Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Georgia for taking out this period of morning business to discuss and to continue the important debate that occurred on the floor of the Senate yesterday in relation to a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. The Senator from Oklahoma, who is now presiding, related his experience in the beginning of this movement that started in the mid 1970's when Senators and Members of the Congress recognized that there was growing in this city an insidious appetite that was spawned by interest groups and citizens--that somehow the way you solved nearly all social problems in this country was to put government money at it, and that it was justifiable in doing so to deficit spending. We began to hear the clock of debt tick at that time--hundreds of thousands of dollars, and finally billions of dollars, as the Senator from Oklahoma spoke of. When I arrived here in the early 1980's we were still in the hundreds of billions of dollars, just breaking into the first trillion. It was in that period of time, in 1982, that the former Congressman from New York, Barber Conable, who had picked up the idea that had been started here by Senator Curtis, was retiring. He had heard me speak on the floor of the House. He knew I had done much of what the Senator from Oklahoma had done--had passed a resolution in my State of Idaho asking for a balanced budget amendment and that the Senate and the Congress of the United States should issue that report so that the States, under article V of the Constitution, could go through the ratifying process. Barber Conable came to me, and he said, ``Congressman Craig, I am leaving. Why don't you take this issue and work with it? Make it a national issue. Work with our other colleagues because some day the American people will recognize what is going on in Washington, and they will insist that it be stopped.'' That was 1982. Myself and Charlie Stenholm, the Democrat Congressman from Texas, began to do exactly what the Senator from Oklahoma started in the mid 1970's in his State legislature. We began a national movement traveling to all of the States of the Nation, to those State legislatures, asking them to petition the Congress of the United States, because without that, without that extraordinary pressure from across the country, we did not believe the Congress would bow to the wishes of the people because the pressure from the interest groups, the pressure from a growing Government, would simply cause them to continue to deficit spend. That was a $1 trillion debt. That was 1982, and this is 1996. We now have a $5 trillion debt. Senator Curtis was right. Congressman Barber Conable was right. The National Taxpayers Union was right. Now the American people understand better than they have ever understood before that somehow this has to be stopped. Throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's you could always poll the American people and say, ``Should Government balance its budget?'' And the answer by 65 to 75 to 80 percent was, ``Yes, they should. We have to. We have to do it with our personal businesses and our personal home accounts, and the Government ought to do the same.'' But you could never get that high when you asked the question: ``Should there be a constitutional amendment requiring it?'' Because a lot of people did not think we ought to go the extraordinary route of using the organic act of our country to force our Government into compliance with the wishes of the people; that that was held for unique and special exceptions, and that our organic document of the Constitution should be rarely changed. We know that in the history of our country--the 208 years of history--that we have only changed that document 27 times. But finally, in a poll just a few weeks ago, when the question was asked, ``Should there be a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget?'' all of a sudden that had skyrocketed to 83 percent of the American people. That is an all-time high. Not that the budget should be balanced--I think that is almost unanimous--but now that we should use the organic document of our country to force this issue. Because what the American public instinctively knows is that the growth, the phenomenal movement of a budget into deficit and into debt that now scores $5 trillion, and that this year we are going to deal with the 1997 budget with over $300 billion of interest; and that that interest will be more than we will spend on defense, or will be more than we will spend, within a few dollars, of Social Security; that somehow the American people are beginning to say, ``Isn't it true that, if you continue to accumulate that debt, somehow one day almost all of the budget would be interest?'' Well, no. I do not think that would occur. But significantly the largest segment of the budget would be interest. That is the impact on Government, and that is the impact on taxpayers. What is the impact on personal lives, and on the young people who are here helping us as pages in the U.S. Senate, when they get to be 35 and 45 years of age? Even this President, who does not agree with a balanced budget amendment, and until 1994 when he began to be a born- again moderate after having been a 1992-94 very liberal President with large tax increases and large spending programs, even his government, his appointees, said these young people will be paying 75 to 80-plus percent of their gross income just to pay for government. So you have to ask them: ``Well, then what would you be able to do to own a home, to fund a college education of your child, to have the American dream that all of us expect for ourselves and our children? Is it possible that debt could eat it all away?'' Yes, it is. That is why the debate yesterday was so significant, and that is why the Senator from Oklahoma is absolutely right. The vote yesterday was, without question, one of the most significant votes that this Senate has taken. I honor Senator Bob Dole for bringing it up again, forcing the political issue and causing the American people to see who is for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution and who is against it. It is very important that they understand the forces that work in Washington and the forces that resist the idea of fiscal responsibility with no real answer to how you deal with a $5 trillion debt and 300 billion dollars' worth of interest on debt and an ongoing deficit. We have offered that solution. We have offered it in the form of an amendment to cause it to happen on an annualized basis. Last year, we put forth a budget that would bring us to balance. The fiscal responsibility that the American people have asked for is here. It is here in the majority party of the U.S. Senate which has brought about those kind of efforts and will continue to until it is the fact of the organic law of the land that we operate continually under a budget that is balanced or near balance. That has to be the goal of this Congress and for future Congresses and the responsibility of those who serve in the U.S. Senate. It is for our future; for our children and your grandchildren's future, Mr. President, that you showed us those marvelous pictures of this morning. If we fail to do that, we will no longer be a great people. We will no longer be a great people. We will no longer have a system of Government that is the envy of the world because it will be weak and anemic, and unable to provide or unable to cause the environment that creates the kind of human productivity that has historically been the mission and the great gift of this country. We will steal from all by destroying it with debt. We now have an opportunity to change that, and I hope that in the next Congress we bring that about and that we have a President who presides in the White House who will not openly fight us and resist us, but who will encourage and embrace the idea of a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. I thank my colleague from Georgia for acquiring this time to debate and to continue to discuss this critical issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and senior Senator from Utah for the tremendous leadership he has played in this critical issue of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. The record must show, Mr. President, and it must show it clearly, if Social Security is to remain solvent into the next decade and into the next century, the budget of the Federal Government must be balanced. The only security for Social Security is a Government that lives within its financial means. If our Federal Government goes bankrupt or if we demand of our citizens that they pay an 85 to 90 percent tax on their income, then Social Security and every other security program for people in our country is in jeopardy. I am sorry the other side of the aisle does not get it, and they do not get it. We have heard one phony argument after another, that somehow balancing a Federal budget in one way or another damages Social Security. Yet, the very Social Security actuarials, the people who watch the programs, say if you want to save Social Security you balance the Federal budget. Today, we have that opportunity as a U.S. Senate to secure for the future Social Security by allowing the American people--let me repeat, by allowing the American people--the right and the opportunity to vote on whether they want this Government to balance its budget by passing a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to reconsider House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Lessons of History versus Blamesmanship If the debate this week has shown anything, it is this: the case for the balanced budget amendment is compelling; there is not one good argument against it. The worst thing you can say about the amendment is that maybe Congresses and Presidents will have the courage to do the right thing without it. In reality, if the Constitution doesn't require balancing the budget, it just won't happen. We've heard a lot of blamesmanship on this floor, disguised as history lessons. Democrats blame the past debt on Reaganomics. Republicans blame 40 years of free-spending by Democrat Congresses. But this debate isn't about the past. We can't change the past. This debate is about our future. Our economic house is on fire. Instead of arguing over who has the matches in his pocket, let's put out the fire. The Outlook is Grim--But There's Time to Act The greatest threat facing our country is the mounting national debt that drags on our economy and threatens to destroy the American Dream for our children. A new study by the Congressional Budget Office says that, if we do nothing: In less than two generations, the Federal debt and interest payments on that debt will consume, not the entire Federal budget, but the entire American economy. Their words, not mine: The numbers are ``not