Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I am through.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. I object.

Mr. CRAIG. I do not.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, after many years of failed attempts, this Congress will have the overdue opportunity to reform the 1934 Communications Act. Senator Pressler, the chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, is to be commended for his efforts to get legislation passed out of the committee and onto the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, S. 652, is a very comprehensive bill covering all areas of the telecommunications industry. S. 652 is a vast improvement over the status quo. However, it could be made more deregulatory, better enhancing competition in the marketplace. Therefore, I hope that the final bill passed by the Senate will incorporate a number of deregulatory amendments. As I mentioned, this is a very comprehensive bill, so I will limit my remarks at this time, to more general issues of concern and interest. First, and foremost, it is important that we do not lose sight of the ultimate goal of reforming the 1934 act, which 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. In addition, working toward that goal should spur economic growth, create jobs, increase productivity, and provide better services at a lower cost to consumers. Passing legislation that will open competition in this $250 billion industry will have broad-reaching effects. It is important that we seize this opportunity to limit the Government's role in this vibrant sector of our economy. Last year we debated health care--that is, impact. It is not often that the Congress has an opportunity to write telecommunications legislation. Therefore, it is important that we pass legislation that is clear, forward-looking, and does not perpetuate regulations that outlive their usefulness or create monopolies. It is my position that the best way to achieve this is to move toward a competitive system by removing barriers to access in the various sectors of industry. Let me emphasize this point, because I think it reflects some of the differences of opinion on how to get to competition, competition will exist when all barriers to market access have been removed. To deregulate through regulation reminds me a little of the term widely referred to in last year's health care debate, ``Managed Competition.'' I am very concerned that efforts to control deregulation through regulation will put the Government in the position of determining the winners and losers in the marketplace. This is not a role for the Government to play. As a conservative, and one who [[Page S7968]] strongly believes in limited Government, I am very concerned about the powers delegated to the FCC in S. 652, which could allow unnecessary delays in fully opening the telecommunications market. In short, S. 652, as I read it, deregulates through regulation. It gives an inch with new competitive freedoms--then takes a mile with new layers of regulatory conditions and market entry barriers. It is my hope that we can preserve the pro-competitive aspects of S. 652 and clarify those sections that unnecessarily restrict competition. With that in mind, there are several amendments that I will be supporting during debate on this bill, which will promote deregulation and competition. First and foremost, we must ensure that the bill provides for the elimination of obsolete regulations, once certain competitive conditions are met. In order to achieve those competitive conditions, there should be clear, reasonable and objective requirements or conditions that will remove access barriers that currently protect monopolies. Having said that, once those barriers protecting monopolies are removed, a competitive marketplace is established and there should be open competition. More specifically, if a market is contestable, regulators should not interfere with natural competitive forces. Competition will provide the lowest price, the best delivery of new services, and infrastructure investment--not regulators. Mr. President, I think it is important to emphasize that this is not just an industry bill. This legislation has the potential of creating thousands of new jobs and enhancing access to a wide array of communication and information services to all Americans, but especially folks who live in rural or remote communities. According to a recent study by the WEFA group, which is an econometric forecasting agency, competition in the telecommunications industry will dramatically benefit the American economy. The WEFA study concluded that delaying competition just 3 years will result in a loss of 1.5 million new U.S. jobs, and $137 billion in real gross domestic product by the year 2000. Conversely, the study found that the immediate and simultaneous opening of all telecommunications markets would create 2.1 million new jobs by the turn of the century, and about 3.4 million over the next 10 years. The study also shows that during the next decade, full competition in telecommunications would increase GDP by $298 billion; save consumers nearly $550 billion through lower rates and fees for services; and increase the average household's annual disposable income by $850. In Idaho alone, thousands of jobs would be created with simultaneous and immediate competition. According to the WEFA study, Idahoans would benefit from the creation of 7,400 new jobs by the year 2000. In addition to the issue of job creation, rural States have a great deal at risk if we do not pass legislation to deregulate telecommunications. There are many examples in my home State of Idaho that demonstrate how current regulations reduce customer choice, restrict growth and access to new technologies. In March 1994, U.S. West Communications was forced to cancel two new information services in Idaho, Never-Busy fax and Broadcast fax, due to the MFJ requirement that equipment providing the services must be located in each LATA. Because of population density, there were not enough customers to support the cost of maintaining the necessary equipment in the Boise LATA. Technically, one piece of equipment can serve several States, but the law requires the extra expense of replicating equipment in each LATA just to meet outdated regulations that are not consistent with market demands. In addition, Boise was selected by U.S. West to be one of the first areas in the company to be wired for broadband service, giving residential and business customers access to voice, video, and data over a single line. Due to the long timeframe associated with the FCC approval process and limitations of current MFJ regulations, the project has been delayed indefinitely. In 1988, the Idaho Legislature approved one of the first modified regulation structures in the country. All services except local exchange services with five or fewer lines were completely deregulated. As a result of opening the marketplace, over 150 companies now provide long-distance calling within the State. The total volume of calling has increased by 60 percent and the long- distance market share of U.S. West has declined by over 15 percent. The end result has been a reduction in both the prices paid by the long- distance carriers to gain access to the network and the price paid by the consumer for services. This, in spite of the fact that local exchange services were still perceived to be what some would term as a ``monopoly'' service. Opening Idaho's market has enhanced competition and improved prices for consumers. In both an article and an editorial, the Idaho Statesman outline how businesses in Idaho were able to save millions of dollars through increased productivity and improved services because of the infrastructure and services offered by the local telephone company as a result of the modified regulation made possible by legislation I have described. The Statesman recognizes the value of a competitive communications marketplace, and has been proactive in its editorials in encouraging an open telecommunications industry. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss some concerns on the need for deregulation on the cable industry. Let me begin by saying that I opposed the Cable Act of 1992, and voted against passage of the bill. Since the enactment of S. 12, 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 of closure because of the astronomical costs associated with implementing the act. A rural community hardly benefits, if it loses access to cable services because the local small business that provides the 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 consumers the benefit of competitive prices. As I mentioned before, Mr. President a central goal of S. 652 is to create a competitive market for telecommunications services. Cable companies are one of the most likely competitors to local telephone monopolies. Cable companies will require billions of dollars in 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. Competition will. New entrants in the marketplace such as direct broadcast satellite [DBS] and telco-delivered video programming will provide competitive pressures to keep rates down. In short, Mr. President, deregulation of the cable industry is essential for a competitive telecommunications market--and it is necessary as an element of S. 652, and the competitive model envisioned in the bill. It is my preferred position that S. 652 should completely repeal the Cable Act. However, I am very supportive of efforts to repeal rate regulation for premium tiers, and complete relief of rate regulation for small cable companies, who have been hit so severely by the 1992 Cable Act. Before closing, Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to share some interesting letters I have received from various groups outside the telecommunications industry. First and foremost, I was very interested as a member of the Senate Veterans affairs Committee to see the great interest veterans service organizations have in seeing a deregulatory bill passed. In a letter form James J. Kenney, the national executive director of AMVETS, he states the following: America's veterans and their families have a real stake in the debate in Congress over competition in telecommunications. We know that full competition--now--means millions of new jobs spread throughout every section of our economy. A recent study by the WEFA group calculated that 3.4 million new jobs would be produced over the next ten years if all telecommunications companies were allowed to compete right away. These jobs are desperately needed for the estimated 250,000 men and women who are being discharged every year due to downsizing of the military . . . . Veterans want Congress to be on our side in this fight--to stand up for us--for new jobs and lower prices. We don't want to have to wait for the benefits of new competition. . . . On behalf of AMVETS and all of America's veterans, I urge you to move forward quickly in assuring that S. 652 will be a telecommunications reform bill that will allow immediate and simultaneous competition in the marketplace. Mr. President, I intend to stand up for our veterans, and other of our citizens. I think this letter shows just how important this bill is to all Americans and the benefits that we can all enjoy from a robust and competitive telecommunications market. Another interesting letter on this legislation, written by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. and Jane Preston, M.D., and president of the American Telemedicine Association, also urges the Congress to ``Pass telecommunications reform legislation that opens up full competition in both local and long distance communications without delay.'' Their interest in S. 652 is the potential advances it can bring to the medical field through greater access to telemedicine. As a member of the Senate/House ad hoc Committee on Telemedicine and Informatics, I agree with the interests outlined in this letter. One of the single largest obstacles to the Deployment of Telemedical services LATA boundaries. Many of those involved in the field of telemedicine see LATA boundaries as ``toll booths on the information highway.'' The existence of LATA boundaries, (and accompanying high rates for long distance services) was not a problem in the early stages of telemedicine research and demonstration projects. . . . However, with the development of telemedicine projects as on- going, financially viable operations and with the steady increase in telemedical interactions, the cost of long distance services has become a major program. Therefore, we ask you to eliminate this barrier by lifting existing restrictions and allowing all companies to compete immediately for local and long distance services. The letter goes on to describe the many health care uses of the telecommunications infrastructure such as the training and education of health care professionals, consultation, and diagnostics, in addition to all the administrative functions that use the system. This is especially important to the future of the delivery of health care in remote and rural communities. Mr. President, I don't support the unnecessary Government regulation of private industry. Some will argue that the regulations incorporated in S. 652 are not only necessary, but they are the only way we can reach a competitive marketplace. I disagree. There will be a number of amendments offered to curb the regulations that remain in this bill. With these clarifications and improvements, I am confident that S. 652 will positively change the telecommunications landscape for the betterment of American consumers and the national economy. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of those amendments.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators McCain and Packwood, in offering this amendment to define the public interest test. As currently written, S. 652 gives the Federal Communications Commission in my opinion exceptionally broad discretion in defining a Bell company's fitness to provide interLATA long distance services. The bill authorizes the FCC to block, if you will, the Bell companies from offering interLATA services if it deems that their entry into the long-distance business is not ``in the public interest''--even after full compliance with a comprehensive interconnection and unbundling checklist, which is now included in S. 652. The current language in the bill gives the FCC an open field to interpret the public interest standard any way it wishes. The FCC could, for example, decide that a market share test is required before Bell company entry into long distance on the grounds that the test is in the public interest. A market share test in my opinion is anticompetitive and will only serve to prolong long-distance competition. It would put the fate of the Bell companies' long-distance plans in the hands of their competitors. And in a market environment, it is always amazing to me that somehow Federal regulations would allow that kind of thing to happen. Potential competitors could choose to delay their own entry into the local phone market in order to prolong the entry of one of the Bell companies into the interLATA market. In order to avoid the potential abuse of the public interest standard, it should at a minimum state that any kind of market share test be barred from the FCC's consideration of this standard. Mr. President, of particular concern is the extraordinary time and resources it takes for the FCC to make a public interest determination. The FCC's typical review process includes hearings and rulemakings and comments and replies and painstaking analyses. The committee report on S. 652 states that the public interest test for all Bell company provisions of long distance service must be based on substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The report goes even further than the current FCC public interest standard by requiring the applications of heightened judicial scrutiny of the substantial evidence standard as opposed to the lesser arbitrary and capricious standard. In other words, in a bill that is deregulatory in some areas, Mr. President, this appears to