Larry Craig

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 deliver 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 can not 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 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 deliver 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 can not 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. I thank the manager.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, when this vote occurs in a few moments, to abide by current law and private property rights and the protection of the security of individuals. Consider the risks that could result as a result of us voting for the Simpson amendment and returning to law what this Congress rejected by substantial margin several years ago and has retained as the right position to hold when it comes to open-field searches and agriculture employers. I yield the remainder of any time that I have.

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I must tell the chairman that I am opposed to this amendment. I need the time to express that opposition, and I would ask for 5 minutes to do so.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman for accommodating me. I have been chairing the Veterans' Committee in his behalf. I thank him very much.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor in opposition to the amendment that we will soon be voting on, that the chairman of the committee has brought to the floor. I say that because I believe that America, out of fairness and justness, wants to stay with current law. Current law, now known as the McClure amendment, treats agricultural growers the same as all other businesses and business owners. I think it is important that we maintain the balance of fair play and property rights as recognized by current law. The Simpson amendment in effect says if a farmer could put walls around or a roof over his or her fields, then the INS could not conduct an open-field warrantless search. But since this farmer cannot do that in a 10-acre, 50-acre, 100-acre, 500-acre field, since he cannot build a roof over his or her field, that workplace does not enjoy the same private property rights as all other workplaces. The McClure amendment, now current law, is applying the same INS search warrant procedures to all employers. In this instance, I would argue the Senate ought to maintain the kind of fairness of the current law. If you want to search for illegal aliens, then you get the employer's permission, or if you have probable cause, then you get a search warrant. That is called fairness and equity in this society. I think that is what we have to strive for. The McClure amendment applies only to unjustified searches and only to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It does not apply to any other law enforcement agency such as DEA or State or local law enforcement officers. I think that is important to specify. INS agents in hot pursuit of illegal aliens or others who are violating the law could still enter the field. In other words, we have not created a wall here; we have created a protection of property rights. The McClure amendment was originally passed because of evidence that the INS was abusing open-field searches. In my State of Idaho, prior to this law being in place, we had numerous occasions when, without notification, INS agents, with drawn guns, were running through orchards in the State of Idaho. That, to me, is a formula for disaster. Innocent people could accidentally become hurt as a result of this. And it did nothing, absolutely nothing, to enforce the laws as they currently were at that time. The McClure amendment was originally passed for a lot of these reasons. The unlawful detaining of American citizens I have already mentioned. If current law protects property rights, then apparently there was a violation of property rights. I believe the Simpson amendment--not intending to do so--could see us fall backwards into that circumstance that I think would be very dangerous to do. It could result in the injuring of agricultural workers, causing damage to crops and property that is already well documented, that has occurred in the past. Here is what is interesting. The Judiciary Committee voted 12 to 5 to reject a similar Simpson amendment and retain basically current law. They were right to do so. I cannot understand for the life of me, if that was the vote of the committee, that we are back here on the floor with this amendment. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the National Council of Agricultural Employers and also a letter from Dean R. Kleckner, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if I could indulge you for just a moment this morning, I would like to incorporate you in my discussion on term limits, because I want to tell a little story to my colleagues who are here and for the record. A good number of years ago I engaged in a conversation with the former Senator from Wyoming, Malcolm Wallop, who you followed to the Senate. We were talking about the advantage of freshmen, new people, coming to the U.S. Congress. I alluded at that time that you can always tell the difference between a freshman and a more senior Member by this simple adage: Freshmen were always going around asking why Government did certain things, and more senior Members were going around saying ``because.'' In other words, what has often happened as a result of seniority and longevity of service in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. Congress in general is that Members of those bodies become advocates of Government, defenders of Government, instead of responsible citizen critics of their Government. One of the things that I know the chairman, the President, and I have tried to do, and I mean the President of the Senate, the presiding Chair of the Senate and I have tried to do is be constant critics of Government, critics of Government. Oftentimes we find out that the longer Members are here, while they may serve well, they become the advocates of an ever-increasing Government. It was under that belief in my years of service, while I think I remain a responsible critic, that I have grown to support term limits, because I believe they are a rejuvenator of the system. It creates, once again, the process that our Founding Fathers had intended. That was the citizen legislator coming to this Congress to direct the affairs of Government, not to be the advocate but to be the friendly critic. Now that both the House and the Senate are under the control of a Republican Congress, we are going to have votes on this issue. We are going to be able to stand up and express our wishes, hopefully reflecting the will of the American people, that has been spoken to by the Senator from Tennessee, who has done such a fine job of bringing this issue to the floor, and the Senator from Missouri, that 77-plus percent of the American people believe that term limits are a responsible way of governing, and that those of us who seek to serve in public life at this level be limited to a certain number of years in our public service, and in doing so, hopefully, retaining those concerns or those issues that brought us to this Congress. It is because of a Republican-controlled Congress that we will have the privilege to vote today on this important issue. Hopefully, we can take this issue to the American people. It is significantly important. We are asking the American people to change the way their Government has operated for well over 200 years. That is why I am pleased that we are moving to the constitutional amendment approach. Yes, the courts have said we must strike uniformity in the terms of Federal officers, and that is what we all are who serve in this body, and that all States must be served and represented equally. Beyond that court edict and the responsibility that is being taken here today in the debating of and the voting on this constitutional amendment, remember our civics lesson, to understand that the Congress can only propose an amendment. That in proposing it, what we are really doing is sending it out to all 50 States for what will be a fundamentally important national debate on term limits. Every State legislator, if this passes the Congress, will engage in a debate at the State level on the validity of term limits and the responsibility of those limits and how they ought to be carried out under the edicts of this constitutional amendment. That is what representative Government is all about. That is why I recognize these two Senators for the work they have put in in the leadership of this issue. While I have been a strong and outspoken supporter of term limits, we have not had the opportunity to vote on them in previous years. Now we are guaranteed that opportunity. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of this amendment. