Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. Now let me yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alaska, to speak on the President's veto of the budget.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from Alaska, I ask unanimous consent that debate time on the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations conference report, H.R. 2076, be limited to the following: Senator Gregg, 2 hours; Senator Hollings, 2 hours; Senator Biden, 2 hours; Senator Bumpers, 20 minutes. Further, that following the expiration or the yielding back of the previously mentioned debate time, the Senate vote on the adoption of the conference report with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me close by saying to the President of the United States: Mr. President, stand forward and tell the truth to the membership of Congress and to the American people. Tell them that this budget does, in fact, protect Medicare; that the average recipient today is receiving $4,800 in benefits; and that under the budget you just vetoed that average recipient by the year 2002 will receive $6,700 in benefits. That is a 7-percent annual increase. Mr. President, tell the truth about the budget that you vetoed. What we heard from you yesterday was not a vision of the future, but was looking back into the spoiled American dream of big Government and big debt that somehow you hung yourself to, that does not represent the kind of opportunity that the American family wants and deserves. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the benefit of Members and the public that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing on several measures relating to the Bureau of Reclamation. The measures are: S. 901.--To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of certain water reclamation and reuse projects and desalination research and development projects, and for other purposes; S. 1013.--To amend the act of August 5, 1965, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land for the purpose of exchange for privately held land for use as wildlife and wetland protection areas, in connection with the Garrison Diversion Unit Project, and for other purposes; S. 1154.--To authorize the construction of the Fort Peck Rural Water Supply System, to authorize assistance to the Fort Peck Rural Water County Water District, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning, design, and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes; S. 1169.--To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize construction of facilities for the reclamation and reuse of wastewater at McCall, ID, and for other purposes; and S. 1186.--To provide for the transfer of operation and maintenance of the Flathead irrigation and power project, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, December 13, 1995 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to testify or submit written statements for the record should contact James Beirne at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765 of the subcommittee staff or write the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am not quite sure I can speak with the passion of the Senator from California, but I, too, feel a great concern for the situation in which this President has now in a foursquare way placed this country. The President's speech this week was probably the most important speech of his Presidency. It was an address that outlined a decision, a very critical decision that only a President can make, and that is to deploy United States troops, in this instance United States troops, to be peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavian Republic. I was looking for a number of answers in his message, such as a very full articulation of a defined goal or mission, strategy for achieving that goal, an exit strategy, and that of our national and security interests for our country. I do not, in any way, bow from the moral imperative argument. That has been clear from day one. It is certainly an argument that this Nation has not walked away from. We have invested millions of dollars and lots of our manpower in air support, in sea support, in logistics. We have been involved. So it is not a question of now versus then. I am sorry, Mr. President, if you only caught the sails of the current moral imperative, the slaughter in the former Yugoslavia has been going on for 4 years. We have all witnessed it, and the Senator from California has spoken to it on the floor. So that is something that has not missed America. What has missed America is how do we become engaged, engaged in a way that we can control a situation and environment and an emotion that is well 300 years old in the making, where other nations, great and small, have chosen to at least stand aside for the very risk of the people, their own people, that they might chose to engage in a solution. So that becomes the issue. It is the issue that we, in this Senate, will have to face, because ultimately what is the President's decision can become our responsibility. I will not judge it on a moral imperative. I cannot judge it on that basis. I have to judge it on whether we can do it in a way in which we can go in, solve a problem, stabilize the situation, minimize the risk to our people, our sons and daughters who have gone in service to this country and its security, and then is there a way out. That is what I think we ought to be judging here. There is no question about the loss of human life that has gone on over there. And we have all spoken to it with a great sense of urgency. But it is not now only to be discovered. We have known it for a long, long while. What is at hand now is an issue that this President for justifiable reasons has attempted to bring to this country, and by his decision, and by the initialing of the agreement in Dayton, has clearly brought it foursquare. But, Mr. President, my frustration is very simple. The President of the United States cautioned us not to debate the issue until there was a decision, not to debate the issue until there was a plan. And we chose not to. I think we chose improperly, but we chose to give him the time. And now that he has a plan, or at least now that he soon will have a plan that we can look at with some detail, he has put us in a very unique situation. He almost has the opportunity, if we chose not to support him, to turn to us and say, you are breaking the peace agreement, you are putting at risk the men and women of the former Yugoslavia, and the children. Mr. President, not so, simply not so. They have been at risk for a long time. And this Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives has for many years contemplated alternatives. We have asked for a variety of approaches, only to be denied those, to create equity and balance with the warring factions over there, only to be denied that, to clearly create a one-sided war that by the very nature of its history would spell out human slaughter, and it has. And now finally, after all of those long denials, this President has said, ``Here is a solution. And here is what I propose to do. And here is what I am going to do.'' And that can result, not only in the placing at risk of 20,000 of our armed services people on the ground, clearly in foursquare risk, but it also places a good many more-- because of the 4-to-1 ratio, we are not just talking about 20,000 Americans on the ground over there, we may well be talking 50,000, or 60,000, or 70,000. Is it going to go on for a year? Well, Mr. President, I do not think you know that, and we certainly do not know that. So it is with these concerns that I come to the floor today, Mr. President, because of the constitutional role that our President has, the right that he has under the Constitution to do what he is doing today, and at the same time to recognize that we have a responsibility. And, as I have said very early on, my responsibility rests with Americans first and the ability to understand how they can best be involved and safeguarded. Our