Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you. The bill that has just passed is extremely important to my State as it is to a good many States in this Nation. Mr. President, this bill funds Yucca Mountain at $400 million for fiscal year 1996 with $85 million set for a monitored retrieval site. What does that mean? That means that to create a managed site to handle high-level nuclear waste until Yucca Mountain is completed. The bill does not designate where this MRS would be located. Under the terms of the current Nuclear Waste Disposal Act, an MRS cannot be placed in the same State where the permanent repository is located. This means that this Congress must act, and I hope it would act soon on a bill to designate a site for a monitored retrievable storage. This administration continues to fight a program to open a permanent nuclear waste repository. They ask for no money in their budget request and they continue to be less than helpful in getting an MRS operational. This is a national disgrace, Mr. President. This country has spent over $5 billion--let me repeat, $5 billion--of electrical ratepayers' money at Yucca Mountain, and what do we have to show for it? A 1-mile hole in the ground. Which is a start, I have to admit but we have a long way to go before an application can even be filed to begin the process of opening a repository facility. I have introduced S. 1271, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1995. I hope we could move on legislation like this. Mr. President, 32 States currently generate power from nuclear energy. A brief summary of a percentage of nuclear energy consumed on a State-by-State basis is included for the Record, Mr. President. It is phenomenal to me that 82 percent of Vermont, 74 percent of Connecticut and 74 percent of Maine's power is generated by nuclear energy. These States should be working every day to open up an MRS and a geologic repository so their States do not have to shut down their nuclear power. I will say they are simply years away from doing that--and not tens of years but a very, very short period of time. It is time for this Senate to come to grips with the issue of nuclear waste. The Governor of my State recently entered into an agreement with the Secretary of Energy to finally remove the DOE and defense nuclear materials that are stored at the National Engineering Laboratory in Idaho. It is imperative that we move forward with operating facilities to meet the terms of that agreement which will remove all materials from Idaho in the year 2035. Mr. President, there is a uniqueness about this agreement. It is no longer just a signed piece of paper between DOE and a Governor. There is a Federal court order that the Department of Energy is now operating under to deal with the issues of Idaho and to deal with the issues across the Nation. That means 10,851 shipments of spent fuel and transuranic waste will be leaving Idaho. This is the first time Idaho has ever had a schedule for removal. That schedule is now in place and a Federal judge says to DOE they must respond. Mr. President, it is time that this Senate and this Congress came together in its obligation to the American people to build the facilities necessary to solve this very, very important problem. Some day, some ratepayer and some taxpayer is going to catch on to the fact that we are simply spending money and not addressing a problem. Mr. President, $5 billion, $10 billion later, one nuclear reactor down, the lights dark in a portion of a major city in this country because the power can no longer be supplied--that should not be the answer to our problem. We should respond and we should respond in a timely fashion. I thank the Senator from Washington for allowing me to proceed.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands to consider five miscellaneous land bills. The first is 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. The subcommittee will also consider 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, S. 590, a land exchange for the relief of Matt Clawson, and S. 985, to exchange certain lands in Gilpin County, CO. The last bill to be considered is S. 1196, to transfer certain National Forest System lands adjacent to the Townsite of Cuprum, ID. The hearing will take place Tuesday, November 7, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources, subcommittee on parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this morning the leaders' time is reserved and there will be a period for morning business until 10 a.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. At 10 a.m., the Senate will begin consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2002, the Transportation appropriations bill. The majority leader has announced that there will be no rollcall votes prior to 2:15 today. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me join my colleague from Texas in her most clarion call this morning to the humanity of the world that this Nation be a part of stopping the atrocities that are allegedly going on in the former Yugoslavia. It is, without question, a great human disaster under any measurement. I appreciate the words of my colleague from Texas this morning. She has been an outspoken, clear voice on this issue for the last good many weeks as these reports have come in to remind us and push this Senate and this country in the direction of causing a settlement to occur there that is just for both sides. I thank my colleague for that.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am pleased the distinguished chairman, Mr. Murkowski, has agreed to participate in a colloquy with me and my colleague from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, concerning the energy provisions of S. 1357. Has the chairman reviewed our proposed amendment concerning aircraft services for the Department of the Interior?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I also thank my chairman for accommodating our concerns while preserving the fairness and cost savings of the Energy Committee's provisions.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, an independent study of the Bureau of Reclamation's Government-owned, Government-operated aircraft service in Boise, ID, found that it saved more tax dollars than other options, including contracting out. Would the chairman agree that the committee did not intend to eliminate truly cost-effective programs that happened to be Government-owned and operated, such as that of the Bureau of Reclamation in Idaho?