Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for no more than 2 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, while my colleagues are----

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, about an hour ago, I had a phone conversation with the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh. At that time, he told me that he permanently reassigned Larry Potts, his immediate assistant, Deputy Director, to a new assignment in the FBI pending an investigation that is now underway in the Justice Department as it relates to the performance of certain FBI personnel with the Ruby Ridge incident in Idaho. For over 2 years, I have pursued open, factual airing of the events of that incident. At the time Mr. Freeh had recommended Potts for his appointment, I asked that be deferred and the man not be considered until such time as the cloud over the FBI was cleared up. It appears we now may be moving in the direction of full public disclosure of this incident and the activities of the Federal agents involved. I say this on behalf of the FBI and its reputation, which is critically important as the major law enforcement community of our country, Federal law enforcement community, and I also say this for the families of the victims of Ruby Ridge, that it is time we move now openly and publicly with hearings both here, in the Senate, and with the activities of the Justice Department to clear this issue. Mr. Freeh, in that conversation, pledged full cooperation in all activities that will occur in the Senate and in the House in the hearings that may come about. I certainly hope we can move late this summer or early this fall to full and thorough investigative hearings, oversight hearings on this incident. I think the American people now demand it, and I think it is important we once again reestablish the credibility of the FBI by the cleansing of this issue. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to compliment Senator Thomas for bringing this bill forward and opening what I hope will be an enlightening discussion. The subject matter of this bill is of great consequence in the Western States. The sheer size and proportion of Federal ownership in the West not only contrasts dramatically with the situation in Eastern States, but it is the source of much of the conflict in this country over the use of public lands. A quick look at a U.S. map of government lands dramatically illustrates the differences. Sixty to 80 percent of many Western States are federally owned, while the comparison east of the 100th meridian is typically less than 5 percent. Westerners feel this is inequitable, and some claim it is unconstitutional. They feel burdened by Federal regulation in their daily lives. They feel burdened by Federal regulation in their daily lives. Such sentiment is poorly understood in nonpublic land States. This bill would improve the balance of State and Federal lands in the West and dissolve some of the source of discontent. It would give citizens more control over their lives through State government. For example, in Idaho BLM controls 12 million acres, or 22 percent of the State. Other Federal agencies control an additional 41 percent. Transfer of BLM ownership to the State would dramatically change the ownership equation to one of much fairer balance. Nationwide, the Bureau of Land Management oversees 272 million acres, or 41 percent of the total Federal ownership. Nearly all of this is in the West, and it consists largely of those lands remaining in the public domain after the national parks, national wildlife refuges and national forests were set apart and placed under management of other Federal agencies. The concept of State management or ownership of Federal lands, in this case the lands of the Bureau of Land Management, has surfaced before. But there has never been a better time to seriously examine the issue. Congress has agreed to balance the Federal budget by 2002. That goal demands that we investigate new ways of doing business throughout the Federal Government. It may be that the States can own and manage the BLM lands and the underlying mineral estate at much less cost, while protecting the environment and maintaining public access and the many uses of these lands and waters. I see no reason why that can't be done, and if it can, it would be desirable in several ways: Management costs would decrease, placing less burden on the taxpayers in the long run; management decisions would be made instate with more opportunity for residents to have their voices heard; existing State programs for recreation, grazing, wildfire suppression and environmental protections, such as water quality standards, could be integrated with similar BLM programs for economies of scale and consistency. I am cosponsoring Senator Thomas' bill to encourage debate on these issues. This bill is a starting point. The considerations in each State will differ, of course, and there are a number of amendments which would be needed to address the situation in the State of Idaho. The bill already protects designated wilderness, but we would need to provide for State consideration of more than 900,000 acres recommended for wilderness additions. Our national historic trails, wild and scenic rivers, the Snake River Birds of Prey Area, and other areas of special concern must be maintained. I should emphasize this bill would not require State ownership. It would offer the opportunity for States to accept ownership and management, only if they elect to do so. Governor Batt, the State legislature, and Idaho interest groups would have 2 years to consider whether to accept the 11 million acres of BLM lands in the State. That seems sufficient time for a thorough airing of the pros and cons. Governor Batt has indicated his willingness to explore the possibilities. I am sensitive to the fact that mere consideration of this legislation will cause some anxiety among BLM employees, and that concerns me. I will guarantee that employee options will be thoroughly discussed, and resolution on a fair transition reached, as this bill moves through the legislative process. The bill already provides a 10- year transition period from the time of acceptance by a State to actual transfer of ownership. Some interest groups will immediately attack this legislation as a threat to environmental protections. They should stop and think. These same groups have shown their obvious dissatisfaction with Federal ownership through appeals and court challenges of management decisions. They have complained to me that the short tenure of Federal managers weakens decisionmaking and discourages accountability in the long run. They have argued that the citizens of Idaho support environmental programs and want a greater voice in their management. Potentially, this bill could satisfy all those concerns, and at far less cost to the taxpayers. For all these reasons, I am an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. That is why they should be cooked thoroughly.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me at this point yield the floor. My concern is, of course, is the Daschle amendment creating the flexibility to allow the HACCP process for food inspection to go forward and to be changed and adjusted, as we do for the sake of a better product and program. I yield the floor. [[Page S 9769]]