responsibilities also rest in whether we appropriately fund these actions and if the mission is effectively carried out. So there are a lot of questions yet unanswered. I have asked the people of Idaho to speak to me and our delegation on this issue because the Senator from California is right, this is a tough one. There is no question about it that we will all consider this with great, great concern, great passion, a great aching of the heart, not only for what has gone on over there but for what we might be putting our men and women at risk in doing. And so in asking that, my phone, like I think most of the phones of my colleagues, has been filled with phone calls from our citizens expressing with more passion than I have heard expressed in some time, a concern about what we are about to do as a country. My phone calls are running 100 to 1 in opposition to what my citizens now know at least of what our President plans to do. And they are hoping that I can block him from doing that. And I must tell them that I cannot, that under the Constitution, as Commander in Chief, he has that kind of authority. But I do hope that this Senate will speak out very clearly as to where we stand and what we stand for. I do not think that our message in any way can be garbled nor can we avoid just passing it by, just letting the President free rein this. Not at all. And I hope that we can develop a resolution that speaks clearly to our concerns that those who openly and aggressively support the President in this issue can have a right to express that, those of us who have very real questions at this moment who more than likely will strongly oppose the President can also have that opportunity to speak clearly to it. That is the responsibility of the Senate and the Congress, not just to this President, but to the citizens of this country, because we, in Government here, have this unique responsibility among all, and that is whether to engage this Nation in war or police actions and ask our citizens not only to support us in this but to take up arms for the purpose of these actions. The President has raised three concerns to justify U.S. participation in implementing the peace accord: The potential spread of the conflict, our leadership in NATO and the international community, and the need to end the carnage in the Balkans. I do not question the concerns raised by our Commander in Chief. However, I do reserve my support for his actions at this time. Mr. President, we would like to respond to what I will refer to as the ``moral imperative,'' that President Clinton outlined in his speech. The devastation and human suffering in the Balkans has left us all with a feeling of frustration. These feelings are not new, however. 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 was in regular contact with my office, and his fears and frustrations were very real to me. The moral imperative existed back then. However, then, like now, our options for involvement are very limited, and we still face the fundamental difficulty of trying to make the peace a greater victory than winning the war. Mr. President, while we all understand and agree with the moral imperative, we have yet to hear why this action would serve our national interest or security needs. In the coming days, when details of the mission are made clear, I will look and I will listen, but I have very grave concerns and reservations about this proposed action. I must admit, President Clinton has put the Congress in a bad position by bringing us into the picture after the Bosnian peace agreement has been initialed. He has put the Congress at the disadvantage of being the breakers of peace, if we withhold support. Even so, Congress has no choice but to speak. Regardless of the outcome, I want to make one point very clear: If Americans are deployed to defend the peace, I will support our troops. Mr. President, I have great concern about sending Americans into the Balkans to implement and enforce a peace agreement that was hammered out in Dayton, OH. My concerns stem from the fact that despite their sincerity and good intentions, the negotiators may not be able to deliver on their promises. One of the great problems with the situation in the Balkans--and one of the reasons we have had approximately 30 failed cease-fires--is that there is an inordinate number of people who are often referred to as ``irregulars.'' In Idaho, we would probably call them vigilantes. The bottom line is that this kind of disorder, combined with extraordinary tensions and emotions, is a recipe for disaster. Mr. President, as outsiders, we cannot impose peace under these circumstances. We may not even be able to serve as the conduit of peace. There has been some discussion about the need for detail in this peace agreement. The Dayton agreement has detail, but there are people who wield power, such as Bosnian-Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, who were not at the negotiating table. With the ink barely dry on the agreement, Karadzic announced that peace in the capital would be difficult to ensure and that the transfer of Serb-held neighborhoods was not final. Karadzic, who was not at the negotiation table, but represented by Serb President Slobodan Milosevic, is committed to making changes to the peace agreement. However, it is my understanding that negotiators in the agreement have rebuffed the idea that Bosnian Serbs could restructure the agreement. In an interview with NBC, U.S. negotiator Richard C. Holbrooke said, ``Dayton was an initialing. Paris will be a signing. There will be no change between Dayton and Paris.'' Defense Secretary William J. Perry on ``Face the Nation,'' reconfirmed that position by saying, . . . I want to make clear: We're not going to renegotiate this agreement. This agreement is the agreement, and that's what we're proceeding on. Karadzic does not appear stonewalled. It is my understanding from reports I have read, that he is mobilizing community leaders from the suburbs around Sarajevo, to force changes in the agreement, prior to the signing date on December 10. While we may dismiss Karadzic's power with the Serbian people, there is one thing that cannot be overlooked: His message strikes a chord with many Serbians who have fought for gains that are now being signed away, in the name of peace. The issue at hand may be peacekeeping, but we cannot ignore the fact that peace will only come with a high price: What is wrong with the Dayton agreement [is that it] has created a new Beirut in Europe. It is going to bleed for decades. Radovan Karadzic, from a Washington Post article November 27, 1995. While Karadzic's rhetoric may be just rhetoric, it is aimed at destabilizing this agreement. It is also a message that many Serbians want to hear. From what I have seen happen in this conflict over the last few years, he will likely be a formidable opponent to peace. Reports on comments from both Bosnians and Serbs in Sarajevo don't bode well for peace. The bitter depth of anger in this conflict and the lack of trust on both sides has not created the kind of atmosphere this peace agreement needs to be successful. In short, Mr. President, citizens marching in protest of the peace accord are not likely to swallow the hatred they have harbored in order to bring about peace. So, what exactly does this agreement say that is so hotly contested by some Serbian factions? Mr. President, under the agreement initialed last week, the enforcement of peace will be the responsibility of a NATO-led peacekeeping force of 60,000 troops, with as many as 20,000 of them being Americans. Bosnia would be split between a joint Moslem- Croat Government, which would have jurisdiction over 51 percent of the territory, and a Serb republic, which would control 49 percent. Sarajevo will fall under control of the Moslem-Croat Federation, along with its Serb-held suburbs. Needless to say, the apportionment does not sit well with many of the Serbian people. Before closing, Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to