Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Yes, you have, Senator.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until the hour of 7:30 p.m. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that when the majority leader and the minority leader return from the White House, where they are now meeting with the President, the Senate will reconvene at 7:30 in an effort to bring up the resolutions that have now been passed by the House.

Mr. CRAIG. I understand that is the case. It is our belief that they will attempt to handle the business at that time under unanimous consent.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I, like many of my colleagues, have returned to Washington this week, hopeful that the Congress and the President can come to an agreement on the differences they hold over the budget issues that the American public are now so aware of, as a result of the continuing shutdown of Government or a portion of our Government. I stood on this floor just before Christmas and asked the President to give the American people a present, a Christmas present, a balanced budget that would look toward the future, that would assure the economic viability and vitality of this country well into the next generation. And that it was at Christmastime that we should start. That did not happen. In fact, the President did just the opposite. He vetoed appropriations bills that were sent to him. At least as a result of the veto of one appropriation bill, the Interior appropriation bill, he furloughed, by that action, a good number of workers in my State, Federal employees in the Forest Service and the BLM, who are now extremely frustrated and calling my office and saying why can we not work? Why can we not be paid? Why can we not continue to do what we do for our country? Let me say to those workers that I am sorry they are not, today, at work. Not just them, but all Federal workers in my State. The President did not veto the Interior appropriations bill because of the dollars and cents of it. He vetoed it because of his belief in a policy or an attitude that is in disagreement with the majority of the U.S. Congress on how many trees ought to be cut in a forest in Alaska, or how certain lands ought to be mined. So, I am sorry, to those employees in my State, because the Congress did its work and it responded to them, and to the Government, by sending the appropriate appropriations bill, only to be vetoed by the President. So to those workers, let me tell you. You are today being held hostage by a President who refused to sign appropriations bills that had been sent to him. That is all I want to say on that issue. And I say that because I believe the Federal workers who are furloughed ought to be paid. They are furloughed through no fault of their own. And this Congress and this President ought to come to an agreement to resolve that issue. And I hope that is accomplished before the week is out. Yesterday, the Senate spoke in an effort to try to bring Federal employees back onto their jobs. And that did not work for the House is still considering its options as appropriately it should. So, Mr. President, I hope you recognize the importance of the work that we are trying to accomplish here. And I hope that we would not continually look at just tomorrow because, while I am not happy that our Government is shut down, I am not worried about tomorrow and tomorrow's unemployed Federal workers. But I am worried about the future and a balanced budget; and, that we will have a strong, stable Government as a result of a strong, stable U.S. economy that is able to appropriately fund the needed services of Government and assure the long-term stability of the work force and the responsibilities and the goals of a Government. That is the way it ought to be. That is what this Congress has attempted to look at and make changes in over the course of the last 12 months. It is my disappointment that the White House never sent a balanced budget to Capitol Hill, and it never once said, except in the last few weeks, that it would come to the table in an effort to resolve the budget crisis that we are now engaged in. Several weeks ago the President did, while signing a continuing resolution, commit himself for the first time to work toward a balanced budget; to try to match up the rhetoric of his last campaign with the actions of his administration. Yet, the American people have watched. And we have worked day after day through Christmas and now into the new year at the White House and here on Capitol Hill to try to resolve the differences just to honor the commitment that we made to the American people and to try to cause this President to honor his. I know there are fundamental differences. There are differences that are very difficult to resolve because there are some in this Congress, and certainly many in the administration, who do not believe in a balanced budget but who have profited politically over the years by the longevity of their service by assuring the perpetuation of the welfare state mentality; that you could just give and give and borrow and borrow and buy your way back year after year and continue to serve and to say all is well with the American citizen, the American Government, and the American economy. While all was well for the short term, what became overpowering to the American people was the growth of a debt that is nearly $5 trillion by its total amount and that is costing well over $200 billion a year just to finance. Finally, the American people spoke very clearly in the last general election across this country when it said the future of our country is every bit as important as the current well-being of our Government and the well-being of our citizens. So I am here to work to resolve the issue. I say to the Federal workers in my State and across the Nation that while I wish you were not furloughed, and while I support you being paid when you return to work, and when we produce a balanced budget the future of our country is so very much more important than the short-term difficulty that I am sad you are experiencing but that, in fact, you are experiencing because the policies that will cause this Congress and our Government to operate in a near balanced budget year in and year out to stop building mounting debt is what is fundamentally important for the new year. So while the President was unwilling to give the American people a Christmas gift, let me ask you, Mr. President, to make a New Year's resolution along with all of the Congress to by this weekend come to terms with the differences that we have between us to resolve a balanced budget in 7 years using the Congressional Budget Office numbers that we can all agree on, that makes sense to the American people, and that for the new year sets a resolution that says for the future, for America's future, for our young people's future, we will build a strong and stable economy in a Government whose policies are based on serving the truly needy but also recognize that the free market system unfettered by an ever-growing Federal Government is the one that serves the American people best. Mr. President, make that New Year's resolution with us today. Resolve the issue before the week is out so that employees can go back to work who are responsible and dedicated and furloughed through no fault of their own. And they can be compensated, and the American people can see that politics in Washington is not politics or business as usual but that we have heard them well, we have heard them loudly, and we have heard them clearly. And we responded by producing a balanced budget that charts for future generations a responsible Government, and a strong and growing U.S. economy. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me reminisce, if I could, with the Senator from Wyoming. When we talk numbers, we talk people. If we do not believe our actions here and if the President does not believe his actions have consequences on people, then we are not thinking very straight. We watched the stock market bounce around this week as the Congress and the President tried to come to a budget agreement. While the stock market is a reaction of people, it is also a barometer of the economy and how people think the economy will work. The economy in our country clearly translates to jobs and incomes, spendable incomes, and the security of a home and a family and food on the table--and it always has. What we are talking about in a balanced budget and a tax cut is 32 billion dollars' worth of real, disposable income. That is family income. That is food on the table. That is a college education. Mr. President, $66.2 billion of consumer expenditure, that is what the stock market was reacting to yesterday. My time is up. Let me close. Mr. President, our actions have consequences and a balanced budget and a tax cut going with it create the kind of economic vitality in this country that is good for people, working people, families, income, security.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me respond in part to the Senator that has just spoken because so many have been arguing for so long. Balancing the budget is fine. I happen to be one of those who for well over a decade has argued that this country must come to grips with its spending habits, that we are indebting a future generation in such a dramatic way that the consequences will be incalculable. Now, there is an interesting drumbeat down at the White House amongst some who, while they will argue they support a balanced budget by concept, say let us do so without any consideration of tax cuts. The Senator happened to suggest one that is offered. I think he is right. Few would know all the details of that particular tax cut, but there is one thing that becomes very clear in the whole of what we try to do with a balanced budget. To reduce Federal spending alone--because Federal spending has become such a very large part of the U.S. economy--does, in fact, have economic consequences that in part can become negative unless there is an appropriate stimulus on the other side that balances it out so that you get accelerated growth in the private sector, the job-creating kind of stimulus that offsets some of that expenditure. And I happen to think that it is a more positive kind of expenditure if it is going on out in the private sector and not necessarily money being taken from the private sector funneled through the public sector and allowing us to decide how it gets spent. There is no doubt that a pure pattern of spending reductions by Government with no consideration for economic stimulus on the outside-- by recognizing some capital gains, by assuredly recognizing the ability of the individual wealth-creating, job-holding family to properly invest and to have more money to spend--might not have the right kind of economic consequences in the macro sense of the economy. That is why we have tried to couple some tax cuts along with it to middle and lower income Americans and to some of the economic job- generating sectors of our country to create positive stimulus all the way around. There are few economists that will disagree with what I have just said; that as you offset one side of the overall large economy of Government, you have to stimulate the other. That is exactly what we are trying to do at this moment. I have spoken enough on this. I think it is important that we talk about linking the two together. Balancing the budget is something I have strongly supported, and will, but let us also talk about the value of leaving money in the private sector and stimulating it for economic growth purposes and job creation.

Mr. CRAIG. May I inquire where the Senate is at this moment, with the time having expired?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senate for including language in the Defense authorization bill that recognizes the need to implement the terms, conditions, right and obligations contained in the recently signed agreement between the Navy, Department of Energy, and the State of Idaho and the consent order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho that effectuates the settlement agreement. I am also pleased that it is the Senate's sense to appropriate funds called for by the President to carry out the agreement. It has been a pleasure to work with Governor Batt as he crafted a historic agreement between the State of Idaho, the U.S. Navy, and the Department of Energy. Shipments of spent nuclear fuel began accumulating at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory [INEL] when I was a child growing up in Midvale, ID, in 1949 and continue to this day. However, until Governor Batt signed an agreement in 1995, there was no provision to remove this material from Idaho. I am proud to have worked with him to help to craft the agreement that assures liquid wastes will be put into dry form to protect the Snake River aquifer and approximately 10,800 shipments of spent nuclear fuel and transuranic wastes will begin to be shipped from Idaho in 1999 and be completely removed by 2035. Mr. President, Idaho has had a long history with the nuclear Navy and nuclear reactor research. We are proud of that involvement with our Nation's defense. We are just as proud that Idaho, for the first time, has an agreement and timeline for the removal of spent fuel from our State. I am glad to have played a role in moving this agreement. I ask unanimous-consent that a time line that indicates the history of the Navy and DOE's involvement at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with Senators Hatch, Harkin, and Bennett in introducing legislation which would be helpful to farmer cooperatives seeking to purchase businesses that refine or processes their agricultural crops, and