human freedom for this country, we deficit spent. But we paid it back afterward. The tragedy of today is that we fail to recognize that form of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I will state the schedule of today's session. This morning, there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. At 11 a.m. the Senate will resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Under the order, Senator Byrd will be recognized immediately to make a statement regarding the resolution. At the hour of 1:30 today, under a previous consent order, the Senate will resume debate on the pending amendment relating to national security, which was offered by Senator Dodd. Debate on that amendment will be equally divided until 5:30 today, at which time the Senate will proceed to a vote on or in relation to Senator Dodd's amendment. Once again, all Senators can expect a rollcall vote at approximately 5:30 today. Additional votes can be expected during today's session on any further amendments that may be ordered to Senate Joint Resolution 1, or, perhaps, on any available nominations, as well as on one or two Senate resolutions, which we are attempting to clear for consideration. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of Senate Resolution 10, the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to make the following corrections which are at the desk.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of Senator Dodd's amendment to the balanced budget amendment beginning at 1:30 tomorrow. By unanimous consent, the vote will occur on or in relation to the Dodd amendment regarding national security at 5:30 on Wednesday. Additional votes can be expected during Wednesday's session in relation to amendments to Senate Joint Resolution 1, on any nominations that are available, or possibly on one or two Senate resolutions that we are attempting to clear at this time. Again, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation as we attempt to adjourn on Thursday for the Presidents' Day recess.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 12. I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted. I further ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m., with the following Senators to speak during the designated time: From 9:30 until 10, Senator Ashcroft for 15 minutes and Senator Dorgan for 15 minutes; from 10 to 10:30, Senator Daschle or his designee; from 10:30 to 11 o'clock, Senator Thomas or his designee. I further ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senator Byrd be recognized at that time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the leadership has decided there will be no further votes this evening. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate resume consideration of Senator Dodd's amendment regarding national security beginning at 1:30 on Wednesday with the time between 1:30 and 5:30 equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Dodd amendment and, finally, no amendment be in order to the amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, for making a very clear statement of what happens when a country creates the kind of debt which our country has over the last 30 years and the kind of priorities we have to shift to in funding simply to service debt. The Senator from Alaska talked about the impact of interest on debt. Standing here or sitting here or stacked here beside me are 28 budgets, 28 consecutive budgets of the last 28 fiscal years of our Government that have been out of balance. In other words, that have had deficits that got spun into debt that have created the $5.3 trillion debt we have today. As a result of that, in the last fiscal cycle and the one we are currently in and the one we are currently examining, this Senate and the Congress at large is going to have to consider outlays of upwards of $250 billion to $260 billion to pay the interest on this stack of books or, more clearly spoken, on the debt that was generated by the budgets that are housed in this stack of budgets. Of these 28 budgets, 14 of them were intended to be deficit budgets, with no excuse or no apology on the part of the Congress that passed them. But there were the other 14 you would find in the language of the book that would suggest the intent was to balance in the future, or it was designed as a sequence of budgets to balance. Interestingly enough, that is the very debate this Congress and our President are involved in at this moment. In fact, the President was here today in the President's Room just behind the Chamber discussing his budget proposal and the leaders of our Senate were there along with the leaders of the House comparing notes and deciding where they might work together to bridge the gap of the kind of impasse we have had and get to a balanced budget. But it is not a balanced budget. It is one budget of a series of budgets that promises to bring balance by a given time, in this case by the year 2002, as did 14 of these budgets. Mr. President, 28 years later, 14 budgets in deficit and 14 intended to be balanced, we now are faced with the circumstance the Senator from Alaska has spoken about, a $5.3 trillion debt, $250 to $260 billion of interest paid on debt depending on the rate of interest and the amount our notes are negotiated under, under the 3-year cycle under which our notes get renegotiated, and here is the rest of the story. The President, and I do not question his sincerity, presents a budget for fiscal year 1998, of the U.S. Government, that will have about 250 billion dollars' worth of net interest costs, which is about 14.8 percent of the entire Federal budget. Here is what happens in a Government like ours when we have to commit such a phenomenal amount of our resource to interest on debt. Let me give these comparatives. This is work that has been done by our policy committee as an examination of reality because, when we talk about 250 billion dollars' worth of interest on debt, to serve debt, that means that creditors, people who buy our bonds, are owed money. A fair amount of that flows to foreign countries and foreign interest, but a fair amount of it flows to our own citizens and to their stocks and to their trust accounts. But 250 billion dollars' worth of net interest in the President's 1998 fiscal budget is something like this. It is 21 times as much on interest as we are spending on agricultural programs. In other words, our priority in budgeting today is to spend 21 times more on interest than we do on agriculture. So our priority is not agriculture, it is paying our debt. Better spoken, I should say paying our creditors who have loaned us their money to service the debt. What about international affairs? We are the last great superpower of the cold war period. We play an important role in the decisions of the world and our presence oftentimes causes other nations to think differently about how they would conduct their business, both internally and externally. Yet, today, 17 times as much on interest is paid as on international affairs. So, for those of our constituents who say you are spending too much on foreign aid, I would say we are spending 17 times more on debt, interest on debt. Again, clearly spelling out the priorities that we have forced ourselves into as a great nation, simply because we could not control our spending appetite. We pay 11 times as much on interest as