comment on the war powers resolution. Many of my fellow Idahoans have raised concerns about who has the power to deploy troops in the kind of situation we are facing in Bosnia. The Constitution provides authority to both the President and the Congress with respect to the use of our military. Our Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. The role of Congress and the Presidency in the use of our military is a case in point. Our Constitution reflects the desire to have the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President when making decisions on the use of force. Under article II, section 2, of the Constitution, the President has the authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to deploy and command our Armed Forces. On the other hand, article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war. We can all look at these powers, and see the clear differences. However, lines can become fuzzy when those principles are applied to a specific situation, such as the one before us in the Balkans. The War Powers Resolution, which passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973, was designed to provide a functional framework through which to clarify the two roles and to maintain the intended balance of power. Compliance with the resolution becomes an issue when troops are deployed to a location where they face hostilities or imminent involvement in hostilities. The criteria required for compliance with the War Powers Resolution are very clear. The President must consult the Congress, fulfill reporting requirements, and then seek congressional approval for continued deployment beyond a specific number of days--60 or 90 depending on the situation. If these steps are not fulfilled. Then the Congress is left with using it's power of the purse. Terminating the funds necessary for the deployment provides the Congress the ability to curb the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief. This step is not an easy one, given that the Congress would have to override a presidential veto with a two- thirds vote. Mr. President, I would like to explore one final point in this whole situation that has consumed my concerns. The war in the former Yugoslavian republics is not new; it is a continuation of an age-old conflict. These people have fought and suffered atrocities, especially over the last 4 years, that we cannot comprehend, for a goal that we do not understand. Yet, when cease-fires were achieved they were short- lived, because winning the war or conflict was valued more highly than coexisting in peace. All sides in this conflict have had one goal: to win. To win, is to survive. However, through our efforts to contain the conflict by placing the international embargo on Yugoslavia and maintain it on Bosnia, the conflict became very uneven. The Serbians took hold of that advantage, and have taken hold of every subsequent advantage in their efforts to win. I do not see the average person, whether Serb, Moslem, or Croatian, being prepared to accept peace without a fight. A Washington Post article on November 27, quoted what I would call an average man who has lived through this conflict: ``It's pathetic,'' said Milorad Dugovic, a car mechanic who keeps an automatic pistol tucked in his waistband. ``What were we fighting for in the past four years? * * * we will continue to fight. We'll fight even NATO. What's ours will remain ours.'' I do not see the Serbian people being willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Peace under this agreement is not a done deal. Let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that our troops will only be peacekeepers. If actions fit rhetoric, and fighting begins again, our troops will be in the middle of this bloody civil war. then peace will come only if we become the peacemakers by using force to settle this conflict. Mr. President, I remain opposed to the proposed deployment of United States troops into Bosnia as part of this peace agreement at this time. I emphasize ``at this time,'' because it is imperative that we all fully understand what is at stake. In my view, our national and security interests have not yet been defined. Before I can even entertain the thought of sending American men and women into this situation, these interests must be real, and they must be defined. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 12:30 with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each. The following exceptions would be Senator Dorgan, or designee, for 45 minutes; and Senator Thompson, or designee, for 45 minutes. Following morning business the Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet. At 2:15 today the majority leader has stated that the Senate will begin consideration of calendar No. 247, which is S. 1396, the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995. Rollcall votes are, therefore, possible during today's session of the Senate. Mr. President, seeing no person here wishing to speak in morning business, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I find it necessary today to set the record straight on the issue of domestic sugar policy. My remarks are in reference to comments made on November 17, 1995, by my good friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and on November 18, 1995, by my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg. Everyone Benefits From Family Farmers First, let me tell you about the significant importance of sugar to my State of Idaho; 1,800 family farms raise sugar beets on an annual basis. These farms combine to grow over 200,000 acres and produce over 5 million tons of sugar beets. Sugar beets are the third largest crop in Idaho after potatoes and wheat. Sugar-beets are also important to the communities where these family farmers live. Farmers generate sales at local businesses for their vehicles, fuel, farm implements, irrigation materials, fertilizer, and other inputs. These sugar-beet farmers are also efficient. Of the 31 countries around the world that produce beet sugar, the U.S. beet-sugar industry is the second lowest cost producer. While these farmers are efficient, they need the stability of U.S. sugar policy to compete against unfair subsidies and trade practices used by foreign countries. Sugar beets provide direct employment opportunities in Idaho communities. There are three processing facilities in Idaho--plus one in nearby Nyssa, OR--owned by the Amalgamated Sugar Co., that combine to pay in excess of $45 million in salary and wages to their employees. There are 1,200 people employed year round and at the seasonal peak total employment approaches 4,000 people. The Amalgamated Sugar Co., also pays $50 million annually to the truck and rail transporters of raw beet sugar and the finished products. Erroneous GAO Report My colleagues cited an erroneous figure of $1.4 billion in annual consumer costs. This figure is based on an April 1993 General Accounting Office report. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently admonished the GAO report for its flawed estimates, omitted data and ambiguous results. In an October 24, 1995, letter, Under Secretary Gene Moos wrote that Some data were used incorrectly and important data and sugar market issues were not considered . . . Based on this world price estimate and an average U.S. sweetener price over 1992-1994, a more normal price period, it can be shown using GAO's methodology, that there are no costs to domestic users and consumers. Mr. Moos continues: The estimated effects of the U.S. sugar program are highly sensitive to expected world prices if global sugar trade is liberalized. GAO's analysis, in my judgement, does not adequately consider the complexities and dynamics of the U.S. and global sugar markets. The erroneous GAO results have been misinterpreted by my colleagues. First, the mistaken $1.4 billion cost is not a payment to beet or cane producers. Sugar is not like the wheat or corn program; sugar farmers do not receive a Government payment. Rather, sugar growers pay a marketing assessment on their sugar that goes directly toward deficit reduction. Over the course of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, the sugar assessment will provide $287 million in deficit reduction. Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I ask that the text of the letter from Mr. Moos of USDA to Representative Patsy Mink regarding the erroneous GAO report be printed in its entirety. World and U.S. Sugar Prices To fully understand the selling price of sugar here and abroad, my colleagues need additional insight and information. It is important to realize that the world sugar market is very volatile due to the small quantities traded and large number of countries with protectionist policies. According to USDA, all 110 countries producing sugar subsidize their sugar production, consumption, and/or trade in some way. The world price of sugar has ranged from more than 60 cents per pound in 1974 and more than 40 cents per pound in 1980 to less than 3 cents per pound in 1985. This world price does not correspond with the world cost of production. In fact, a 1994 Landell Mills study showed that the world price average of 8.4 cents per pound between 1982-92 and the average cost of production was estimated at 17.5 cents per pound during the same period. This obvious presence of a world dump market does not and would not allow foreign needs to meet domestic demands at the suggested lower price. U.S. consumers use about 9 million tons of sugar each year, which is equal to more than a third of the total sugar traded on the world market each year. Program Extension The gentleman from New Hampshire also took issue with the fact that the sugar program was extended for 7 years. Mr. President, for the record I would like to note that all agricultural commodities were extended for 7 years. Yes, every single commodity in the ag title of the Balanced Budget Act. This includes not only sugar, but wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts, corn, and barley. I would point out that the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 was designed to achieve a fiscal balance by 2002 and thus most, if not all, of the bill's provisions were approved in 7-year time-frames. Record of Committee Review For the record, I would also like to review the process of hearings and committee markups that the sugar section of the bill underwent prior to final inclusion. To suggest that the sugar program slipped into the bill is an insult to the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Last December, the Agriculture Committee chairman, Senator Lugar, asked 53 questions about domestic agriculture and rural policy that began an extremely comprehensive schedule of committee hearings. Eight full committee hearings were held between March and June to form the foundation of the 1995 agricultural legislation. Four subcommittee hearings were also held in May and June. In addition, I personally chaired a field hearing in Pocatello, ID, on August 15 to thoroughly review farm policy, including [[Page S 17537]] sugar. In addition, the full committee participated in 2 days of lengthy debate in late September prior to final approval of the bill. Sugar Program Passes the Reform Test In closing let me briefly review the significant reform submitted as a result of the thorough committee process and recently approved by the Congress in section 1107 of the Balanced Budget Act. The sugar program of the future is definitely not the sugar program of the past. Consistent with the other ag policy changes, the sugar program contributed to deficit reduction and was rewritten to more closely respond to market signals. Sugar program reform included the removal of marketing allotments, a shift to recourse loans, an increased assessment, and a penalty that effectively lowers the loan rate by a penny. In past years, sugar production was controlled by a system of marketing allotments. This bill removes those production controls. The Government will no longer tell farmers where and in what quantity they can raise sugar. This major reform signifies the end of sugar-supply management. A recourse loan provision will now apply to the sugar program. Other commodities, and previously sugar, utilized a nonrecourse loan program. This meant the Government had no means of recovering a defaulted loan except collection of the commodity used as collateral. The new sugar program will not allow that risk to the Federal Government. This is significant to farmers, because it eliminates any guarantee of previous minimum payments. The most significant reform provision is a new penalty on any sugar that is forfeited to the Government. This 1-cent penalty effectively lowers the loan rate by a penny. That occurs because the loan holders will lower the sales price of their sugar to avoid paying the newly instated penalty. There are significant real life effects of a 1-cent decrease in the sugar loan rate. The average Idaho farmer raises 128 acres of sugar beets according to the latest data. The USDA says they will average 25 tons of sugar beets per acre this year and, given the national average extraction rate, this means they will produce 6,924 pounds of refined sugar on each acre they harvest in Idaho. In Idaho, like most of the rest of the areas where sugar beets are grown, the farmer has a contract with the company that processes the sugar beets and it provides that the farmer will get 60 percent of the value of the sugar he produces. Thus, the farmer's share of 1-cent reduction is 60 percent, Six- tenths of a cent a pound times 6,924 pounds per acre equals $41.55; $41.55 loss per acre times the average Idaho farmer's 128 acres equals $5,318.40. Let me repeat, a 1-cent reduction in the value of sugar per pound will cost the average Idaho farmer $5,318.40. That $5,318.40 is very often the difference between profit and loss for many farmers even during prosperous, let alone difficult, economic times in rural America. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the loss to producers would be passed on as savings to consumers. A 1-cent reduction might seem minimal to those not familiar with the program, but it is not. Mr. President, in closing, I ask that my colleagues consider my words carefully and come to appreciate the reforms that have been made to the domestic sugar program. I also want to commend the other members of the Senate Agriculture Committee that combined to craft sugar policy that this Congress can be proud to point to as an example of market driven reform. Most importantly, I offer my gratitude to the farmers and ranchers from across this country that continue to produce a bountiful, safe, and reasonably priced food supply. The text of the letter follows: Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, October 24, 1995. Hon. Patsy T. Mink, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Mink: Thank you for your letter of July 26, 1995, concerning the General Accounting Office (GAO) report that stated that the U.S. sugar program costs domestic users and consumers an average of $1.4 billion annually and GAO's July 1995 analysis that the sugar program cost the Government an additional $90 million in 1994 for its food purchase and food assistance programs. In my opinion, GAO's April 1993 report was flawed in its estimates. Some data were used incorrectly and important data and sugar market issues were not considered. Based on GAO's methodology, but by selecting prices in different time periods, the results are more ambiguous. Depending on the timeframe, one may contend that the domestic sugar program either costs or benefits U.S. users and consumers. GAO's estimate of $1.4 billion annually was based on an assumption of a long-run equilibrium world price of 15.0 cents per pound of raw sugar if all countries liberalized sugar trade. GAO added a transportation cost of 1.5 cents per pound of raw sugar to derive a landed U.S. price (elsewhere in the report GAO stated that the transportation cost adjustment should be 2.0 cents per pound.) To derive