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were ardent supporters of term limits. Maybe they saw something that some of our other Founding Fathers did not see. Maybe they recognized there could be a time when Government would grow to a point that those who served in it would ultimately become individuals who would seek a lifetime of service here. While there are a tremendous number of dedicated Members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate who have served well beyond the limits that are proposed within this amendment, I believe the concept of term limits, as I have spoken to, serve as a phenomenally rejuvenating factor in what we believe to be the founding premises of this country, that States would not have lost as much control as they have lost over the last 200 years if we had term limits. Citizens who had served and would serve in Congress would find themselves much more subject to the laws they passed because they would not spend a lifetime here, a lifetime in an environment that was relatively sheltered, relatively protected from the citizen on the street of America, who had to live under the laws that the Congress had passed. For 200-plus years, Congress has been exempt from all of those laws. It is only in the last few years, under phenomenal pressure from the citizens, that we are finally saying we are not special and we are not something different. Thank goodness we are saying that. I have been pleased to support the fact that we now subject our offices to the same labor laws that the average employer must subject his work force to and the average worker must be subjected to. Why should we be different? Why should we be special? We should not be. But it has been under a protected environment of continual service that that kind of situation existed. It is my guess that if term limits had been imposed some time ago, that would not have been allowed to happen. The Congress would not have become the special, unique haven that it was for so many years, while at that time it might have been observed as the right thing to do. In an America of today that wants to see a limited Government, to see a great deal more authority returned to the States, this amendment, and our debate on this amendment, fits that approach in a most important way. I look forward to an opportunity to continue to work on this, and I hope we can get the vote this afternoon. But as the Senator from Tennessee admonished us when the debate began, this is an issue that will not go away. If we are not successful this time, I am confident we will be back, and I will be a supporter of that effort. If that cannot occur, you heard the Senator from Texas talking about the allowance of a national referendum that causes this debate and a vote of the people of this country on this type of an issue. So while a Senator from Wyoming chose, a few years ago, to limit his terms, which gave opportunity for the Presiding Officer to be a new face in the U.S. Senate, bringing new debate and new ideas, I believe this is an issue that we ought to respond to in a representative way to the citizens of our country, who have spoken so clearly on it. While the issue of rotation in office--term limits--for elected Federal officials has been around as long as our country itself, this current Congress will make history on the issue of term limits. In prior Congresses, neither the House nor the Senate had voted on a congressional term limits amendment, despite the efforts of myself and others. Finally those efforts have paid off. This Republican Congress has kept its promises, and is trying to pass a term limits constitutional amendment. It is the first U.S. Congress ever which the House and the Senate will both have floor debates and recorded votes of all the Members on a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. The term limits constitutional amendment that I am an original cosponsor of will impose a uniform, national term limit of 12 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. It is critical that if we impose term limit, we do it across the board, State by State. No State should be singled out to be disadvantaged by the loss of seniority in Congress. My support of this grew out of my observation of how this business on Capitol Hill works--or does not work. Why do I feel so strongly that congressional term limits are an important and fundamental step in restoring our Nation's political health? The Governors of 40 States, including my State of Idaho, are subject to term limits. Why not Congress? The State legislatures of 21 States, including Idaho, are subject to term limits. Why not Congress? Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were two ardent supporters of term limits. The issue of term limits for Members of Congress is favored by 77 percent of the American people, according to a national poll conducted in January. Support for term limits never falls below 64 percent in any demographic group; white, black, Hispanic, male, female, young, old, Republican, Democrat, Independent, or geographic residence. Term limits received more votes in the 14 States where it appeared on the ballot in 1992 than Ross Perot received in all 50 States in the 1992 Presidential election. According to studies conducted by the National Taxpayers Union, the shorter the tenure of a Member of Congress, the more likely that Member of Congress is to vote against tax and spending increases for the Federal Government. The bottom line is this: if we want to change the mindset in Washington, DC, we must change the players. A limited central government and limited tenure in that government are essential elements on which our form of government is based. We must embrace the principles articulated by the Founders of our country and supported today by an overwhelming number of American people. To do otherwise is to forget our roots and responsibilities as representatives of the voters. We are not free agents doing whatever we want in Washington. When I joined in the battle for term limits years ago, I knew it would not be a quick, easy process. My fight for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution has showed me that. But, like the balanced budget amendment, we must let the people of our country decide whether they wish to ratify the term limits amendment. If Congress passes the term limits amendment, it must still be ratified by 38 States. That is my goal here today: to pass this legislation so that the people of Idaho and everywhere else will be able to let their State legislatures know whether or not to support this term limits amendment. Let the people decide, not us. I will be proud to cast my vote in favor of term limits on behalf of the people of the great State of Idaho. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this letter outlines many of the beneficial aspects of MSA's, or medical savings accounts, in addition. I found it quite interesting that as part of his pension simplification proposal, President Clinton would allow withdrawals from individual retirement accounts for catastrophic health care insurance needs. That is a great idea. But that is an MSA. Whether Bill Clinton knew it or not, by his endorsement of this approach, he has, in effect, endorsed medical savings accounts, and I applaud him for doing so. Since the healthy-and-wealthy assertions have been made, I want to take a moment to address this issue, because it is phony, phony, phony. Anyone who has experienced chronic health problems or a catastrophic illness realizes how difficult it is to cover out-of-pocket expenses. If that health care problem is not covered by insurance, you get no assistance in helping finance the cost incurred. We have people who have minimal coverage and are making limited incomes, and they cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs to get across the deductible threshold to get the benefits of their insurance, in many instances. For families and individuals on fixed incomes, this is especially problematic. I had a constituent who expressed to me a frustration that even though she had great health care insurance, it did not provide comprehensive dental benefits. She needed to get a tooth capped, which would cost her at least $500 out of pocket. Her alternative was that she should live with the discomfort until more serious problems occurred with the tooth that would be covered by her insurance. Her frustration was that this was the only health care problem she had experienced in the last 2 years and the only cost incurred other than her annual physical and dental checkup. She had not met her deductible, but would have to find $500 in her monthly budget to pay for capping a tooth or go take out a loan, if she could qualify, to cap a tooth and then spread that cost over several months. If my constituent had an MSA, the $500 would have been covered by funds in her account. Medical savings accounts would also benefit individuals with chronic illnesses, such as diabetes. A few years ago, several individuals who live with diabetes complained to me that many of the health care costs they incurred are not covered by insurance. For example, the glucose testing strips, the syringes for insulin, dieticians or nutritional services, and the pharmaceuticals are not always fully covered by insurance but are necessary in order to avoid more expensive, catastrophic illnesses. With a medical savings account, a diabetic could pay for these expenses from his or her MSA. In addition, if they did experience a catastrophic illness, they would be covered once their high deductible was met. Mr. President, some will claim that MSA's will cause people to forgo needed health care treatment. This is simply not the case. I must say, while that allegation is made, there is no proof that MSA's would have that effect. Unlike most health care coverage plans, MSA's give consumers an incentive to stay healthy because the money you spend is your own. In addition, they provide access to funds for preventive health care services which may not be covered by insurance plans. Let me respond to the other half of the argument that MSA's are just another tax break for the rich. Working families will benefit greatly from MSA's. The United Mine Workers of America have a provision similar to MSA's in their current contracts. Mine workers and other working families, in my opinion, do not meet the definition of those who claim this is just for the rich. I think those are hard-working