Mr. CRAIG. I regained my time. But I will yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. CRAIG. Only reconstituted meat. Not the steak, but the hamburger.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I might ask in the next few moments if the Senator from New Jersey will remain and we can visit about this issue only briefly because I express the same kind of urgency and the concern that the Senator has just expressed as it relates to a new inspection food safety process that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has begun to put in place, known as HACCP. Let me also suggest that it was the meat industry of this country that brought this process and concept to USDA and suggest that this be the process that come forward. Why has it not come since 1906 until today? Why have we not been able to change the process? Everybody skirts the issue, but nobody talks about it. Has the industry wanted to change? Not always. The Senator is right. Guess who else has not wanted to change? The thousands of unionized meat inspectors who did not want to lose their jobs, even though--it is very important this be said in the totality of the discussion--even though it might have meant a safer product coming to the market. In my State of Idaho and in the President's State of Idaho where the beef industry is critically important, 2 years ago something else happened. A child, not unlike the child that the Senator from New Jersey spoke of, went to a fast food restaurant to buy a hamburger and became critically ill. She did not die, but she was near death. It was the result of having ingested an E. coli bacterial-contaminated meat patty. We are all concerned about that. But the fundamental question is simply: Does what we are doing here today or what we did yesterday stop the process that is currently under way in the [[Page S 9768]] U.S. Department of Agriculture? The answer is no. But there is another side to this story that is very important to discuss, beyond the politics and the rhetoric and the headlines that we have seen over the last 2 weeks that even the Senator from New Jersey would probably argue are not all fact. When they argue that S. 343 will poison the food chain of America, that is not only not fact--and that is what they argued--that is a fabrication. Here is the reason it is, here is why the Senate ought to know this before they vote on the Daschle amendment. Is it possible in the producing and the processing of food through to the consumer, be it the restaurant or the home dinner table, to produce a zero-risk food? The answer is, absolutely it is not possible to do. Even though America has the safest food in the world, and even though in the last couple of months in consumer reports from Europe, American meat products are preferred 5 to 1 over any other meat product of the world, and the answer is, because it is the safest in the world; the answer is, it is not zero-proof safe. Why? Because it is not possible to create a zero-safe environment. Why? Because the Centers for Disease Control in a survey started in 1973 and concluded in 1989, in analyzing the pathogenic-borne food illnesses and deaths, answered the question this way: 97 percent of all deaths occur because of the way the food was prepared for the table, not the way it was processed in the plant. It is fundamentally important for this Senate to know and for us to understand that the Daschle amendment changes not one iota of that equation. It is false rhetoric on the floor of the Senate to argue that somehow this will make meat safer. It is already 99.9 percent safe, and that is as safe as we can get it, and the institution of HACCP by USDA is an effort to make it 100 percent. But we must face reality, and there are two very prevalent realities out there: One, we have to expect the preparer of the food to have a responsibility, and we cannot exempt them from that. Second, something else is happening in America today. As we all become busier people--and we have--the bottom line is we cannot regulate a perfect world. We have to expect the consumer to have a responsibility in the preparation. So does S. 343 change the temperature of the grill in the fast food restaurant? It does not. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Here is the problem, though, with what we want to do to create the flexibility. Does the Daschle amendment create lookback so that if HACCP is not working well, we can adjust it? It does not. Do we want to lock in a process that is already one put upon the other, the other one being the old one that is not working anymore, because this administration has tried to bind all two together and you cannot do that and get a product that creates an efficiency in the market. No, it does not. In fact, it may lock us into an imperfect process that we are trying to institute to be a better one. I hope, as someone from a State that is a major producer of meat products and from a State that is a major consumer of meat products and someone who worked with Mike Espy from day one to create a better process, that we deny the Daschle amendment because we do not want to lock in the forming of a process that may, to date, be imperfect. And staff tells me--and I believe they are accurate--that this may do just that. It may deny us the opportunity to adjust and change in our pursuit of the perfect, because the Senator from New Jersey knows, as I have seen him nod his head, we cannot get to the perfect because perfect is impossible; we can only create the best. Then we must say to the consumer of America that you, too, have a responsibility, whether it is the chef of a local fast food restaurant, or whoever, to make sure that the center of that hamburger patty has reached the temperature that might kill bacteria if it is present, and to say to the preparer in the family home that you, too, have a responsibility because 97 percent of the E. coli deaths in America occur because of the latter and not the former.

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you. (Mr. GRAMS assumed the chair.)

Mr. CRAIG. I was here for 3 hours yesterday.

Mr. CRAIG. That is what Dole did yesterday.

Mr. CRAIG. That is not the issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me regain my time to say this. From the day that this administration began to work on this process of food inspection, there is no reason to accuse anybody. Everybody worked as quickly as they could to bring the new process on line. My only argument there is, why did it take us from the year 1906 to today to improve a process that we knew 30 years ago ought to be improved? My point is simply this, relating to the Daschle amendment: The process we are putting in place is not yet complete. The administration knows that. So let us not lock ourselves once again in time and place. Let us be able to look back and make sure that it works, that it is an integrated, evolving process to make a safer meat product than, in my opinion, what the Daschle amendment does free standing, because it happens to fit the political debate of the day. That is not right.