a world price of refined sugar of 20.5 cents per pound, GAO added a refining spread of 4.0 cents per pound. GAO compared its constructed U.S. sweetener price with its derived world price. However, GAO constructed the U.S. price for the 1989-1991 period during which 1989 and 1990 were unusually high price years for U.S. refined sugar. This exaggerated the difference between the so-called world derived price and the U.S. sweetener price. By selecting a period of world price spikes, such as 1973-1975, GAO's analysis would show an annual savings to domestic users and consumers of $350 to $400 million. Clearly, the expected world price of raw sugar with global liberalization is critical to any analyses of the effects of the U.S. sugar program. In 1993, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) estimated that sugar trade liberalization in the United States, European Union, and Japan alone would result in an average world price of 17.6 cents per pound of raw sugar--2.6 cents per pound higher than GAO's derived world price. Based on the ABARE analysis and using a transportation cost of 1.75 cents per pound, which more accurately reflects global transportation costs to the United States, plus a refining spread of 4.27 cents per pound (Landell Mills Commodities Studies, Incorporated), a world price of refined sugar is estimated at 23.6 cents per pound. Based on this world price estimate and an average U.S. sweetener price over 1992-1994, a more normal price period, it can be shown using GAO's methodology, that there are no costs to domestic users and consumers. The estimated effects of the U.S. sugar program are highly sensitive to expected world prices if global sugar trade is liberalized. GAO's analysis, in my judgment, does not adequately consider the complexities and dynamics of the U.S. and global sugar markets. With respect to the effects of the U.S. sugar program on Government costs of its food purchase and assistance programs, an independent analysis by the Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates the cost at $84 million based on the difference between U.S. and world refined sugar prices in 1994. However, just as for the GAO analysis, different effects could be estimated by using other time periods when the price gap between U.S. and world prices was smaller. Moreover, with global liberalization, the price gap would narrow because of the dynamics of adjustment which were not considered in the ERS analysis. Sincerely, Eugene Moos, Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate and the public, the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management has scheduled an oversight hearing on the administration's implementation of section 2001 of the Funding Rescissions Act of 1995. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 29, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The hearing will be conducted jointly with the forest salvage task group of the House Resources Committee. The only witnesses will be the administration and the General Accounting Office. Those 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, contact Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will allow for another 3 minutes and then I will object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, America is watching what we do here today, or more importantly, what we fail to do. I think they are watching with a much more critical eye than we are willing to give them credit for. I say that because it was well over 20 years ago when another Senator from Virginia put legislation through this body, passed by law, to balance the Federal budget within a very short period of time. That was law. That was Federal law, Mr. President. This Congress went by it so fast that it was not even the blur of a stop sign. Four times following that over the last two decades this Congress has passed laws, I tell you, to balance the Federal budget. Yet, of course, that never happened. We are now nearly $5 trillion in debt. We have a $200 billion deficit. This President came forward last night and said, ``Let's set a goal. Let's once again have a goal to achieve a federally balanced budget.'' Somehow that was worthy. I know what the American people are saying at this moment. ``Oh, no, you don't, Mr. President. We don't trust you nor do we trust the Congress. You no longer have any credibility in the area of spending because you have shown you cannot control your appetites.'' That is why only by 1 vote out of 535 votes this year, 435 votes, did we miss sending out an amendment to the Constitution of this country to assure the citizens' right to decide on whether they want a balanced budget or not. I know what folks in my State are saying right now. While they recognize the inconvenience of what we do at the moment, and while there are Federal employees in my State who are furloughed by phone calls pouring in to all of my State offices and my office here, on a 12-1 ratio, they are saying, ``Don't blink. Don't blink. It is not a goal. It is no longer a concept. It is no longer an ideal.'' They are saying, ``Make it a reality, Mr. President. Balance the Federal budget and do it now. Put together what you promised us in last year's election that you would do.'' Are we once again going to be the traditional politician of Washington and tell the citizens one thing and then bow to the pressure to do something else? I say no, absolutely no. It is time we send a message to the American people that we mean exactly what we told them. Mr. President, we have people out of work on the Federal payroll today because of you. You are the one who vetoed the bills. You are the one who is now saying you will veto the DOD appropriations bill. Senator Stevens from Alaska was in here very distressed, as he should be, that we have now done our work and tonight a bill that will put hundreds of thousands of men and women, both civilian and in uniform, back to work--this President says ``No, I will veto it.'' Why? Because ``It does not meet my goal.'' Mr. President, check in the Constitution. Read the Constitution. Who budgets for our Government? We do. You [[Page S 17465]] execute the budget, Mr. President. That is what the Constitution says. I have advocated giving the President more authority. In the balanced budget amendment that I helped craft it has been the No. 1 amendment here on the floor of the Senate and in the House for well over 5 years. We have given the President a right to become a full participant in the budget process but he does not have that right now. Yes, he can veto. But when he vetoes, it is without question his responsibility for the people who are no longer employed by action of that veto. So we crafted another continuing resolution and he said, ``I will veto it. Don't send it down,'' and it has not gone down. Last night we passed a balanced budget for 1995. This President says he will veto it. Mr. President, this is one Senator who is not going to bow to that kind of pressure. I will not vote for a goal or a concept or an ideal. And I encourage all of my colleagues not to vote that way either. We will vote for a balanced budget in 7 years and we will vote for it based on legitimate, legal, responsible figures that tell the truth and show the American public exactly what we are spending and where we are spending it and where the revenue to spend is coming from. That is what this Government and that is what this Congress must do, without question or without doubt. For, if we do not, the clock continues to tick. A $5 trillion debt, a $5.1 trillion, $5.2 trillion, a $5.3 trillion, and on and on and on. And the children of tomorrow are going to owe, not $15,000 or $16,000 or $17,000 of their earnings back to Government for the debt we created, it will be $20,000 or $25,000 or $30,000 or $40,000. The American people are smarter than that. How possibly can we continue to do that? That is why we saw the greatest political realignment ever in the history of our country occur last November, because finally the American people