computable,'' meaning the ``debt would exceed levels that the economy could reasonably support.'' This is not a temporary problem, it is a Constitution-class crisis. This is what the Constitution is all about: protecting the liberties of the people by putting limits on a power that the Government is too tempted to abuse. The good news is that we still have time to act. That opportunity will not last forever. But if we act now, we can: create 6 million more jobs by the year 2002; make homes, education, and family necessities more affordable; provide greater security for our senior citizens; and raise our children's standard of living by a third. The debt is the threat. The balanced budget amendment is the answer. Social Security I understand Senator Wyden will try to offer an alternative amendment later today which would exempt Social Security. Several Senators are simply hiding behind this red herring. Former Senator Paul Tsongas, a Democrat, has said: It is embarrassing to be a Democrat and watch a Democratic President raise the scare tactics of Social Security. Those who vote to exclude Social Security are voting to kill the Balanced Budget Amendment. It is that simple, it is that clean, and should be stated. Under every alternative proposed by Senators Wyden, Hollings, Feinstein, Reid, Dorgan, or Daschle, the Federal Treasury would continue to borrow the Social Security surplus. Why don't they tell us this? Ask them. Ask them, Where will Social Security surpluses be invested under their plan? Answer: They change the bookkeeping, not the borrowing. The difference is, their alternative is more loophole than law; their alternative would allow unlimited deficit spending, as long as you call it Social Security. That would mean more borrowing, more debt, and a bankrupt Social Security system. Senior citizens understand the debt is the threat to Social Security. A bankrupt Federal Government will not be able to send out Social Security checks. The President and the Flip-Floppers Last year, President Clinton twisted arms; he made phone calls; he sent cabinet secretaries to Capitol Hill; and he got six Senators to vote against their previous positions, their consciences, and their constituents. Before then, this issue had always been bipartisan and should have stayed that way. But President Clinton and the powerful, liberal, special interest groups realized that the 104th Congress really was ready to send this amendment to the States. So I say, Mr. President, release your hostages. Let our colleagues go. Free the ``BBA Six.'' Send the BBA to the States--Let the People Decide Balanced budget amendment opponents just don't trust the people. Let's remember, Congress doesn't amend the Constitution. We merely propose amendments that the States, that the people, decide whether to ratify. We are saying, let the American people exercise their constitutional right to start the debate in earnest--a debate in every State capitol and every coffee shop over the very future of this country. Acknowledgments As we move toward concluding this debate, I would like to thank and acknowledge the years of hard work and leadership by several of our colleagues in this effort including: The President pro tempore, Senator Thurmond; the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch; Senator Heflin on the Judiciary Committee; and the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole; and in the House, Congressmen Charlie Stenholm and Dan Schaefer, with whom I have worked for years on this amendment. I want to pay a special tribute to Senator Paul Simon. The Senate and the nation will suffer a great loss when he retires. It has been said of Ronald Reagan, and I say it of Paul Simon, in an age when many are cynical about our political leaders, he is proof that a great man can also be a good man. When we do eventually pass this amendment, it will be a monument to his years of leadership in putting principle above partisanship. Let the debate go forward to the State capitals of this Nation. That is where this issue will go. Vote for this amendment. It is absolutely critical to our Nation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. While I do not want to speak of Mr. Moss--and I am pleased you recognized him--I want to speak about you for just a moment, and to thank you for the relationship you and I have had on the issue of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We were not successful a few moments ago on another very important vote. But I must say, in all fairness--and I want the Record to show this-- that over the years that you and I have worked side by side on this issue, I think most of the public watching would have said, ``Isn't that interesting. Here is a liberal and a conservative.'' We took the politics out of this. It was a bipartisan effort, a strong one, on the part of the Senator from Illinois and this Senator. Out of that relationship and our commitment for fiscal responsibility, I have developed a very fond respect for you and all of the work you do. While you and I disagree on a lot of issues, we have worked together very, very well. Let me thank you publicly, and for the Record, for the tremendous effort you put forth and the contribution you have made toward bringing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the American people. A very special thanks to the senior Senator from Illinois.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his statement, and it is timely. It is important the record show that. Yesterday, we heard from the trustees, the actuarial study of the state of the trust fund of Medicare. This Senator happens to be holding town meetings across Idaho on Medicare. I can tell the Senator from New Mexico, there is one question always asked. In your package, and I am using the comparative between what you did, what Senator Roth worked in producing, what the Senate finally voted on to reform Medicare a year ago, and I compare it with what the President had offered, and they say to me, ``Well, now, home health care, that's a very important part of keeping costs down. Why is the President doing what he's doing?'' I try to explain it to them. They say, ``Well, then doesn't that mean it just gets funded out of the general fund?'' I say, ``With no other form of taxation or revenue source''--as the Senator from New Mexico just pointed out--``you are absolutely right.'' They say, ``Well, that takes it out of the character of the kind of health care this country needs.'' We ought to be moving people toward home care. It is the least expensive way, or it is a less expensive way, certainly, and it clearly offers that senior who needs this kind of health care the sanctuary of the home. We ought to be driving toward that. The Senator from New Mexico, I think, has made a very important statement in that area. Let me thank him for doing so. I do not want to have to deal with this issue again this year, but if we do, I do not want the President sitting down there saying, ``We're slashing it,'' when there is less than a half a percentage point difference in what we are doing. I think the thing that is most interesting for those attending my town meetings--we use the charts and the graphs; we show the President's plan and our plan--they say, ``Where's the difference?'' I say, ``We offer more options, and those options help bring costs down.'' They say, ``We see that, Senator, but we thought you were destroying the program.'' I say, ``Well, when the facts are on the table, no one--no one--in this Senate will ever do that. But we are on the board of directors, if you will, of Medicare and we have to make the necessary corrections to get it done.'' I think your points today are valuable, very important to the whole of the message, and I thank you for bringing it to the floor of the Senate.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Would the Senator from Illinois allow me just a few comments in that regard?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If the senior citizens want a strong and stable system of economic security, you are darned right it is good. There is something else. Senior citizens live on fixed incomes. The best thing in the world for them is a very strong economy that allows them to live and to not have their money exploited by inflation.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for a good number of hours today the Senate has been involved in what is an important debate, the issue of a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the hard work and leadership of several Members of the Senate and the House who have devoted many years of effort on behalf of this legislation. These have included Senator Thurmond, Senator Hatch, and of course the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, on our side of the aisle; Senator Simon, who is a true statesman and friend, and Senator Heflin, on the other side; and Congressmen Stenholm and Schaefer, the House authors of this amendment. This legislation has come a long way. In 1982, the Senate voted 69 to 31 to pass a balanced budget amendment. It fell 46 votes short in the House. Last year, the House passed it by 300 votes to 132. It lost here in the Senate by a single vote. Of course, we know that Senator Dole changed his vote to preserve the right to move for reconsideration. We are now in reconsideration of House Joint Resolution 1. That was after six Democrat Senators switched their vote and opposed the same language that they had voted for 1 year earlier. This is an issue, Mr. President, that is not going to go away. If it is not going to be this Congress, it certainly is going to be the next Congress or another Congress very soon that has to deal with this issue. There is a very simple reason why it will not go away, because we are not here to decide whether there will be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we are here to decide whether the American people ought to have a right to express their will on this issue. In other words, under article V of the Constitution, we in Congress may only propose amendments to the States for ratification. That is what we are here to do. The reason I think, Mr. President, this will not go away is because in 1982, 63 percent of the American public said this was an issue that ought to be addressed by Congress passing a balanced budget amendment and sending it to the States. In a Gallup Poll just within the last week, by 83 percent to 14 percent--a 6 to 1 margin--they said they support the balanced budget amendment and it is time we deal with this issue. In other words, the American people, by a very large majority now, say to the Congress of the United States, ``Give us the right to choose.'' Tomorrow when we vote on this, it will be Democrats on the floor of the U.S. Senate that will refuse the American people the right to choose whether to ratify this amendment. Those who oppose