Mr. CRAIG. But 97 percent is as a result of preparation at the home, not at the factory.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, it appears we are about to vote on the Dole amendment to S. 343. I must say, I am extremely pleased the Republican leader came to the floor this morning and propounded this amendment to stop what I have watched over the last week--at best, journalistic silliness and a tremendous effort to distort what are, in fact, facts and realities as it relates to certain processes that have gone on and are still going on at the Department of Agriculture. When I read headlines in the New York Times that suggest--and they did--``Let Them Eat Poison, Republicans Block a Plan That Would Save Lives,'' I say that is in fact a knowledgeable and outright distortion of the facts as we know them and certainly as this Senator knows them. So, for the next few moments I would like to relate to you some unique experiences I have had serving on the Senate Agriculture Committee that have dealt directly with the issue of the E. coli bacteria and what this Congress and this administration has attempted to do and, in some instances, has failed to do. First, I want to talk about how they are playing fast and loose with the [[Page S 9688]] facts with, in my opinion, a direct effort to generate public attitude, and, in this instance, the attitude would be one of fear. Second, I want to talk about this administration, what it can do, if it is sincere in helping improve food safety, with or without S. 343. And I want to show it is flatout wrong to claim that this bill, S. 343, and all of the proceedings to it, along with this amendment, are going to do one single thing to damage food safety in this country. Madam President, we take for granted, in the United States, that we have the safest food supply in the world--and we should take it for granted because we do. We are indisputably a nation that places before its consuming public the safest of all food supplies. Let me suggest that, when I make that statement, I do not suggest that all food is, on all occasions, absolutely, every day, totally safe. New regulations do not save lives; safe food processes save lives. And it is phenomenally important for us to remember that the responsibility of safe food lies with everyone involved, in production--that is the one side we are talking about, because that is where the rules and regulations are--and on the consumption side, and that is where you and I and all other consumers, Madam President, have a responsibility. Here is an interesting statistic that has been ignored by the press even though they know it. From 1973 to 1987 the Centers for Disease Control, which I think has credibility, reported that 97 percent of foodborne illnesses were attributable to errors that occurred after meat and poultry leave the plant; in other words, leave the processing plant, the slaughterhouse, the preparation plant, the packing area, if you will, however you wish to describe it; 97 percent of all foodborne illnesses are attributed after that. Yet, the debate today, and the foolish rhetoric in the press, has been on the other side of that issue. Why have they missed the point? How could they come to be or appear to be so ignorant to the fact? Is it because they want it to be? Is it possibly because they want to distort the basis of the debate and the arguments behind why this Congress is moving S. 343? Most foodborne illnesses can be prevented with proper food handling or preparation practices in restaurants and in home kitchens. Observers this afternoon might say this Senator has a bias. He comes from a life in the cattle industry. Madam President, my bias does not exist there because when the debate on E. coli began 2\1/2\ years ago--I come from a beef-producing State. But we had young people in our State growing ill, and in one instance a near death, because of a contaminated hamburger eaten at a fast food restaurant in my home State of Idaho. So I was clearly caught in the middle of this debate. I, working along with the then Secretary Espy, began to move rapidly to try to solve this problem because it was an issue whose time had come and it was important that the Congress of the United States face and deal with food inspection in this country when they had in fact failed for years and years to do so. So let me suggest to you that one of the arguments that has to be placed before the American consumer is simply this: True methods that transcend generations of Americans, whether we inspect the way we inspect or whether we regulate the way we regulate, or whether we change the rules of the cause and effect, the bottom line is you cook your meat and your poultry thoroughly. And if there is an example--and there is argumentatively statistics today--that suggest there is an increase in E. coli poisoning and bacterial poisoning, I believe it is because the consuming public no longer has the knowledge or has not gained the knowledge that you have to prepare your food properly. They just expect the Government to put on the plate every day and at all times safe food. Let me suggest to the person who is the preparer of food--and that is all of us--that you just do not pop it in the microwave. You had better learn that food that is improperly prepared can in fact be life- threatening on occasion, if you mishandle it. And in 97 percent of the cases between 1973 and 1989 that was in fact the fact. I do not think that any of us today should be confused by the playing or the gamesmanship that has gone on with this issue. To the critics that claim that Government should bear all the responsibility of food safety, I think you can tell by my expression this afternoon that I just flatly disagree. However, I do want to make one point. The administration has had the authority to address any food safety issues and in my opinion has not delivered. They have worked at it for 2\1/2\ years. What happened? When an industry pleads with them to bring on new regulation because the appearance of food that is not safe damages the reputation of the industry, it obviously causes great concern to the consumer. Yet, this administration has stumbled repeatedly inside USDA to bring about a new set of standards and regulations that the industry placed before them and said, Please do it. Please bring about processing that results in a regulatory effort that will cause in all appearances and hopefully in reality safe food. Why has it not happened? Why are we still generally operating under a standard that was put in place in 1906? Is it because of the political interests? Is it because of the tug and pull of a labor interest that simply said, ``We will not give up our featherbedding and our employees for a safer, more scientific process?'' Oh, yes. Madam President, that is part of the debate that somehow we wanted to quietly skirt around when in fact it is fact, and that is why the food safety and inspection service in our country has been locked in a static environment since 1906, unwilling to move with the times and unwilling to move with the science of today. But today's challenges are microbiological in nature. It is not a matter of sight. It is not a matter of inspecting because of an animal disease whether meat appears to be safe or it is not safe. It is really now a question of science. It is a question of bringing on line a technique that we all know exists out there. It is called HACCP. It is called hazardous analysis and critical control point. These are the issues at hand, Madam President. That is why we are here debating today. Is there blame to cast around? Oh, yes, there is. But blame should not rest with this legislation. Blame should rest with past Congresses and past administrations that were unwilling to bring on line the kind of scientific food inspections that our country and our consumers deserve today. I hope the Dole amendment