on natural resources and the environment. This President, this administration, likes to call itself the environmental administration. And there is not a Senator on this floor who does not want to make sure that Government policy in cooperation with the private sector promotes a positive, cleaner environment. And yet, today, when it comes to priorities of dollars and cents, we pay 11 times more to service the debt created by these 28 budgets as we do on interest rates. Where are our priorities? They are to pay our creditors so we can continue to have debt. We spend 10 times as much on interest as on the administration of justice. That is the Justice Department, that is the FBI, that is our engagement in the war on drugs, that is trying to curtail illicit activities that flow across our borders that somehow damage our citizenry. Yet, if you looked at our budget today, you would say that Congress is more preoccupied with paying interest on debt than they are with protecting our citizens against drugs, if you were to look at the actual expenditure of money. Why? Because 30 years worth of fiscal irresponsibilities have forced us to pay more attention to servicing our debt than the flow of drugs across our borders and the kind of impact they have on our citizens and our children. We pay six times as much on interest as on benefits and services for veterans. A very large veterans group is now visiting our community, this Nation's Capitol. I was just visited by a nice contingent of Veterans of Foreign Wars. This evening, there is a large gathering of hundreds of Veterans of Foreign Wars in this city, men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom. Many of them are concerned about the future of the Veterans Administration and the veterans health care delivery system, and will we honor our commitment to them and to the World War II veterans who are now reaching a peak in their need for health care services? Yet, today, this Government, by the nature of its fiscal irresponsibility of the last 28 years, is going to pay six times more on interest as on the benefits and services to veterans. Is it our priority? It has to be our priority if we are to maintain our fiscal solvency as a nation. We must progressively ignore the true interests and priorities of our country in light of paying our creditors. Four times as much on interest as on education, training, and employment programs; yet our President, in his State of the Union, just this past week prioritized for our Nation and for the decade ahead the issue of our involvement in education at all levels. None of us disputes that priority. All of us recognize that our public schools are in need and, in many instances, they are failing. Yet, today, as we wrestle with the 1998 budget, what will be the first priority? Funding interest on debt created by irresponsible Congresses of the past that generated 5.3 trillion dollars' worth of debt. So where in all of these priorities will education fall? It is not going to be first. It cannot be first. What is first? Paying interest on debt. It has to be taken right off the top. It has to be taken right off the top of Government expenditures, just the way interest on serving the debt in the private sector is taken right off the top of all the money coming in. Because if you do not take it off the top, and you do not pay your debts or your interest on debts, if you do not service your debt you do not borrow any money. You are busted. You are bankrupt. And that, of course, is exactly what has happened to this country. Now, nearing the largest single item in the Federal budget is interest on debt. So when our colleagues stand on the floor and say, as the President said the other night, ``Oh, gee whiz, you guys have the votes and I have the signature. You pass a balanced budget and I will sign it,'' what this President knows and what he clearly has demonstrated in the budget that he has sent to the Hill, is that it is not in balance. It is about $120 to $130 to $140 to $150 billion out of balance for the next 5 years. Then, if he really honors the tax cuts-- which he does not, because he agrees in his budget that he takes them back to fund the deficit to create the balance in the outyears, because he needs more money--what he is really saying is that his budget is not in balance. Why? Partly because of interest on debt. Where does the National Government get $250 billion to pay its interest costs? By adding together all corporate income taxes, that is only $190 billion. Believe it or not, if we choose to double corporate income tax in this country we would just get enough and a little more to pay interest on debt. And all Federal excise taxes--that is $61 billion. I think the point I am making, and the point the Senator from Alaska made, is we do not believe the Congress truly has the will. We do not believe any President, Republican or Democrat, can find the total will to work for, make the tough choices, and get to a balanced budget in the kind of timeframe and with the kind of reasonableness that the American people have demanded of us. That is why I and others so strongly believe we need the kind of constitutional framework to operate within, that creates the kind of political discipline and fiscal discipline to produce a balanced budget. Who do we owe it to? We owe it to a lot of people. But most important, we owe it to future generations, because it is our children and our grandchildren who will pay off the debt. More important, if we continue to create debt without servicing debt, without bringing debt down in the future, more and more of the resources of our young, when they grow to maturity, will have to go to pay the creditor instead of fund the kind of Government they want, or to fund the kind of services they want from Government; but, more important, to keep some of their own money so they can have their own lives and their own families, and have their part of the American dream as our generation has had it. There need not be any pointed finger or accusation as to whose fault these budgets have been, because, while most of them in the 28-year period could be, arguably, Democratic budgets, a fair number of them were Republican budgets. A fair number of them were created under Republican Presidents. All of them were out of balance, and all of them had deficits, and all of them created the $5.3 trillion debt that this country experiences today. So I really think we ought to quit chasing our tail. The arguments that we have heard for the last decade are the same arguments, and the President makes the argument today that is certainly not original that a few Presidents before him have made but all who oppose a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution make. And that is that you cannot tie the hands of Government, that this would be much too rigid, that it would cause conflict within the economy, that it might cause us to not have the priorities in Government that we want. What they are really all saying is that nobody is willing to make the tough choices, and 28 years of budgets clearly demonstrate that. That is why I think it is important that we reflect on the words of Thomas Jefferson who said that if there is 1 more amendment to the 10, the 11th amendment he would have added was to disallow the ability of Government to borrow, because he was fearful of a representative republic being