the amendment, those who seek to postpone the day of reckoning when this Government must deal with this issue are simply not recognizing their moral obligation to respond as they should to this issue. Why is it happening now, that the Senate will not pass this amendment? Why will some in the opposition not stay true to where they were on this issue over the last good many years? By that, I mean, Mr. President, acting in a bipartisan way. Why does this issue appear to have become so partisan? The balanced budget amendment to our Constitution has always been a bipartisan issue. It is now clearly partisan. The President put tremendous pressure on Democrats in 1995. That is why six Senators switched to ``no'' votes from their previous history of ``yes'' votes. We know that. The record ought to be awfully clear that is what happened. Up until that time, we always had that strong bipartisan majority in support of the amendment. Last year, for example, 72 Democrats in the House voted for it; 14 Democrats in the Senate voted for it. I think, Mr. President, it is truly sad and certainly frustrating when you think you have agreement on such a fundamental principle of government, only to see Senators change their votes. This is not a partisan issue but, I think, a moral issue, a moral imperative, a responsibility of this Senate, to at least allow the American people to express their will. Now we find the only response is that the welfare state mentality of this administration, and tragically enough, those who now oppose this amendment, now want to politicize it. I am afraid that is how the vote will come out. There are two reasons why the balanced budget amendment was defeated in this past year. In this 104th Congress, the party whose majority and leadership opposed the balanced budget amendment no longer had control of the Congress. They could always manipulate the vote in the past. They could always assure it would not pass. This year, by a change in the electorate, the American people, and most importantly, the Congress, and always the interest groups involved, knew the Congress was firing with real bullets. The liberal special interest groups who are feeding off big Government spending and sending the bill to our children realized we were the closest ever to sending a balanced budget amendment to the States. That is when the President said to his friends here on the other side, ``You have to block this. You have to stop this.'' That is why six Senators who had been with us before backed off, changed their tune, found an excuse to say something different, switched their vote from a yes to a no. This President, who had never really been for a balanced budget, was able to call the tune. Tragically enough, he and his colleagues denied the American people an opportunity to choose. The President who sent us a so-called balanced budget with an $81 billion deficit in the year 2002 is the one that is now denying the American people their constitutional right to decide this issue. I simply call on President Clinton to release his hostages, if you will, to release the ``BBA 6'' that once were with us, the Balanced Budget Amendment Six, who once sat on the other side, proud to vote for a balanced budget amendment. I say, Mr. President, let our colleagues go. Let the American people have a chance to decide. That is really what this effort is all about. Congresses do not enact constitutional amendments; they only propose. But you would think, from the debate you heard today, that the vote to be cast on the floor of this Senate tomorrow will be the deciding factor that crumbles the Government, destroys the budget. No, it will not be that at all, Mr. President. What passing this amendment would do is launch one of the most important national debates in the history of our country--a debate that would occur in every capital city in every State in our Nation among the legislators of that State, as to whether this Government balances its budget, and whether the people have a right to tell us to do so--as I think they ought to have. Those six flip-floppers--those who voted against the amendment when they previously had all been for it--used a very interesting word, a neat little three-letter word, the ``but" word. They used that three- letter word something like this: ``I am for balancing the budget, but not this way.'' ``I am for a balanced budget amendment, but not this one.'' ``I was for a balanced budget amendment last year, but''--but-- ``I discovered a new reason to be against it this year.'' Mr. President, the amendment was not any different in March 1995 from what it was in March 1994. Why did they change? The politics changed. The politics changed dramatically in the fall of 1994, and, as I said, they knew that we were now firing with real bullets, and the chance to send a balanced budget to the American people was, for the first time, truly a real likelihood. Members of this body may have read a book written a few years ago by a former staffer of the Democrat Speaker of the House, a book on ``Inside-the-Beltway Political Gamesmanship.'' It had an entire chapter devoted to the following rule, Mr. President: When you are losing the argument, concede on the principle and continue to fight over the details. The balanced budget amendment opponents, obviously, have read the book, memorized that rule, and are today implementing it on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Now we have at least 72 Senators who say that they agree on the principle of a balanced budget amendment. But fewer than the 67--the two-thirds necessary--that will ever vote for the passage of one. Now there appear to be 90 or 100 Senators who say, ``Well, now, we agree on the principle of a balanced budget.'' But there are more than enough votes to sustain the President's veto when, in fact, he vetoes a real balanced budget. In other words, when you are losing the argument, concede on the principle and continue to fight on the details. Mr. President, I respect the sincerely held opinions of those who have come to the floor and oppose any balanced budget amendment. That is different. There are Senators who do that. Senator Bob Byrd of West Virginia says he opposes any balanced budget amendment. It is my understanding that he has been consistent in not voting for one. He holds true to his conviction. He does not now agree ``in principle'' and say, ``But something is wrong with the details.'' Well, I have to respect that. That is fair. What frustrates me, and will increasingly anger the American people, is how so many in this body, or the other, say, ``Oh, I am for a balanced budget amendment in principle,'' but, Mr. President, their actions imply differently, as shown in their votes versus their words. It is a time-tested trick in this business called ``political gamesmanship'' to make the perfect the enemy of the good. If you want to kill a proposal like the balanced budget amendment, instead of saying you are against it, when 83 percent of the American people are for it, you simply say that it is not good enough, not quite the way we want it, and if we can only shape it a little differently, then we would have it the way it ought to be. Now, that is nitpicking in the highest form, Mr. President. You make up the exceptions that would gut the amendment, and you say, ``This is an improvement because I cannot vote for it the way it is.'' The result is, you kill the amendment because you want to preserve the status quo. All this nitpicking and all of the blamesmanship really misses the point. The one central question before us is this: Would this country be better off, would the lives of American citizens be improved, if we placed the Government under a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution? Would our children have a better life now and in the future? Would working men and women have better jobs? Would our senior citizens be more secure in the Government's ability to keep its promises to them? Would homes and education be more affordable? Over the long run, would there be more money left over for charities, families, and Government to care for the poor, the sick, and the needy? These are all variations of one question. And, of course, the answer to that question is undeniably yes. We know that, and the American people know that. We know of the huge amount of money, the economic vitality, that the debt of the Government now consumes. Balanced budget amendment opponents say, ``We will not vote for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget until we see your actual plan to balance the budget, because we know we can produce one.'' You and I both know, Mr. President, we have produced a balanced budget, in answer to that argument, over the last 12 months. We, in fact, produced a balanced budget and did not touch Social Security. We increased spending and increased consumer choices for every senior citizen in Medicare. We preserved the safety net for the needy and cut the redtape to make it easier for Federal-State partnerships to help them. And we continued to be responsible in protecting the environment. All of those things were done in the context of a balanced budget. We answered their charge, and we answered their call. And the President vetoed it. Now we understand a great deal more about this debate. Without the extraordinary discipline that our Constitution will bring us, we probably will find it very difficult to get to a balanced budget, or even a nearly-balanced budget, unless we can, in fact, get a constitutional amendment that requires, in the supreme law of the land, that this body and the other respond every year with a balanced budget. Here is an example of why I think that argument makes so much sense. Here is the record about the goodwill and the intent of Congresses and Presidents of the United States when it comes to balancing the budget: The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, also called the Anti- Deficiency Act, was intended to keep the budget balanced. The Revenue Act of 1964 was supposed to balance the budget. The Byrd amendment of 1978--offered by Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia--required balanced budgets. The Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978 called for balancing the budget. The Revenue Act of 1978 was supposed to balance the budget. The Debt Limit Increase of 1979 included language to balance the budget. The Bretton Woods amendment of 1980, as amended by a second Byrd amendment, required a balanced budget. The recodification of title XXXI, in 1982, with an amendment better known as Byrd III, called for a balanced budget. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act--act No. 1--of 1985 required a balanced budget. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1987--act No. 2--required a balanced budget. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 was supposed to balance the budget. Why, then, do we have a debt of the kind we have today, of $5.13 trillion dollars? Why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars on interest, after all of that exercise, from 1921 to 1990, in which the specific language and the direction of the public policy of this country was to balance the Federal budget, and why do we not have a balanced budget? The reason is very simple. We do not have an amendment to the constitution. We do not have in the organic law of the land a requirement that says to the Congress and the President that you cannot pass ``go,'' you have to make the tough choices, you have to do it. As a result of that, the tough choices were never made. The American public was played to. There was good intent in many of those instances. But Congresses and Presidents simply could not face the kind of decisionmaking that the people expected of responsible leaders. Now, I have heard today the flip and the flop of the red herring so many times coming from that side that it has been most difficult to hold a straight face. What am I talking about? I am talking about Social Security. Let me say for the Record they are wrong. It is a false argument, and they know it. But once again the safety for the status quo is in fighting over the details. If you do not want to face up to balancing the budget, and if you really do not want a balanced budget amendment, then you find a new argument. Just this year alone, after those six Senators were always with us, when the President said to them, you cannot be with the amendment's supporters, find a way out, they found a way out. They found a new argument. That new argument was Social Security. At best, those making the argument--while one might wonder about their intention, and I trust that it is good--I must agree with Members on our side that they are tremendously misinformed. At worst, there are big special interest groups with deep pockets using mass mail scare tactics to frighten innocent seniors, with one goal and one goal alone, and that is to destroy the idea of a balanced budget amendment. Senior citizens I have talked to in my State of Idaho--and I am sure that you have also, Mr. President, in your State of Michigan--know perfectly well that a bankrupt Federal Government will not have the ability to send any Social Security checks out to anybody. No checks will go out, if our Government is bankrupt. By killing the balanced budget amendment, opponents are killing the only way--the only true way--to save Social Security and other seniors programs. Robert J. Myers, the former chief actuary and former deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration, has said this. We have had him before hearings. He has publicly testified and made these comments. He says, ``Regaining control of our fiscal affairs is the most important step we can take to protect the soundness of the Social Security trust fund. I urge Congress to make the goal a reality, to pass a balanced budget amendment without delay.'' That is a former chief actuary of the Social Security system. He says the only way you save Social Security is to balance the budget. Mr. President, we keep hearing about raiding Social Security. No one is raiding the Social Security trust funds. That is false rhetoric. It is wrong for them to use it, and they know it. But it gives them their excuse for opposing the amendment. There are two things happening. First, ever since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, created Social Security in the 1930's, any surplus funds have been borrowed by the Federal Treasury and invested in Federal bonds. Why? So that the money not needed immediately to pay out benefits could earn interest safely and soundly. Second, ever since President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, put the Government on a unified budget in the 1960's, annual Social Security surpluses have been counted as reducing the overall Federal deficit in that year. It is simply a matter of bookkeeping. Many believe it is bad bookkeeping. But in all fairness, it is no ruse. It is only bookkeeping. Those are facts. They are reality. There have been no games played. That is the law. Ever since our last balanced budget in 1969, these borrowing and bookkeeping practices have been happening with Social Security. Under 20 budgets passed by Democrat Congresses, under six budgets passed by divided Congresses, and so far for one budget resulting during a Republican Congress, this has been the law, and this has been the reality, this borrowing, and this bookkeeping. The reality is that every budget submitted by President Clinton in the last year, the House Democrat blue dog budget in the last year, the Conrad substitute budget, and the Chafee-Breaux budget--all of them use this kind of borrowing and bookkeeping. So let us not play games with the record of the Congress, with the record of the Senate, with the minds of the American people. The reality is in the answer to the question, Are you for or are you against a balanced budget? If you are for one, you will allow the American people to engage in this debate, to become actively involved. Treasury borrowing from Social Security would continue under the balanced budget amendment, and under any and every substitute--the ones offered by Senator Hollings, Senator Wyden, Senator Dorgan, Senator Feinstein, Senator Reid, whomever--the reality is, under their alternatives, they continue to borrow from the trust funds because the laws of the 1930's require it. Their alternative does nothing to change or stop the Treasury from borrowing Social Security surpluses. Why do they not tell us this? In other words, get honest and get real. Quit playing the mind game with the American people. There is only one way to change Treasury borrowing from Social Security, and it has nothing to do with a balanced budget amendment. The only way to make surplus Social Security funds unavailable to the Federal Government is to pass a law that requires Social Security surpluses to be invested somewhere else outside of the Federal Government. Has that been proposed today? It has not. Will it be proposed by any one of these Senators? We will see, but I doubt it. And if that bill were proposed, and if it became law, that law would have exactly the same effect under our amendment or their amendment. So, to those who are suggesting that their opposition to the balanced budget amendment is because of Social Security, I say, You do not quite argue the whole argument. Bring forth your bill to change the system for investing in Treasury bonds, if that is what you believe. But stop hiding behind this ridiculous, absolutely false claim that the balanced budget amendment somehow does anything to harm the Social Security system. Every alternative to the balanced budget amendment the opponents have put forth dealing with Social Security has loopholes in it that you could drive nearly any amount of spending through it, as long as you call it Social Security. They are more loophole than law. Their proposal would allow Social Security to run unlimited deficits and would allow future Congresses to raid Social Security trust funds to spend for anything and everything they wanted. Has that question been asked of them today? No, it has not. I ask it now. Is that what you are proposing--to allow unlimited deficits in Social Security to allow borrowing for other purposes? Of course, they would say no, but that is what their language would allow. But they do not seem to want to talk about it. A flatout exemption for Social Security in the balanced budget amendment would mean more borrowing and more debt. It would mean Social Security would go bankrupt to pay for all this other spending, or there would have to be a huge tax increase to stabilize it. Several Senators have had serious discussions to see if there was a way to protect the surpluses of Social Security trust funds from being used for other purposes, without creating loopholes. Senator Simon, whom I have worked with for years on this issue, Senator Domenici, and Senator Hatch spent an awful lot of time, and I have, too, trying to find out if there was a clean, responsible way to protect the surpluses Social Security trust funds in the context of the argument put forth by Democrats. We know that can be done, but we have not been able to accomplish agreement with those who say that is what they want. We said, let's prohibit Social Security surpluses from being counted to make the deficit look smaller. Let's balance the budget without using the Social Security surplus. But, when Social Security starts running deficits around the year 2019, let's make up those deficits, let's keep the lid on Federal borrowing, and let's shore up Social Security with funds from the rest of the budget. Unfortunately, the opponents once again agreed with us on principle, but not on the details. Let's get back to the most important point in this Social Security debate. And it is something very, very simple. If you balance the budget and if you quit creating debt, you in fact strengthen and stabilize Social Security. You solve the problem now by creating fiscal responsibility and economic growth in this country, and you accomplish that by balancing budgets and moving along the process that sets this economy free. Deficit spending and a mounting national debt are taking a tremendous toll on real people, on real families. And if we do nothing, it will only get worse. The President's own budget for fiscal 1995 said that unless things change, Mr. President, future generations face a lifetime total tax rate of nearly 82 percent. A new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office says that rate actually may be around 84 percent. The National Taxpayers Union estimates that unless things change, a child born today will pay an extra $180,000 in taxes just to pay interest on the national debt. And the President and some Democrats in the Senate will not allow the American people to create the mechanism that will stop the growth of that kind of debt structure. The Concord Coalition says that the existing Federal debt already has reduced the typical American family income by 15,000 spendable dollars a year. On the other hand, who benefits if we balance the budget? The kids benefit, the future benefits, and everyone who wants a job, who wants to buy a home, who wants a good education, wants to buy a car, wants the kind of economic growth that will provide his or her children the future opportunities that they had at their age when they were young. That is what this whole debate is about--about a $2,400-a-year reduction in a mortgage payment on $75,000, 30-year mortgage. Or it is about a $1,000 reduction in interest on the life of a 4-year car loan. Or a family saving $1,900 on a 10-year student loan. And it's about creating 6 million new jobs by the year 2002.