people who want and need good health care coverage for their families. That is exactly why the United Mine Workers Union negotiated it with their employers, because it was something the employers could afford and it gave those working men and women greater opportunities for coverage. I must say I grow saddened by the kind of rich demagoguery that is played on the floor of this Senate on a variety of issues when we try to expand the base and expand the opportunity for all Americans by giving tax incentives or tax breaks that allow them to do certain things beneficial to their well-being. Mr. President, regardless of income, if you get an MSA and catastrophic plan from your employer, your employer will be making the same contribution to your account. In addition, MSA catastrophic plans are a less expensive option for an employer, especially small businesses, providing another affordable option for employers who currently do not provide insurance. That is what insurance reform should all be about; as I said, to create affordability and to expand the opportunity for access to this kind of coverage. Finally, MSA's give lower income individuals an account to draw from for primary care and other preventive services that otherwise would be paid out of pocket. The out-of-pocket issue to those less fortunate in our country is a very real issue, Mr. President. In other words, MSA's eliminate the up-front deductible required with most insurance policies and provide, in essence, by this very action, first-dollar coverage. For example, with a traditional employer-provided insurance policy, a deductible must be reached before the insurance policy kicks in. A low- income parent with a sick child has to find funding out of his or her monthly budget to pay for the doctor or for any prescription. With an MSA, the worry is gone because the money has been placed by the employer in the MSA. Furthermore, if the problem is catastrophic, once the deductible is met from funds in the MSA account, the catastrophic policy provides the coverage. In most cases, out-of-pocket exposure for individuals with MSA's is less than with other types of insurance coverage policies. In fact, low-income families have an opportunity to benefit from the savings that would accrue in an MSA over time. Consider the following: Janet earns $13,000 a year. She is 20 years old and keeps her MSA through to age 60. If her employer deposits $1,800 a year in her medical savings account and she remains in good health and spends an average of $250 a year from her MSA, by the age of 60, assuming an 8 percent interest rate per year, Janet would have $433,661 in her medical savings account. Now, that is an optimum scenario. Let me give a more likely one. Under the same scenario, with Janet experiencing more health problems, and let us say she is spending $1,000 a year from her medical savings account for health care, she would still accrue $223,000-plus in her medical savings account by the time she is 60. That is the opportunity that exists today if this Senate and this Congress will awaken to what the American consuming public wants. Under a traditional fee-for-service HMO-PPO program, Janet would have health care coverage as long as she stayed with her employer. She would have to pay her annual deductible out of pocket and a copayment for service once she met that deductible. At age 60, if she retired, she would have no health care insurance and no medical savings account. That is the current law. Even this legislation does not really address that problem upon retirement, for those individuals who are not yet 65. Medical savings accounts do. So, let us change S. 1028 from rhetoric to reality by amending it and putting medical savings accounts in it. While Janet may not be a real person, there are plenty of real Janets waiting to benefit from medical savings accounts. Mr. President, my home State of Idaho was one of the first States to implement a statewide MSA program. Early reports and reactions to Idaho's program have been very, very favorable. Ada County, the largest metropolitan county in my State, was the first major employer in Idaho to offer the plan. It is saving the county a lot of money and providing greater flexibility for county employees. Passing a Federal MSA plan will enhance what is already a beneficial program in my home State of Idaho. It will allow our MSA program to be even more effectively used across the State. In short, Mr. President, passing a federal MSA plan will enhance what is already a beneficial program in Idaho. Let me tell you about one of our county commissioners in Idaho who has been a great advocate of medical savings accounts and was instrumental in bringing that county on line with an MSA policy once the State legislature passed the law. Gary Glenn, an Ada County commissioner, participates in the optional MSA plan, as do about 20 percent of the Ada County employees. Ada County's medical savings account plan saves taxpayers' dollars, maximizes patients' choices, and rewards responsible health care consumption. The benefits to Gary's six-member family are illustrated in these examples. The county's old indemnity program provided Gary's family typical coverage, $100 per person deductible, with a maximum of $300 per family, plus a 20-percent copay. The monthly premium was $494, of which Gary and his family paid $158 a month. Under the new MSA, Gary's family has catastrophic coverage with a $2,000 per person deductible--the maximum per family, though, is $3,000--and 100 percent coverage or payment above that deductible. The new monthly premium is $194. Gary still pays $158, but the county pays $36 per month instead of $336.00 for the old indemnity plan. This is a dramatic reduction in the overall cost of insurance on a per month basis. This provides a savings of $3,600 per year. Out of the savings, the county will deposit $2,100 in Gary Glenn's medical savings account. Under the old indemnity plan, Gary's family faced a much higher financial risk. In the worst case, they would be forced to pay $5,100 in deductibles and copays out of pocket and after taxes. Under the medical savings account, with a $3,000 deductible, no copayment, and $2,100 in his medical savings account, the most they would have to spend out of pocket in 1 year would be $900. That is important to remember. Instead of $5,100 out of pocket, they would spend $900. And the county is saving literally thousands of dollars as the employer. In addition, by reducing Gary's out-of-pocket family risk by 82 percent and providing them with maximum flexibility in how they spend their health care dollars, any portion of the $2,100 deposit in their account--Gary Glenn's account now--is left to spend on health care, state income tax-free, or to carry forward and earn interest. So under the Idaho medical savings account plan in Ada County, the taxpayers of that county and Gary's family are realizing real benefits. Mr. President, why cannot we be smart enough to provide that to all Americans--to give them at least the option, the choice? That is real insurance reform. That is real flexibility. That is real portability. MSA's are an idea whose time has come. We ought to do it. Today, though, in this bill we only offer the rhetoric. I hope the amendment that will be offered by the majority leader will pass and become a part of this important law. Let me say in closing that S. 1028 is a good bill. What I have talked about is making it a better bill, a more complete reform of the health care system. Not the adjustments around the edges, but major reform in a way that fits 21st century Americans. It gives them the freedom of choice, access, the individual decisionmaking authority, the buying power they need, and it is effective for all levels of our society, the poor and the rich alike. That is what it should be about. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Idaho Statesman be printed in the Record. The headline says ``Congress Can Follow County Lead on Medical Savings Accounts.'' This editorial urges this Congress, this Senate, and the President himself to become modern, to become thinkers and not prohibitors, and add to this major reform package the concept of medical savings accounts. I hope we can accomplish that.