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this Senate has asked for 4 years for major mining law reform. In this legislation for the first time is a complete rewrite of the 1872 mining law, with new royalties, new reversionary clauses, and all that you have asked for and scored by CBO to yield $150 million. You asked for mining law reform, and we have given it to you in a fair and balanced way that allows the public land to yield to the taxpayers what you would want it to yield. I hope you would stay with us on this very important provision.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President I hope we could oppose this amendment. In the bill we are attempting to pass, we are asking reclamation projects ready to prepay to repay now upon a negotiated relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation, to return money to the Treasury now. The Senator from New Jersey is striking that. We think we have crafted good law, which is exactly the intent of the original reclamation law, only we advance the opportunity to pay it out and then turn those authorities to the owners of the property according to those within the projects.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the motion by the Senator from New Jersey to strike the provisions in the title of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that would repeal the prohibition on prepayment of construction charges. I read with some interest the ``Dear Colleague'' sent around by the Senator from New Jersey. It presents a curious and inaccurate history of reclamation provisions. Its description of the committee provision is also flawed. The letter uses the rhetoric of ``corporate welfare'' and ``costly * * * subsidies'' as if they were some magic incantation that would transform the true intent of the motion. The committee language does not create a loophole; it terminates a foolish restriction inserted in the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act to prevent irrigation districts and individuals who hold repayment or water service contracts from prepaying their debt. Prior to 1982, that limitation did not exist. The letter is not correct about the history of reclamation law that led to the 1982 act. The letter states that when the reclamation program began in 1902, Congress provided low cost irrigation water to small--160 acres or less--family farms. That sounds nice, but it simply is not true. First of all, Congress decided that unlike other public works projects that had been fully funded by the Congress, in the case of reclamation projects, the beneficiaries would have to repay the Federal Government for their allocable costs. The irrigation component would be without interest, but it would have to repaid. Contrast that with the complete subsidy given to farmers who benefit from Corps projects in New Jersey [[Page S 16018]] and elsewhere who repay nothing because their benefits are called flood control. The statement is also inaccurate in suggesting that Congress provided the water, since in many of the early projects, such as the Newlands Project, the water users held, and still hold, the water rights. What the Federal Government did was provide the financing for the storage and conveyance systems. Even where the Federal Government obtained the water rights for a project, the Reclamation Act specifically required the rights to be obtained in full compliance with State law, and the Supreme Court made it clear that the Federal Government held those rights as a trustee for the water users. Congress did not provide water. In addition, the suggestion that Congress was providing low-cost water would come as a surprise to the water users who were required to reimburse the Federal Government annually for all operation and maintenance costs as well as a portion of the capital construction costs. Granted the Federal Government was not seeking to make a profit, but repayment was a new concept imposed on the reclamation program. The statement also says that the program was limited to ``small (160 acres or less) family farms''. In fact, the reclamation program spoke of individual ownership limitations. Each person could own 160 acres. So could that person's spouse and so could each of that person's children. A family with four children could own 960 acres. In addition, there were no limitations on how much additional land could be leased. That family could lease an additional thousand acres in addition to the 960 acres it owned. One major problem that the 1982 reclamation reform sought to resolve was whether those acreage provisions applied only on a district by district basis or Westwide. When the letter speaks of the 1982 act easing ``the acreage limitations, raising them from 160 acres to the present 960 acres'', it is not being completely honest. In the 1982 act, we set the acreage limit at 960 acres for an entire family including both owned and leased lands and then applied the limit Westwide. That was reform; it was not necessarily good news for large families. The letter describes the provision in the committee reconciliation bill--Part I of Subtitle E--as creating a loophole for large farmers. In fact, the provision simply repeals a foolish limitation on prepayment that was inserted in the Reclamation Reform Act in 1982. That limitation excluded any contract that already contained a prepayment provision, so it was discriminatory on its face. The letter suggests that enactment is bad for family farmers who will face ever-large competitors who obtain even greater subsidies. That statement is simply disingenuous. The reason for opposition to the committee provision has nothing whatsoever to do with concern for family farmers--or farmers in general. Prepayment eliminates the construction debt and the false accusation that the repayment is a subsidy. What the proponents of this motion fear is the loss of their rhetoric. Upon payment of the construction debt, the operation of the project is turned over to the water users. Section 6 of the 1902 Reclamation Act provides in relevant part that ``when the payments required by this act are made for the major portion of the lands irrigated from the waters of any of the works herein provided for, then the management and operation of such irrigation works shall pass to the owners of the lands irrigated thereby, to be maintained at their expense.'' That is what really bothers the authors of this motion. They fear the loss