ultimately would lower the costs of bringing their products to market. The proposed legislation would amend section 1042 of the Internal Revenue Code, which currently allows a similar treatment for sales to Employee Stock Ownership Plan [ESOP] and worker-owned cooperatives. Through this section of the Internal Revenue Code, employees and members of worker-owned cooperatives are able to acquire an ownership interest in certain corporate stock and participate in ownership of the business. Currently, farmers cannot compete with other business entities and with ESOP's in buying such businesses because of the advantages inherent in the tax deferrals available in transactions with these other purchasers. Mr. President, this bill would allow farmers' cooperatives the opportunity to be directly involved with the processing and marketing of their products. With this combination, overhead could be greatly reduced, and the result would be lower costs to the consuming public and a healthier farm economy. Making it easier, on a more level playing field, for farmers to participate in the refining and processing of their products will provide them with a better way to deal with market fluctuations of commodity prices and also provide for more stability and control in their future marketing of products. This bill has bipartisan support. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House as H.R. 2676, by Pat Roberts, Charlie Stenholm, and others. I urge my colleagues here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle to support this initiative for our Nation's farming industry, which has been endorsed by the National Council of Farmers Cooperatives.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with Senators Hatch, Harkin, and Bennett in introducing legislation which would be helpful to farmer cooperatives seeking to purchase businesses that refine or processes their agricultural crops, and ultimately would lower the costs of bringing their products to market. The proposed legislation would amend section 1042 of the Internal Revenue Code, which currently allows a similar treatment for sales to Employee Stock Ownership Plan [ESOP] and worker-owned cooperatives. Through this section of the Internal Revenue Code, employees and members of worker-owned cooperatives are able to acquire an ownership interest in certain corporate stock and participate in ownership of the business. Currently, farmers cannot compete with other business entities and with ESOP's in buying such businesses because of the advantages inherent in the tax deferrals available in transactions with these other purchasers. Mr. President, this bill would allow farmers' cooperatives the opportunity to be directly involved with the processing and marketing of their products. With this combination, overhead could be greatly reduced, and the result would be lower costs to the consuming public and a healthier farm economy. Making it easier, on a more level playing field, for farmers to participate in the refining and processing of their products will provide them with a better way to deal with market fluctuations of commodity prices and also provide for more stability and control in their future marketing of products. This bill has bipartisan support. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House as H.R. 2676, by Pat Roberts, Charlie Stenholm, and others. I urge my colleagues here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle to support this initiative for our Nation's farming industry, which has been endorsed by the National Council of Farmers Cooperatives.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Senator Simpson has pointed out the important fact that versions of the Simpson-Craig lobbying reform amendment have been approved by the Senate three times this year. I commend Senator Simpson on his leadership in this area and am happy that the Simpson-Craig amendment, along with the rest of the lobbying reform bill, is on the verge of being signed into law. The first version of our amendment, added to S. 1060, had a scope and impact on some insurance and health care providers, uniquely classified as 501(c)(4) organizations, that the authors and the Senate never intended. This problem was corrected in the second and third versions of the Simpson-Craig amendment. Therefore, the Senate twice approved the very change in our 501(c)(4) organizations language that we are proposing again today. For reasons totally unrelated to this change, the House of Representatives struck the second and third, perfected, Simpson-Craig lobbying reform amendments from the Treasury-Postal bill and the continuing resolution. The House was seeking, instead, to promote its broader Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich language. However, even in that House language, 501(c)(4) organizations were never barred from receiving contracts. So, Madam President, the intent of the Senate is clear throughout the evolution of floor votes on three bills, and the intent of the House is clear in two floor votes on a related provision. Neither body intends that all 501(c)(4) organizations who lobby should be barred from receiving Federal contracts. But because the earliest version of either body's position on lobbying and grant reform was the one preserved in S. 1060 as cleared by the House, the clear intent of both bodies on 501(c)(4) organizations is not reflected in that bill. That is all we are proposing in our technical amendment today, that this technical corrections resolution adjust S. 1060 to reflect the clear intent of both the Senate and the House, as expressed in the relevant votes taken in both bodies.

Mr. CRAIG. There is one additional provision in our amendment, at the request of the bill's managers, to simplify and expedite the process of handling this resolution. This provision would correct, in section 12(b)(1) of the bill, a cross-reference to the definition for representation of a foreign entity. This same change was already made in section 12(c), and the change in section 12(b)(1) simply makes it consistent and correct, clerically.