able to vote itself money, and we have done that year in and year out. As a result of that, we are now here wrestling, as all Presidents and Congresses do, with what do we do with the debt, what do we do with the deficit, and where do we find the money to spend on some of these critical programs. The Senator from Alaska is right. When a nation overspends itself, when a Congress no longer prioritizes as to where the limited resources of the tax dollars go, but takes $250 billion right off the top and says that has to go to interest on debt, Mr. President, it is time we change, and that is why many of us have stood on this floor and argued for years that this is the mechanism to bring that change, this is the mechanism to bring the kind of political and fiscal discipline and responsibility that this Congress must have, because there isn't a Senator on this floor who can just vote it without the real discipline that a Constitution brings. So this is why I hope that, in the ensuing days, all of our colleagues join together to support the balanced budget amendment to our Constitution and to give the citizens of this country the right, under the Constitution, to debate the issue in the capitals of their States to determine whether they want to change the organic law of this country to discipline this Government to cause this Government to react in a way that they perceive, as I, to be a much healthier action on behalf of the economy, the citizens and future generations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are under no specific time restraints per side, are we, at this moment?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me first of all react to the Senator from Vermont's inclusion of Jack Kemp's remarks of yesterday into the Record. Jack Kemp does not support our balanced budget because he feels it is not strong enough in one respect; it does not require the tax limitation that Jack Kemp believes is necessary. Over the years I have debated this at length with Congressman Kemp. He knows that what our amendment does is a substantial movement in the right direction. While I would have liked tax limitation over time, we know that is a vote that cannot be won on the floor of the Senate or the House. That is why we have left tax limitation up to the true limiters, and that is the electorate, to decide if a tax increase should produce a change in the makeup of the U.S. Congress. So we are not going to put our Government on automatic pilot, as would be the subtle insinuation of Senator Durbin in arguing that, somehow, this amendment is not flexible enough and therefore we need his majority-vote waiver. Let me talk about putting whims in the budget process, because I believe that is exactly what would be done if you favor the Durbin amendment. It does not require this Senate to make tough choices, and it creates almost an unlimited opportunity for deficit spending. The balanced budget amendment as we have proposed it, and as it has been introduced on the floor of the Senate by Senator Hatch, is flexible enough. It allows deficit spending if 60 percent, or three-fifths of the majority of the Congress, vote that way. If there is a true long- term emergency, the votes will be there to respond to it. Let me cite some examples. The Senator from Illinois knows these examples. He has participated, as have I, in a fair number of them. From 1962 to the present, there have been 12 economic stimulus packages passed by Congress. All 12 have received three-fifths votes in the Congress. So, every time there was a true emergency and collectively the Senate or the House decided it was just that, the three-fifths majority written into this balanced budget amendment was garnered. In other words, when there is legitimacy, and not just the easy pass go that we have had now for decades upon decades, that has built the stack of unbalanced budgets here on this table, but when it was really necessary, the record clearly shows that the support of three-fifths of the Congress was there. Of course, there was one so-called economic stimulus package that did not pass at first. We got involved in a filibuster in 1993 on a so-called stimulus package, but at that time a recovery was already underway. Every economist in the country said, ``We are in a recovery; why are you pumping more deficit spending into the economy and risking a surge of inflation?'' And, of course, we did filibuster, and that deficit spending package failed, largely because it was nickel-and-dime kind of stuff, to build a swimming pool here or paint a mural there or create some kind of make-work somewhere else. It had nothing to do with job training to a great extent, or job creation. Yet some were pushing it, even when economists were saying, ``Yes, in fact, the economy is recovering.'' But even when that first, large bill did not pass in 1993, an overwhelming majority of the Congress still showed compassion for those actually in need; we soon passed a stripped-down bill, which extended unemployment benefits. While we do not use the word ``emergency'' in the balanced budget amendment, clearly an emergency is whatever three-fifths of the Congress term it is. That is a reasonable test of what is a true emergency. So, those 12 economic stimulus packages that I referred to since 1962 were deemed by the Congress to be important enough to garner the three-fifths vote. Therefore the other day, several weeks ago, when the President said, ``If you had a little flexibility in there for a recession,'' and he was visiting with those of us who were proponents of this amendment, then he ``would show some kind of interest in it.'' I said, ``Well, it is there, Mr. President. You need to recognize that we saw those needs and that is why we put inside the amendment the three-fifths requirement that would be necessary to deficit spend.'' Some have said that recessions are often regional, that there are economic areas within our country that fail to respond to recovery, and that economics shifts occur unevenly. They say, without the Durbin amendment, it would be hard to provide relief in those cases. If that is the case, why has there not been why has there not been a long list of regional recession relief bills that have been defeated? Or that have passed only narrowly? No, the Congress has responded in time of need and that is why all of these bills have gotten the three-fifths vote that we thought was a necessary safeguard for this amendment. The Durbin amendment is based on a fundamental mistake. Let me repeat that. The Durbin amendment is based on what I believe to be a fundamental mistake. Regularly balanced budgets do not harm the economy, but saying they do is the mistake he makes. He assumes, as does the Secretary of the Treasury, that somehow balanced budgets are dangerous for the economy, or could create or worsen a downturn. And yet economists, liberal and conservative, argue a that balanced budgets will lead to a sustained 2- to 2.5-percent drop in the overall interest rates. They would create jobs and a higher standard of living. I see that as an economic stimulus. The balanced budget amendment would create economic stimulus. Regularly balanced budgets would help the economy. And yet we still recognized the need for putting into the amendment some flexibility in the case of a recession and Congress needing to respond to it. The Durbin amendment simply