of control and their ability to load totally unnecessary costs onto the farmers in the Western States under the guise of operations. Operation and maintenance will pass to the project beneficiaries as soon as repayment is complete, and the acreage limitations will no longer apply. It is not a concern for the family farmer that lies behind this motion, but rather a desire to keep Federal control over family farmers for as long as possible. No one should misunderstand the true motives of those who support this motion. All you have to do is look at the proposed regulations issued by Secretary Babbitt to see what the objective is. The regulations, which depend solely on continuing the construction debt, are part of the savage and unrelenting attack on water users in the West by this administration and its allies in the Congress. The letter states that this is a change in policy that would be accomplished without hearings and without any meaningful analysis. In fact, the limitation on prepayment was specifically raised during our hearings on S. 602 earlier this year when witnesses noted the prohibition on prepayment as an obstacle to transfer of certain project features. It was implicit in our field hearings on the Department's proposed regulations that were conducted in Twin Falls, ID and in Riverton, WY. I hope my colleagues who truly care about the farmers in this Nation pay close attention to what this administration has proposed in these regulations. Under the guise of defining what constitutes a lease, Secretary Babbitt is seeking to impose a new and onerous intrusion into individual farm operations. Reclamation law speaks to ownership, land owned or leased, and Congress explicitly adopted an economic benefits test to distinguish a lease from a management agreement. Secretary Babbitt ignored the legislation and its history to conduct his campaign of aggression on Western farmers, and it is that campaign the authors of this motion seek to perpetuate. We have gone down that road several times. We have faced efforts in the Energy Committee to use the mere sharing and equipment by farmers as an indicia of a lease, so we know what the real intent is. Despite Congress's explicit adoption of the economic benefit test, on April 3, 1995, Secretary Babbitt proposed new regulations that would adopt a far broader and more intrusive standard. According to the proposed regulations: Lease means any agreement between a landholder (the lessor) and another party (the lessee) under which possession of the lessor's land is partially or wholly transferred to the lessee. Possession means the authority to make, or prevent the lessor from making decisions concerning the farming enterprise on the land; or the assumption of economic risk with respect to the farming enterprise on the land. In situations where possession has been partially transferred from a landholder to another party, a lease will be considered to exist if the majority of possession is not held by the potential lessor. In situations where possession has been transferred from a landholder to more than one other party, a lease will be considered to exist between the lessor and the party holding the greatest degree of possession. In its analysis of the proposed rules (60 Fed. Reg. 16924) Interior explains the lease definition change as follows: Lease would be substantially modified. Under the existing regulation, one of the key elements in the definition of lease is the assumption of economic risk by the reputed lessee. This definition permits the development of arrangements under which an individual or legal entity is paid a fixed fee for operating a farming enterprise. Since the operator under these arrangements assumes no economic risk, Reclamation currently does not deem the operator to be in a lease relationship. Therefore, under the existing rules, operators are not subject to full cost irrigation water rates. The new definition would make possession the singular element indicating the existence of a lease. The definition would eliminate economic interest as an essential element of a lease (although economic risk would remain a factor indicating the existence of a lease). Thus, under the proposed regulation, whenever someone other than the landowner has possession of non-exempt land, a lease would exist. Reclamation would consider fixed-fee operations leases and would subject the parties to full cost pricing if possession of the land has been transferred, and if non-full cost entitlement are exceeded. The second and third sentences of the definition would address the situation where more than one party has some degree of possession; for example, a landowner may contract with a farm manager but may retain some decisionmaking authority. Reclamation intends the proposed definition of the term lease to exclude arrangements between landowners and custom operators, employees, lenders, and other landholders with whom farm equipment is shared. Interior's examples show that even if a landowner ``retains all economic risk associated with'' farming his land, if he does not ``make all major decisions concerning the farming operation,'' a lease will exist, and full cost will be charged. (60 Fed. Reg. 16929). During our field hearings in Twin Falls, ID this August, Senator McClure, the chairman of the Energy [[Page S 16019]] Committee when the Reclamation Reform Act was adopted, made a very eloquent statement on the effect and propriety of the proposed regulations. He stated: Under the proposed regulations, if a farmer were to fall ill and his children or neighbors were to take over the management of the farm until he recovered, they would get a bill for full cost from Secretary Babbitt. If a farmer were to die and his children took over the management of the farm so that their mother would not have to sell off the homestead, Secretary Babbitt would send a bill for full cost even if the children were not even reimbursed for their costs. If a farmer were called to military service and his father took over the farm while he served his country, the President would present him a medal and Secretary Babbitt would send him a bill for full cost. At the rate EPA is trying to regulate every aspect of our lives, I guess we could send the bill for full cost to Carol Browner. The point I want to make is Congress settled this issue. The test is beneficial interest measured solely by economic benefit. That is the law and Secretary Babbitt lost. Mr. Chairman, you have other witnesses who