will take away from this debate the kind of gamesmanship that was clearly going on in the press of this country because I think it ought to be stopped. My guess is the vote today will do so. Opponents of regulatory reform claim it endangers health and safety-- especially in the area of food safety. I am here to set the record straight. First, I want to talk about how they are playing fast and loose with the facts, to generate public fear. Second, I want to talk about what the Clinton administration can do if it is sincere about helping to improve food safety. Third, I will show that it is flatout wrong to claim this bill will do anything to endanger food safety. safe food supply We take for granted that in the United States of America we have the safest food supply in the world. New regulations do not save lives. Safe food processes save lives. The responsibility for safe food lies on everyone involved in the production and consumption. For the time period from 1973-87, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 97 percent of foodborne illnesses were attributable to errors that occur after meat and poultry leaves the plant. Most foodborne illness can be prevented with proper practices in restaurants and home kitchens. The best way to ensure that food is safe is a tried and true method that transcends the generations: Cook your meat and poultry thoroughly. The basic rule of thumb is that meats should be cooked until the fluids run clear and the internal temperature has reached 160 degrees Fahrenheit. Unfortunately, that lesson has not always been heeded. In my grandmother's scrapbook there is an article detailing the death of a family of six near Cambridge, ID, due to improper food preparation. This unfortunate occurrence took place in 1929. As you can [[Page S 9689]] see, the issue of food safety is not a new one. The food preparer and consumer always have and still must accept ultimate responsibility for food safety. Unfortunately, that responsibility, along with all others in this life, occasionally bears a consequence. To the critics that claim the Government should bear all responsibility for food safety--I must disagree. However, I want to point out that this administration has had the authority to address any food safety issue and has not delivered. A number of petitions from industry to utilize existing technology and improve food safety have been stalled at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. One example is a steam vacuum that can be used to remove contamination from carcasses. Only after multiple requests did the Food Safety and Inspection Service even allow a testing period to begin. It is not right for fingers to recently be pointed at the Republican Party, when this administration has consistently delayed food safety improvement and reform. The administration's response to this issue and others in meat inspection was released in February 1995, and has since been nicknamed the ``mega reg.'' Mega reg, as introduced by the Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS]: The current meat inspection system is outdated and outmoded. Established in 1906, the system has remained largely unchanged and relies on visual inspections of every carcass to ensure safety. That made sense at the turn of the century when animal diseases were a major concern. But today's challenges are microbiological in nature. Because it is so difficult to detect microbiological problems, and because it is impossible to see bacteria, the best approach is one of prevention. Such an approach is called hazard analysis and critical control points or HACCP. Unfortunately, the administration chose to combine both of these choices rather than make clear and sweeping reform. Most troubling is the fact that the administration's proposal would not replace the old outdated system, as has been recommended by scientific groups including the National Academy of Sciences and the General Accounting Office. Instead, mega reg would layer a host of new, costly requirements on top of the weak foundation that is the current inspection system. Almost everyone involved, including consumers and the meat and poultry industry, agrees that change is imperative. But the current proposal does not embody these critical improvements. In fact, the current proposal cannot deliver on its promises and will largely be a hollow promise to consumers who are seeking safer meat and poultry. When, not if, but when the system is overhauled, change must be envisioned and implemented correctly. Not on the second or third try, but the first time. Neither consumers, nor industry, can afford to pay for the undue burden of unnecessary regulations. the mega reg builds on a weak founda- tion--the current inspection system Unfortunately, the HACCP provisions in the mega reg would be layered on top of the old system. These two systems do not blend. In fact, they actually work against one another. The current system tries to detect problems, not prevent them. The HACCP portions of the mega reg try to prevent problems. This contradiction is not in the best interests of food safety and the American consumer. Additionally, the regulatory requirements of the two systems, when taken together, are literally overwhelming to companies, especially small businesses, who fear that the new requirements would force them to close their doors. To make real progress, the current system must be discontinued so that a newer and stronger foundation can be laid. finished product microbiological testing sounds good, costs a lot and achieves little The mega reg contains requirements for finished product microbiological testing, meaning that products would be tested at the end of the production process. To the lay person, this sounds like a good idea. But in practical terms it doesn't work and it has been rejected by groups like the National Academy of Sciences and the General Accounting Office. Take the example of a test on a hamburger patty. Conceivably, one side might be negative for a particular bacteria while the other side potentially could be positive. So how does a plant know where it should test? And how can it feel confident that test results ensure safety? The best assurance is a process control system like HACCP. The only way to guarantee that a product is bacteria-free is to cook it properly. So where does microbiological testing fit into meat processing? The best approach is to use microbiological testing during the production process to ensure that processes are working as they should be, not at the end of the process to try and find a needle in a haystack. the mega reg would increase regulatory requirements, but does not provide the necessary employee training The meat and poultry industry is the second most regulated industry in the country, just behind the nuclear industry. On-site inspectors keep track of reams of detailed requirements. The mega reg would add to those requirements dramatically, but the nature of the new requirements would be entirely different than earlier regulations. If implemented, such a change calls for comprehensive training of those who would enforce the regulations. But the proposal does not address this issue. This omission has the potential to create chaos in practice. mega reg increases risk For example, the FSIS proposal would require that plants be kept far colder than they ever had before. These cold temperatures can help keep bacteria from developing, but can be harmful to workers. Cold temperatures increase the risk of repetitive motion disorders. mega reg motives The nature of change and seriousness of food safety underscores the need to involve all parties equally. Although, the current administration has spent over 2 years discussing meat inspection reform, their proposal does not satisfy anyone involved. For instance, the industry is concerned that USDA has paid more attention to the concerns of labor