guts the balanced budget amendment. It would let a majority waive the requirement for a balanced budget on a whim. It does not require that there be a real recession, merely that Congress declare one. It would not just allow the amount of deficit spending supposedly necessary or unavoidable because of an economic emergency--it would allow unlimited deficit spending. If you go back and look at history, you find that economic growth was greater, and average unemployment was lower, during those periods in which budgets were regularly balanced. In fact, if Congress had passed the balanced budget amendment the first time I voted for it in 1982, the typical family's income would be $15,500 higher today. That is not my number, but was estimated by the Concord Coalition. According to the General Accounting Office, if we balance the budget and keep it balanced, after 20 years, our children's standard of living will be between 7 and 36 percent higher. Deficits are the problem. The debt is the threat to the economic security of our children, our seniors, and those who are vulnerable to changes in the economy. Former Senator Paul Simon brought in liberal economists who told us that the debt and deficit are so big, deficit spending is now useless as an economic stimulus. The evidence does not show that balancing the budget makes recessions more severe. Investors Business Daily pointed last week to a 1986 study the National Bureau of Economic Research that said, when you adjust for the different way data were collected before World War II, prewar and postwar recessions did not really differ significantly in length and severity. While the balanced budget amendment already, with its three-fifths vote requirement, anticipates the need to respond to a serious, long- term economic problem, the Durbin amendment seems concerned with a rapid response to short-term swings. But Congress has a notoriously bad track record when it comes to short-term responses to the economy. Every economic stimulus or anti-recession bill since 1949 was passed by Congress after the recession was over. But the Durbin amendment still requires Congress to vote to waive the balanced budget amendment--meaning it does not allow a prompt response, just an easy evasion. The Durbin amendment has nothing to do with so-called automatic stabilizers. The balanced budget amendment already allows for automatic stabilizers. Section 6 of the balanced budget amendment allows for the honest, good-faith use of estimates in legislation that implements a balanced budget. Read the committee report: If Congress makes good- faith, reasonable estimates of receipts and outlays, and then mid-year changes in the economy cause a temporary deficit, that would not trigger a three to five vote. Unemployment benefit checks, for example, would still go out. The problem is that we now have permanent deficits, in good times as well as bad. Conclusion We do not need a loophole in the balanced budget amendment--like the Durbin amendment. We need to change the bleak status quo. Our $5 trillion debt--growing by more than $8,000 a second--proves that we have a long-term problem. This stack on the Senate floor of the last 28 unbalanced budgets--14 of which promised balance but did not deliver-- demonstrates that this problem requires a permanent solution. If we pass the balanced budget amendment, we will create an economic bill of rights for the 21st century.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me draw to a conclusion my debate on this amendment, because I hope that we can table this amendment. I see no reason to write that kind of language into the Constitution. We have given clearly the kind of flexibility that the Congress has needed in the past to respond. It isn't by accident that we picked three-fifths. When you go back and analyze past actions of Congress and economic stimulus packages that meet the definition of an emergency or what's needed for recessionary recovery, that is exactly what this amendment is designed to respond to. I believe it does, and I hope that our colleagues will join with us in tabling this effort. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me make note of the comments of the Senator from Kansas. They are so appropriate and so well directed at what we can do here as it relates to controlling our spending and modifying programs that do just that and produce long-term benefits. The Senator from Kansas last year, of course, was a major player and author of the Freedom to Farm Act while he was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. That very act changed the whole dynamics of Government policy as it related to farm programs and Government's relationship to production agriculture. He spoke of the net savings in the tens of billions of dollars that will result over an extended period of time. I would guess that less than a few years ago, many Senators and many Members of the U.S. House would have said, ``That can't be done; you cannot sever that relationship.'' And yet, we have severed it. Agriculture continues to prosper every bit as well as it did tied directly to the Government and Government programs and, we believe, in the long term will prosper more, simply because it is not relying on farming-to-Government programs but, in fact, is now looking at the market and producing to the market, as we had hoped it would. That was one major benefit in change that occurred in the 104th Congress. Another one that occurred that is, in the long term, going to substantially get us to the point by 2002 of a balanced budget, of course, was the welfare reform. So when the kind of pandering that occurs here on the floor, often from the other side, that there is no way to balance the budget, or, if you balance it, you must begin to exempt major portions of the budget because they are too sensitive, too important and no constraints must be put upon them of the kind that a constitutional amendment would place upon them, so, therefore, they must be exempt, I would argue just the opposite, that all it forces us to do is make tough choices, priorities, where should the dollars be spent. Of course, we all know we are going to build and maintain a strong human safety net in Government policy for the citizens of this country who are poor or disadvantaged or need an opportunity. That is exactly what has been and will remain a concern of this Congress always. All we are asking, and what I think we are causing to happen, is what the American people have been asking now for well over a decade. Out of fear--now fright--that this Congress cannot control a Federal debt, they are saying, ``Balance your budget.'' Of course, the Senator from Kansas and I, the day before yesterday, referenced this large stack of 28 consecutive budgets that are piled here beside me, to recognize that 14 of them have deficit spending, with all the intent to deficit spend and no intent to balance. And 14 of them have the intent to balance, where the Congress collectively, in producing the budgets, said it is our intent that these budgets lead to a balanced budget. Yet, of course, we now have evidence, by the President's budget coming to us yesterday, that in all the rhetoric and all the time that he expended and all the good intentions that he expended in the State of the Union Message this week, referencing a balanced budget many, many times, that his budget isn't