Mr. CRAIG. Ten minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. CRAIG. So the chairman is absolutely right. Mr. President, let me try to close soon. My colleague from Alaska is here to debate this issue. Here are some other statistics that are just so darned important for all of us to understand. The gross Federal debt now tops $5 trillion--that is more than $19,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. The gross interest payments this year are around $344 billion. Here is what that says to all of us who try to deal with these monstrously big numbers that nobody really understands. That $344 billion in interest payments this year amounts to $1,300 for every American. In other words, the average American household will pay $3,400 in taxes this year, not for roads or education or defense, but to pay interest on past Federal debts. Gross interest payments this year will be equal to 54 percent of all the individual income taxes collected. Gross interest payments on debt will be just $4 billion less than what we will spend on the entire Social Security bill for the year; $77 billion more than we will spend on all domestic discretionary programs put together; $79 billion more than we will spend on defense, the second largest Federal program; $145 billion more than all Federal means tested poverty programs put together; $148 billion more than we spent on all Medicare, the third biggest Federal program. What is the message here? The message is that slowly but surely because this Senate has been unwilling to grapple with the true issue of getting to a balanced budget--and that is the balanced budget amendment--over the years we have seen this debt grow in proportion to the budget and the economy, and today's interest on debt is literally consuming the Federal budget and the assets of the American people. The Economic and Budget Outlook just released by the Congressional Budget Office contains a truly frightening chapter on the long-term budget outlook. It says, if we do nothing, our children face a grim future. Today, we are suffering from historically slow economic growth. Unless we change things, in one generation, the economy will start a real decline and our children will face a permanently declining standard of living. If we do not pass this amendment, I fear for our children and I fear for our country. If we do nothing: In less than two generations, the debt burden will grow so huge that, in CBO's words, it ``would exceed levels that the economy could reasonably support.'' Our children will reach the prime of their life and then retire in a nation in the grip of a permanently worsening recession. Our grandchildren will raise families in a declining Third World economy. Or--and I do not say this lightly--there will be a revolution. On the other hand, these same CBO projections show what will happen if we do the right thing today: If we balance the budget permanently beginning in 2002, real incomes for the next generation will be one-third higher than they are today. Our path is clear. The worst thing you can say about the balanced budget amendment is that maybe Congresses and Presidents will have the courage and vision to do the right thing without it. The bitter experience of history suggests otherwise. The best thing you can say about this amendment is that it guarantees we will pass on the American dream to our children and that they will continue to have the opportunity for a better life; that our seniors will be more economically secure; and that Americans today and tomorrow will have more and better jobs. I certainly hope we can arrive at that magic two-thirds vote tomorrow. I certainly hope the President would free his balanced budget amendment hostages over on the other side and allow them to vote their true conviction as they have over the years under the leadership of the Senator from Illinois, Paul Simon, who has worked so hard to keep this a balanced, bipartisan issue. I am so disappointed that this issue has become a partisan-type issue. But I remain hopeful, because the balanced budget amendment will not go away. The people want it. The future needs it. And our nation deserves it. Mr. President, I now yield----

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator is correct. A year ago we were challenged on this floor by those who opposed a balanced budget amendment and who said you can balance the budget without an amendment. The chairman of the Budget Committee met that challenge responsibly in the way that it ought to be met and produced a balanced budget amendment, one that brought us to balance. The chairman produced a budget that honored the critical policy priorities of this country and sent it to a President, this President, and he vetoed it. And now it is this President who is twisting the arms over here on the other side to assure that a balanced budget amendment does not pass and that the American people do not get to exercise their constitutional to debate whether to ratify it.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amount of time the Senator from Texas used not count against the total remaining time Republicans have on the balanced budget debate.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the senior Senator from Texas 2 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Georgia and the Senator from Utah who has just spoken on this fundamental American issue. Mr. President, I had the privilege of beginning my service to the State of Idaho in 1981 in the U.S. House of Representatives. By 1982, it had become obvious to me that the collective bias, if you will, inside the Congress and elsewhere in the Federal Government, at that time and still today, was largely to spend money, to tax when you had to, but clearly to spend money on those programs that you felt most beneficial to your constituency. And when taxation was not popular, the bias was to go ahead and borrow the money because--that was certainly popular in the 1970's and 1980's and into the early 1990's--if you could bring home one Government program after another and deliver it to your constituency, especially if you did not have to pay for it in the form of taxes, you were just an extremely popular politician and you tended to get reelected year after year after year. Thank goodness the attitude has changed a bit in Congress. It was in 1982 that I and a Democrat Congressman from Texas, Charlie Stenholm, first introduced, and joined forces in a bipartisan effort to pass, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time, I and others traveled nationwide from State to State asking the State legislatures to petition the Congress for the very right that the Senator from Georgia has just spoken to--the right to speak to the Constitution, the right to amend the very basic document of our country. From 1982 to 1995, this Congress has been struggling with the fact that they really did want to deny the American people the right to speak their will on their Constitution, to reshape their Constitution, in a very important way, in what it would do to direct, to simply limit, the Congress of the United States and its activities. In 1982, if you looked at the polls, the public was somewhat concerned about a balanced budget amendment. It was not until the late 1980's when the deficits were soaring to nearly $300 billion a year that this issue finally became an urgent issue with the American people. Even in a poll today, after 2 long years of struggling with liberal Democrats and fighting to try to balance a budget, the American people, now 83 percent strong, say, ``Give us a constitutional amendment for us to speak on, to debate and ratify, that would force the Congress of the United States to balance its budget.'' From 1982 to 1996, this issue has become, without question, the most important, single, driving issue in the minds of the average person out there. That average American believes in a balanced budget, and recognizes the tremendous difficulties that the Congress itself has had in attempting to balance the budget, and therefore believes it will take the weight of the Constitution to balance the budget. What does it mean in real terms? Mr. President, we talk about a constitutional amendment requiring the Congress to function in certain ways. All well and good. Everybody wants a balanced budget and wants our Government to keep their fiscal house in order. Even this President, who only pays simple lip service to a balanced budget and does not really mean it--we saw between 1992 to 1994 when he was big spender No. 1 and big taxer No. 1. Now, of course, because of 1994 and the elections, he has changed his tune a lot. In fact, it is awfully hard to tell who he is these days, but we do know he at least says he is now for a balanced budget. Not for a constitutional amendment. Oh, no, do not force the Government to be fiscally responsible. Just trust Bill. Just trust the President that he will be a responsible public servant, along with the Congress, that for now, 36 years, has been unable to balance its budget. As critical as I am of this President, his own people said in his budget for 1995 that, because of the way Government spends, that future generations are going to look at paying 82 percent of their income into taxation on an annual basis for all levels of Government service and to pay interest on the debt. I cannot imagine any one young person, let alone any adult, who would believe that to be acceptable. Yet the best minds from this Government supposedly say that is a fact, unless we change things. The National Taxpayers Union estimates a child born today, in his or her lifetime, is going to pay an extra $180,000 in taxes just to