than it has to other groups, including packers and processors. The union that represents meat and poultry inspectors is concerned about new approaches to meat and poultry inspection because they fear their jobs may be at stake. USDA's Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety Michael Taylor is an April 7 memo told all FSIS employees that ``as we implement HACCP, we will be expanding, not shrinking the range of regulatory roles and inspectional tasks required of our employees''. But changes to the inspection system must be made based on what is scientifically sound, not based on the needs of any one special interest group. If food safety was really a priority to this administration they would balance the needs of all affected interests. The administration would enter into a process that could expedite meat inspection reform. The administration has the authority, although it has not been used, to enter into negotiated rulemaking and devise an acceptable and effective solution. As written, the mega reg is not a solution to the needs of meat inspection and food safety. Utilizing the advances of modern science and technology would be a solution. mega reg is unrelated to the dole-johnston substitute Regardless of your position relating to the mega reg, it cannot be cited as a reason to oppose regulatory reform. The language in section 622 of the substitute provides a ``health, safety or emergency'' exemption from the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment requirements if they are not practical due to an emergency or health or safety threat. In addition, section 624 of the substitute allows for an agency to select a higher cost regulation when ``nonquantifiable benefits to health, safety or the environment'' make that choice ``appropriate and in the public interest''. This regulatory reform bill focuses on the process of rulemaking and results of regulation. It no way hinders the legislative process. Congress will still have full and complete authority to pass laws addressing health safety situations. Past laws that are already [[Page S 9690]] on the books will not be superseded by bill. Critics have targeted food safety. If the critics want food safety change, they should address those in the administration with the power and authority to make meaningful and immediate change. Whether it is food safety or any other area of our lives as U.S. citizens, we must answer a fundamental question: What level of risk are we willing to accept in our daily lives? For example, one mode of transportation may be safer than another, we oftentimes accept a small level of risk and choose the mode that takes us from point A to point B in the least amount of time. Even though technology is constantly improving, it is unrealistic to think we will ever live in a risk-free world. Instead of setting policy based on a minuscule chance, we must set policy that is fair and responsible. The American public wants change in our process of setting public policy. Supporting the Dole-Johnston substitute will reduce the overall regulatory burden, without harming public health or food safety. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the Farm Credit System Regulatory Relief Act of 1995. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Heflin along with the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senators Lugar and Leahy, join me as original cosponsors of this important legislation. The Farm Credit System Regulatory Relief Act of 1995 will provide for the elimination, consistent with safety and soundness requirements, of all regulations that are unnecessary, unduly burdensome or costly, or not based on statute. The Farm Credit System supplies about 25 percent of the credit provided to American producers and more than 80 percent of the credit provided to agricultural cooperatives. The cost of this credit is increased by unnecessary regulations. The increasingly competitive global market combined with the decreasing role of the Federal Government in agricultural support programs necessitates that farmers and ranchers have continued access to competitive sources of financial capital. There are 8 Farm Credit System banks and approximately 230 locally owned farm credit associations located across all 50 of the United States. If the Farm Credit System is to remain the viable financial partner for American agriculture that it is, then the time is now to make these significant revisions. Mr. President, I would also emphasize for the record that this piece of legislation is simply and solely regulatory relief, it does not provide the Farm Credit System with any additional or expanded lending authorities. The changes, as I have outlined in the attached section-by-section summary, are an important step toward ensuring that our American farmers will be able to obtain competitive loan rates and better service from the Farm Credit System. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis of this bill along with a letter from the Farm Credit Administration be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 67, the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. I congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, as well as the other members of his committee who have worked long and hard to produce this conference agreement. I also commend the other Senators who have contributed to this historic, balanced budget, by pushing for a balanced budget, a responsible downsizing of Government, and pro-family and pro-growth tax relief. Winston Churchill once said that democracy was the worst possible form of government except for the alternatives. This budget is like that. You can nit-pick it, but you can't produce a better one that does what what needs to be done and passes. There are 100 perfect budgets in this body. But holding out for the perfect budget means condemning the American people to the economic tyranny of the status quo and an extra trillion dollars of debt over the next 7 or 8 years. There is honest disagreement over the priorities in this budget. But the important thing is, for the first time in more than a generation, we are passing a budget that sets priorities. For 34 out of the last 35 years, the Federal Government has had only one priority: Spend more. Tax more. Borrow more. At long last, this budget adopts the priority of the American people: Balance the budget--let the Government spend no more on programs than the people are willing to pay in taxes. Under this budget, no one program, State, or segment of the population will pay a disproportionate share in fiscal discipline. When I visit with Idahoans, they think this is fair. They are patriotic--they are ready to share in the discipline of balancing the budget, as long as everyone does so. I wish we could have had more defense spending. I wish we could have had more in tax relief. I am concerned about the future of agriculture. In fact, some of the details in the assumptions in this budget resolution will be changed in the appropriations and authorizing committees. As Senator Snowe said, this is the end of the beginning of the budget process, and it is a good beginning. The status quo is the least tolerable alternative. The General Accounting Office's 1992 report said, ``(I)naction is not a sustainable policy. * * * (T)he nation cannot continue on the current path.'' [[Page S 9395]] The Bipartisan Entitlement Commission's final report, issued in January of this year, said, ``The present trend is not sustainable.'' DRI/McGraw-Hill, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee in January, said, ``(T)he current economic strength is not sustainable. * * * A balanced budget would be a major boost to the long-term growth of the U.S. economy.'' This budget gives us a chance to vote for the future, instead of the failed past. This is the vote that counts. This is our chance to vote for a true balanced