balanced, won't even balance unless you do major cuts and major tax increases, largely because he is habitually the kind of public leader that we have had for so many years, who wants to constantly add new programs without making the tough choices of deleting programs so that you can add. I am not suggesting the programs the President spoke of are not contemporary and necessary. When he spoke to education the other night, I applauded a fair amount of what he said. But I am willing to stand here and make the tough votes to suggest spending ought to decrease somewhere else if we as a country are going to shift our priorities in spending to education. We now have an amendment before us that would impact the whole intent of a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, and those are tough choices, prioritizing and doing exactly what the American people expect us to do, and that is balance the budget. If 51 of us can say, ``Oh, we can't balance the budget, the environment is too extreme at the moment, economically at this point in the country or the priorities of spending are we just have to bypass this national mandate, this constitutional mandate and do it only by 51 votes here in the Senate,'' then I suggest to you this amendment wipes away the full intent of a balanced budget amendment and causes us, if that were to become part of the balanced budget amendment, to gimmick up the Constitution by simply doing exactly what we do now. So we are telling the American people that the amendment that is before us is one where, ``Oh, we have given you a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Rest assured we have given you what you wanted, but more importantly, we have now simply represcribed business as usual.'' It is with those frustrations that I think we are now suggesting that this is an amendment--the amendment to the constitutional amendment, the one before us--is one that does not deserve to be in the Constitution, because it would be false pretense to argue it any other way. Yesterday, there was a fascinating article from Investors Business Daily that I thought was very reminiscent of the very arguments we are placing here on the floor. The President had expressed concern about the ability to react promptly in a recession and, of course, the amendment we have before us would argue that that is what it allows. When the President said that, I said, ``Mr. President, we have provided for that. We have a three-fifths vote in the amendment now.'' It is a tough vote. It is not always easy to come by, but it is a necessary vote to force us to the reality. Let me suggest that Congress, in 1962, passed 12 economic stimulus bills because of a recession. All 12 bills received 60 votes or more in the U.S. Senate. In 1993, in a stimulus package, there were similar kind of votes. What I am suggesting is that the record is replete with a voting pattern that says if we are truly in a major economic emergency and there is need for economic stimulus, that the very marker we have put in the proposed constitutional amendment that we are debating on the floor is the proper mark and not 51 votes. So what Investors Business Daily said yesterday was: The idea that deficit spending could smooth out the rough spots in a business cycle comes from John Maynard Keynes. Recessions, he believed, started when all the buyers in the economy suddenly stopped spending. . . The evidence shows that public works programs have done nothing to solve recessions, a 1993 article by economist Bruce Bartlett in The Public Interest magazine pointed out. Spending packages aimed at fighting recession have never been enacted before a recession ended on its own. In other words, they always came after all of the indicators were in place that the recession was over. Recessions are usually defined as two straight quarters of falling GDP. So no one actually knows a recession is happening until six months after it starts. No one knows it's over until three months later. That is the reality of how we define ``recession.'' Yet, the amendment that we have before us to amend the resolution would argue that we know better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the editorial called ``Prospective Balanced-Budget Blather'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. It is important to recognize that while the politics of the argument are interesting, the record would suggest that it does not fit, that Congress has always responded to recessions after they were over. And, in fact, what ended up usually was pork-barrel spending that became a part of the total budget program that went on. Between 1980 and 1984--which includes years of deep recession--real spending on jobless benefits rose $47.4 billion above its level in 1979, an economic peak. That increase was just 1% of government spending over those four years. Recessions have been less severe in the postwar period, many economists argue. That is exactly the point of those figures, the argument that somehow we straitjacket our Government by a balanced budget not able to respond to times of recession, and the facts simply do not bear it out, the economic facts, not mine, but those of the economists who study this. So when Secretary Rubin fears straitjacketing, what Secretary Rubin fears is that the American people will once again have control of their budget and the spending of the Federal Government and that we take it out of the hands of politicians and force them to stay within parameters and make the tough choices and to stop mounting the huge Federal debt that we are currently having. That is the essence of a balanced budget amendment. That is why we are here on the floor, because the American people have asked us to do this. I am one of those who believes so strongly that the record is replete with the facts that we as politicians cannot do it. Some of us can make those tough votes; others cannot for various reasons. It is true that, as never before, special interest groups come to Washington for a piece of the pie. So it is easy to give it away and make the pie bigger. The only problem is we borrow hundreds of billions of dollars annually to make the pie, expecting future generations to pay for the ingredients. Therein lies the great discrepancy, why we are here. It is an important issue. We must fight to make sure that we retain it and that we pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment resolution and disallow the kind of amendments that would weaken it or make it hollow at best. We cannot put that kind of language in our Constitution. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think we are about to conclude the business of the Senate for today. Prior to that happening, I want to make some opening observations about this historic constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, that we have on the floor this evening and on which we have started debate. Let me also say to my colleague from Minnesota, who has eloquently and passionately laid out a variety of critically important items for us to debate in the coming days, my colleague from Minnesota mentioned programs that I support. I have always voted for Head Start, and I have always voted for Women, Infants and Children. Those are very important programs for our country. I am also one who says those programs have to be funded within the context of a balanced budget. I am standing here beside this 6-foot tall stack of budget documents, what I call the budgets of the era of liberalism. This is when America said that poor people ought to be cared for, and unprecedented in the world, this Nation poured out its riches to the poor. Mr. President, 28 years of budgets are represented here, and benefits resulted from some of what was in them. We started the WIC program. We started Head Start in these budgets. They were funded last year and will continue to be funded. But what happened along the way? People did not seem to get better. People seemed to get poorer. While this Nation spoke about having a safety net, and it must speak to the need for a safety net for the truly needy, we began to learn lessons in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. We began to learn that handouts are not necessarily a hand up. In a society as wealthy as ours, while we truly need to be kind and caring-- and the Senator from Minnesota is truly that, and I think that all Senators are--somehow, along the way, we began to realize that the cumulative effect of all these spending programs was to put the whole Nation at risk. These 28 budgets--28 budget packages submitted by six presidents, both Democrats and Republicans--also represent $5.3 trillion worth of debt. Enough money is paid out annually in interest to service the debt that these budgets created to fund all the programs that the Senator from Minnesota wants and many, many more. That is what the debate is about today. This debate is not about Women, Infants, and Children. This debate is not about Head Start. This debate is about fiscal responsibility. This debate is about making tough policy choices. I am amazed that the Senator from Minnesota would fear the constitutional amendment, as eloquent as he is on the issues that he is impassioned about, because he can appeal to me and he will get my vote--within the context of a balanced budget--for Head Start and for Women, Infants, and Children. Then he and I, working together, will have to work with our other colleagues to make sure that we choose a rational spending policy that prioritizes these programs because we decide to reduce elsewhere. What I will not do and what this Congress will not do is send to the American people for ratification a constitutional amendment with a loophole in it large enough to drive all of the trucks that service the industries in Minnesota through. We dare not send to the American people a phony document that they might put in the Constitution, in which we exempt all of these programs from the responsible decisionmaking that the Senator from Minnesota and I want to make here on the floor. Should we exempt Social Security? If we exempted Social Security and Women, Infants, and Children and Head Start and all of the other programs being suggested, that is probably better than a third of the budget. How can we turn to the American people and say now we have a balanced budget when we just took a third of it off-budget? No longer would we have the right to make the choice to set priorities. These would autopilot programs. But instead of protecting these programs, they would become the loophole through which to channel all sorts of new and increased spending. I do not think the Senator from Minnesota wants that. I think what the Senator from Minnesota is speaking to is setting priorities, making tough choices for the right reasons on the right issues for people who are less fortunate. If that is what he means, and I know he means that because I know him well, then he will have the Presiding Officer's support and he will have my support. What we would like to ask him to do is to join us in pleading that we get away from this stack of 28 unbalanced budgets in a row, that we get away from adding to this $5.3 trillion worth of debt, with its $340 billion a year worth of interest to service the debt. Those huge interest payments actually strip this country of its resources to do what that Senator wants done. If we did not have to pay all that interest, if we had paid off the past Federal debts, then we would have a surplus today of more than $100 billion a year, available to spend on programs like those the Senator from Minnesota advances. The American people now agree with us. Mr. President, 70 or 80 percent plus of the American people say a balanced budget is critical. President Clinton said last night he was sending us a balanced budget tomorrow. I bet he funds WIC, and I bet he funds Head Start, and I bet inside that budget is Social Security. This President, our President, last night said that was a balanced budget. A few moments ago the Senator from Massachusetts was on the floor, and he said we should treat Social Security differently--that there will be an amendment to treat Social Security differently--from how we, the Republicans and some Democrats want to under the balanced budget. He said he wanted to keep it separate and apart. Then he spoke eloquently about the President's budget, and the President treats Social Security exactly the way Republicans want to treat it, leaving it inside the budget, making sure that our Government's fiscal house is in order so that a government whose budget is balanced is a government that can meet its obligation. That is really the issue here, and that is the crux of the debate that will go on over the course of the next several weeks. The Senator from Minnesota has approached us this afternoon with four amendments. They are important amendments and they should be debated; they should be voted on. I hope that my colleagues, in considering any amendment, will consider that all of the budget be a part of the whole and the whole should be balanced. The Secretary of the Treasury does not suggest that we split anything out of the budget. He suggests that we deal with a whole budget, that we don't start prying things apart. The President will present that kind of a budget tomorrow. The reason that we want to make sure that happens is that it is time this country makes the tough choices. I think that when we make those tough choices, under the responsibility of a balanced budget requirement in our Constitution, social spending programs critical to the truly needy of our country will survive. For a few moments, Mr. President, let me talk about what stands before us here. Twenty-eight years of endlessly unbalanced budgets are stacked here at my right hand, 28 years of deficit spending, 28 years since the last time this Government balanced its budget in 1969. Now, 14 of these 28 budgets were never intended to be balanced. They were intended to be in deficit, to create debt. But 14 of them--the other half--promised a balanced budget at some point. It was the same kind of promise we heard from President Clinton last night. These were sincere promises, all 14 of these budgets that promised eventual balance, spread over the last 28 years. And I do not question this President's sincerity in promising yet another budget that reaches balance in a few years. I believe that he believes he can produce a balanced budget. What was the rhetoric last night? ``You vote for it and I will sign it.'' The problem is choice making--choice making in an environment in which we don't have to make hard choices. And as a result of not having to make hard choices, wanting to serve the needs of the American people, wanting to address the truly