said, ``Enough is enough.'' Mr. President, hear me: I will not bow to the goal or the concept or the idea, because I know what you want. You have already indicated it. You want billions more to spend for programs that are questionable in their nature as to the services they provide. The American people want a balanced budget. We have now labored nearly 11 months to craft a budget and bring it into that concept and into those parameters. It has not been just the Republicans that have done that; it is Republican and Democrat alike. So I hope our leadership will not bend. I hope our leadership will listen to their people and listen to the phone calls. Adhere to a balanced budget. Adhere to the tough decisions. Say to this President, if you will not agree with us, then we will continue our work. We will not recess, as I have encouraged our leader not to do, and we will bring down the appropriations bills and we will fund a balanced budget. I will tell you that is a gun to no one's head. That is simply what the American people want. The hand-wringing is over with. We have spent 30 years playing this game, and I sincerely believe the game is over. It is now time to realize we must do what the American people asked us to do and do so in a responsible fashion. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with Senator Lugar, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, regarding section 1107 of the bill.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, as a conferee for the Senate on section 1107 of the bill, it is my understanding that the conferees have agreed to include language in subsection (d) of section 1107 that will reform the Sugar Program by authorizing, for the first time, the Secretary of Agriculture to administer the program through the use of recourse loans, subject to specific conditions. If implemented, the use of recourse loans is a major reform from the nonrecourse loans that have been used to support the prices of all basic farm program commodities in this century. The conferees authorized the use of recourse loans for the Sugar Program only subject to specific conditions outlined in section 1107(d) of the bill. Is this your understanding as well?

Mr. CRAIG. Is it your understanding that section 1107 of the bill reforms the Federal Sugar Program by imposing a forfeiture penalty which effectively reduces the loan level for sugar by 1 cent per pound, eliminating domestic sugar allotments that control supply, conditionally authorizing the use of recourse sugar program loans, and increasing the contributions of sugar producers toward deficit reduction by increasing the assessments on sugar marketings by 25 percent?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, yesterday, on his birthday, a young member of my staff went to the dentist for a root canal. He understood that long-term health and comfort was more than worth the short-term discomfort. Ironically, the same day, I received a fax from a concerned taxpayer who pointed out that a dentist's ``polling numbers'' aren't too good while the cavity is being drilled. But once the cavity is filled, ``the horrible toothache is gone forever--and the patient is grateful.'' For many of us in Congress, for Government employees, for many Idahoans, and for many folks watching us around the Nation, the current budget impasse may be producing a feeling like that of hearing the dentist's drill. So, it's important for us to remember why we're here, what's at stake here, and why we are fighting so hard to pass a balanced budget. $200 billion annual deficits, a $5 trillion debt, are more than a toothache--they are a cancer on the economy and threaten the living standards and economic security of every American. This would be the first balanced budget since 1969 and only the second since 1960. It's sobering to remember that a majority of Americans living today have seen the Government balance its books either once or never. Back at the beginning of this year, we got 66 of the 67 votes we needed to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The critics, the defenders of the status quo cried out, ``Where's your plan?'' Well, at least for those of us on this side of the aisle, here's our plan. With passage today of the Balanced Budget Act, the first Republican Congress in 40 years is on the verge of passing a detailed plan to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002--for the first time since 1969 and only the second time since 1960. In fact, a majority of all Americans living today have seen the Government balance its books only once or never. However, the President has threatened a veto and the debate has been heated and, often, confusing or misleading. The following information should help folks construct the true picture of the current debate and what's at stake. Democrats say Republicans in Congress want to slash spending. But total spending under the Balanced Budget Plan will go from $1.5 trillion in 1995 to almost $1.9 trillion in 2002--a 22 percent increase. Under the status quo, spending would go to $2.1 trillion in 2002-- almost a 40 percent increase. The Democrats say the Republican budget is all pain, no gain. But real people will enjoy real benefits from balancing the budget by 2002 under the Republican plan. Because of lower interest rates, a typical family would save $2,388 a year on a $75,000 mortgage; $1,026 over the life of a 4-year, $15,000 car loan; and $1,891 over the life of a 10- year, $11,000 student loan. Balancing the budget means more investment, more economic growth, and 2.5 million new jobs by 2002. By 2020, this growth means our children would have a 7 percent to 36 percent higher standard of living. In contrast: The Concord Coalition estimates that Federal debts and deficits already have lowered the average family's income by $15,000 a year. The President's 1995 budget estimated that future generations face a lifetime tax rate of 82 percent at all levels, under current trends in the public debt. The status quo is the least tolerable course. President Clinton says he has submitted a balanced budget. Not according to the nonpartisan, objective Congressional Budget Office, which said the ``10-year balanced budget plan'' he offered this summer actually would produce $200 billion deficits a year throughout the next decade. By his own admission, the budget the President first proposed in February would have produced similar $200 billion deficits. In both cases, he used unrealistic economic assumptions. Democrats say the Congressional budget plan will drastically reduce Medicare protection for the elderly. But, if we do nothing, Medicare will run a deficit in the coming year for the first time ever, and its trust funds will be completely drained of their accumulated reserve by 2002. The official Medicare Trustees--including three of President Clinton's own Cabinet Secretaries--have said so. [[Page S 17313]] The balanced budget plan will extend the financial solvency of Medicare at least until 2009, protecting seniors. Budget savings would come from increasing consumer choice and making the system more efficient. Even after savings, Medicare spending per beneficiary would increase from $4,800 in 1995 to $6,700 in 2002--a 40-percent increase. Democrats say Republicans want to cut Medicare to pay for tax cuts. But, the same magnitude of reforms are necessary to save and preserve Medicare, no matter what happens with the rest of the budget. The Balanced Budget Act includes a lockbox provision making it illegal to use Medicare funds for other purposes. Democrats say the Republican plan won't really balance the budget--it will look like it by raiding the Social Security trust funds. But, the balanced budget plan will balance the unified budget (including Social Security surpluses in the total) by 2002. It will balance the budget without counting Social Security by 2005. The Government will remain under a legal obligation to pay out to Social Security beneficiaries every dollar ever deposited into the Social Security trust funds, with