can testify to equivalency, trusts, involuntary acquisitions, and other provisions of these new rules. I will not go into them at this time. What I want to emphasize is that these rules have no foundation in law or legislative history. They are symptoms of a larger struggle of federalism in which this Administration seeks to abuse its authority and impose its social agenda on the West. While there is an underlying preoccupation with certain farm arrangements in California, there is also a philosophy that Secretary Babbitt represents that believes Washington should dictate the future of the West. It is a philosophy that wants control of water and an end to irrigated agriculture. It is a philosophy that hides behind the need for conservation in the arid west to drive its particular vision. This is an ongoing struggle that surfaces here with attempts to make farming uneconomic and municipal water supplies prohibitively expensive. It surfaces elsewhere on grazing, on mining, on mineral leasing. I take great pride in what I was able to accomplish in returning salmon runs to portions of Idaho that had not seen salmon in years. I managed to do that while respecting State law and the primacy of State water law. I take great pride in moving the Hells Canyon legislation through the Congress, but I did that in full compliance with State law including subjecting federal reserved rights to future upstream beneficial uses. As anyone can see, we have not dried up the Snake. Mr. Chairman, the federal-state relationship is not one of master-servant, as much as Secretary Babbitt may want it to be. Federalism means a respect for the rule of law and a recognition that this is a Republic of sovereign States with a central government of limited delegated powers. These rules violate that trust. Mr. President, the sole reason behind the motion to strike is a desire to continue the predation undertaken by Secretary Babbitt on Western farmers. There is not the slightest concern for farmers, small or large, family or corporate. What the committee did was solely to permit individuals or districts holding repayment or water service contracts to pay off the intolerable subsidy that the proponents of the motion to strike have complained of for so long. The outrageous discount that the ``Dear Colleague'' complains of is language imposed by the Senator from New Jersey on the prepayments that he has agreed to over the past 6 years--it is his language. The language also includes a provision that requires a premium if the district were to use tax exempt bonding--as many of them could. There is no such requirement in reclamation law or in any of the existing contracts that provide for prepayment or accelerated payment. That is a requirement also insisted on by the Senator from New Jersey in our recent legislation and we have included it here. In short, Mr. President, the cries of ``corporate welfare'' and ``unwarranted subsidies'' ring very hollow when the true motivation is simply to protect the scorched earth assault on the West being conducted by this administration through Secretary Babbitt and his allies. Even Director Rivlin plaintively objects to this provision as an unjustified provision allowing prepayment--unjustified solely because farmers might be able to go back to farming without fear that this administration will succeed in driving them off their land.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this is a very important, yet understandable amendment. It changes the adoption tax credit of $5,000, and we are offering this in this reconciliation package to an effective date of January, and I believe the second-degree moves it to February 1995.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding. Mr. President, I find that the debate that is currently going on on the floor interesting but not balanced. And I say that because, while we talk about our children and the great compassion that I think this Senate and this Congress has always demonstrated toward young people in need, there is another side to the story that must be told if we are to speak of balance. There is no question that we want as many of our young people as well educated as they can possibly become. We should encourage that kind of an environment. Clearly, the student loan program that is embodied within this package today will continue to educate as many as are currently being educated with the flexibility of growth to include more. While it changes the parameters of the obligation, it would be grossly unfair for anybody to portray that we are stepping away from or stepping back from our commitment to disadvantaged young people today seeking higher education. What is glaringly absent from the debate on the other side is the rest of the story. I will tell you that having an education, having a degree in an economy that does not create a job and hire you is the greatest of tragedies. The budget that we are seeking to bring about, in promises kept to the American people, is a budget in balance, and there is not an economist in this country today that will disagree that a budget imbalance causes the economy of this country to be more productive, more job creating, having the ability to pay higher wages and to hire the master's degrees and the doctorate degrees that oftentimes today go wanting and in their search for a job cannot find themselves able to pay the student loan. The future of our children, Mr. President, and our grandchildren does not depend on a student loan. It depends on the economy of this country and the vitality of that economy that produces the student loans that creates the jobs that offers the future and the opportunity. Most economists agree today that our current debt structure creates a 2-percent drag on our economy, and that 2-percent drag costs us hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs annually as we work to increasingly compete in a world marketplace. I find it absolutely amazing that this President will argue a $200 billion deficit and a debt that heads toward $5 trillion and says that that is growth and that is opportunity and that is going to create a productive economy. Let me tell you what that kind of $200 billion deficit does to the average child of today, the college student of tomorrow, the job seeker in the future. The average child today will pay $5,000 additional taxes over their lifetime with that $200 billion deficit. The Clinton budget projects deficits of that range out through the year 