pay interest on the current accruing Federal debt. Those are the people reasons that we ought to do something. Clearly, the ability to keep our fiscal house in order, Mr. President, is of paramount importance to any one American's future and to the future and strength of this country. The balanced budget bill that the President vetoed this last year would have begun the very important process to lead us to the balanced budget we speak of by the year 2002. What does it mean to the American family if we would have been able to accomplish what the President vetoed on one side and then said he was for on the other? About $2,400 a year in mortgage payments for a $75,000, 30-year mortgage. That is significant money. How about $1,000 on the lifetime of a 4-year car loan? That is big money to an American family. How about $1,900 on the life of a 10-year student loan? All we have heard from this administration when we tried to adjust the student loan program is that we were cutting the loan program, when we did not cut loans or eligibility a dime. Yet, they will not balance their budget to give the student who has to pay the interest on the debt that he or she has accrued the benefit of a $1,900 savings on a 10-year student loan. That is big money to real families, spread across millions and millions of students who need student loans to put themselves through their undergraduate years. How about 6 million new jobs by the year 2002--just from balancing the budget. And there are other kinds of growth or multipliers in the economy that will occur if we are able to do this. Those are the good reasons. That is why we ought to be balancing the budget. Now, can we get there without a constitutional amendment? Well, I think everyone watching today, and certainly the American people over the last 2 years, have watched us play the game. Some of us were deadly serious about a balanced budget. I am afraid the other side of the aisle was not at all that interested. We have heard one plan, two plans, four plans, six plans. Oh, there are all kinds of plans to balance the budget. But when that side of the aisle disagrees with this side of the aisle, and ultimately, in the end, with the President's veto standing there over us, balanced budgets simply do not occur because the Constitution does not require them. We have only our ability to work together to solve this, and that is not enough. I have always been convinced from the very day that I fought for a balanced budget amendment on the floor of the U.S. House in 1982 that we needed the extraordinary power of the Constitution to force the Congress of the United States and those who serve it to be fiscally responsible. We had learned--not this particular Senator, but a good many before him--that there were all kinds of ways to game the system, and in the end you could ultimately tell the American people you were doing one thing when, in fact, you were doing something different. It does not work that way when the Constitution requires you to respond in a certain manner. Oh, there are those who would say you can just ignore the Constitution. Mr. President, that is one thing that is not ignored around here. In the privileged time I have had to serve the State of Idaho in Congress, I have seen the Constitution is not intentionally ignored. There are times when what we do gets judged by the courts to be constitutionally lacking. When that occurs with a law we pass, we make the necessary decisions and adjustments to change it and bring it back into shape. Since 1969 we have had 27 unbalanced budgets in a row. From 1960 on, 35 of 36 budgets have been unbalanced. A majority of the American people have seen the Federal Government balance its books only once or never. Yet, when our Founding Fathers created this great country, they did not require this as a constitutional requirement because they simply felt there would never be a day when the budgets would not be balanced. If they did become unbalanced, certainly, the fiscally responsible Congress would move quickly to bring them back into balance. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying we will have an opportunity once again to vote on a constitutional amendment to require Congress and the President to balance the Federal budget. I know of no single, stronger way to allow the American people to debate the issue of a balanced budget in every State capital of this Nation, than to allow the legislatures of all of the States to move in the constitutionally prescribed way, and that is to ratify or deny a constitutional amendment--the 28th--to our Constitution, which would require the Government of this country to balance its budget on an annual basis. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, within an hour or so, we will be adjourning and out for the Memorial Day recess. But when we return, it is my plan to mark up legislation in the Public Lands and Forestry Subcommittee that I chair, dealing with forest health, the health of the forests of our country. For well over a decade now, we have studied the issue of how to manage our forests in light of the recurrence of wild storm style forest fires that continue to devastate our forests across the Pacific Northwest and across the Southwest every time we get into a dry period, especially the kind the Southwest, New Mexico and Arizona and Colorado, are experiencing at this moment. What we have found, Mr. President, is that in our great ability to put out fires, we have allowed to build up on our forest floors, massive amounts of fuel in the form of dead and dying trees as a result of bug kill, as a result of fungus, or simply as a result of the overpopulation of our trees and therefore their death because of lack of moisture. In my State of Idaho and across the inland West, where before man came to that region we had tremendously healthy forests and populations of trees of 40 or 50 or 60 trees per acre, now, because of our ability to put out fires, we are finding that we have 300 and 400 trees per acre. Of course, there is only so much moisture. When we get into a drought cycle, there is not enough moisture to keep all of those trees alive. What we are finding is that before we had this tremendous ability to put out fires, fires would come along on a relatively regular basis, caused by lightning strikes or actually caused by native Americans who saw the useful tool of fire. It would burn at a low rate, at a low pace, burn off the shrubbery and the brush, allow the mature trees to stand and allow young trees that had reached a certain age to survive. That kept the forests, primarily of the West, in a very productive and rather pastoral form. But that changed and it has changed dramatically over the last 50 years, as we learned to put out fires. But we did not go in and do what Mother Nature was doing, and that was to thin trees or to take down the underbrush. As a result of that, we have had a massive fuel loading in many of the forests of the West and Southwest. Mr. President, you and I have witnessed, in the last several months, fires in New Mexico and Arizona and now in Colorado that, by our forest scientists' estimation, are the most intense and hottest wild fires we have ever experienced. As a result, Mother Nature is not served well. These fires devastate the forests, leaving not even a snag standing, destroy the ecosystems, and scald the soil in a way there is little to no recovery for a period of years and years. Those are not normal fires. They are abnormal fires, as a result of massive fuel buildup. I was visiting with the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, about the fires in his State. One of those areas that was burned had been devastated by beetles. Better than 50 percent of the stand was dead. Yet, because of current law and because of certain interest groups, we were not allowed to go in and thin and clean and allow new growth to start. As a result of that, fire swept through there and destroyed the whole area. S. 391, the bill that I have worked for over a year to craft, visiting with scientists, holding hearings, and making sure we build a strong bipartisan effort, better known as forest health legislation, the kind I want to mark up as soon as we get back here in early June and bring it to the floor for a debate, hopefully it can become law and become the public policy and a new management tool for our U.S. Forest Service. It would allow the Forest Service to go in and look at these lands and under current environmental law assure they have the flexibility to go in and thin and remove brush and actually even use fire in a selective way, to assure that our forests can regain their health and regain their vitality in an environmental way and not be swept away and destroyed, as the forests we have seen under fire in the last few weeks throughout the Southwest. Of course, in the State of Colorado last week, when man got in the way of the fire, or man's dwellings, they, too, were swept away, as was true in the State of Idaho in 1994 when we saw wildfires, as a result of our forest health, that were beyond man's recognition. So I hope when we come back, we can join the wisdom of the Spokesman- Review newspaper that editorialized yesterday in my area, in the inland West, saying that we ought to pass S. 395, we ought to make good public policy, and we ought to allow, once again, strong multiple-use environmental standards to return to our public forests and to the management of those public forests. So it is my wish we mark up S. 395 and move it to become public law. I hope in early June we can have it here on the floor of the U.S. Senate for a good debate and passage. I yield the remainder of my time.