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Congress will respond today to President Clinton's decision to deploy United States troops in the former Yugoslavia as part of the Bosnia peace accord that was negotiated and initialed in Dayton, OH, and which will soon be signed in Paris. President Clinton has articulated his policy to all of us, to the citizens of this country, and has now requested congressional support. Yet even as our troops are headed to Bosnia, the President has, in my opinion, failed to supply a defined goal or mission, strategy for achieving the goal, an exit strategy and/or the national and security interests of our country. The President has raised three concerns to justify U.S. participation in implementing the peace accord: The potential spread of conflict throughout Europe, our leadership in NATO and international communities, and the need to end the carnage in the Balkans. I do not question the concerns raised by our Commander in Chief. All of them have some degree of legitimacy. Mr. President, we would all like to respond to what we will refer to as the moral imperative President Clinton and others continue to emphasize as it relates to the devastation and the human suffering that has gone on in the Balkans and has left us all a tremendous feeling of frustration to which many Senators, including myself, have come to the floor of this Senate over the last 3 years to speak. These feelings are not new. Four years ago, I was contacted by a Croatian-American constituent of mine when the conflict first raged between the Serbs and Croatians. This gentleman is a friend who was concerned, maintaining contact with my office, and his fears and frustrations were all very real to me, as all of us have experienced that with some of our constituents. The moral imperative existed then. However, then, like now, our options for involvement, in my opinion, were very limited, and we still face the fundamental difficulty of trying to make the peace a greater victory than winning the war. While we all understand and agree with the moral imperative, we have yet to hear why this action would serve our national interests and our security needs. I have listened to the President's proposal as presented by his representatives, and I have listened to my fellow Idahoans. I have read and I have reviewed the agreement and the proposed deployment. My conclusion is this: the answers I have been seeking such as defined goal, exit strategy, national security interests, have not been satisfied--not just to this Senator but to the American people. Therefore, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, and others, in offering an amendment to oppose this President's actions. Let me be clear, Mr. President, so that there is no effort to cloud what is being debated here. I oppose the President's decision to deploy our troops. I will, however, as I always have, support our troops if they are ordered by our Commander in Chief to implement a Bosnian peace agreement. I will not allow our brave men and women to become pawns in what I believe is rapidly becoming a high- stakes political game. I find it ironic that as the Senate prepares to vote on United States ground forces in Bosnia, the Serbians there will be exercising their own voice as they have been in an unofficial referendum to vote on the peace agreement. I also find it ironic that we in the Senate conclude a historic vote on protecting the honor and the sanctity of our national symbol, the United States flag, while it is being trampled, torn and burned in the streets where our soldiers will be sent to make the peace. I think this Senate and this Congress has to explain to the American people why they cannot express a clear and strong opposition to our President. The debate on the President's plan to deploy U.S. troops as peacekeepers to Bosnia is not a new debate but the continuation of a long and ongoing one over the President's desire to deploy ground forces in the Balkans. The Congress has spoken in opposition to this idea in the past, and I hope we will speak clearly on this issue again today. That argument is one that must be clarified for the American people. I know of no other time when my constituents in Idaho have spoken more clearly to me. Last weekend as I walked across the Boise airport, a crowd gathered around me as one man reached out and grabbed hold of my arm and said, ``Senator, I have to talk to you for a moment. You,'' he said, meaning me, ``cannot allow this President to put our young men and women at risk when there is no defined need to lose human life. We are not at risk nor is our security.'' While this man and others in that crowd were clearly concerned about the loss of human life in the former Yugoslavia, they could not justify the spilling of American blood to stabilize that situation when this Congress stood on an arms embargo and tried to express our will, and this President refused; and we refused as a nation then to allow that kind of equity to exist. The more I review the information on the agreement in the proposed peace mission, the stronger my concerns have become. As part of this agreement, our President, our Commander in Chief, will be deploying U.S. troops into extremely rugged terrain during the middle of what appears to be a very severe winter. In addition to poor conditions and freezing temperatures, there is the problem of about 3 million land mines that exist within the sector assigned to the American forces. Mr. President, as my fellow Idahoans and I know, winter in the mountains can be demanding at best. The area where our troops will be is like an area in Idaho that we call Stanley. And I will tell you that in Stanley, ID, in December and January, if you are living in a tent, you are challenged as would be the most extremely capable survivalist. And that does not include the snipers, the civil disorder, or the land mines. I suggest that we are sending our troops into a most difficult situation. During the December 1 hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, even the Secretary of Defense, William Perry, underlined the difficulties facing our troops. In addition to the snipers and the civil disorder, they include extreme elements of undisciplined militia and the hostiles that are there. The dissatisfaction of some Serbian factions should not be taken lightly. There is a strong likelihood that our troops will be challenged, even attacked, in carrying out their mission of peace. How in that effort can it be called peace other than engaging us in an ongoing war? Yet we are continually told that our men and women are not going to fight a war, they are simply going to keep a peace. In these conditions, Mr. President, the lines are so gray that they are no longer discernible. I believe this President cannot clarify them, nor can he define them. I have opposed the use of ground forces in Bosnia in the past. And I will continue to oppose that policy today. It is most frustrating that the use of American ground troops is not the only option at hand. I am frustrated that the President has refused to lift what I viewed was an illegal arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have strongly supported the efforts of the majority leader and others in a very strong bipartisan voice on this floor to pursue the best policy options in a difficult situation. And one of the best policy options was to lift the illegal arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. It would not have caused us to take sides. It would have simply allowed fair play and the right of self-defense in those circumstances. The last vote on this issue occurred as recently as July of this year. At that