budget. The only effective plan to balance the budget is the one that passes. This compromise budget does the most important thing possible: It provides for a balanced budget by 2002, on a reasonable, gradual glide path. We've heard a lot about winners and losers in this debate. Who really wins under this budget? Our children and grandchildren, because balancing the budget hands them a healthier economy and real opportunity for the future; Senior citizens, because a Medicare system now on the verge of bankruptcy is going to be reformed and rescued; Medicare is going to be there for those who need it because of this budget; People who want to work, because balancing the budget means economic growth and more jobs; People in the greatest need who rely on essential Government programs, because ever-bigger interest payments on an ever-growing debt increasingly crowd out all other spending. The deficit hurts all Americans. The debt is the threat. With this balanced budget, all American are winners. This budget does not represent a draconian cut in spending. It simply calls for reducing the rate of growth in Federal spending. Spending still grows an average of 3 percent a year, down from the current 5.4 percent a year. Only special interest groups and liberals inside the capital beltway can say a 3 percent raise is really a ``draconian cut''. Total Federal spending in fiscal year 2002 will be $346 billion more than this year--fiscal 1995. Only in Washington, DC, does anyone claim that a $346 billion increase is really a $236 billion cut. What does balancing the budget mean in people terms? It means restoring the American Dream of economic opportunity, starting now and extending to the next generation. The cruelest budget cut of all is the cut in every American's living standard that has occurred because of Government's failure or refusal to balance the budget. The damage done by the borrow-and-spend status quo must be undone. Living standards are lower today, Social Security checks buy less today, our children face a depressed future, because of a spiraling, crushing debt burden. According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, for every year in which the Federal Government runs a $200 billion deficit, the average child of today will pay $5,000 in additional taxes over his or her lifetime. President Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget projected that current trends will force future generations to face a lifetime net tax rate of 82 percent to pay off the current generation's bills, counting taxes at all levels of government. In contrast, balancing the budget by fiscal year 2002 means a better future. The econometrics firm DRI/McGraw-Hill said it means: 4 to 5 percent more nonresidential investment, 2.5 million new jobs, a GDP that is 2.5 percent higher, and another $1,000 in the pocket of the average household. Balancing the budget means a better standard of living for our children. GAO's 1992 report estimated that balancing the budget would raise our children's standard of living between 7 and 36 percent by the year 2020. Balancing the budget means more jobs. The last Federal balanced budget was in 1969. Unemployment from 1970 to 1990 averaged 6.7 percent, compared to 5.7 percent for the entire post-war period. In the first three decades of this century, when balanced budgets were the norm, unemployment averaged 4.5 percent. This budget reforms and rescues Medicare. Under this budget, Medicare increases an average of 6.4 percent a year, which is more than twice the rate of inflation. Under this budget, Medicare spending will be $86 billion more--53 percent more--in fiscal year 2002 than in 1995. Nothing here cuts services or drives up needy patients' costs. This budget calls for Medicare reform--that more choice and market competition and consumer information will slow down the runaway costs we see now. It says reforms should give priority to identify and eliminate fraud and abuse. It calls for a bipartisan commission that would make recommendations for the solvency of the system. A vote for this budget is a vote to rescue Medicare. Under the status guo, that system goes broke in fiscal year 2002. Who says so? The Medicare board of trustees that includes three of President Clinton's Cabinet Secretaries, the Commissioner of Social Security, and two public trustees. The trustees also said, in their April 3, 1995, report: (T)he trust fund does not meet the Trustees' short-range test of financial adequacy. . . . (It) fails to meet the Trustees' test of long-range close actuarial balance . . . by an extremely wide margin. . . . Congress must take timely action to establish long-term financial stability for the program. The tax relief in this budget is reasonable, modest, and fair. It is also contingent on reaching a balanced budget by 2002. It is perfectly reasonable to say to America's families, If you help with balancing the budget, you get a small dividend--you get to keep just a little more of what you have earned. This conference report does not say what kind of tax relief will be provided. I plan to support, a pro-family proposal like the $500-per-child tax credit in the House-passed Contract With America tax bill and the Coats-Grams-Craig bill in the Senate. This would mark one tiny step in recognizing the way the dependent exemption has been eroded by inflation and tax hikes over the years. That part of a family's income necessary to cover the basic costs of living just should not be taxed. I also will support pro-growth, pro-jobs tax relief for capital gains, small business, and family-owned farms and businesses passed on through an estate. These proposals would benefit all Americans, across the income spectrum. And they are modest. Even when fully phased in by fiscal year 2002, at a level of $50 billion, that tax relief would amount to well under 3 percent of the total revenues collected that year. Back in January and February, some opponents--and a few supporters-- of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution said they wanted to see a plan for exactly how to balance the budget. Well, here's our plan, and it gets the job done in a fair, equitable way. Now that those who demanded, ``Where's your plan?'' have been given a plan, I expect that 67th Senator should come forward and finally help us pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We still need the balanced budget amendment. The budget resolution before us today is a 7-year plan. That gives some Members of Congress and the special interest groups 6 years and three elections to try and knock us off track. Can we balance the budget without the balanced budget amendment? The first Republican Congress in 40 years is proving we can, but can is no guarantee. We have heard Senator after Senator say, ``This debate isn't about whether to balance the budget.'' Well, let's turn this Congress's promise to balance the budget into an ironclad, constitutional promise that the budget will stay balanced. Let us now go back and pass the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management has been scheduled for Thursday, July 13, at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 884, to designate certain public lands in the State of Utah as wilderness, and for other purposes. The hearing will be held 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 contact Andrew Lundquist at (202) 244-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 25, at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on three bills before the committee: S. 45, S. 738, and S. 898. These bills would end helium refining and marketing operations by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The hearing will be held 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 contact Michael Flannigan at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the concerns that have led me to oppose the nomination