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon in support of the intent of S. 1028. Let me join my other colleagues in thanking the Senator from Kansas for her work in getting this kind of health care reform legislation to the floor, and also the Senator from Massachusetts for the work that he has done in this area. Health care in some form has been on the congressional agenda for several years. It is an important issue, and I hope by the end of this process we will have a health care insurance reform proposal that will make health care insurance more accessible and more affordable. The purpose of S. 1028, the Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995, is to increase access to health care insurance, improve the portability of benefits, give people greater security, and increase the purchasing power of individuals as well as small employers. The bill does this through a series of insurance market reforms. For example, the bill would reduce the duration of exclusions for preexisting conditions by crediting enrollees for maintaining continuous coverage through a previous employer. Another important component would be the portability of coverage from a group plan into the individual insurance market. The bill also includes a proposal that would create new State-based health insurance purchasing cooperatives, or HIPC's, based on a program that was included in the Clinton-Mitchell health care reform bill. These HIPC's are intended to give small businesses and individuals greater purchasing power in negotiating more favorable rates. Many Idahoans complain that they are locked into their current jobs because they fear losing their health care insurance. Several of my colleagues have been on the floor in the last few hours, giving examples of this kind of very real problem that Americans face. In some instances, entrepreneurs avoid starting their own businesses because they are unsure that they would be able to provide health care insurance for their families in the way that they were covered under their current employer. This is a problem that has existed in this country in an increasing way over the last decade, and it simply needs to get corrected. This legislation offers that correction. Another problem commonly raised is that individuals who have had major illnesses or preexisting conditions cannot obtain coverage if they change jobs. In other words, once you have a medical record, insurance companies, by that record, can disallow you coverage for that problem under a new insurance policy. These kinds of fears are real. Real life examples are given, and they are faced by individuals and families every day. The security issue I mentioned, as part of the intent of this bill, is a very important component of health care insurance reform. We must all be mindful that health insurance reform will have an impact on the marketplace. These kinds of reforms that are being proposed in this legislation are not without cost. As we cause the insurance market to change, the marketplace will price itself differently. In our effort to improve access to health care coverage we need to be extremely cautious and ensure that there is a minimal impact on the cost, or the increased costs of insurance, especially in the individual market. One thing we can do is to address the issue of cost in this bill. A number of valuable provisions for addressing these consumer concerns were included in the Balanced Budget Act. However, that was vetoed by the President, so they are not yet available to correspond with this legislation when it becomes law. Therefore, Mr. President, while I agree on the intent of S. 1028, to improve access, I do have concern about the issue, of affordability. In order to fully address access to health care coverage we must look at affordability. While we create potential flexibility in the marketplace, if we drive the cost beyond the reach of the individual, the family or the employer, then what have we solved? What old problems have we only changed into new ones? In order to fully address access to health care coverage, we must look at the whole issue of affordability. There are several key amendments that I think are going to be offered by the leader which will help us a great deal in solving this potential problem, such as increasing tax deductions and implementing medical savings accounts, or MSA's, as the public has grown to know them. MSA's should be a part of this bill. That amendment will be offered. I certainly hope the Senate will respond as they should to the question of affordability, rounding out this legislation by addressing the cost component. Title III of this legislation, S. 1028, includes a sense of the committee language that MSA's should be enacted. If they should be enacted--and that is what the committee says and what the legislation says--then why do we not do it? Let me read what the sense of the committee is. It is the sense of the committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate that the establishment of medical savings accounts, including those defined in . . . the Public Health Service Act . . . should be encouraged as part of any health insurance reform legislation passed by the Senate, through the use of tax incentives relating to contributions to, the income growth of, and the qualified use of, such accounts. That is what the legislation says. That is what the law would say. But, if we do not add an amendment to it, it is fine rhetoric but it does not address the needs of the American people. And it does not, in my opinion, create the component of affordability that this Senate must be responsive to, if we are to bring about this kind of insurance reform. I said the language is supportive, but it does not change anything. Instead of using this bill to speak to the issue, we should be using it as an opportunity to give consumers this valuable tool to finance health care costs. MSA's work much like individual retirement accounts, something that the consuming public of this country knows about and likes. They are often coupled with a catastrophic health care policy, but some models have been conducted in combination with managed care plans. A limited amount can be deposited annually, usually equaling the amount of the high deductible. At the end of the year, the unused amount is rolled into the next year, allowing for savings to accrue. If an individual does experience a catastrophic illness, savings can be used to meet the annual deductible, as well as cover any copayment that may be included as part of the catastrophic plan. MSA's are portable because they belong to the individual. If we are reforming health care insurance, why do we not create a vehicle that provides increased opportunity for individuals to possess health insurance? Regardless of your employment status, your MSA's stay with you. So, the job-lock question is less likely to occur. In addition, savings you accrue can then be taken with you and used to pay for insurance premiums if you are between jobs. If you want to start your own business and step away from an employer who provides insurance, the MSA stays with you. You can buy your own insurance with it. It certainly creates tremendous choice and flexibility for the individual and families, and that is what we are concerned about here, the freedom of the individual and families to make sure they can provide for themselves. Health care insurance coverage and MSA's can play a tremendous role in doing just that. Because MSA's have a higher deductible and lower premiums, they are a workable alternative for small employers who currently cannot afford to provide insurance as a benefit. So they even offer the small employer greater opportunity to provide health insurance benefits to his or her employees. A catastrophic policy and a deposit in an MSA for the annual deductible are lower in cost than any other type of insurance coverage. In addition to the lowering of cost to the employer providing insurance, MSA's provide the beneficiary greater flexibility in how those health care dollars are spent and limit out-of-pocket exposure. Finally, because savings can accrue, this is an opportunity to save over an individual's lifetime for those hefty, late-in-life health care costs such as long-term care. That is real health care reform. That is real health care insurance reform. The cost of long-term care is a big problem that Senators have tried to deal with on this floor and that certainly the seniors of our country have faced themselves for a long time. Many of us at our age in life, who have parents who are nearing a time when they may need long- term care, all of a sudden begin to factor some of those financial costs into our own budget, if we are capable of doing so, in caring for the elderly of our family. MSA's could help solve this problem in a generational way if this Senate and this Congress would simply quit talking about the value of them and allow them to become available to all Americans. Mr. President, I have been frustrated by some of the references about MSA's, that they are an extreme idea that will help only the healthy and the wealthy. It could not be further from the truth. Rather, I argue that MSA's are a commonsense response to the current problems of our health care system, incorporating individual choice and responsibility. The American people understand that and I think the American people are ready to use this health care insurance tool in a way that works to their benefit. The history of this issue has been one of bipartisan support. In both the House of Representatives and the Senate, MSA bills have been cosponsored and supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. I have a copy of an old ``Dear Colleague'' letter on a bipartisan bill, S. 2873, the Medical Cost Containment Act of 1992. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing previously scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management on S. 1401, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Amendments Act of 1995 on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. has been rescheduled for Thursday, May 2, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. In addition to S. 1401, we will receive testimony on S. 1194, to amend the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 to promote the research, identification, assessment, and exploration of marine mineral resources. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Michael Flannigan of the subcommittee staff at 202-224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. Absolutely. I think it is clearly the appropriate day to debate what is the total impact of our current Government's need based on net, based on taxation on the lives of the average citizen. When you do that, I think that is absolutely right. It gets well past the 40 percent mark in many instances. You have to factor in, as I think you have, and when I talk abut 38 percent I am not factoring in State government in many instances, but you are doing so, I think, and that is a very important part.