be a bill that in this area is even more regulatory. And that is, of course, exactly why this amendment is now in this Chamber. In an industry where new technologies are evolving at a record pace, this regulatory bureaucracy is counterproductive and it unnecessarily, in my opinion, delays delivery of beneficial services to the customers. And I would suggest, Mr. President, we are in the Chamber today debating a new world for the consuming public and not a new world for the companies involved, if that, of course, is the intent of S. 652. A case in point is the history of cellular phone technology. Back in the 1970's, AT&T asked the FCC to allocate spectrum for the development of cellular services. Because of all of the encompassing nature of the public interest test, it took a decade--let me repeat, it took a decade--for the FCC to determine how best to allocate the spectrum. Now, that is a 10-year delay in the ability of a communications technology that has become one of the fastest growing consumer products in America's history. Of course, we know, since the day we entered the cellular world, we have seen more growth in 10 years and more productivity and more jobs than the bureaucratic nightmare of the 10 years it took to open up the marketplace. Another example of how time consuming and labor intensive the public over video dial tone. The Commission first addressed the idea of additional cable TV competition from television companies in early 1991. It has taken more than 4 years for the FCC to create a general framework for video dial tone, and with each successive ruling more and more constraints have been placed on telephone companies wishing to offer cable TV services. That is not the way to foster competition. And it is not giving consumers the additional cable choices they have all asked for and they think in a free market they ought to be able to receive. In effect, the FCC 4-year delay has prevented robust competition in the cable industry. I would argue that this is hardly in the public interest and yet, in this legislation, that kind of bureaucracy would largely still exist and might even be enhanced over current law. Cable industry competition would have been far preferable to the stifling regulations that have been imposed under the 1992 Cable Act. My last example concerns the Commission ruling in the mid-1980's allowing telephone companies to provide new services like voice mail that enhanced basic telephone service. In other words, some people would ask you today: What did we do before voice mail? Well, I will tell you what we did. We had a great, complicated process in many of our offices just to get communications through to the individual, and where you did not have the ability to hire the person to take the phone call, often your phone went unanswered or a call went unreturned. Today, we know voice mail works marvelously well. Boise, my State capital, was among the first US West cities to offer voice mail service, and the service is now available from telephone companies across the Nation. It is clear to me that services like voice mail provide real benefits to consumers and to businesses yet, even after a decade, the public interest issue is still unresolved. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has twice questioned the FCC's public interest determination when it allowed telephone companies to offer new services to consumers. Because of the legal situation surrounding these FCC orders issued nearly a decade ago, phone companies are currently offering voice mail and other services under, believe it or not, a special waiver--not a standard rule of the marketplace, but a special exception or a special waiver. Mr. President, with the heightened public interest standard included in S. 652, a decade-long wait for cellular service or resolution of voice mail issues, believe it or not, could take even longer while the consuming public believes that now to be a standard of the industry. Before closing, Mr. President, I would like to share a few quotes from a March 8, 1995, paper on S. 652 entitled ``Deregulating Telecommunications,'' written by Thomas Hazlett from the University of California, Davis. In this article, he reviews the public interest standard. While he praises the deregulatory provisions included in the bill, and there are some and they deserve to be recognized, he qualifies that praise by stating that the bill, through the inclusion of the public interest test, ``fails to move us beyond the highly regulatory paradigm under which we live today.'' Hazlett argues that S. 652 retains the source of all anticonsumer policies since the 1934 act that we are now changing under this legislation, the public interest test. He states this: This is not a proconsumer standard. This fundamental defect is further revealed in the bill's [four] announced objectives: Nowhere is consumer protection listed as a goal of this legislation. Mr. President, let me repeat that. In a bill that is argued to be positive for consumers, nowhere in this bill is consumer protection listed as a goal of the legislation. I think this is wrong, and Mr. Hazlett says he believes it is wrong, also. Indeed, the very first aim of this or any telecommunications policy should be: ``Lower prices, improved choice, and better, more innovative services for consumers.'' The glaring omission of this goal is far more than a systemic problem. Mr. President, Mr. Hazlett goes on to discuss the origins and purpose of the public interest standard at its inception in the 1927 Radio Act, and the subsequent 1934 Cable Act, which we are now amending today. This standard was included at the behest of incumbent radio broadcasters: The industry liked it because it would allow Government a legal basis for denying licenses to newcomers. Senator C.C. Dill, the author of both the 1927 and the 1934 acts, liked it because it would not only allow the industry what it wanted, it would give policymakers such as himself political discretion to shape the marketplace. Let me repeat that. It would allow public policymakers political discretion to shape a marketplace; in other words, a political free marketplace and not the marketplace that creates the kind of competition that is self-regulating at best. This was terribly important to the Senator at the time, Dill wrote later, because established principles of law were already shaping spectrum access rights as private property. In other words, Mr. President, the public interest test was the regulatory means by which the policymaker--that is us--not the marketplace and certainly not the consumers, could control the development of technology in the market. And we know that has never worked. The explosion of service and the quality of service that the American consumer now expects in telecommunications has only been created in the last decade as we move toward a more deregulated environment. This was hardly a competitive criteria, and let me suggest that in this legislation, that test will stifle the kind of competitive environment that we want to create. One last point I would like to share from this article brings us to our current situation. Mr. Hazlett argues, and I would agree, that even after years of use of public-interest standard, we still do not know what it means. In 1993, FCC Commissioner Duggan lashed out at Commission critics who claimed this, saying it was not impossible to define public interest, and that the Commission would proceed to do so. That was 1993. William Mayton wrote an interesting article in the Emory Law Journal in 1989 which pointed out how curious a standard the public-interest standard is by defining whatever a Government agency does in the public interest is the public-interest standard. I find that fascinating, and yet the FCC today still struggles in its ability to define and to appropriately announce to the policymaker and to the consuming public. In short, Mr. President, anything could be deemed either in or against the public interest, and unless you treat it in the marketplace where the public ultimately makes the decision, then the