time, Mr. President, I asked how many bills will be passed, how many U.N. resolutions presented, how many cease-fire agreements will be broken before the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be allowed to stand against their aggressors and defend themselves? Mr. President, there is ample reason to question the enforcement of the 1991 embargo against Bosnia in the first place. The embargo was not imposed on Bosnia, because Bosnia did not exist in 1991. Rather, it was imposed on Yugoslavia. In addition, enforcement of this embargo could arguably violate Bosnia's right to self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Many Americans hoped that the passage of S. 21 would end the arms embargo and finally allow the Bosnian Moslems the right of self- defense. With rough parity in this conflict that might have happened, a lasting peace agreement would be far more likely than the kind that we are stumbling into. Instead, we have a very unequal situation going into the implementation phase of a peace agreement that at best could erupt into major fighting with our forces being squarely in the middle of it all. Mr. President, I will just add, the United States did not need to do anything. Well, I think that is not true. We have done a great deal in the past 3 years. We have provided the support, the air cover, the naval logistics, all that we needed to do as a participating member of NATO. It is now time for us to define much more clearly our role in foreign policy around the world. I would suggest to this President that every time we are called upon or led into a skirmish, deployment of our ground troops are not necessarily a demonstration of leadership. To lead means to try to solve it by alternative means. In this instance, I think the President has failed, and in failing, he risks now the loss of American life in a very tragic situation. So I hope that we could support a strong voice today. I think the American people expect us to lead on these issues. I think they expect us to speak out as strongly as we can. And I hope that we can oppose today, with our vote, the President's deployment of United States ground forces in the former Yugoslavia. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for just a few moments I would like to speak about the budget and the happenings of this weekend on all the talk shows and the Presidential and Vice Presidential messages that were delivered to the American people. I guess I can tell you, Mr. President, while I remain not surprised by the message of our President and Vice President, I can tell you that I am highly disappointed, for it is they who over the weekend threatened a Government shutdown if they could not get their way with the Federal budget. They would like to argue that it would be the fault of the Congress, but it was Congress that sent to the President this last week a budget, and it was the President who vetoed that budget, and then sent to the Hill a budget that was not even within the agreement that he had struck less than 2 weeks ago. As a result of that, he now proposes for the Congress to reconvene a budget conference with nearly a half a trillion dollars of difference between the White House and the Congress of the United States. The Washington Post, which is not known for its conservatism, I thought made an important observation in an editorial on the 12th when they said the President's latest budget proposal, his third this year-- in other words, twice he has not been able to get it right--is a disappointment. Even the Washington Post says it ``* * * is a disappointment. It retains the basic weaknesses of the one that he put forward in June that it pretends to supplant. Mr. Clinton continues to back away from the serious part of driving down the deficit. He tries to balance the budget wearing a Santa [Claus] suit, and the simple fact is that you can't.'' Mr. President, I will tell you that the revelation over the weekend that there might be another $100 billion worth of spending, while the American people watch what you say and listen to what Congress says, they happen to fear that kind of Santa Clausism right on the eve of Christmas, because they are very fearful that the party that now clings to its past underpinnings of being spendaholics can simply not get away from it. The budget you have sent to us, Mr. President, clearly is reflective of the fact that the Democrat Party of America today cannot get away from the old habits that it had in the past, and that was, the solution to every problem was a new Government program and a huge chunk more spending of the Federal budget or, more importantly, the money of the taxpayers of this country. So, Mr. President, the American people on the eve of Christmas are watching and saying, ``What will the Congress do? What will the President do? Can they strike a budget agreement this week? Will they develop a continuing resolution that goes on after Christmas? Will they be able to break with the past and truly begin to reduce the debt and the deficit bringing the Government's budget into balance? Will they really remember that the taxpayers of this country are being taxed more than ever in the history of our country?'' And yet, when we work the numbers a little bit, and we find an extra $100 billion between now and the year 2002, there appears to be no consideration to apply it to deficit, only to apply it to a Government program, largely because we have heard nothing but whining and crying out of the White House over the last month that we are destroying all these marvelous Federal programs, when in fact none of them is being cut; only the rate of increase is being reduced to try to bring the budget into balance. Mr. President, I challenge you to go dry, to take an Alcoholic's Anonymous approach to this--in other words, cold turkey it. That is what the American people are asking for, that you do not keep asking for more and more money, more and more spending, more and more of their hard-earned money, but leave it where it is. Come to the table, balance the budget, and start thinking on the positive side of a balanced budget instead of the negative side that somehow some Government program might be cut. What is the positive side? Well, as you know, Mr. President, there are many, many positives. A lot of us have talked about it in the last few days here about the ability of families to have more money to spend or to save, about the ability of the economy to grow and have a greater level of jobs, to see our unemployment rate continue to go down. Mr. President, I really believe that is what the American people would like to hear as a message from Santa Claus on Christmas, is that the budget is going to be balanced, that we are going to stay within our spending limits and that what new moneys might be found could be applied to the deficit. So, ho, ho, ho, Mr. President. It is not time to fool the American people with your Santa Claus tactics that somehow you can just keep on spending and keep on giving and the world will get a lot better. It will not work unless you make the tough choices, and the tough choices are to balance the budget and give the American taxpayers some consideration by a reduction in their overall tax rate. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding to me and let me thank him personally for the tremendous leadership he has shown in the area of protecting our flag and offering forth this unique constitutional amendment. He has, without doubt, led the way for us to finally bring this critical issue to the floor. I think it is high time that we listen, that we listen to not only the debate on the floor but, more important, we listen to the American people on the issue of flag protection and this amendment. Some of my colleagues may remember that more than a year ago, I came to this Senate floor with memorials from 43 State legislatures-- memorials urging Congress to take action to protect the American flag from physical desecration. Those memorials were inserted in the Congressional Record for all to read. Now the number of those memorials has reached 49, and a 1995 Gallup Poll found that almost 80 percent of the American public supports a flag protection amendment. This is a truly historic outpouring of popular support. And we have an opportunity to respond to the American people by passing a very simple amendment and sending it to the States for ratification: It authorizes Congress and the States to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Opponents of this amendment are doing their best to find bogeymen hiding inside this proposal, or to tie it up in a mass of legal complications--but in fact, it is a very straightforward issue to most Americans. Old Glory holds a special place in our hearts. No other emblem, token, or artifact of our Nation has been defended to the death by legions of patriots. No other has drawn multitudes from abroad with the promise of freedom. No other unifies the diverse cultures that form the amalgam we call the United States. No other has inspired generations with the belief that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the birthright of every human being. It is because the flag holds the unique place in the hearts of Americans that they have demanded ultimate protection for it. Congress has already tried furnishing that protection by statute, and, as we know, the Supreme Court shut the door on that particular strategy-- firmly and for all time, in my opinion. A constitutional amendment is the only vehicle left for those who believe in protecting the flag. I expect the opposition to argue that protecting the flag from physical desecration somehow runs afoul of the first amendment and the freedom of expression, Mr. President. That is part of the debate that has been going on here now for a good many hours. I believe--and I think all Americans believe--that nothing could be further from the truth. The flag amendment does not prevent the expression of any ideas. As a matter of fact, there are far more direct ways of expressing one's opinion than engaging in an act--even the act of destroying or defiling a flag. Another accusation the opposition will try to use is that this is a slippery slope to Government censorship. I say hogwash as straightforward and as best I can, Mr. President. We are trying to protect the flag--and only the flag and only from physical desecration--because it is uniquely revered by Americans. That uniqueness absolutely prevents this effort from being extended to anything else. It is a very specific amendment. Mr. President, obscene speech that outrages a community is not protected by the Constitution. Fighting words that outrage individuals and provoke violence are not protected by the Constitution. Both these standards are well known and widely accepted in this country. Yet, when 80 percent of Americans say they are outraged by the physical desecration of the flag and ask us to protect it, our opponents accuse them of advocating censorship and interfering with the freedom of speech. I say to the American people, do not believe them. This amendment is narrowly tailored to allow protection only of the flag and only from physical desecration. It will not force anyone to salute the flag. It will not mandate participation in the Pledge of Allegiance. It will not stop individuals from telling the world exactly and in detail how they feel about the flag, even if they despise it. This simply allows Congress and the States to prevent one act: the physical act of desecrating the flag. The concern has been raised that physical desecration can be defined to mean anything. That may be true in a vacuum. But it is most certainly not true in the marketplace of ideas, where all points of view have an opportunity to be heard, and that is precisely where this definition is going to be written, Mr. President. This amendment enables the American people to weigh in on this definition, whether they support or oppose protecting the flag. There will not be any midnight, closed-door, secret session to write this definition. It is going to be fully and openly discussed in every State in the Union. Mr. President, Congress has acted once before to protect the flag. By the narrowest of margins, the Supreme Court stopped that effort from succeeding. However, the Supreme Court's decision did not change the value at stake, it did not change the need for this protection, and, most important, it did not change the heart and the minds of the American people. Against all odds, against all expectations, support for this effort continues to grow, not to diminish. At a time when some are wringing their hands about the erosion of values in America, we have a grassroots movement demanding the opportunity to protect the symbol of our country's aspirations and our country's values. Are we so preoccupied with the problems of our Nation here in Washington that we cannot recognize the positive signs when we see it, Mr. President? Millions of our fellow citizens are telling us that the sight or mention of our flag still has the power to awaken the American spirit of the American patriot. We should be cheering them on, not ignoring them or denying them access to their Constitution. In providing two methods for amending the Constitution, article V safeguards the people's right to correct what they believe is a wrong decision by the Supreme Court or the Congress. The people have asked for this opportunity to make a correction in the case of the flag, and I urge my colleagues to listen to them, to send the American people an amendment allowing protection of the great flag of our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and certainly not on this issue--but I come to the floor to speak. I would prefer if you could allow this Senator 10, and then go back to the issue, if you would not mind. Is their objection to that?