Mr. CRAIG. No question about it. That is something that you and I have struggled on for a good many years. We busily write an awful lot of laws around here with no sense of the kind of cost that it will have on the average citizen through regulatory compliance or making sure their businesses operate within the framework of those regulations. Those are real costs, and they get passed on to the consuming taxpayer, and ultimately that is a form of taxation.

Mr. CRAIG. I hope today is a day of reckoning. Again, a time when we all awaken to the fact of what our Government does to us--not for us. There are many things that Government can do for us, but this is an instance where I believe Government takes too much of our money and spends it unwisely. That is why, along with the amendment that the House will be voting on today to require a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes, why the amendment by my colleague from Georgia dealing with retroactivity in taxation, why the $500 tax credit that we have offered in our balanced budget bill that we sent down to the President, that he vetoed, is so important. Why trying to deal with a capital gains tax, trying to deal with an estate tax, reducing those rates, creating less impact on hard- working, saving, earning Americans is what this day ought to be about. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, for leading Members in this important debate on this important day. I hope other colleagues would join with us and come to the floor, talking about how all of this impacts their States and their citizens' lives. It truly does. When you watch that kind of money, whether it is 38 or 40 percent that you earn being taken away from you for purposes that in many instances you find unnecessary, it is a question that that has to be on a monthly, daily basis, brought before this Congress. I thank my colleague from Georgia for bringing this matter to our attention.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you very much. Let me thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me time, but especially for taking out this special order on this very important day in the lives of every working man and woman in the United States, the day when your Federal taxes are due. I say that because it is also an important day for us to pause and recognize what paying your taxes means and the kind of impact that it has on us as a society. Obviously, my colleague from Georgia has spoken about how it impacts his State. And let me also congratulate him on his constitutional amendment to prohibit retroactive taxation. I am a cosponsor of that. I appreciate him leading in those areas something that our Founding Fathers were very, very clear on, while this Government seems to have been a bit confused on it. Also, today, the House, our neighboring body, will take up the two- thirds majority to raise taxes as a requirement of our Constitution. Some would argue that is putting economics in the Constitution that should not be there. I disagree with that. I think it is the appropriate thing to do because, clearly, within the Constitution we have required two-thirds votes on other procedures that are required. Obviously, they are proposing an amendment today. That amendment requires a two-thirds vote. Somehow nobody suggests that that is the wrong thing to do or that is the wrong test that ought to be made. So I hope the House is successful today both in their debate and in their vote to require a supermajority to raise taxes. I think it is high time that we in this body and in the Congress of the United States become as sensitive to taxation as the taxpayers of this country that we suggest that we represent on a regular basis. My guess is that if you vote for increased taxes in this body, you are not representing taxpayers very well because the taxpayers of our country have consistently said for a long while that they are being overtaxed. A recent poll in the Readers Digest suggests that the average citizen believes that taxes ought to be no higher than about 25 percent of their income, and they would even say in this poll that if somebody was paying 40 percent, even though they might be making more money, they were probably being taxed too much. Even the poorer of our society would suggest that those that are being taxed at a higher level ought to be taxed at a lower level because, for some reason, higher taxation was just blatantly unfair. I have to agree that that is the case. Today, as mentioned, is April 15. Americans will work until May 7 of this year just to pay their taxes. And, as we all know, that day just keeps increasing. I am talking about January 1 to May 7 of every year now for the average taxpaying working American to meet their tax requirement. If you went to work at 8 o'clock this morning, the first 2 hours and 47 minutes of your 8-hour working day were worked just to pay your Federal tax requirement. Obviously, you live in another taxing district besides the Federal tax realm. You live in a State tax realm. Probably you would work another 35 minutes to an hour just to pay your State taxes. So it all adds up, and the average working person out there is going to spend the first 3-plus hours of their working day not putting one dime in their own pocket, not putting one dime to the purchase of a loaf of bread for the toast for the family breakfast, not putting one dime in the savings account that they are building to send their child to college, not putting one dime against the purchase of a new car or a new house, because for the first 3 hours, on the average, they will be putting all of those dimes either in the Treasury of the U.S. Government or the treasury of State government. That is why most every American agrees that they are overtaxed. That does not mean that Americans are antitax. I cited the poll a few moments ago where I think all Americans recognize the importance of some government, the importance of the basic services of government, and the need to pay for it, and the need to have budgets balanced. But what they cannot understand is why the average two-wage-earner family, a family of four, pays 38 percent of all of their income to pay taxes for all levels of government. It is simply too high, and we know it. And Americans know it more, I think, than we do. This last week during the Easter recess I had a rare privilege of taking my parents, who were here visiting, my wife and I to Williamsburg. I have been a student of Jefferson and Washington and Madison, as I hope many Senators have been on this floor. We visited the colonial capital of the colony of Williamsburg, better known as the House of Burgesses. Again, it was a remembering of why this country went through a revolution, why our Founding Fathers finally said, enough is enough, why they put their lives and their property on the line, simply saying they could not tolerate an oppressive Government, primarily because of the level of taxes that that Government was levying against a society of people who did not have a vote, who had, as we now know, taxation without representation. Of course, as mentioned in several of the books I have read about Thomas Jefferson, following the great revolution and a new country and an America under a Constitution in which we had representation, he was visiting in Europe and a British parliamentarian said, ``Well, you went to war because you had taxation with no representation. Now what do you think? You have got taxation with representation.'' I think we all recognize by that statement and 208 years of history that central Government, if not controlled, can become oppressive, and the greatest tool of oppression on the rights and freedoms of an individual, of family, a working person, is the ability of Government to tax. Since this country instituted the income tax and since we instituted automatic withdrawal from our wages of the Government's share of those taxes, we all know that that 38 percent that gets taken out of the average family of four's salary, while it seems to go very easily and we forget about it being in or having been there, we fail to recognize the tremendous purchasing power that that would have or the additional freedoms that that could afford the individual family that is now taken away from them and, therefore, the freedom to choose, the freedom to be financially independent, the ability to make for themselves and their children a better life. All of that is part of why Americans become increasingly frustrated when they see a government that progressively adds taxes to their ability to earn money. In 1992, as we all know, President Clinton talked about a middle- class tax cut. He was the champion during that Presidential year of wanting tax cuts for middle-income Americans. Somehow this President forgot or lost his way. We know what happened just a year later, in 1993, when he pushed through