public interest is in the eye and in the mind of the Commissioner or the policymaker, and that is not necessarily, and in almost all instances has never been, in the public interest. Therefore, it is a standard that has no standard. This is the most subjective test possible, and I would argue that it will not, in effect, serve the interests of the American people. Congress should clearly define the parameters of the public-interest standard and outline the factors that should be weighed in the making of the determination. I submit that the competitive interconnection and unbundling checklist is in the public interest and fully meets the standard, and that should be the only provision in this law as an amendment to the 1934 act that frees the marketplace and determines the public interest. That is why I am in strong support of this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I abhor and condemn terrorism in any form. Our Nation cannot tolerate terrorism--be it foreign or domestic-- and our Nation's law enforcement must have the tools it needs to fight this menace. There are some very important reforms in this bill that would be helpful. They include habeas corpus reform, which is the only change that will really have an impact in the Oklahoma City case. I will vote for this bill in order to send a strong message of support for those reforms to the House and any future House-Senate conference working on this legislation. However, for the record, my vote is not an endorsement of each and every provision of this bill. I am not convinced that the bill before us today is the best we can do to assist law enforcement in fighting against terrorism, and I would like to discuss some of the specific reservations I have. First and foremost are potential constitutional problems such as those relating to the sections on restricting fundraising, excluding and deporting aliens, the new wiretapping authority we adopted last night, and acquisition of information including consumer records. In all fairness, there are conflicting opinions even among my colleagues who are lawyers about whether some of these provisions will survive court review. I have been assured that the safeguards contained in the bill are sufficient to overcome potential constitutional problems. For that reason, I have decided not to oppose the entire bill on this basis. However, I remain concerned about these provisions and would hope they can be further improved before the Senate takes action on a final bill. Another section of the bill that I think could be improved is the new language relating to taggants in explosives. Although I joined a unanimous Senate in voting for changes made on the floor during debate, I am not by any means convinced this is the best way to approach that issue. After the Senate acted, I was contacted by several resource- based industries in my State suggesting concerns that had not been raised or reviewed previously. I hope the House and any future conference will take a close look at that section and make improvements that will balance the interests of law enforcement with those of the affected industries. There are other items in this bill that I question, but those are some of the most important, I do not think we would be sacrificing any tools needed by law enforcement if we were to make improvements in these sections. I commend the majority leader and Senator Hatch for their hard work to deliver a bill that will strengthen the hand of law enforcement in fighting terrorism. I hope the bill will be improved as it moves through the remaining steps of the legislative process, so that I can vote for a truly effective package.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for yielding. Let me say this in all due respect to the chairman, who has obviously worked almost since the day of the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City to address the wishes of our President and our majority leader and a great many of America's citizens to change around some of our laws and strengthen them so that innocent people, hopefully, could be protected prior to a criminal element in our society doing what they did and a tragedy resulting. I and others have watched very closely as the staff of the Judiciary Committee has assembled this legislation from the principles the President laid down and from the principles the majority leader laid down so that no civil liberties in this country would be trampled. I can say that Senator Hatch in due caution has approached this in a way to assure that would not happen. He has now just put into the Record a 10-point letter of May 25 from the President establishing the principles that the President thought were necessary in antiterrorist legislation. None of those principles embody the four or five amendments that at the last moment are trying to be crammed into this bill. They are primarily gun control amendments. They are primarily amendments that would trample all over the feet of second-amendment-right citizens who are law abiding in every respect. I thought we were after the criminal element until I saw that nasty word of ``politics'' slivering into the back door of this critical piece of legislation. And that is wrong, Mr. President. That should not be allowed to happen. In fact, I and others cannot allow it to happen. We support this legislation because we believe America needs it and wants it. And we think that many elements of it will work toward trying to deter, before a tragic event like Oklahoma City or the Tower bombings were to happen, the kind of surveillance and intelligence that is necessary to try to block something like that from happening. But we now know the rest of the story, and it is going to be, unless we stop the politics as usual. So I am saying at this moment to my leader, let us honor our President in this instance and, if we cannot bring the bill down, if we cannot arrive at a bill that is workable, bring it down, or appeal to the Democrats in this Chamber who support their President and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and in all fairness the minority leader of that committee, who I do not believe has authored any of these amendments, to get this resolved and get on with the business of the Senate, and say to the American people, ``We have addressed your concerns and needs as addressed by this President and the majority leader of the U.S. Senate in a clean, clear criminal bill, not a bill that begins to trample on the ragged edge of the civil liberties of an awful lot of citizens in this country.'' I will object to any effort to propose a unanimous consent, whether it is in the guise of limiting time, all in the name of comity. That is not comity at all. That is called politics in the rawest form. We decided after Oklahoma City that this ought not be politics as usual. It would be unfair to the citizens of our country, and it would be unlike the nature of the Congress of the United States in light of a dramatic human tragedy of the kind that occurred in Oklahoma City to play politics. And we walked away from that opportunity, and the Judiciary Committee, under Orrin Hatch's leadership, stayed away from it and produced a bill that was critical to our country. The President did not originally agree with habeas corpus. But last night he said on the Larry King Show, and I quote: And that ought to be done in the context of this terrorist legislation. This President recognizes the importance of this legislation, and he is willing to bend a bit. Tragically enough, his own Senators are not. So I appeal to his Democrat Senators at this time to support their President, to support a quality piece of work coming from the Judiciary Committee that has avoided the very concern that many of us have had about trampling on the edge, if not boldly in the center of some of the civil liberties of the citizens of this country. We ought to be able to do that, and we can do that, and we have done it before in times of national crises, to adhere to our constitutional responsibility while at the same time strengthening the fiber of our society and in a way that it could disallow, cause to be avoided, or stopped from happening the kinds of tragedies that occurred in Oklahoma City. That is what we ought to be about today. That is what this chairman is trying to do, and that is what the majority leader is asking the U.S. Senate to do. Anything less than that, I hope the majority leader would say enough is enough, because he has this President and the American people on his side at this moment, on this issue. And obstructionism, in nature, as is now being laid down and as proposed is not good legislating. So I hope we can move in that direction. I hope we can resolve this issue. There are a lot of issues before the Senate that deserve to be resolved, and this one should be handled in a timely and appropriate fashion. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn for their cooperation in resolving some concerns in the posse comitatus amendment and the effort that they took in a most serious and appropriate way to cause the military to be involved in the areas of biological and chemical warfare and weaponry of mass destruction when it might be applied against civilian populations in this country. Many of us expressed some very real concern because of what has been debated here tonight, the very important separation of the military and civilian population which is rooted in our history and that we have cautiously and appropriately guarded throughout our country's existence with few exceptions. And so it was with that background we watched this amendment most closely, and I must say that in the end I can now support it because of some changes that have been made which I think we can all be very comfortable with, and that is to narrow this to not allow arrests, to prohibit those but to allow action where there is the exception for the immediate protection of human life. We think that narrows it and properly defines it, clarifies it so it is not ambiguous and so that it can be interpreted in the appropriate way by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense in their joint responsibility in the issue of regulations concerning the implementation of the statute. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. (for Mr. Smith) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to amendment No. 1199 proposed by Mr. Dole to the bill, S. 735, supra; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, so why the amendment? Why not stay with the substitute bill? If this Congress wants to get the industry that manufactures explosives to a point in science and technology where we could identify the explosive itself, why not pursue it in the way that Senate bill 735 suggested? Or is there another reason to pursue it in a way that the Senator from California has pursued it; that is, do it now and study it later? That is a bit of a strange way to approach something that, if done wrong or if caused by Government and forced to be done without the proper basis of understanding to be done wrong, could create the kind of damage that could occur if this were the case. So let us today vote to table the amendment of the Senator from California and stay with the substitute bill which does recognize the importance of developing the science and technology for taggants. I support that. And I hope we can get there. But the record now shows that the National Rifle Association does not oppose taggants, and it never has. It most assuredly supports the science and the technology that could lead us to that. What it is officially on the record as opposing is the amendment of the Senator from California because it simply believes it is too premature. It might well be risky to the science and the technology involved. This Senate I think in a responsible way wants to do it right. The right way is the Senate bill that has been appropriately heard with the appropriate technology, or the record for technology built into it. With that in mind, I hope as we vote this afternoon on the tabling motion that we would support the committee and the chairman, and the text of Senate bill 735. I yield the remainder of my time. [[Page S7682]] Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to stand in support of the Dole-Hatch substitute to Senate bill 735 that deals with necessary and appropriate redefining of our laws in relation to terrorist activities or terrorist type activities in this country. But in coming to the floor this afternoon to speak, I also wanted to speak very briefly on the amendment that is pending and will be voted on this afternoon offered by the Senator from California on the issue of taggants. The legislation before us deals with taggants, and the question is then, if it does and does so appropriately, why will the Senator from California offer something that is considerably different? Is it a new idea? Not at all. In fact, it is really quite an old idea that the Congress has looked into before over the years to attempt to identify or cause to be identified explosive material so that when they are inappropriately used or misused they can be identified and traced. To my knowledge no one in this country has objection to that concept. But the word ``concept'' is what is key in this debate. It is a concept. And there have been studies produced that would argue that, while it is well intended, it may be at least at this point in time scientifically and technologically impossible to get to the point of putting in explosive materials, that are so designed to develop to do certain things, an identifiable marker that would still cause them to perform as they were tested and manufactured to perform. In fact, the concern is that it might cause them to perform in an inappropriate way and cause harm to the individual who was using them in a legitimate, legal, and responsible fashion. That is, of course, exactly what the Senate bill 735 substitute recognizes when it proposes that we study this issue and try to bring the community of science and technology together to see whether in fact we can produce an identifiable marker, if you will, within an explosive material that tags it, that identifies it, and that would allow it to be used. [[Page S7680]] There was something else said by the Senator from California this morning, that at least frustrated me, which was her very open and direct statement that the NRA opposed it, the National Rifle Association. I thought it was important that the record be straight, that, in fact, the record be factual. The NRA does not oppose this provision of Senate bill 735. What the NRA, as a responsible representative of a variety of people who use gunpowders for legitimate reasons, is suggesting is that, if you do not do it right and you do it wrong, you could cause damage to a lot of innocent people and produce unaffordable costs that do not make a lot of sense. Let me read to you on the record testimony given before the Judiciary Committee in April of 2 years ago on this issue. Point one proves that is an old idea whose time may not have come yet because we do not have the science and technology to allow it to come; and, second, the NRA never did nor does it now have an official position on the issue. Let me quote from that testimony. ``The National Rifle Association does not take an official position concerning the licensing, manufacture and restrictions placed upon commercial high explosives, for that is not an area within our field of interest. However, we would be derelict in our responsibilities to America's gun owners and as citizens if we did not point out to this committee''--meaning the Judiciary Committee of the Senate--``the basic flaws and fallacies of the taggants technology.'' ``An important point that must be made to the committee is that tagging explosives is not a new idea. In fact, the Congress studied and rejected the concepts involving identification and detection taggants in the latter 1970's and early 1980's. The premise behind that experience has been restricted in the aftermath of the bombing''--this was the World Trade Center hearings that emanated out of that horrible