interest. The growing national debt is the real threat to Social Security and every other important Government program. We already are paying $300 billion in interest every year on that debt--about one-fifth of it going to foreigners--which crowds out other budget priorities. Democrats say the Congressional budget is full of tax cuts for the rich. But, every time someone suggests cutting taxes for everyone, liberal demagogues make it sound like the rich are getting a special deal. It just ain't so in the balanced budget plan. Almost three-quarters of the tax package in the budget goes for family tax relief, including a $500 per-child credit, adoption credit, marriage penalty relief, a deduction for custodial care for the elderly, and a student loan interest deduction. Savings and investment incentives will boost the entire economy, create jobs, and guarantee that small businesses and family farms won't have to be sold at the owner's death just to pay taxes. Closing corporate loopholes will raise $18 billion in revenues over the next 7 years. Democrats say the Republican budget raises taxes on lower-income people. This accusation is a misrepresentation about the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC]. The EITC is the fastest-growing item in the budget. It is part tax credit and part spending program for lower-income workers. In his 1993 budget, President Clinton drastically expanded who's eligible and the amount of benefits. The Balanced Budget Act would preserve currently-scheduled EITC increases for needy families with children. Coordinating the EITC with the $500 per-child credit will still give EITC families earning more than $18,000 a net tax cut. Other reforms target fraud, which would cost $37 billion over the next 5 years under current law. The only actual benefit reductions would affect childless taxpayers (who, before 1993, were never eligible for the EITC), illegal aliens, tax cheats, and affluent taxpayers (who never should have received EITC benefits). Democrats say Republicans want to cut benefits to the poor and needy. But Medicaid (health care insurance for the needy) spending in the Balanced Budget Act would go from $89 billion in 1995 to $127 billion in 2002--a 43-percent increase. Mr. President, here is some rhetoric versus the truth.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President----

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield me 5 minutes?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have listened in the last several minutes to my colleague from Maryland talk about tactics that have caused certain financial interests and indicators in this country to react. There is a clear tactic that has been played out here for the last several weeks by the Secretary of the Treasury saying that if we did not do certain things, the Government will shut down. All the while he was saying that to the American community of financial interests and to this Congress, he knew and we knew that was nothing but a tactic. And yet he went on with the scare game that has been used and is currently being used. I suggest, if there is a sense of irresponsibility, then the Secretary of the Treasury ought to know that suggesting something that is not real, and that is financial collapse of this Government if we did not pass x pieces of legislation when he knew he had the capacity to keep our Government running and to honor its debt structure for the next several months, is in fact the worst tactic of all. Now the White House is suggesting that they will not deal with us to achieve a 7-year balanced budget under CBO figures. ``Nonstart, won't go, can't go,'' says the President and his men, although the President has suggested in a variety of ways that he could accept a balanced budget in 5 years if we gave him a large tax increase. And he got the tax increase, and now it is 9 years and maybe 7 years, but he is not really sure because he does not really know. Here is what we know. We know that we are headed down the course of producing a budget for this Government and this country that will balance in 7 years, and that in balancing it in 7 years we will use CBO figures because the President said in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives that they are the ones you can trust, the CBO, so we will use those figures. Beyond the rhetoric of a balanced budget and CBO, and concurrent resolutions and debt ceilings, what is the reality of what we are trying to do? What is the impact on America? What will the American family achieve or receive as a result of our efforts? I suggest to you that a temporary shutdown in the Government, while it may represent some pain, is a short-term problem to a long-term solution. And that long-term solution is achieving a balanced budget. That is what we are after, and that is not what this President is after because he is not really sure about where he can get and how he can get there, but we are. We have worked to produce legislation that will achieve just that. Madam President, a $500 tax cut to 28 million American families raising 51 million children in this country and having the ability to provide a better lifestyle to assure a college education, that is what our balanced budget is all about. I think it is very clear what we are trying to achieve here--provide a more spendable income to create a better sense of being in this country. Madam President, a 7-year balanced budget with the tax cuts that are proposed in this, they yield good things for America. Why not suggest that the gross national product should grow by an additional $10.8 billion by the year 2002? A new study just out by an econometric modeling firm, one of the best in the country, indicates just that, if you have a tax cut along with spending reductions of the kind that we put together into the mix--and that is what we are trying to do--you have an additional $32.1 billion in real disposable income. What happens when you put real disposable income out there in the hands of the American consumer and the American family? They buy homes, they save for a college education, they buy a new car, they do all of the kinds of things that we ought to be suggesting to the American family they are entitled to do. This President says, ``No. Let's stay with the past, let's stay with spending, let's stay with the big government that has proven itself incapable of dealing with the real needs of America.'' That is what we are about here. That is the fundamental argument underway. And I understand what my colleague from Maryland is suggesting. Let me suggest that the long-term benefits of a balanced budget, the kind this President wants to destroy, means real income for America, and real opportunity.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding. I have listened with a tremendous amount of interest to the debate over this motion to instruct conferees. I guess the thing that frustrates me most in the midst of all of this, in the midst of a Presidential veto this morning, is that by the unwillingness of this administration to act we are clearly putting a variety of trust funds in jeopardy at this moment that budget reconciliation has in every way sought to assure. During our debate on the balanced budget amendment, we heard the other side literally go on for days that the reason we were balancing the budget was a variety of things, and that we were going to do it on the back of the Social Security trust funds. It was the only way Republicans could figure out a way to balance the budget. I think what is their greatest frustration today is that we have offered a truly legitimate balanced budget and the trust funds are secure, and in fact the trust funds are safe. When the Senator from Florida suggests in his motion not to include the $12 billion in Social Security cuts that are included as an offset in relation to CPI adjustment, I find it interesting that he would phrase it that way when in fact but just a few days ago he voted for a Simon-Conrad budget that did the same thing. So we have really