the largest tax increase in the history of this country. Oh, I know argumentatively he played class-war politics by suggesting it would only go on the backs of the rich, but, as my colleague from Georgia has so clearly pointed out, it did not go on the backs of the rich; it went on the backs of everybody. It went on the backs of middle-income wage earners in his State of Georgia, in my State of Idaho. It hit all levels. And when it hits all levels, it hurts all levels of our economy and the ability of families today to make their own way. So we now have taxation with representation. But at the same time, what I think we, those who are the agents of representation, have failed to recognize is the real impact that taxes have on the ability of the wage earner to function for himself, herself, or for their family, or even the incentive in a society. You know, I talked about that first 2 hours and 47 minutes of work to pay the Government. If you decide you will not work that 2 hours, 47 minutes because that money goes to the Government, think again. It does not work that way. What I am suggesting by that is that it has become, by increased rates of taxation, a blight on the ability of our economy to produce and the right of the individual to produce. Why can we not get above about 1.5-percent growth in our economy? Remember, growth is a factor of job creation, greater opportunity, upward mobility for wage earners starting at lower levels to move to higher levels, to provide for themselves and their families to have a better home, a better car, to seek a better education, to put a better coat on their back. If you deny growth in the economy, you deny those kinds of opportunities that have been historically true in our society. Taxation is a factor that puts that kind of blight against economic growth, dampers it down and, of course, as we all know in a society today, in an economy where we do not compete just with our neighbor down the street, we compete with our neighbor in China, our neighbor in Japan, if we and our level of taxation is not similar, certainly our ability to produce is less. I have talked about income tax and its impact on the family. If I could for just a moment move to something else that I think is grossly unfair, but it fits into all of this element of taxation. That is the issue of estate taxes. Somehow we have developed an attitude in our country, Mr. President, that if you collect wealth during your productive years, you work hard, maybe you do not work the 8-hour day, maybe you work the 12-hour day, maybe you work a 14-hour day and you accumulate wealth, you own a home free and clear, you have money in a bank, you have a savings account, you have stocks and bonds, you are not allowed to move those through to your children when you die, or not all of them. Again, the Government steps in and says, ``No, we will take that away from you.'' That is an estate tax that I have for so many years believed to be so wrong. I have watched farmers and ranchers in my State work for a lifetime to pay off a mortgage, to own something, only to sell it and find out that they have to give a high percentage of it back to the Government. Why? The Government did not earn it. It is not the Government's right to have it. Somehow that is something that our country has slipped into and something that April 15 of every year reminds me is just fundamentally wrong. I hope today is a day of reckoning, a day of better understanding. It appears I am out of time. Could I have an additional 2 minutes yielded to me?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the senate and the public the scheduling of a hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management on S. 1401, Surface mining Control and Reclamation Amendments Act of 1995. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, April 23, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Michael Flannigan of the Subcommittee staff at 202-224-6170. subcommittee on oversight and investigations

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public the scheduling of a field hearing in Salem, OR, before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management on S. 1662, the Omnibus Oregon Resources Conservation Act. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 12, 1996, 1 p.m.-4 p.m. at the Willamette University, College of Law, 245 Winter Street, SE., Salem, OR 97301. Testimony will be received on the two major titles of the bill: Opal Creek Wilderness and Scenic-Recreation Area and Coquille Forest Proposal. Because of the limited time available, witnesses may testify by invitation only. Written testimony will be accepted for the record. Witnesses testifying at the hearing are requested to bring 10 copies of their testimony with them on the day of the hearing. In addition, please send or fax a copy in advance to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Fax to 202-228- 0539 and fax a copy to Dave Robertson with Senator Hatfield at 503-326- 2351. For further information, please contact Mark Rey, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, at 202-224-6170 and Dave Robertson with Senator Hatfield at 503-326-3386. subcommittee on forests and public land

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, for yielding time. At the outset, let me thank Chairman Lugar and the ranking minority member, Senator Leahy, for the bipartisan way they worked, together with the whole committee, in crafting the farm bill that we have before us today. It was a tremendous pleasure for me and my staff to work with the staff of the Agriculture Committee to produce what I think is a truly revolutionary document, and a change, a positive change for American agriculture. Let me also recognize Sara Braasch, who worked with me on my staff, for the tremendous effort she put in, working with the Senate Agriculture Committee staff, resolving so many different issues that make up a good farm bill. Over the course of the last 2 years I have held a series of meetings across my State, meeting with farmers and ranchers about what they thought ought to be in a new farm bill, a new, national, public policy, as to how Government, Federal Government, ought to interface with American agriculture and Idaho agriculture. I heard in so many ways a level of frustration mounting across my State that, while they thought some level of farm policy was necessary, Government was no longer a cooperating partner. It had become a traffic cop, if you will, a conservation cop, if you will, telling that family farmer how to farm, what to farm, how much residue they could have on their soil, how they would have to do this, maybe they ought to change their equipment line to accomplish a different form of farming. I doubt that that is the kind of agriculture that Abraham Lincoln envisioned when he created USDA. I think he saw USDA as a partner for research, as a partner for bringing on new concepts and ideas, but certainly not as a large, monolithic governmental agency that was telling production agriculture how it ought to farm, and that is exactly where we saw farm policy heading. This weekend, I met, once again, with farmers in Idaho to talk about what is in the new farm bill. There were potato growers there, bean growers, wheat growers, barley growers, ranchers--a broad cross- section--along with processors. They were pleased with what they began to see and hear. Dairy was there, and dairy, of course, is a large and growing segment of my State's agriculture. They are concerned, but they believe that we have made the right decisions to move them toward a more open market. That is exactly what I think we have accomplished: a significant change in agricultural policy, as the chairman of our committee so clearly spoke to last evening, and a very important change. We are saying to American agriculture, ``You have an opportunity now to adjust and change with the markets; that you don't have to farm to the program; that you don't have to have the Federal agent who comes out and says, `Oh, I think you are 7, 8, 10 percent over acreage, you are beyond the flex, you better take some of that out or change it a little bit.''' Is that farming or playing the game? The young farmers of Idaho--and, yes, they are family farmers--but they have millions of dollars invested. I find it interesting, when we worry about farmers, we always fall back on the word ``family,'' ``family.'' Farming is a big business in my State today. It is family- run, in many instances, but those families have assets in the millions of dollars, and they work daily as astute, well-trained businessmen and women trying to operate their agribusinesses. We know agriculture is changing, and we know that it is capable of adapting. When those young farmers and ranchers come to me, in most instances they find Government the liability and not the asset. I think that is why