explosion--``that law enforcement officers should be assisted in their investigation of tagging explosives. But the facilitation that was to be realized is not available.'' In other words, the technology, the availability of the science to do what might be the right thing to do simply does not exist. I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of that testimony be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today, I rise to support S. 768, the Endangered Species Act Reform Amendments of 1995. I wish to compliment Senator Gorton and Senator Johnston on the thought and effort which has obviously gone into the crafting of this legislation. Reform of the Endangered Species Act is way overdue, and I am very pleased that the Congress is finally addressing this issue in a substantive way. Field hearings on ESA reform will be underway next week under the guidance of my colleague from Idaho, Senator Dirk Kempthorne, who chairs the subcommittee of jurisdiction within the Environment and Public Works Committee. I will be joining Dirk in I want to be counted as one who recognizes the value of our fish and wildlife. I have repeatedly said that I cannot support outright repeal of the Endangered Species Act, as many have urged. But the act needs substantial revision if it is to be brought back in balance with the economic well-being of this country and with the needs of its citizens. Far beyond its original intent, the act has been made a bludgeon to suppression legitimate use of public lands and to threaten private landowners and communities. Nowhere is that fact more obvious than in my State of Idaho. Earlier this year, an Endangered Species Act Lawsuit brought by two preservation groups resulted in a perverse opinion which threatened to shut down all economic activity on 14 million acres in Idaho. Mr. President, that is an area the size of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire combined. If the courts can find reason under the existing law to render such a devastating opinion as was done in this case, then it is imperative that Congress correct the obvious flaws in the law. As chair of the two subcommittees in the Senate with jurisdiction over forest policy, I have embarked on a series of hearings to understand and correct the myriad of conflicting laws and regulations which have strangled the practice of good forestry in this country. The practice of forestry is at a standstill on our western public lands, and the primary culprit is the Endangered Species Act. The forests are ruled by the Endangered Species Act, not the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, and that is a reality which must be changed. Senator Gorton's bill provides many of the needed changes. It includes language which Senator Kempthorne and I introduced as S. 455 earlier this year to prevent a repeat of the court opinion I have already described. it would streamline the section 7 consultation process, which has proven to be unworkable in our experience with threatened and endangered salmon. It brings cost-consciousness, state rights and private landowners back into the equation for conservation of species. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 768. I have told Senator Gorton that I will assist him in any way possible to accomplish a balanced reform of the ESA. It must be done this year--we have waited too long already. I hope our colleagues will join us in this effort.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senate concurrent resolution 13, the fiscal year 1996 congressional budget resolution. I want to commend the hard work undertaken, and the excellent results obtained, by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici]. We all know that his expertise in budget matters is unequalled and that he has great respect within this body and without as an opponent of deficit spending. I also appreciate how he has sought to work with and accommodate Senators with a wide variety of concerns. This budget is not perfect; but then, no document produced by a committee--or a Senate--ever is. It is a good budget. More importantly, it is an essential budget, because it is a balanced budget. My perfect budget would have included instructions for tax relief that is pro-family, pro-saving, pro-investment, and pro-economic growth. We had a chance to vote on such a package yesterday, in the amendment offered by Senator Gramm of Texas. That amendment was similar to the Contract With America tax relief bill passed by the House of Representatives. It was also similar to the Coats-Grams-Craig bill, S. 568, the first bill--the Family, Investment, Retirement, Savings, and Tax Fairness Act. I'm disappointed that the Gramm amendment was not adopted. But I applaud Senator Domenici for designating a ``fiscal dividend'' reserve fund that takes the additional deficit reduction and surpluses expected under this budget, which will come from an improved economy and lower interest rates, and dedicates them to tax relief. Senators have spent much time these last few days debating over this and many other budget priorities. This is what should happen when we consider a budget resolution. But this budget fulfills what is, by far, the single most important priority: It sets us firmly on a course toward a balanced budget by the year 2002. For most of our Nation's history, the moral imperative to balance the budget was considered part of what has been called our ``unwritten constitution''--those traditions so firmly imbedded in the American system, like political parties and the actual operation of the electoral college that they have the status of virtual constitutional status. For more than 60 years now, and especially over the last 30 years, this balanced budget rule has been repealed. Because Congresses and Presidents did not have to set priorities, every item of spending has been treated like a priority. To qualify, an item needs only some well-intentioned supporters. We all know what has happened as a result: The sum total of these individually pleasant programs exceeds the capacity or the willingness of the American people to pay for all of them. Without a binding requirement, or at least an extraordinary commitment, to balance the budget, there is no constituency to limit spending to the amount the American people are willing or able to pay in taxes. This dynamic has become a systemic problem, a fundamental flaw, in how our Government operates. It has led us to the point where the Government has saddled its citizens with almost $5 trillion in debt. It has put the economic security of every American on a collision course with catastrophe. This isn't just one Senator or one political party talking. The realization is bipartisan. The status quo is the least tolerable alternative. The experts agree: The General Accounting Office's 1992 report, entitled Prompt Action Necessary to Avert Long-Term Damage to the Economy, said, ``[I]naction is not a sustainable policy. * * * [T]he Nation cannot continue on the current path.'' The Bipartisan Entitlement Commission's Final Report, issued in January of this year, said, ``The present trend is not sustainable.'' DRI/McGraw-Hill, one of the world's leading economic forecasting firms, 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 is the year, and this is the budget, in which Congress finally makes that extraordinary commitment necessary to balance the budget. By definition, an extraordinary commitment is not permanent. That's why we still will need to return to, and pass, the balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. When we debated that amendment on the floor of the Senate earlier this year, opponents said, ``You don't need a constitutional amendment; all you need is the political will.'' They also raised the taunt, ``Where's your plan? Show us which way you'll balance the budget.'' Well, the first Republican Congress in 40 years is showing the professional skeptics in Washington, DC, and the people across America that it has the will and the way. This budget resolution is a blueprint for hope, full of promise for current