reduced the debate in this Chamber to politics, plain and simple raw politics: Do you want to maintain the stability programs like Social Security and balance the budget in doing so, or do you really want to progress down the same old path of spend and spend and promise well more than this Government could possibly provide or the taxpayers would be willing to pay for. That is what we have reduced ourselves to in the final hours of a critical debate on a very conclusive process that honors the commitment that a variety of us made to the American people some months ago, that we would work in every way for a balanced budget by downsizing all of the areas of Government, except Social Security would remain sound and stable and off the table. We have done all of those things, but because that is what the American people want and because there are many who are very fearful that they lose control of the phenomenal power they have exercised for decades in the ability to promise and spend and promise and spend and literally make our citizenry the victims of a government instead of the beneficiaries of a government, we have finally arrived at this debate. What we are offering is very straightforward in protecting these systems and assuring their stability out into the future. Everyone knows that the only real saving grace of Social Security or any of these kinds of programs that extend benefits to citizens in our society either based on a commitment long term in an actuarial sense like Social Security or even that of qualifying under certain criteria for need, the only way you can offer those is if you have a balanced budget. The only way you can guarantee 30 years out that the beneficiaries of Social Security are going to get their Social Security checks is if there is no massive debt in this country that is pulling $400 billion or $500 billion a year out of general fund moneys to pay interest on debt. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know that. The American people know it. That is why for the last many months we have struggled on key and important budget issues from both sides of the aisle trying to strike the compromise and split the difference and [[Page S 16965]] yet continually march ourselves toward a balanced budget by the year 2002. So when I look at instructions like this, these are like reverter clauses--revert to the old ways, revert backward, revert to deficit spending, revert to trust fund instability, revert to debt, revert to borrowing back money from future generations and not being willing to pay for it. But what the American people said is, do not revert at all. They instructed us last November. We had our instructions as conferees in a massive referendum across this country that was one of the most politically realigning referendums in the history of our country. They said to us as conferees: Balance the budget, stabilize the programs, reduce the unnecessary spending, reprioritize the programs of Government. If it is 30 years old, it is not working, and its intent has never been met, review it and get rid of it, but honor Social Security and in so doing make sure it is strong. That is exactly what we have done in all instances here. Every Senator on this floor serves as a member of the board of directors of Social Security. We have the absolute responsibility by our pledge, and that is to uphold the Constitution, and our commitment to the American citizens that we will honor programs of this nature by providing for their stability, and we must manage them accordingly. For this Senate to vote to follow the instructions of this motion to the conferees would not be to strengthen or stabilize, it would be to perpetuate the past. And the past, by all estimation, is wrong and has brought about the kind of instability, the kind of doubt in the minds of the American people that beg for change. And we have offered that in the budget reconciliation process that we are currently under that will spell not only significant change, but tremendous stability. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been called for on the pending issue?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I think the colloquy that has gone on this afternoon between our colleagues from Wyoming and Michigan has been extremely valuable. It has established very clearly that 501(c)(3) organizations in this country that receive a very large share, the lion's share, of the Federal grant dollars comply with the Federal law, and the IRS, too. In fact, the Senator from Michigan said that OMB has reported no violations. Madam President, the reason there are not any violations is because there is a reporting requirement, and if they spend more than $25,000 worth of lobbying, they are in trouble. So they do not. They are limited by law, and there is a reporting process. There is a mechanism to hold them accountable. In that accountability, they perform those kinds of activities that they choose to under the privilege that the Congress of the United States and the taxpayers have granted them--tax- exemption. That is very simple. That is very clear. That has been established here today. That is the law. They are required to keep books, but any organization that handles money is required to keep books by either their board or by the IRS, and in all instances the IRS. And so that is nothing new. There are no new accounting requirements. They have to keep their books. But now there is a requirement, and that is the requirement of accountability, on another group--the same requirement we put on 90- plus percent of those who accept the Federal grants. It is not prohibitive to the clean blood supply, to the vaccinations, to the feeding. What is prohibitive is that if that group chooses to lobby, they have limits. They must decide whether they are going to be tax exempt and carry out the mandate of their grants and the goal of their organization or whether they are going to aggressively get involved in lobbying. It is a matter of either/or, of choice. It is not prohibitive in that sense. It is a matter of choice, decisionmaking. If they want to lobby and they have an interest to lobby, they ought to go create another organization with separate books so that the money does not cross spend, it is not fungible, so that the taxpayers do not find themselves subsidizing. That is what the debate is about. We are taking the law that currently governs 90-plus percent of these organizations and putting it to the others with the same requirements and then a formula. In fact, we are even more liberal. We say that if you get above a certain amount, you can spend a certain amount. And until that time there is a very simple sliding formula that says here is the limitation--nothing more and nothing less. It is a mirror in which to look at themselves and to decide if they need to decide that they may be doing something wrong and would want to change. Or if they want to be all grant and no lobby or no advocacy, then that is what they ought to be. I suggest that those who are providing feeding, who are interested in a clean blood supply and do that work in the private sector that the Senator from Michigan talks about that we have decided can be done better there, they are going to choose to do their job and not to lobby. But if there is a need for them to express an advocacy role, they can form a 501(c)(3) to get it done. That is a separate bookkeeping system, and that is called accountability because we have extended them a very special form of treatment under the law--tax- exempt status. That means they are by definition subsidized by the taxpayers of this country. Therefore, the taxpayers of this country have the right to ask for accountability under the law, and that is what we ask for. I yield back the remainder of my time. [[Page S 16873]]

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send a modification of my amendment No. 3049 to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the second degree to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.