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 that I be allowed to speak in morning business for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 57, the balanced budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. I commend the hard work by the Budget Committee to bring to this floor, one more time, what the American people--and the people of Idaho--have demanded: A genuine, convincing plan to balance the Federal budget by fiscal year 2002. This balanced budget resolution is consistent, in its principles and its details, with what I believe most citizens in Idaho want. Like most Idahoans, I would prefer to go farther, faster. But I also recognize how far we have come in just a year and a half. In the last Congress, dominated by the President's party, we were told that $200 billion a year in deficit spending, as far as the eye could see, was the best we could do. This budget resolution does not represent politics as usual. It looks to a brighter future of more jobs, more affordable educations, a more secure Medicare system, and real welfare reform--all within a balanced budget. Conducting the Balanced Budget Game In Idaho Mr. President, to focus in some depth on the budget priorities of Idahoans, last month, my office held a series of meetings in five locations in Idaho. We invited folks to participate in an exercise in hard choices--or, what I call the balanced budget game. We held these in Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Twin Falls, Nampa, and Boise. This exercise has been developed and updated regularly by the nonpartisan, nonprofit educational organization, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. In this exercise, citizens get the chance to be a Senator for a day-- meeting in small groups that work much like the Senate Budget Committee during the markup of the budget resolution and walking through a 180- page workbook resembling a Budget Committee markup book. Across the State, participants were grouped into 32 groups, or budget committees, with between 4 and 10 members each. I've used this exercise and similar ones in the past to poll the opinions of Idahoans on budget priorities and I've told Idahoans that I would again use their responses in this exercise to fight for Idaho values in the Federal budget. I have been reviewing in detail the individual results from each of the five cities where we held the exercise, and I am struck by the highlights that have emerged. I would like to summarize those briefly here. My office is preparing a complete analysis to send to the Idaho citizens who participated in those five cities. Idaho's Priority: Balance the Budget and Spend Less This is the result that stands out: Idahoans are demanding that we balance the budget. By far, most of the Idaho groups were willing to exercise more restraint, and balance the budget faster, than most Members of Congress or the President. In 31 out of 32 groups, Idahoans were able to agree on enough deficit reduction to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002. This is true--31 out of 32 balanced the budget--whether you compare their results against the baseline for fiscal year 1997 or the less optimistic baseline of fiscal year 1996, which is the one that was still used in the Exercise workbook. Thirty-one out of 32 groups saved more in spending than any budget before the Congress this year--more than the Budget Committee budget, more than the Chafee-Breaux substitute, and certainly more than the President's budget. In fact, 31 out of 32 groups reduced spending growth more over 5 years than any Washington, DC, proposal would save over 6 years. On average, participants in the five Idaho cities called for the following levels of policy changes in spending programs, over 5 years: [In billions] Idaho Falls........................................................$679 Pocatello...........................................................662 Twin Falls..........................................................656 Nampa...............................................................637 Boise...............................................................671

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is indeed a pleasure and a privilege for me to speak today about the accomplishments of one of my fellow Idahoans, Vernon J. Baker. Vernon Baker is one of seven African- Americans whose heroic actions in World War II are being belatedly recognized. Vernon has been nominated for this Nation's highest award-- the Congressional Medal of Honor. When 1st Lt. Vernon Baker awoke on the morning of April 5, 1945, I am confident he did not begin the day thinking, ``Today, I am going to be a hero.'' I am more confident he began that morning thinking, ``Lord, give me the strength to get me and my men through another day.'' In the smokey grayness of predawn, artillery rained on the German mountain stronghold called ``Hill X'' near Castle Aghinolfi, Italy. First Lieutenant Baker was a platoon leader of 25 men and a recent graduate of Officer Candidate School. Standing five foot five and weighing in at 139 pounds, he led his men to the south side of the draw, within 250 yards of the castle. Seeing a telescope pointing out of the narrow slit of the bunker, he ordered his men to stay down and he crawled to the opening, stuck in his M-1 and fired until the rifle was empty. When he looked inside, one of the two dead Germans was still slumped in his chair. Baker then stumbled upon a camouflaged machine gun nest where he killed two more Germans. As he reported to his company commander, Captain John Runyan, who like all his superiors was white, he was hit in the head by a ``potato masher'' hand grenade. It failed to explode and Baker quickly shot and killed the German who had thrown the grenade. While his unit was under heavy fire, he continued into the canyon alone. Discovering a hidden entrance to another dugout, he blasted it open with a grenade and dashed inside, killing two more German soldiers with a discarded machine gun he had picked up off the ground. Captain Runyan ordered a withdrawal of the unit and told Baker he was going for reinforcements. That was the last time Lieutenant Baker saw Captain Runyan. The reinforcements never arrived. At the end of the battle, Baker regrouped the seven survivors of the 25 man platoon. The unit had killed 26 Germans, destroyed six machine gun nests, two observer posts, and four dugouts. Vernon Baker was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross on July 4, 1945, for his actions that day. The Distinguished Service Cross is the Nation's second highest military award. On the citation for the award, Baker is cited for ``outstanding courage'' and ``daring leadership.'' Nearly 50 years later, during an Army review of medals awarded during World War II, the absence of a single African-American from the list of Congressional Medal of Honor winners was duly noted. This began the process to determine if African-Americans had not received the Nation's highest award merely because of racial bias rather than military record under fire. Seven Distinguished Service Medal awards were reevaluated and have now been recommended for upgrade to the Congressional Medal of Honor. Vernon J. Baker is the only surviving nominee from this illustrious group. Mr. President, on behalf of a grateful nation, I once more want to thank Vernon J. Baker for his courageous actions, on that April day so long ago.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Georgia for, once again, taking time to bring us to the floor of the Senate to debate what has become a very important issue to Americans--America's consumers and America's driving public. As has been said by our colleague from Texas, there are those of us who live in rural States where it is literally hundreds of miles between communities, where people commute 60, 70 miles a day, where business occurs and goods and services are provided by long distances of transportation. Any time we raise the cost of delivery of goods and services, or the cost it takes the individual consumer to provide for themselves and their families in the normal course of daily activity, we have impaired the economy of our country. That is exactly what has happened here with the kind of tax that President Clinton pushed through several years ago, of which a part was the 4.3 cent gas tax that we are talking about today and that I hope the Senate will vote to repeal this week. Unique to this gas tax increase was the fact that, up until that time, in a temporary way, we had only had one small gas tax that had ever gone to the general fund. All the rest of the permanent increases, like this particular increase, had gone to the highway or transportation trust funds of our country, which then were dedicated to the building of roads and bridges and transportation infrastructure. As a result of that, we have an excellent highway and transportation system, because we have always been smart enough and clear enough in our direction as a country to recognize that citizens would be willing to pay dedicated taxes to dedicated funds for specific purposes. And that has always largely been true of raises or increases in the fuel or gas tax when it was dedicated. I know it has certainly been true in my State of Idaho. While our citizens are concerned about taxes and believe, as I do, that they are much too high, they have always largely been willing to support the kind of taxes that were dedicated to a broad, general purpose like transportation. And as a result of it, we have had and seen built excellent transportation systems. This is different--substantially different. Our President said that he would oppose increasing a gas tax as a candidate in 1992. He said it was regressive and unfair to working families. And he was right. In fact, I have a letter here from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Ron Carey, general president, asking the Senate of the United States and the Congress to repeal the 4.3-cent tax. The reason is exactly the kind of reason I have just given. Not only does it affect the working men and women of the Brotherhood of Teamsters, but based on the average trucker purchasing 14,000 gallons per year of diesel fuel, it is estimated that a repeal of the 4.3-cent tax per gallon will save trucking companies $600 per vehicle per year--largely a $600 cost that must be passed through to the goods and services that the trucking industry sends around our country. That, of course, is exactly, I think, the concern that many of us have. Once you start a tax like this, unless it is truly a dedicated tax, it simply begins the snowballing effect of being added onto the cost of consuming in this country and to the costs that our families must bear up under as they go about their daily lives. Certainly, in the farming and ranching business of my State, where all goods and services must be transported over long distances to get to the home operation, this kind of tax increase has a substantial impact upon the working families of my State. It is said that the tax-and-spend attitude of this administration, and this tax, coupled with the largest tax increase in history that was pushed through by a Democrat Congress and by this President several years ago, has destroyed over 1.2 million jobs in our country, and that the cost to the average American family has been $2,600 a year in higher taxes and lower earnings. We have heard of the frustration that the working families of our country have this year, and that the average citizen has, that somehow their wage increases do not translate into greater spendable income. Mr. President, here is one of the reasons why. Immediately, they have to pay more dollars at the pump on an annual basis, and their cost of living and providing for their families, as a result, goes up. That has clearly been a part of the reason that we have seen the rather flat growth in the U.S. economy, as a result of the Clinton tax increase. Now I think all of us recognize it as