2000, and that alone adds up to an additional tax burden of $40,000 in the lifetime of that child. Those are statistics from the National Taxpayers Union. Mr. President, in my opinion, that is the future. This Senator is going to vote for a dynamic program of student aid, but he is not going to deny that student the same opportunity that that student's parents had in their lifetime: to seek a better life, to have a job, to be productive, to be creative. That is our reality, and that is what we promise the American people. So I suggest to all of us today that this really is a debate about the child and the child's future and his or her opportunity to be productive, to have a rewarding experience in their life, because just like the security of Medicare and just like the security of Social Security, they are all bound inextricably to the productivity of an economy. Not debt, not layoffs, not a sluggish economy that is not able to get up to speed and to be competitive in a world marketplace. I am absolutely amazed that we cannot strike that balance or that we have to struggle so hard to argue that a balanced budget makes sense. Somehow this deficit syndrome that the President has caught himself in and is unable to escape--while he argued yesterday, ``Look at the productivity, look what I have done,'' what he failed to say, ``In the outyears, I am going to have to ask the American people for another large tax increase, because while my tax increase of a year ago has forced the deficit down, the Government has not changed its spending habits. And every program that I offer in my budget,'' i.e., the President, ``I want more spending and more Government and more growth in the most nonproductive sector of our society.'' The American people last November said it very clearly. They said, ``Sorry, Mr. President, you're wrong; you've got to change and our Government has to change and we have to make sense of something, because we sense our vitality is slipping away, our ability to make a living is slipping away.'' I do not dispute what the other side is saying about the less ability of the American family to pay for their child's education, but have they ever stopped to ask why there is less ability, why can the family of today not provide as much for the child as the family of 20 or 30 years ago? There is an obvious reason. They cannot provide the lifestyle. The economy has been dragged down by a debt structure and a Government that consumes ever greater a proportion of the gross national product of our country in the most nonproductive of ways. I do not dispute the need for Government, but I do dispute its size, I do dispute the debt, I do dispute the deficit, because economic common sense says, and most economists agree, that if this Government can live within its means, our economy will be a much more productive place, I say to my fellow Senators, and we all know what that means. That is opportunity, that is jobs, that is productivity, that is the average family being able to care for their children and having the pride to say to their children, ``You are going to have a better life; you are going to have greater opportunity; we want you to have that college degree, and we can assist you in doing so because our lives are better lives.'' That is the issue at hand. It is the debt. It is the question of deficit. It is the drag on the economy and the nonproductive way that we have found ourselves increasingly caught up in, unable to provide those kinds of opportunities. I applaud what this side is attempting to do in response to the American people and future generations to come. You see, Mr. President, I have parents--like we all do--who grew up in the Depression days, and they tell me about the phenomenal difficulties and the attitudes that for a generation that experience provoked on the American scene; that somehow they thought less of themselves and less of their ability to produce because of the phenomenal negative economic experience that that generation went through. Can we assume that that could never occur again? Well, we should not, and that is what Republicans and Americans are doing today in their effort to produce a balanced budget to control the growth of Government and say to future generations, ``We heard you and we provided an economy that will give you the opportunity you seek.''

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. As we continue the debate over the next 12 to 14 hours, Mr. President, I hope that those citizens of our country who are watching will recognize the importance of what we do; and that is, for the first time in my time in public service for the State of Idaho, that this Congress will truly bring about a balanced budget proposal, and one that will set our Government in motion toward a balanced budget. This is exactly what the American people were asking for last November. They were asking us not only to change the way Government thinks and acts, most assuredly the way Congress thinks and acts, but to do the kinds of things that we are doing in the Medicare reform, to clean it up, to stabilize it, to give them choice, to give them the freedom of not just fee for service, but the kinds of options that the private citizen of this country has, and to keep the program. We know we can balance the budget and allow these programs to continue to serve the truly needy in our country and those that are direct participants, like the Medicare beneficiaries, and to do so in a way that allows the program to remain strong and assures that in the long term we will be able to have a balanced budget, turn to the American people and say, ``We've done it. Your debt is now under control.'' Let us then begin to work on debt structure.