they look at what we are doing in S. 1541, and the new farm bill that we have before us, and say this is good policy. I will be the first to recommend to our chairman that the responsibility of the Senate Ag Committee over the next several years will be to monitor, to do effective oversight, to make sure that that which we are crafting into policy that will hit the ground in rule and regulation that American agriculture will respond to, we ought to watch, especially in the more complicated areas like the dairy policy. But certainly, as the chairman said last night, there will be fewer visits to the local USDA office by production agriculture in the coming years, he speaks well, because there should be. We are saying to American agriculture and to my farmers in Idaho today, you have great flexibility to do what you said you wanted to do. There are some provisions in this bill that are enhanced substantially, because along with all that we heard from agriculture over the last several years, Mr. President, there are several things we also heard that we just did not change and did not just take away from farm policy. Conservation is one of those. The CRP program has worked well in my State, and agriculture likes it because it gives us an opportunity to build back wildlife habitat and to improve water quality and to improve the erosion that was happening on some of our more erodible lands, some of our steeper landscapes. We kept CRP. We strengthened the conservation program. We recognized that here is where USDA and Government can be a cooperating partner, and I underline the word ``cooperating,'' not going in and telling them, ``Here is how you must do it,'' but ``Here are a variety of ways to manage your assets in a way that we can provide a better environment, and you can enhance your farmstead and all that you have on your private property.'' Clearly, the chairman and the ranking minority member worked with all of us to assure that we had a strong CRP program; the creation of a wildlife habitat program; a grazing lands conservation initiative that will provide technical assistance to private landowners in grazing areas, again, a very positive approach toward dealing with the responsibilities we ought to have; an extension of the resource conservation and development districts. That which the House did not do, we reinstated. We have strong water language, as was spoken to last night by the Senator from Washington as it relates to the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service in responding to the relicensing or the recertification of water projects on public lands without holding these municipalities or water districts hostage or blackmailing them, as they should not do but as they were doing. We have offered a moratorium to make sure that we get USDA to understand their responsible and legal role under Western water law, and that is, not to take without compensation a property right as is clearly established under Western water law. Guaranteed payments to wheat and barley growers to help provide stability over a 7-year period--somebody said no more safety nets. I think we have provided a very good glidepath and a very substantial ramp on which to glide that path toward the market, and that is what we are asking American agriculture to do. I fought hard for a readjustment in an important program for my State, the sugar program. We have made major changes in deregulating it and creating greater flexibility. But it is a program that is no net cost to the taxpayer. It is one that pays for itself, and it is one in which, again, Government can play a valuable role, and that is to solve the political barriers that oftentimes happen in trade, where we can have massive dumping in a domestic market that could destroy that market for the producer. We have said, ``Here are the regulations and the process that will protect the domestic producer, while recognizing our responsibility to the consumer,'' and I think the sugar program reflects that. The one program that was the most difficult to change was the program that was the most regulated, and that was the dairy program. Literally for months in the Senate we tried to resolve that issue. In the House, there was a stalemate. Finally, in the last hours, we were able to work out compromises that like, again, all other programs in this bill, moves the dairy producer toward the market while at the same time allowing a tremendous opportunity for that individual producer to get into world markets. That is exactly where production agriculture in our country today must go to remain profitable. I said on the floor of the Senate some months ago that in my youth, I had the opportunity to be a national officer in the once called Future Farmers of America, now known as FFA. I remember standing on the floor at State conventions around this country and saying one farmer produced enough for his or herself and 30 other Americans. Today, we know that has changed dramatically. That one farmer produces enough for his or herself and about 130 other Americans or world citizens. I use that to dramatize how important it is for Government to participate with agriculture in knocking down the political barriers that disallow us from entering world markets. That is a legitimate role of Government. It is clearly spoken to in this bill. Another legitimate role is research. I think that is what our first agricultural President, Abraham Lincoln, had in mind, using the assets of Government to advance agriculture, not to control it and manipulate it and manage it. That is exactly what we have done historically. But, frankly, over the last decade, we have backed away from Government's responsibility in long-term research that has helped advance new variety and kept productivity on the farms of America at ever increasingly higher rates. I think we speak again to that issue in this bill. Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying Government does, in my opinion, have a legitimate role in agriculture, and that is as a cooperator, to cooperate in the area of trade, to knock down the political barriers that might artificially be established that disallow production agriculture from getting into world markets. It also has an area in research. That is what we ought to advance to assure the constant maintenance and ever-increasing productivity on America's farms. It also has a responsibility to cooperate in conservation and improving environmental standards, but it does not have a responsibility to dictate the market or to micromanage the family farm or the agricultural production unit. That is what this farm bill speaks to. Let me close by once again thanking the chairman and the ranking member for recognizing our role, as the Senate Ag Committee, to move quality legislation to this floor and now to the President's desk. I am pleased to have been a part of it. I am proud to serve on the Senate Ag Committee. I think we have made a quantum leap forward in working with agriculture to move itself into the 21st century as a market-producing entity of the American economy. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 4, the conference report on the Line-Item Veto Act. The Senate is now wrapping up a long- overdue and historic debate. I note that two words in particular sound very good in this debate: conference report. There must be many Members in both the Senate and the other body who have wondered if they would ever hear those two words used in connection with the line-item veto. I want to recognize and commend the leadership and longstanding commitment that Senators McCain and Coats have shown on this issue, as well as Chairman Domenici and Chairman Stevens, for their work in shepherding this legislation through committee, earlier passage in the Senate, and now, the conference process. I also want to express my appreciation for the leadership of our distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, in bringing this vital reform to the floor. His name was at the top of this bill when several of us first introduced S. 4 on the first day of this 104th Congress, January 4, 1995, and he has been solidly committed to passage of this landmark legislation. There are three principal reasons to enact this kind of reform: First, a line-item veto will promote fiscal responsibility. This is a major step on our way toward a balanced budget. For more than 20 years, since the President was hamstrung by some of the lesser provisions of the 1974 Impoundment Control and Budget Act, congresses have ignored with impunity most of the Presidential recommendations to rescind spending authority for individual items. Now, at least some obnoxious, unwarranted spending will be struck down. Opponents of this bill have argued that it would lead to more spending, as Presidents use the leverage of the line-item veto to get more spending for their pet programs, or