and future generations. This budget is the one that will restore opportunity and growth. This is the budget for America's future. My colleagues know, and it is important to remind others watching, that a budget resolution is just a blueprint. The details will be filled in during the coming weeks and months by the Appropriations Committee and the various authorizing committees. I, for one, look forward to carrying this process forward within my assignments on the Agriculture, Energy, and Veterans Affairs Committees. There's been plenty of blame to go around for not balancing the budget. That blame has extended, for years, to both political parties and both the legislative and executive branches of Government. With today's vote, we will see if the solution is bipartisan, as it should be and as I hope it is. In the coming weeks, we will see if the President is willing to become part [[Page S7464]] of the solution. I was sad to see the President become a conscientious objector to the war on deficit spending when he submitted his official budget this past February. The law said the President had to submit a budget, so he did. But that budget dodged responsibility, dodged deficit reduction, and declared unconditional surrender to bigger deficits and more debt as far as the eye could see. In contrast, the budget before us today enlists, fights, and promises to win the war on the deficit. The President still will have the chance to choose whether to be a fiscal freedom fighter or a member of the status quo resistance. Congress will give him that chance in the coming weeks as we send him 13 appropriations bills and a budget reconciliation bill. Those bills, taken all together, will enact into law a 7-year plan that finally, in fiscal year 2002, for the first time in 33 years, and only the second time in 42 years, will balance the budget. It's very tempting to make the perfect into the enemy of the very good. And probably not one Senator thinks this budget is perfect. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor to say how much they are for balancing the budget. Then they add that one little word, those three little letters, that cause so much mischief in this town: ``B-U-T.'' We keep hearing, ``I'm for a balanced budget, but * * *.'' Maybe they think 7 years is too soon. Or too late. Or they say it's not really balanced unless you don't count Social Security. Or they want to take interest savings that aren't officially counted yet and use that for more social spending. Or they don't want to rescue and reform a Medicare System that is on the verge of bankruptcy. Or they demand the cart come before the horse and they want Medicare to be completely overhauled before we assume in a budget blueprint that it's going to be overhauled. Or they do want to reform Medicare, but not without the Federal Government taking over everybody's health care, or the list goes on. The easy thing is to vote no and say you wished someone had given you something on which to vote yes. There are always excuses available, if you want to say you're for a balanced budget but you want to vote against the real balanced budget. Mr. President, the only balanced budget that counts is the one that passes, the one that can be translated into binding law as the budget process continues this summer. A balanced budget is not an abstract goal or a political sound bite. It's an absolute necessity. The vote that counts today is a ``yes'' vote on final passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13. I'm proud to cast that vote. I'm proud of the Budget Committee for writing a fair, reasonable, balanced budget resolution. I expect to be proud of the Senate when the vote is complete, and I believe the American people will feel the same way. Mr. President, I spoke briefly on Monday about what I consider the top ten reasons why the budget must be balanced, as it will be under this resolution. I would like to reiterate some of those points now, and expand on why this conclusion is inescapable. the top ten reasons to pass senate concurrent resolution 13 and balance the budget 10. the will of the people A vote for the balanced budget resolution is the vote consistent with the will of the American people that the Federal Government get its house in order: 70 percent in some polls, 80 percent-plus in others. 9. reasonable glidepath Under this budget resolution, overall spending still increases 3 percent a year through 2002, compared with the current rate of 5.4 percent a year. The real dividend comes after a successful glidepath to balance. After fiscal year 2002, all it takes to keep the budget balanced is to match future spending growth to revenue growth. That would again allow more than 5.2 percent a year growth in spending after 2002, based on CBO projections. It is critical to keep in mind: balancing the budget will be easier now than it will be later. In the mid-1980's, a glidepath comparable to that in Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 would have produced a balanced budget within 2 to 4 years. Now, it will take 7 years. The longer we wait, the harder it will get to balance the budget ever. Anyone who has any experience with debt accumulation understands why. Anyone who understands the explosive growth in Federal programs under current trends understands why. This year, fiscal year 1995, The $175 billion Federal budget deficit is 11.4 percent of total outlays, 12.9 percent of revenues, and 2.5 percent of gross domestic product. Total revenues are enough to cover all entitlement spending plus interest payments plus 68 percent of discretionary spending, in other words, enough to cover 88.5 percent of outlays. Total Federal outlays are 21.8 percent of GDP. According to the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, under current trends, by the year 2030: The deficit will be almost 50 percent of outlays and almost 19 percent of GDP. ``Projected spending for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Federal employee retirement programs alone will consume all tax revenues collected by the Federal Government.'' That is, revenues will cover barely 50 percent of all outlays. Total Federal outlays could exceed 37 percent of the economy. This is why a number of us have said during this debate that this is not only our best chance of passing a balanced budget--it may be our last. 8. preserving flexibility to address priorities Families and businesses understand that, if you have discipline in the short term, if you forego instant gratification, you will have more later, more money and more options. The increasing share of the Federal budget consumed by interest payments on the debt means a decreasing share which Congress controls, ever-higher taxes, or both. More debt means more interest payments on that debt. Interest costs squeeze other spending priorities and threaten to swallow the options of our kids and grandchildren. Already, by fiscal year 1994, net interest payments were five and one-half times as much as outlays for all education, job training, and employment programs combined. GAO's 1992 report found that, if current policies continue, Congress may be forced to enact one-half trillion dollars in deficit reduction each year just to hold annual deficits to a constant 3 percent of GDP. According to the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform: If current trends continue, by the year 2030 net interest payments will consume 30 percent of the Federal budget--double the rate of today. Under current trends, net interest payments on the Federal debt will more than triple as a percentage of GDP. Net interest is currently 3.3 percent of GDP and is projected at more than 10 percent of GDP by 2030. Beyond the deficit reduction already built into this budget resolution, CBO has acknowledged a possible $170 billion ``reserve fund,'' or ``Domenici dividend,'' in debt service savings and increased revenues from economic growth. This could result in an additional $170 billion in deficit reduction and surpluses over 7 years, which frees up more money for other budget priorities, such as tax relief. DRI/McGraw-Hill went even further, saying that, by 2002, half of all the $1 trillion in spending restraint necessary to balance the budget could come from interest savings alone. 