truly the Clinton crunch on the working men and women of our country. In Idaho alone, repeal of this gas tax increase would represent a $32 million savings to consumers, to people who stop nearly two times a week at the gas pump to fill up because of their long-distance commuting. There is something else that is interesting. I serve, as does the Presiding Officer, on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee here in the Senate. Just last week, we went through a morning of hearings looking at why we are in the gas price spiral that the consuming public is now experiencing, and what it was doing, and whether we could anticipate some leveling off of it, and what the general impact is of what is happening. Here is a chart that came out of that hearing that I thought was most significant. It begins to explain part of the overall picture of what the average consumer pays for at the gas pump. The real cost of raw materials is 42 percent of what you pay for at the pump. But the thing I found most interesting was this figure over here--that motor fuel taxes represents over 30 percent of every dollar spent at the fuel pump. That is both State and Federal. You know, Mr. President, I know of no other consumer good in our country where within the cost of the purchase of that good is built in a 30-percent tax. While I think all of us would agree that some of these taxes over the years built into the cost of fuel have been very positive--I have already talked about the roads, bridges, interstate transportation system, and now some of the inner-city rail that is receiving the benefits of this tax--but none of it ever went in a permanent way--I repeat, a permanent way--to welfare, to food stamps, to the general fund expenditures of the Federal Government, until President Clinton pushed through this tax a couple of years ago. This tax had always been dedicated to the general economic well-being of our country. By that I mean the constant ability to improve the transportation systems that allow the flow of our economy to improve on an aggressive basis. Clearly, our wealth as a nation has been our ability to move goods and services at low costs, and that is why we were always committed to this kind of a tax. That is why I stood on the floor of the Senate, having opposed this tax when it was passed and now supporting its repeal because instead of it going into the pool that builds the roads and bridges, it is now being used in a way where it should not be. And, yet, the American people are led to believe, because of the historic use, that it is part of this mix. I think 30 percent of any good in the market going to taxes is extremely high, and is in this instance much, much too high. I hope that the Senate will agree with us this week and support a full repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me close by saying that the billions of dollars that the consuming public now pays in the form of this tax--the $32.1 million that Idahoans pay--does nothing to improve or stimulate the economy of our country. It is not building a road. It is not building a bridge. It is not patching a pothole. It is being spent on day-to-day costs of our Government through the general fund. This is the first time in our history that we have done this. It is now time that in a little but most significant way we can drop the price of gas at the pump by repealing this tax and, as importantly, righting the wrong that occurred several years ago when President Clinton passed this tax through. I hope once we correct this, we will say that never again will we ever put a dedicated fuel tax into the general fund of our country, that, if we are going to continue to increase this part of the dollar purchasing pie of the American consumer, when it comes to transportation costs of fuel, that it go to serve the transportation needs of our country and to continue to build and maintain that infrastructure that has served us so well. Having said those words, I believe it is so important that we respond now and as soon as the Senate can to this issue. I heard from a good many of my constituents who think the Senate is clearly moving in the right direction to repeal this tax. I hope we respond this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Missouri, John Ashcroft, in the introduction of this legislation, and I thank him for the thoughtfulness and, most important, the foresightedness that I think this legislation represents. The Senator spoke well when he said Americans will not for long tolerate double taxation, and it is unique in the area of Social Security taxes that we allow corporate America, in their partnering in this tax, to deduct it, but we do not allow the individual who must pay that tax do so. So, as a result of the first $62,700 of income, the individual is, in essence, double taxed. My colleague from Missouri today has introduced legislation in essence saying that the time of that fallacy is over and that, if we really want to restore the wage-earning capability of the American worker, we should let them keep the money they have earned, and we do so with this legislation today. For a typical two-income family--and most families are becoming that now--the Federal income tax liability would be dropped by more than $1,000. Here we are at this moment on the floor of the Senate trying to resolve the issue of a Federal gas tax that pulls billions of dollars out of the pocketbook of the American taxpayer. We have seen a frustration expressed by working men and women in this country for the last several years that they just do not get ahead. They keep getting a salary increase, but nothing comes home, which does not translate into money in the back pocket or money to buy the new car or money to help finance their children's education or money to improve their lifestyle in some form. In fact, out of all that frustration, and while our President talks about a strong economy, it is an economy that is just millions of jobs less strong than it ought to be for the very reason that the Senator from Missouri has so articulately spoken: the dragdown, if you will, of the ability of the American producers, working men and women, to retain that which they work so hard for and, therefore, to collect it, to put it in savings, if they will, to spend it for their own purposes, to provide for their children. In other words, the American dream does not quite seem to be as clear as it used to be. I suggest, Mr. President, that one of the reasons is this kind of Government intrusion, if you will, double taxation. The legislation, the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act, introduced today by my colleague, John Ashcroft, that I have cosponsored along with others, in my opinion, begins to, once again, brighten the American dream. It is part of what we are here on the floor debating today. Some of our colleagues argue that the way you solve the human crisis in this country, no matter how that crisis is defined, is to bring about a Government program. I suggest that most Americans in our country today can solve their own crises if they simply have the tools of solution. One of the great tools of solution for problem solving is the ability to retain your own earnings so you can spend it for yourself and your family to improve your lot in society or to correct a problem that has somehow gone wrong. This legislation offers that opportunity, and I hope that it gets heard, gets debated. I relish an opportunity for the Senate to debate it and vote upon it. Mr. President, as we will in the next little while decide whether this Senate is going to vote on a gas tax repeal or whether we are going to find some loophole, as the other side now struggles to do to argue that this is no good, is going to be a unique challenge for all of us. Like you, I did not vote for this gas tax increase. I am a Westerner, and I recognize the kind of burden you place on somebody who must commute the long miles in the West, or the farmer or rancher who uses fuel as a tremendous tool of their production, and we lessen their ability to profit when we increase the cost of their tools, their tools of incomemaking, if you will. That is part of what this debate is all about. But the idea that we would use a gas tax, which we have traditionally directed toward roads and bridges and improving the transportation of our country and, therefore, improving the ability of this economy to expand that my colleague from Missouri talks about--the business of growth in the economy should be the business of Government not getting in the way but staying out of the way and promoting that growth. The gas tax has been one that always has. It has promoted growth in the economy by the building of roads and bridges and allowing the kind of flow of labor that has been the hallmark of our society. But this President, President Clinton, said, ``I need that money to pay for social programs,'' even when in 1992, Candidate Clinton said, ``I won't increase the gas tax. It's the wrong kind of thing to do. It does not allow the economy to grow and expand.'' But of course, promises made, promises broken, tax increase, billions of dollars now pouring out of the economy of our country and into the hands of Government to be spent in social programs. Is it a big part of the gas increase, the fuel costs that consumers are about today? No, it is not, but it is an important issue to be debated and voted upon to return not only the gas tax to its traditional use but to reduce the overall ability of Government to spend and to expand programs. You are going to hear more talk today, as you have had for the last several days, that somehow this does damage to Government. I suggest you just cut the spending of Government in direct relation to the amount of revenue that will remain not as a tax but as an income to the consumer in the consumer's pocket. Right now, every time that consumer pulls up to a gas pump, sticks the nozzle in the tank of their car, they see a tremendous outpouring from the pocketbook. So, if we were to pass legislation of the kind just introduced by my colleague from Missouri, if we were to repeal the gas tax and allow that to remain in the pocket of the consumer, we would see the kind of growth and job creation in our economy that we have not seen, that cannot be talked about by this administration because of the taxes that have been pushed through stifling the overall ability of that economy to grow. Growth, progrowth, work incentives, 500,000 new jobs possibly created by the legislation of the Senator from Missouri, that two-income family being able to retain more of their income, $1,000-plus a year--that is the type of thing this Congress ought to be talking about and doing something about instead of talking about, ``Oh, my goodness, this takes away from our ability to spend. We might have to reduce this program or that program.'' Mr. President, we just left tax freedom day. We just said to the American taxpayer, ``Today is the day when you've paid your taxes, and you can start earning for yourself.'' Last week I stood on the floor of the Senate and said that the first 3 hours of every working day the taxpayer, or the worker, spent their time working for Government, both at the State and Federal level. Somehow that must change if we are to get the kind of productivity in our economy, job creation and self-well-being to once again brighten the American dream instead of progressively dimming it, as Government can so successfully do if it constantly takes away from the individuals their ability to earn, save, invest, retain, provide for themselves and their families. So I thank my colleague from Missouri for his insightfulness and innovativeness in proposing this legislation. I hope that in the coming year this becomes a major part of what this Congress is about and what this Senate is about in providing for the American people.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of S. 1741 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')