of Dr. Henry W. Foster, Jr., to be Surgeon General of the United States are not trivial. They are also not intended as a criticism of the nominee personally. He is a fine individual and deserves our respect. However, in deciding whether to support a nominee, character cannot be the only consideration. We must also examine the nominee's ability to serve the American people in the office to which he or she was nominated. It is important to note that my decision to oppose the nomination of Dr. Henry W. Foster was made after a great deal of thought and consideration. I do not take lightly the responsibility of the Senate in confirming Presidential nominees. Nor do I take lightly the right of the President to nominate individuals who share his philosophy. My own philosophy, opinions or views have run contradictory to most of the nominees presented by this administration. However, I have opposed very few of those nominees. Mr. President, as I have noted, I have concerns about Dr. Foster. I do not agree with him on a number of issues, including abortion. However my opposition on his confirmation is not based on differing opinions. I am opposing Dr. Foster's nomination because the many problems surrounding his nomination are issues that will be divisive. An individual can have many fine qualities and excellent experience and yet not be qualified to serve as a public official in the position of Surgeon General. That position, sometimes referred to as ``America's Family Doctor,'' requires someone who also has the ability to bring groups together to work toward resolving the health problems of this Nation. To his credit, Dr. Foster has some fine qualities and experience. I do not dispute that fact. However, the controversy surrounding his nomination, the disclosure--or lack of disclosure--of the number of abortions he has performed, as well as the questions surrounding his knowledge of the Tuskegee syphilis study lessen his ability to bring Americans together on the multitude of health issues our Nation faces. Mr. President, the role of Surgeon General requires the ability to bring people together, not to be divisive. The controversy surrounding Dr. Foster's nomination has diminished his ability to play the unifier. In addition, I would add that I have received numerous letters from Idahoans expressing concerns and opposition to the confirmation of Dr. Foster. Therefore, I have decided to vote ``no'' on the confirmation of Dr. Henry Foster for the office of Surgeon General for the United States.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, S. 652, as modified by the Dole-Daschle leadership amendment, balances reduced regulations with increased competition. That is exactly what the goal of the chairman has been all along. I think the legislation recognizes that investment in new technology is an essential part of developing an advanced telecommunications infrastructure here in the United States. Therefore, S. 652 provides a more stable and reliable business environment for both cable and television companies by reducing regulations and encouraging competition. Mr. President, S. 652, as reported by the Commerce Committee, includes the following: First, maintained the regulation of basic cable rates until there is effective competition. Second, redefined the effective competition standard to include a telephone company offering video services. Third, allowed competition from phone companies. Fourth, deregulated upper tier programming, but kept it subject to a bad-actor provision. The bad-actor provision allows the FCC to make expanded tier services subject to regulation if rates are unreasonable and substantially exceed the national average of rates for comparable cable programming services. These provisions were certainly a step in the right direction: away from regulations and toward more competition. During consideration of S. 652, the Senate adopted the Dole-Daschle leadership amendment by a vote of 77 to 8, which included language addressing the concerns of those who believe that, despite the safeguards already contained in S. 652, it might lead to unreasonable rate increases by large cable operators. It established a fixed rate, June 1, 1995, for measuring the national average price for cable services and only allows for adjustments to occur every 2 years. This provision eliminates the possibility that large cable operators could collude to artificially inflate rates immediately following enactment of S. 652. The bill, as amended, establishes a national average based on cable rates in effect prior to the passage of S. 652 when rate regulation was in full force. It excluded rates charged by small cable operators in determining the national average rate for cable services. This provision addresses the concerns that deregulation of small system rates, which was included as part of the Dole-Daschle amendment in S. 652, would inflate the national average against which rates of large cable companies would be measured. It specified that national average rates are to be calculated on a per channel basis. This provision ensures that national average is standardized and takes into account variations in the number of channels offered by different companies as part of their expanded program packages. It specified that a market is effectively competitive only when an alternative multichannel video provider offers services comparable to cable television. This provision ensures cable operators will not be prematurely deregulated under the effective competition provision if, for example, only a single [[Page S8434]] channel of video programming is being delivered by a telco video dial tone provider in an operator's market. In addition, the leadership amendment also included critical provisions deregulating small cable operators. In short, Mr. President, the reason I have given this explanation is the Dole-Daschle amendment tightened the bad-actor provision on expanded tier services and further limited the definition of effective competition. This compromise closed any possible loophole that would allow large cable operators to unreasonably raise rates. It gave relief to our small cable companies and maintained the delicate balance struck in S. 652 of reduced regulations with increased competition. The reason, again, I think it is important that we understand this, Mr. President, is that the Lieberman amendment puts us back at square one in this effort to move toward more competition in the cable industry. While it does include language similar to the leadership amendment that would deregulate small cable operators, the Lieberman amendment would undermine the competitive objectives of S. 652. The amendment further restricts the national average standard by limiting it to the ``national average rate for comparable programming services in cable systems subject to effective competition.'' Mr. President, this is a backdoor route that leads back to the restrictive rate regulation standard similar to what now exists: regulating rates that substantially exceed those of companies subject to effective competition. It is precisely this standard that has created the highly bureaucratic regulatory morass that has stymied cable television investment, and therefore service to the consumer. As I stated in my opening remarks on this bill last week, I opposed the Cable Act of 1992, and I voted against passage of that bill. Since the enactment of S. 12--that was the Cable Act--I have received numerous complaints from fellow Idahoans who felt that the changes resulting from S. 12 worsened, rather than improved, their cable service and cost. In addition, a number of very small independent cable systems in Idaho have been in jeopardy as a result of that near closure and have been forced to pay astronomical costs associated with implementing the act. A rural community hardly benefits if it loses access to cable service because the