needy, Congresses and Presidents instead have made easy choices, 28 long years of easy choices. Oh, they were tough choices at the time, or at least they felt tough. But when you know you don't have to balance the budget--you do not really set priorities and make hard choices. And we went through an era when deficit spending was supposed to be good because it supposedly stimulated the economy and created jobs. Well, that may have been all right in some instances when we didn't have a $5.3 trillion debt, when service on the debt was $5 or $6 billion a year and was a minuscule part of a total budget. All of a sudden, over the last decade and a half, this debt has exploded on the American scene and on the American taxpayer's pocketbook. Today, Social Security and the interest on debt created by these 28 budgets now rival each other as to which is the largest single expenditure in the annual budgets of the Federal Government. That is why, consistently over recent years, the American people have said to this Congress--Republican or Democrat-- ``Get your fiscal house in order and balance the Federal budget.'' Seventy-plus percent of the American people want a constitutional amendment. But recently polled, only 12 percent really believed that we would get to a balanced budget by the year 2002. Why? Here is the reason why: 28 consistent years of promises made and promises broken to the real people of this country, the taxpayer who now feels exploited and put upon largely because this Congress and Congresses like it promised but failed to deliver. Twenty- eight years of budgets submitted by Presidents that promised deficit reduction or balanced budgets that never came to be. Twenty-eight years of borrowing, a total of 36 deficits in 37 years, $5.3 trillion worth of gross debt. That is $20,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child in America. So the majority of all the real people living in this country today have seen a budget actually balanced only once or never. And they now question the integrity of their Government and the reality of what this country really is about and, more important, what its politicians are about. We will honor the promises made by Social Security because we want to and because we must. It is a contract with the elderly of our country. A government whose budget is balanced is a government that can honor that pledge. A government that is in bankruptcy sends no checks out to a defense contractor, to an elderly person, or to a single parent on welfare. That's the reality of the debate. Somehow we think there are special needs that could get separated out. At a time when our Government finds its fiscal house increasingly in trouble, if it goes bankrupt, no checks go out. That is why, for over 3 years, those who believe in a balanced budget amendment have argued against those who wish to exempt out Social Security and other unique social programs. We understand that the threat to Social Security, the threat to Women, Infants and Children, the threat to Head Start, is not the balanced budget amendment, but the debt. Why are we having to cut back on spending on some programs today? Because we did not balance the budget for so many years before now. Because of deficits and because of a huge, heavy debt structure, and because the American people are saying, ``Fix it, it's broken, correct it.'' What does it mean? What does this stack of paper--thousands of pages of debt--say to the average American family? Well, it's something like this, in the sense of what it costs them. Since the time I started debating this issue in 1982 until today it represents $15,000 for every American family in income loss, minimally--$15,000. That means that the average American family's income today--if we had balanced the Federal budget in 1982 and kept it balanced until 1997--would be $15,000 more. Those are not my figures. Those are the figures based on a study by the Concord Coalition. We talk of the needy and of wanting to care for people. Put an extra $15,000 in every American family's budget and see what kind of help you have offered them. But, instead, the Government has taken those fruits of their hard work to service the debt structure represented by 28 years of profligate deficit spending. What does it mean to a household with a 30-year mortgage if the economists are right and we pass this amendment and balance the budget? Interest rates drop 1\1/2\ to 2 points. And that $30,000 to the average American family, saved on a 30-year mortgage, is a year in one of the most expensive colleges in the country. Or if you are in Idaho, that is 2\1/2\ to 3 years of college education in our land grant university. That is a lot of money. Where does it go today? Out of the working person's pocketbook into the IRS coffers to pay to service the debt structure created right here by Congresses past--caring and well- meaning Congresses--that created this stack of paper representing $5.3 trillion worth of debt. Well, if there is frustration in this debate for some of our Members, I don't reject their concerns and I don't take it lightly. I must say that it may be frustration that we have inflicted upon ourselves, because it is now necessary to propose a constitutional amendment that is very simple. It gives us plenty of latitude to get our fiscal house in order by 2002. It does so in a way that also creates the necessary flexibility in times of real need and in times of war. It says that there are margins in which deficit spending can occur, but now it will take tough choices to deficit spend, not the automatic and easy choices of past years, not ``oh, well, we will make it up next year or a few years down the road.'' We will see a variety of amendments to the balanced budget amendment that will come to the floor in the next several weeks. Senators that will talk impassionedly about certain priorities that are all critical and all important. And all these priorities can be served inside a balanced budget by tough decisions and tough choices on this Congress. What am I talking about this evening? Correcting a problem that we created, correcting a problem that threatens--not me, not the Presiding Officer, and not the Senator from Vermont, but his children, my children, our grandchildren, and future generations of American citizens who will want to be as productive as we hope we have been. How important is correcting that problem of adding to the debt? The Office of Management and Budget--President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget--said that if we continue down the path that this Congress and other Congresses have been on, future generations would pay 82 percent of their total income in taxes for all levels of government because of debt, debt service, and government needs--82 percent. That means there is no money left to buy a house, there is no money to put in a savings account for a rainy day, and there is no money left for a college education. So what happens? You turn to your government, and the endless process is always underway of a government having to do something for more people because government has taken so much from those who worked so hard and find themselves getting nowhere. That is why this has to be corrected, or there will be no future for the young people of our country. Because a future in which 82 percent of your gross pay goes to all levels of government is no