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I object to the further consideration of the matter at this time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill on the calendar that is due for its second reading.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we had asked last night for a period of a special order this morning to discuss the President's veto of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Certainly I, and I think a good number of Americans, Mr. President, watched yesterday as this President with grand theater and style worked overtime to cover up the fact that he has not produced a balanced budget and in fact cannot, given his agenda, produce a budget that will be in balance by the year 2002. Instead, yesterday he accused Republicans of not recognizing the need for education, of not recognizing the need to strengthen and save Medicare. And, of course, that simply is not true and the American public knows it. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 that the President vetoed yesterday recognizes the importance of education and does not cut student loans. It recognizes the importance of a sound Medicare system to seniors and strengthens Medicare into the year 2000, by spending nearly an additional $2,000 per Medicare recipient in the year 2002, compared with 1995. And certainly that is also true of Medicaid, which is returned to the States for greater efficiencies and greater humanity as States deal with applying Medicaid to the truly needy of our society. Several of us have gathered this morning for the purpose of discussing the President's veto, the benefits of the budget that the President unfortunately vetoed, and the budget situation this Congress and our country finds itself in. At this time I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent to have printed a document from the Heritage Foundation study of the impact of a balanced budget in tax reductions on the average family.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have been, for a few moments while the Senator from Michigan has been speaking, reading the wire story of the President's veto yesterday of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Let me quote from that some of the President's words. He said: I have consistently said that if Congress sends me a budget that violates our values, I will veto it. I say to the President of the United States, I find that a very curious statement, in view of the budget that we have sent to you and that you have vetoed. How, possibly, could it be wrong, or how possibly would it not be in your value system to want to leave as much money with the average American family as is possible? That is exactly what the Republican Congress has attempted to do in sending to you a Balanced Budget Act--to go directly at middle income America, to assure that they have enough money in their pockets to be able to feed their children, to be able to buy a home and pay their mortgages, and do so in a way that families of 10 or 15 or 20 years ago were able to do, and provide then for the future. Mr. President, we all recognize the need to respond to the present, but we are terribly frustrated that you have not had the wisdom to look into the future, and to look into the future in a way that recognizes that reducing debt in this country, that reducing the annual Federal deficits and balancing the budget, that allowing the average American family to save, all mean a better future, mean that we truly are concerned about a generation that would be saddled with a debt that they had never had the opportunity to create, that the average child of today will look forward to an oppressive tax burden to pay off the $18,000 to $20,000 of their share of a Federal debt that a generation long before them had decided to spend on one program or another. Mr. President, the budget that you vetoed yesterday was just as much about the future as it was about the present. The only problem is--and I can gain from your statement--that you are worried only about the present, about the instant gratification of the present, and your value system has, in some way, no capacity for dealing with the future. The Senator from Michigan spoke a few moments ago and related to us the positive consequences of this budget on his State and the opportunities it created. Not for the very wealthy but for the average family of four, with a husband and wife, mother and father, working and bringing home $50,000 or $60,000 a year collectively, or less, and what that means to them if they start putting that $500 tax credit away on an annual basis for their children's future. We looked at my State of Idaho, where a dollar still goes a little ways. If a young couple, a family, having that first child, starts immediately to put that $500 tax credit away in savings and puts it there for the child's future, what can that family buy for that child in the form of education in the coming years when that child is ready for college? Well, they can pay for more than 8 full years of college tuition and fees in our State university system--on an average, nearly 9 years, in today's dollars. By any calculation, that is a [[Page S 18122]] bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and even a doctorate. That is what that kind of savings offers. That is how the Balanced Budget Act-- which the President vetoed yesterday--would have empowered Idaho's families. Even in the ivy league schools, this tax credit buys a year or a year and a half of schooling across this country. That is a tremendously significant value to the average American family who holds the dream that their children are going to do better than they have done, and they are going to help provide for that child. In my largest metropolitan county of Idaho--and Idaho is not very metropolitan--it is a large State with only about 1.3 million people in it--but in that metropolitan county of now over 300,000, Ada County, which includes Boise, there are over 50,900 children that would qualify for the $500 child tax credit. What does that mean over this period of time, from now through the year 2002, about putting spendable income back into that community? It puts back into that community $144 million worth of spendable income over the next 7 years. I will tell you, under anybody's estimation--but especially in the State of Idaho--that is a lot of money. That is a tremendous opportunity for that community to grow, for those families to prosper, to buy a new home, to buy a car, and do all of the kinds of things that fulfill the American dream. Mr. President, I am not quite sure what is in your value system, but I know that there is no future image, there is no vision for America's tomorrow, if you are willing to veto the balanced budget that we have sent to