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues tonight to debate this most important provision of the Senate reconciliation bill that is before us and the Republican proposal that I am so proud to support because of the kind of elements that we have put before the American public as truly positive change, while at the same time recognizing I think some of the very real needs that many of our citizens have. The one that the Senator from New Hampshire has just addressed and the one I will spend some time with this evening that I think is critical for us to understand, of course, is Medicare and the changes we are proposing to bring stability and strength to the system and the kind of choice and independence that the seniors of this country, who are the recipients, the beneficiaries of this program, have expected and deserve to expect from their Medicare program. The Senator from Iowa this evening has introduced a competitive bid bill in the antifraud and abuse provision of Medicare reform, and for a few moments this evening I think it would be very important to spend some time with that and to understand it. The Senator from Michigan has put forth an amendment that addresses many of the provisions and adds to many of the provisions of the Republican proposal as it relates to Medicare reform; that I think is a tremendously positive approach; that in combination with the 10 reforms already in our legislation, when scored by the Congressional Budget Office, represents a proposed savings to Medicare of $4.1 billion. Now, I must say that I am told the amendment of the Senator from Iowa has not been scored, and I wish he were in the Chamber so that I could seek that out with him, and if he returns I will ask him that question, because as we strive to balance the budget and keep ourselves on course as the American people have asked us to, it is important that amendments that come to the floor, if they are credible, if they really want to vote on them, ought to be scored. Ours has been, and it does represent a $4.1 billion savings. What is significant about that is representative of what is going on in health care delivery today in this country and the fact that there are dedicated efforts at defrauding both the American taxpayer and the consumer of Medicare benefits. Senator Cohen was in the Chamber this afternoon or later this evening. He serves as the chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I have the privilege of serving on that committee with him. Over the last several years, both he and Senator Pryor, who chaired that committee before him, and I and others who have served on that committee have held a series of hearings to try to ferret out and understand the kind of waste, fraud, and abuse especially being perpetrated on the seniors of this country that would have the kind of impact on Medicare that it currently has. Let me give you a couple of figures, Mr. President. As much as 10 percent of U.S. health care spending or about $100 billion is lost each year to health care fraud and abuse. That is a phenomenal figure. And yet we believe it is reasonably accurate. Over the last 5 years, estimated losses from these fraudulent activities have totaled $408 billion. Now, that is not the only program or benefit that would have gone to the senior. That is tax money. That is the hard-working, tax-paying American citizen's dollar that some charlatan is making off with because they have learned to game the system and because we have not been able to catch them in gaming the system, or at least we certainly have not caught them at the level that I think all of our taxpayers would want. So the 10 provisions that are in our Medicare reform bill, that were spoken to earlier this evening, along with the additional provision in the amendment from the Senator from Michigan, will register a savings of about $5 to $6 billion, and that is significant. That is big dollars where I come from, big dollars in anybody's estimation, and when it comes to delivering health care needs to our seniors, those are truly important dollars. One of the things that is most significant in all of this, while we create brand-new bureaucratic schemes to ferret out all of this, is the very simple concept with which the Senator from Michigan has come forward. That is that individual Medicare beneficiaries report suspected fraud and abuse and we create an incentive program to allow them to do that. Let me tell you why that is important. I think if every Senator would stop for just a moment, they could remember almost instantly that within the last several months they have had 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 letters from Medicare recipients in their State questioning whether their bill was accurate, whether they had been bilked out of a service that was not delivered and whether in fact their account had been charged. Mr. President, less than 3 months ago, a former citizen from my State, who now lives in California, called my office one day. I had not heard from this man in years. He had happened to be from my hometown. He is now retired and living in California, and he had major surgery, and he is on Medicare. For some reason, he thought something was wrong with the billing; that he not only had been overcharged but there were fraudulent charges involved. He sent me all of his material and said, ``Senator, I know I no longer live in your State but we have known each other over the years. Would you look into it?'' Mr. President, we looked into it. It was thousands of dollars of billing that he was questioning. Within a period of about a month, we had discovered, in working with HCFA and working with Medicare, that this was, in fact, fraudulent billing. Now, that is only one example, and I have chosen not to use his name tonight because I did not ask his permission, but I have done that on many occasions in working with my constituents, and I know nearly every Senator in the Senate has. We recognize without question that the current structure of Medicare simply cannot get at the kind of waste, fraud, and abuse that is current and prevalent within the program, and in trying to secure it, trying to make it stable, being able to turn to our citizens and say to them that Medicare will be there in the out years, strong and ready to serve them and their needs, we must get at these programs. They must result in the kinds of savings, more importantly, the kind of tightening up of it, that I think is so critically necessary. So the 10 provisions we have talked about, certainly the one that the Senator from Michigan has offered that creates the incentives for the beneficiaries themselves to become involved, working with Federal, State, and local law enforcement units to combat especially the fraud sides of the program, are going to be increasingly valuable, and this is what I am proud to say we have offered. It has been scored. It saves $4.1 billion over the period of this legislation, and that is of critical need to all of us. Mr. President, may I inquire how many minutes are remaining in my time?