future at all. Those are some of the kinds of things we are talking about. A child born today--again, not my figures, but those of the National Taxpayers Union--a child born today will pay an additional $180,000 in taxes during his or her lifetime to service the Federal debt--debt that his or her grandmas and grandpas spent but didn't pay for. And that is a tragedy. Our friend Paul Simon, the now retired Senator from Illinois, who is as liberal as I am conservative but who stood shoulder to shoulder with me for a decade fighting the battle of the balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, called it fiscal child abuse. And he is right. Because that legacy of crushing debt is no future for any child born in America today, having that obligation out in front of them, being required of them by their Government for from which something they get no value. That is why this issue has become the No. 1 issue in America. Our President spoke of valuable priorities last night, important issues--education, some tax cuts, the kind of priorities that an American wants to be proud of and wants to be a part of. Republican or Democrat, there were many of us who heard a President last night speak of issues that we can all identify with. But in doing so, we say, with a simple caveat: They must be within the limit and the capacity of the ability of the Government to pay for them, and the permission of our citizens to pay for them, within a balanced budget. It is a simple requirement. The problem is that the choices are tough, but that is what my job is and that is what I have hired on to do, as has the Presiding Officer, and as has the Senator from Vermont. In the coming days, as we debate, I hope we can see the very clear differences between those who oppose requiring fiscal responsibility, who do not want the citizens of this country through the Constitution to impose that kind of discipline on the floor of this Senate, and those of us who say that after 28 years of endless spending, endless debt, and endless deficits, it is time we offer the American people the choice of whether to require that kind of constitutional discipline. The time is growing late. It is our intent to adjourn as soon as we can. But the debate will go on through tomorrow and next week, and we hope through the balance of February, as we deal with this issue and as Members of the Senate speak their will, as they should, because I know of no issue more important than this constitutional amendment. Our vote will not make it so. Our Founding Fathers decided that was not our job. Our vote is simply to propose to the American people a constitutional amendment. And then 38 States, three-fourths of the States must vote to ratify, and the debate will go on in every State capital across this country--the debate about Government, the Federal Government, and its budgets and its priorities. And that will be one of the healthiest debates the American citizenry has ever been involved in. From that, Senators serving in this Congress and future Congresses will not only have the absolute constitutional requirement to balance the budget, but they will probably have a much clearer idea of what the American people expect of their Federal Government. That ratification process is an important process. If we send forth this amendment, we will have started in this country what I think not only assures that we get our fiscal house in order, but it assures future generations the same kind of opportunity that all of us have had in our lifetime. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today, which this body previously approved as an amendment to the first bill amending the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] that the Senate passed in 1989. This bill would solve a problem with the interpretation of a provision of the FLSA, clarifying that the maximum hour exemption for agricultural employees applies to water delivery organizations that supply 75 percent or more of their water for agricultural purposes. Representative Mike Crapo, of the Second District of Idaho, is today introducing an identical bill in the other body. Our bill would restore an exemption that was always intended by Congress. Companies that delivery water for agricultural purposes are exempt from the maximum-hour requirements of the FLSA. The Department of Labor has interpreted this to mean that no amount of this water, however minimal, can be used for other purposes. Therefore, if even a small portion of the water delivered winds up being used for road watering, lawn and garden irrigation, livestock consumption, or construction, for example, delivery organizations are assessed severe penalties. The exemption for overtime pay requirements was placed in the FLSA to protect the economies of rural areas. Irrigation has never been, and cannot be, a 40-hour-per-week undertaking. During the summer, water must be managed and delivered continually. Later in the year, following the harvest, the work load is light, consisting mainly of maintenance duties. Our bill is better for employers, workers, and farmers. Winter compensation and time off traditionally have been the method of compensating for longer summer hours. Without this exemption, irrigators are forced to lay off their employees in the winter. Therefore, our bill would benefit employees, who would continue to earn a year-round income. It also would keep costs level, which would benefit suppliers and consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to place in the Record the remarks of a great American statesman who I and many of us had the privilege to watch being recognized in the White House on January 17. I speak to Senator Bob Dole and his leadership in our Nation, his statesmanship, his patriotism, and especially the comments he made in receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom on January 17. I think we were all captivated in the evening news by the great humor of Bob Dole--after this very prestigious ceremony in the East Room of the White House with the President offering up one of these most coveted recognitions in our Nation for the leader, Bob Dole, former Presidential candidate--when he stepped forward and in humor began to recite his oath of office. That statement overshadowed the statement that was to follow, and that was the statement by Bob Dole as to his feelings and his emotions that are a part of the person that you, Mr. President, and I have grown to know and respect over the years as it relates to his Americanism, his leadership, and his patriotism. So it is with that in mind that I insert into the Record this afternoon the statement that Senator Dole made that afternoon, this January 17, at the White House as he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It was a beautiful statement. It was an emotional statement. And for all of us who were there, it was the statement of a man who we had grown to know and who we knew as a Senator from Kansas, who we knew as a Presidential candidate, but most importantly a man who we knew as a leader of the U.S. Senate, a great American, a great American statesman, and a great American patriot. With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Bob Dole as he received his Presidential Medal of Freedom award be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. CRAIG

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