you. You have vetoed a balanced budget that not only deals with today's needs but, for the first time in the years that I have had the privilege of serving Idaho in the U.S. Senate, it looks into the future. For a few moments, let us talk about that future in some real ways, in a national perspective, about the kind of money in the average family's pocket that is offered through a balanced budget with tax relief. We would see a decline in interest rates of well over two points--and that is not some exaggeration by the Senator from Idaho, that is according to national econometric modeling, which shows that if you get the budget into balance, the economy of this country begins to respond a great deal better. Why? Because the Federal Government is taking less money out of it. And the average American family has more money to spend and that generates jobs, and that multiplies the kind of economic activity that we always have seen in this country, which has, again, produced more revenue for Government under stable taxing situations. For example, a decrease of 1.4 percent in the conventional mortgage rate--and we know it could decrease a good deal more than that--means the relief of nearly $10,000 over the life of a 30-year mortgage. The Balanced Budget Act says to the American family, You have greater buying power. It says that an additional 104,000 new family homes would be constructed and purchased in that 7-year period of reduced growth in Federal spending and a balanced budget. Under anybody's estimation, that is big bucks for the economy. It benefits not just the family purchasing the home, but hundreds of thousands of workers--carpenters, carpenters' helpers, masonry workers, and plumbers--that build the homes for Americans that are going to be employed. Mr. President, what is your vision for the future? Obviously, it is not 104,000 new family homes. What about those men and women who work in the automobile industry of our country? It is estimated, by those same studies from the Heritage Foundation, that over 600,000 additional automobiles could be manufactured and purchased by the American family in this 7-year period. That is $10 billion worth of expenditures. I do not know how you think, Mr. President, but I know how the folks of Idaho think. They want to keep ahold of their own money. They want the right to spend the money they earn. They do not believe that transferring it to the Federal Government and giving the Federal Government the opportunity to spend it on something that the Federal Government would wish is the better way to manage it. Well, those are some extremely valuable and important figures that are all tied up in this balanced budget that the President has now vetoed. So, Mr. President, while your budgeteers are coming to the Hill on a regular basis now and are to bring with them your vision of a balanced budget and your proposal that the House and the Senate and the White House will now sit down to try to work out the differences on, there is one thing that is nonnegotiable and that is a 7-year balanced budget. That is the kind of tax relief that truly builds incentives in the economy to keep our economy going, to keep it prospering, to create new jobs, and to allow the American working family more and more opportunity by being able to keep more of their hard-earned income. A lot of people have criticized the idea of leaving the American family with more money. If we had, by our own studies, left the American family the same kind of spending opportunities that they had in 1950 when the Government was taxing a great deal less of the gross income of the average working family, I would tell you that it would not be a $500 tax credit today, it would be well over triple that amount. That is how much we have eroded the spending ability, the keeping ability, the savings ability of the American family by progressively taking away from them for what has been allegedly a better cause--more of their money to be spent by Government. These are very important issues, Mr. President. There is more at stake here than just the pulling out of an old antique pen that started the great welfare society of our country that has well run out of ink, and trying to find ink to veto an effort of reform that the American public spoke to last November. Mr. President, it is significant what has occurred in this country. It is significant that the American people have spoken overwhelmingly in favor of balancing a Federal budget. Back in 1982, when I served in the U.S. House of Representatives, I became one of those leaders pushing a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. That was long before the debt was as big as it is today, or the deficit seemed to become a static deficit of around $200 billion on an annualized basis. Those were the years we really felt it was important to get the budget under control. As we fought to do so, one thing began to happen: The American people began to listen. They recognized, as they saw the debt of this country grow and as they saw a Congress unwilling to wrestle with the real meaning of a debt and to bring Federal spending under control, that somehow the American public was going to have to do it. I think the citizens of this country truly believe that this is their Government. By the action of their vote, they will tell those of us who represent them in their Government how we should act. That is exactly what I believe the American public did last November when they changed the 40-year-old Democratically-controlled House into a House with a Republican majority and they put Republicans in a majority here in the U.S. Senate. They said very, very clearly, ``Mr. President, Congress, balance the budget, and do so in a way that is meaningful. Not the kind of games that have been played historically over the last three decades. We want you to show us for the first time that you can and will balance the budget.'' And, Mr. President, that is exactly what the Republican Congress has done. They sent to the President a balanced budget, and this President, lacking a vision and lacking an image for the future, vetoed it. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma for such time as he might consume.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from Michigan, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a study by the Heritage Foundation called ``Balanced Budget Talking Points: The $500-Per-Child Tax Credit,'' which discusses what it would mean to a typical middle-income family in this country to have the middle-class family tax credit that was in the Balanced Budget Act vetoed yesterday. In having this printed in the Record, let me suggest that a family of four spends on the average $3,986 a year in groceries, or about $332 a month. What the President did yesterday was take away from the average American family 3 month's--3 month's--worth of grocery bills.