as Congress loads still more spending into bills, in hopes that at least some of it will get by the President. Alternatively, they argue that Presidents will abuse this power and fundamentally distort the balance of constitutional power between the executive and legislative branches. But the histories of the 43 States that have given their Governors this veto authority do not bear out these dire--and purely theoretical--warnings. The experience of the States with the line-item veto, including that of my State of Idaho, has been uniformly favorable. And, looking back over the last two or three generations, we see that State governments have increased spending and taxes at much lower rates than the Federal Government. It is an amazing concept for some in Washington, DC, but, when you assign someone responsibility--in this case, the responsibility that comes to chief executives with line-item veto authority--they often live up to high expectations. That has been the experience of the Sates. Alone, the line-item veto process is not going to be enough to balance the budget. What we really need is to take up the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution once more, pass it, and send it to the Sates--send it to the people--for ratification. I challenge President Clinton, who at least saw the light on the line-item veto, to support the balanced budget amendment as well, and help pass it through the Senate so we can attack the cancerous Federal debt on a larger scale. Second, the line-item veto will improve legislative accountability and produce a more thoughtful legislative process. Starting when this act takes effect, Congress will be forced to reconsider questionable spending items and targeted tax breaks--items that Congress would never pass in the first place if those items were considered on their own merits--items that just do not stand up under any amount of public scrutiny. It would cast an additional dose of sunlight on the legislative process. We are all familiar with the rush to get the legislative trains out on time. That means bills and reports spanning hundreds of pages that virtually no one is able to read--much less digest--in the day or two that they are before the body. Moreover, any more it seems that virtually every appropriations bill--even the 13 regular bills--and virtually every tax bill, is a huge bill. Knowing that any individual provision may have to return to Congress one more time to stand on its own merits will promote more responsible legislation in the first place. In short, embarrassing items will not be sneaked into these bills in the first place. Third, a line-item veto would improved executive accountability. There is always some concern that the line-item veto would transfer too much power from the Congress to the President. First, I suggest that is not such a bad thing. The Framers of the Constitution never envisioned 1,500-page, omnibus bills presented to the President on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. This is not a swipe at the constitutional system of checks and balances--it is a correction. The system is broken. This is one of the first steps in fixing it. The supposed blackmail that Presidents will exert over Congress as a result of the line-item veto, is nothing, compared what kind Congress has exerted for years on the President. A President will rarely, if ever, risk closing down an entire department in a mere attempt to take out a handful of earmarked, local benefits. But let me also differ a little with the presumption that a radical shift of power would take place. Many of us on both sides of the aisle have suggested, at different times, that Presidents are not always serious about the rescissions messages they send to Congress. And, sometimes, the volume of rescissions they propose do not live up to tough talk about what they would do if they had the line-item veto. It is time to call the President's bluff--and I mean every President, because this is a bipartisan issue. For years now, we have seen groups like Citizens Against Government Waste and others come up with billions of dollars in long lists of pork items. Once the President starts using the line-item veto authority, he or she will have to answer to the people if the use of that authority doesn't match the Presidential rhetoric. Congress would not lose the power of the purse--but the President will soon be expected to use the power of the spotlight of heightened public scrutiny. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. President, I will be succinct. But I do think that we have a great concern about Senator Bingaman's substitute and how he deals with water. It is very clear in our legislation that the States have primacy in all water issues and that the Federal Government must comply with State water law. We know that Congress after Congress has affirmed this very position. In the Democrat substitute that Senator Bingaman has offered, it declares that new water rights shall be acquired, perfected, maintained, and administered in connection with all livestock grazing in accordance with State law. The key word here is ``new'' water rights. The Democrat substitute makes no provision against the extortion of water rights as a condition to grant a grazing permit or leased range improvements, cooperative agreements, or range improvement permits as provided in the Republican substitute, nor does the Democrat substitute require that the Secretary follow State law with regard to water rights ownership and appropriation as provided in the Republican substitute. Both substitutes protect valid existing water rights, but the operative word here is ``new.'' Let me repeat, ``new'' water rights. What about all water rights? What about existing water rights? Does anyone seriously believe that this Secretary of the Interior, who I think helped write this legislation, is not concerned about water and trying to grab back as much water as he can off the lands where valid and existing water rights have already existed? In the 1995 appropriation act, the Secretary of the Interior tried directly to assert Federal ownership and control over all water rights on Federal lands. This time he plans to do it indirectly through this kind of legislation by talking about dealing only with new water rights and leaving it up to his solicitor to interpret the language of excluding all existing water rights. Mr. President, this is a concern that I hope, if my interpretation of it is wrong, the Senator from New Mexico, the junior Senator, will correct. We know where Secretary Babbitt is. He is very clear, and he has even sidestepped NEPA and the ESA to stage a media event with his friends and special interests in the Grand Canyon with an artificial flood event that could jeopardize important ruins, threaten endangered species, and jeopardize blue ribbon trout fisheries. I say this in all sincerity. I hope that the junior Senator from New Mexico could clarify for me because it is very important that we stay within State law on this water issue; that we stay with ``existing and new water rights.'' I believe his legislation speaks only to ``new,'' and that must be clarified. I hope he can do that. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. It is this Senator's opinion that by selectively singling out ``new'' water rights, you leave open to opinion by a very unfriendly solicitor and by a very unfriendly State water rights Secretary this issue. I think the question must be closed or you place those water rights in jeopardy.

Mr. CRAIG. I think the Senator has answered my question. The Senator has argued an interpreted point of view. We can stumble around on interpretations when it comes to western water. The Senator and I must be in agreement with exactly what is said or the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior will jump squarely into that hole. Now, I believe the language of the senior Senator from New Mexico is much clearer. It says, ``No water rights on Federal lands shall be acquired, perfected, owned, controlled, maintained, administered or transferred in connection with livestock grazing permits other than in accordance with State law concerning the use and appropriation of water within the State.'' The Senator and I both know that water is critical in the West and water is especially critical as it relates to the grazing on these arid public lands, and who controls that water oftentimes controls the grazing. We already know the position of this Interior Department on water. They want it. They want to control it. In 1995, the Secretary went directly at us on that. We must not allow this to be interpreted. I hope that the Senator could agree with the language that appears on page 19, section 124 under ``Water Rights of the Underlying Bill, S. 1459.''

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for one more question?