local small business that provides service cannot handle the burden of Federal regulations. Quite the opposite is true. Competition, not regulation, will encourage growth and innovation in the cable industry, as well as other areas of telecommunications, while giving the consumer the benefit of competitive prices. Mr. President, I would again suggest to my colleagues the importance of not losing sight of the ultimate goal of reforming the 1934 Communications Act, which should be to establish a national policy framework that will accelerate private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. In addition, working toward the goal will spur economic growth, create jobs, increase productivity, and provide better services at a lower cost to consumers. The balance of reduced regulations with increased competition contained in the provisions relating to cable in S. 652 will lead to the very important goals I just stated. In addition, Mr. President, I am concerned if we continue to restrict the ability of cable companies to obtain capital necessary to invest in new programming and services, we will also be limiting the ability of cable companies as competitors to local phone monopolies. Cable companies will require billions of dollars of investment to develop their infrastructures in order to be competitive providers. The Federal regulation of cable television has restricted the cable industry's access to capital, made investors concerned about future investments in the cable industry, and reduced the ability of cable companies to invest in technology and programming. Mr. President, rate regulation will not maintain low rates and quality services in the cable industry. Quite the opposite will occur. We have already seen it. Only competition will provide the kind of services that our consumers want. New entrants in the marketplace such as direct broadcast satellites and telco-delivered video programming will provide competitive pressures to keep cable rates low and fit within the framework of the market. Cable companies are likely to provide the needed competition to keep the telephone local exchange market operating. In short, Mr. President, deregulation of the cable industry is essential for a competitive telecommunications market, and it is necessary as the element of S. 652 and the competitive model envisioned in this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Lieberman amendment. It is not a step forward. It is a step backward to the industry. It is clearly a step backward to the consuming public.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. What is the intended relationship between the section 251(b) ``minimum standards'' and the section 255(b)(2) ``competitive checklist'' given that both the ``minimum standards'' and the ``competitive checklist'' address many of the same issues?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, at a time when we are trying to address the deregulation of the telecommunications industry, to further enhance the role of the Department of Justice would be counterproductive. The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] regulates the communications industry. The Department of Justice [DOJ] enforces antitrust laws. The pending legislation, S. 652, supersedes the provisions of modification of final judgment [MFJ], that govern Bell Co. entry into businesses now prohibited to them. Once legislation is signed into law, a continued DOJ role in telecommunications policy is no longer necessary except in the area of enforcing the law. The Department of Justice does not need an ongoing regulatory role as part of an update of our Nation's communications policy. Actual regulatory oversight is not what DOJ is equipped to provide. DOJ's claim that ``it alone among government agencies understands marketplace issues as opposed to regulatory issues,'' is inaccurate. The FCC has a long history of reviewing and analyzing communications markets. Besides, S. 652 already gives the Justice Department a role which is clearly defined in the language of the bill. S. 652 states that: Before making any determination, the Commission shall consult with the Attorney General regarding the application. In consulting with the Commission, the Attorney General may apply any appropriate standard. Dual DOJ and FCC bureaucracies to regulate the communications industry delays the benefits competition brings consumers. if we are going to strengthen the role of DOJ, why even bother trying to reform the 1934 act? After all, one of the main purposes for passing telecommunications reform legislation is to establish a national policy so that the MFJ can be phased out. Mr. President, providing this authority to the Justice Department is unprecedented. The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has never had decision-making authority over regulated industries--or any industry. In addition, assigning a decision-making role to the Department of Justice establishes a dangerous precedent that could be expanded to other industries. Mr. President, more regulation is not what this bill needs. Again, dual roles for the DOJ and FCC will only delay competition. It will only delay the benefits of competition such as: Lower prices, new services, and more choice for communications services and new jobs. The only jobs that this amendment will provide is new jobs for lawyers at the Department of Justice. For those who may consider this necessary, let's briefly take a look at the job the DOJ has done in administering the MFJ. It is important to note that the Antitrust Division at Justice does not currently have decision-making authority over the MFJ. That sole authority is held in the U.S. District Court, in the person of Judge Harold Greene. The Antitrust Division essentially serves to staff Judge Greene on the MFJ, providing him with recommendations on waivers and other matters under the administration of the MFJ. In 1984, the average age of waiver requests pending at year end was a little under 2 months. By the end of 1993, the average age of pending waivers had grown to 3 years. Delays such as these are simply inconsistent with an evolving competitive market. In addition, the Justice Department is responsible for conducting reviews every 3 years, known as the triennial review, at which recommendations to the court are made regarding the continued need for restrictions implemented under the MFJ. These reviews were to provide the parties to the MFJ a benchmark by which they could gain relief. Mr. President, since 1982, only one triennial review has been conducted. In short, Mr. President, the Department of Justice's track record in fulfilling its obligations under the MFJ is poor. Therefore, I would question the advisability of giving the DOJ an unprecedented role, above and beyond what they currently have under the MFJ. Mr. President, S. 652 contains clear congressional policy. There is no reason why two Federal entities should have independent authority over determining whether that policy has been met. Again, let us not lose sight of what we are trying to achieve here. [[Page S8224]] The ultimate goal of reforming the 1934 act should be to establish a national policy framework that will accelerate the private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition, which will create jobs, increase productivity, and provide better services at a lower cost to consumers.

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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place Thursday, June 22, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 852, a bill to provide for uniform management of livestock grazing on Federal land, and for other purposes. Those wishing to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mike Poling at (202) 224-8276 or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-6730. subcommittee on parks, historic preservation and recreation