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management to receive testimony from academicians and State and local officials on alternatives to Federal forest land management. Testimony will also be sought comparing land management cost and benefits on Federal and State lands. The hearing will take place on November 2, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. This will be a continuation of the hearing that begins on October 26, in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the great medi-scare. Oh, my goodness, I watched with great interest this past week when the House voted by a very large bipartisan vote to reform Medicare. The wringing of hands and the gnashing of teeth from the other side of the aisle, from liberals who wanted to argue that this would be the destruction of health care as we know it to the seniors of our society, how tragic that kind of debate is in an attempt to split people, to use scare tactics to anger and frustrate the American people when what we are doing is exactly what Congress has done ever since Medicare was created by this Congress: To manage it on a yearly or biyearly basis and, whenever necessary, to make adjustments and changes in the program to make sure it could continue to provide the kind of health care reimbursement that it has historically provided. How many times has the Congress addressed changes in Medicare? Almost too many to count since it was created back in the seventies. Why? Because we are the board of directors of Medicare. It is our job to make sure it is solvent, to make sure it works, to make sure it honors its commitment to that portion and that share of the senior citizen dollar that goes in in the form of premiums, to pay that dollar that is matched with the Federal dollar. And, as a result, Medicare has always been there, and it will always be there. I am sorry, I say to those who have no better answer and are trying to use the emotion of senior citizens in this country as the political tactics of 1996, folks, it is not going to work because already the seniors have seen through it. They have recognized that they have been used over the years in the arguments of Social Security reform, and now they are being used--I repeat the word ``used''--in the arguments of changing Medicare when, in fact, what we are doing is creating new dynamics in a program that will allow seniors greater choice, greater opportunity, and greater independence in their health care delivery systems. Why should they not be allowed to choose between a provider fee system, between HMO's, between a variety of other options that are out there? The important words are ``allowed to choose,'' not being forced or not being shoved into a new program, but being allowed to choose a variety of options, including staying exactly where they are today. Now, because we have never offered that choice in the past, the dynamics of the Medicare trust funds have not had the flexibility to create the efficiencies that we ought to have. As a result, the costs of those funds, based on demand, escalated at over 10.4 percent a year when private health care costs last year were 4 percent, and this year could be 4 percent. Why is it that a Federal health care program is not at least reflecting and mirroring the cost of private health care? Because it is [[Page S 15418]] federally rigid; because the rules and regulations will not allow the dynamics in the marketplace of choice, independence, and of selection that every other citizen in our country has. That is exactly what we are providing. Yet, the opposition is saying it is going to destroy it. They are trying to use it as a political tactic. Why do I talk about the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act and Medicare all at the same time? Because it is all of a total budget that this Congress has to look at. It is part of the kind of reform that is critical when it relates to the dynamics of making the kinds of overall savings that produces a balanced budget by the year 2002 and honors the commitment we have had to the American people that we are going to start being fiscally responsible and we are not going to be continually running up debt that is now at $4.8 or $4.9 trillion and accumulating faster than the average citizen can absolutely comprehend. If we will do anything this year, we will be able to turn to the American people and say, we heard you, we listened, and we responded, and we have set the Government on a course of action that will cause us to be fiscally responsible, that will allow us to look out into the future and say, we have indebted our children less, and we will allow them to have greater freedoms of opportunity in selecting their jobs and keeping more of their own made money for the purposes of providing for themselves and their children. That is what this debate is all about. We are going to look at it program by program, detail by detail, going through Wednesday, Thursday, and into Friday of this week. I hope the American people are listening because what they will hear in the end will not be frightening. It will be a very loud, clear, analytical debate, program by program, on what this Congress is doing to control a runaway budget. And that is exactly what they expect us to do. To the seniors of this country, please listen, do not be frightened by what is known as scare mongering. That is what this editorial was saying; that the Democrats are running to the only thing that will resonate at this moment--scare mongering--instead of working with us in a constructive way to maintain a dynamic and important program for this country. I remember back in the early 1980's when Social Security was in trouble and I was a freshman legislator on the other side. Those who were in control of the Congress at that time--the Democrat Party--tried just that. Ronald Reagan said, ``Oh, no, you don't. I am going to bring you, the Congress, and the Presidency together, in a bipartisan way, and we are going to fix this problem. There is not going to be any fear, there is not going to be any fright. We are going to create the dynamics that assures the stability of Social Security on into the future.'' He pulled their scare mongering platform out from under them. As a result, we got a phenomenally dynamic, bipartisan process that stabilized Social Security as it is today and will into the future if we balance the budget and take the debt fear away. That is the same responsibility we have with Medicare. I challenge my colleagues on the other side--down with your bright line graphs, down with your rhetoric, and up with your willingness to work with us to create a bipartisan dynamics, both in the budget process and in the securing of a stable Medicare Program that we can turn to the American people and say, we heard you, we honored you, and we are committed to a stable Government in the future that lives within its means. I yield the remainder of my time. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank my colleague from Mississippi for the work he has done, as have many on this side of the aisle, to bring about this Budget Reconciliation Act that we will be debating later on this week that is so critical to the economic viability of our country. For this Senator, it is absolutely exciting to stand on the floor and speak the words ``balanced budget,'' and, for the first time in all of the years that I have had the privilege of serving my State, for those words to actually mean something. Starting in the early eighties, I and others, when I was serving in the House, began a movement that went nationwide to bring about a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. We knew that the Congress could not control or curb its spending appetite, and, of course, history proves that we were somewhat right. It was not until the American people spoke so loudly last year on the issue of debt and deficit that finally this Congress got the message, and the message was: Stop spending, control the fiscal purse strings of our Government, and bring about a balanced budget. Of course, as most of us know--and the public was watching--we missed by one vote in producing a balanced budget amendment for the citizens of this country to consider, which would really then put ourselves on a path toward a balanced budget. Over the course of the last 6 months, all of the appropriate committees have worked hard to produce a responsible document that we could honestly turn to the American people and say, ``We are speaking to your wishes. More importantly, we are speaking to what you told us to do last November, and that was to bring about a balanced budget.'' We will begin debate later this week on the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, and it does some very, very profound and important things for this country. But more importantly, it does some important things for our Government. It puts goals in place, it puts parameters into a dynamic process that cause this Congress to be the fiscally responsible Congress that the American people have so demanded for way too long. My colleague from Mississippi began to outline the kinds of efforts that are incorporated in this critical piece of legislation that bring together all of the efforts of this Congress over the last good many months into a final document that will submit to the President a process and a procedure that brings us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. The thing that I find most important about it is that while we were debating the balanced budget amendment, those from the other side cried and pleaded with the American people that Republicans were only going to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly and [[Page S 15417]] we would do so by using Social Security. Well, I say to the folks from the other side, it just ``ain't'' so. It was not then and it is not now. The Social Security trust funds are not being used and will not be used and Social Security is every bit as strong today and next year and the year after through the year 2002 as we had promised during that historic debate of a good number of months ago. In fact, if you look at the year 2002, and if you want to take it just one step forward to the year 2005, when you look at the projection of the surpluses that begin to grow, you can argumentatively say that Social Security is totally aside, totally apart from the budget calculations by the year 2005 based on that surplus growth if--if--the Congress of the United States will be true to its commitment, and that commitment will be spoken to this week in this most important and historic act. I said during the balanced budget debate of a good number of months ago, if you are worried about Social Security and its stability, then you have to be worried about debt and deficit, because if you really want to protect Social Security and you want to show to the American seniors that you mean it, then you have to control debt. The solvency of our Government means its ability to pay its obligations. If the Congress of the United States and greedy big Federal spenders want to destroy Social Security, then they want to keep mounting debt, because there could come a day when we could not pay our bills, and Social Security, like everything else, is a bill or an obligation of the Government to pay to the recipients of the program that which it was committed to. Control the debt, as we are doing now with the Budget Reconciliation Act, and you will do nothing but strengthen Social Security in the coming years. Mr. President, there is one other item in this whole debate that is so critical for us here in Congress to understand but, more importantly, for the American people to have a clear and unfettered message of. It was spoken well this morning in an editorial in the Washington Times called ``The Great Medi-Scare.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to S. 1322, regarding the Embassy in Israel. Therefore, votes can be expected to occur in relation to that bill but will not occur prior to the hour of 5 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. CRAIG. And Senator Conrad for 15 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 11 a.m. on Monday, October 23; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 2 p.m., with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the exception of the following: Senator Daschle for 60 minutes, Senator Shelby for 10, and Senator Cochran for 50 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. For the information of all Senators, in addition to the Jerusalem bill, the Senate could be asked to turn to any of the following items for the next week: S. 1328, regarding Federal judgeships; S. 1004, Coast Guard authorization; S. 325, technical corrections in laws relating to native Americans. By Wednesday of next week it will be the leader's intention to begin the reconciliation bill, which all Members know has a statutory limitation of 20 hours. Therefore, late nights can be expected. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Would the Senator from California yield to me for a few moments to put the final words in the Record?