7. stopping the regressive/overseas transfer of wealth Interest on the Federal debt is largely a transfer from middle-income taxpayers to large institutions, wealthy individuals and foreign investors. In fiscal year 1994, 22.8 percent, $44.5 billion, of the interest on debt held by the public was paid to foreign investors. Also in fiscal year 1994, 33.9 percent--$62.6 billion--of the dollars borrowed from the public came from overseas. Interest on the Federal debt is actually the biggest foreign aid program in history. In fact, these payments amount to more than twice the amount spent on everything in the international affairs budget function, $17.1 billion in fiscal year 1994, $18.9 billion in fiscal year 1995. I do not mean to imply here that there is anything wrong with being persons supply the capital that creates jobs, raises living standards, and legitimately finances the Government in time of war or dire emergency. But it is unfair to taxpayers, and bad for the entire economy, for wealth to be arbitrarily and artificially redistributed through interest payments on a growing and excessive debt that has been accumulated over the decades, merely because spending and borrowing was the course of least political resistance. This actually was one of the reasons why the original Jeffersonian Republicans were so opposed to Government indebtedness. The Republicans, representing them, as now, farmers, merchants, and other working Americans, did not want to see the fruits of their labors taxed excessively to pay interest to the monied class, represented by the big-government Federalists. 6. interest rates and investment Lower interest rates and greater economic growth, of course, do not benefit only the Federal budget, but all Americans. In an appendix to its April ``Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals,'' CBO discussed the drop in interest rates that could result from balancing the budget, noting: Good arguments exist for * * * a range of from 100 to 200 basis points. A drop of that magnitude from CBO's baseline forecast would leave real long-term rates at between 1 and 2 percent--lower than they have been since the 1950's--and real short-term rates close to zero * * * (R)eal short-term interest rates have already been as low as zero. One widely used model, developed by Data Resources, Inc. (DRI), predicts an exceptionally large drop in interest rates as the deficit falls, nearly 400 basis points * * *. We know what these interest-rate drops mean to American families: buying a house, buying a car, or financing a college education would be more affordable than today, by hundreds and even thousands of dollars. DRI/McGraw-Hill says that balancing the budget could result in nonresidential investment increasing 4 to 5 percent by 2002, over what it would be with today's $200 billion annual deficits. 5. economic growth Balancing the budget means preserving, in the near term and especially for our children, the American dream of economic opportunity. The damage being done by the borrow-and-spend status quo must be stopped. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed that America lost 5 percent growth in GNP--and 3.75 million jobs--from 1978-89 because of deficit and debt. DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that balancing the budget by fiscal year 2002 would raise real gross national product by about 2.5 percent. That means putting about $1,000 a year into the average household's pockets, at today's prices, by 2005. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has cited a Laurence H. Meyer & Associates study showing that economic output would rise between 1 to 1.6 percent within 5 years after balancing the budget. Even the Congressional Budget Office, using a more cautious model, projects a GNP in 2002 that is 0.8 percent--almost 1 percent--higher than in its baseline projections. The idea that balanced budgets produce economic growth is not a new one. More than 160 years ago, President Andrew Jackson said: Once the budget is balanced and the debts paid off, our population will be relieved from a considerable portion of its present burdens and will find not only new motives to patriotic affection, but additional means for the display of individual enterprise. 4. lower taxes Balancing the budget and keeping it balanced will remove pressure for future tax increases. Since every dollar borrowed today has to be repaid eventually, with interest, the status quo promises ruinous levels of taxation in the future. 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. The status quo and the Clinton budget show deficits that large and larger for as long as the eye can see. President Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget included a section on ``generational accounting.'' It projected that failure to change current trends will force 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. 3. protecting seniors The debt is the threat to Social Security, Medicare, and the economic security of seniors on fixed incomes. Gross interest payments on debt are the second largest single spending item for the Federal Government, and under the status quo or the President's budget, would overtake Social Security within a few years. Growing interest payments crowd out other spending, regardless of whether an item is off-budget or on-budget or financed through a trust fund. When the Government faces the need to make good on its obligations, its ability to do so is going to be affected by the total debt load it is carrying. More debt and a bigger chunk of the budget going for interest payments ultimately threatens the Government's ability to pay for anything else. This becomes more obvious and more true when we remember that, under current trends: Medicare goes into deficit in 1996 and runs out of money in 2002; and Social Security taxes no longer cover benefits in 2013, the system goes into deficit in 2019, and it runs out of money in 2029. 2. jobs DRI/McGraw-Hill projects that balancing the Federal budget can create 2.5 million new jobs by 2002. The last Federal balanced budget was in 1969. According to Investor's Business Daily, unemployment from 1970-1990 averaged 6.7 percent as compared to the post-war period as a whole which was 5.7 percent. In the first three decades of this century, before deficit spending was the rule and not the exception, unemployment averaged 4.5 percent. 1. our children The future for our children and grandchildren depends on the future of the economy. The General Accounting Office, in its 1992 report, showed gains in standard of living of between 7 percent and 36 percent in 2020 resulting from balanced Federal budgets. More recent economic and budget developments would still keep projections well within this range. In fact, remembering the late 1970's, there's every reason to believe that the borrow-and-spend trends of the status quo and the President's budget would provoke a return of high interest rates and make GAO's ``no action'' scenario positively optimistic. We all have become familiar with Thomas Jefferson's admonition in this regard: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves. Now is the time to act on that principle, by passing Senate Congressional Resolution 13, the balanced budget resolution.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I along with 14 of my colleagues am introducing the Livestock Grazing Act. This bill is intended to establish the policy guidelines for grazing of livestock on Federal lands in the Western States. This bill is needed to resolve the ongoing debate over rangeland reform and the establishment of fees. I strongly believe the Congress must address this issue and resolve the ongoing debate over western rangeland management. We must assure that the extensive Federal lands in the West have a grazing policy that allows the families who depend on these lands to continue to use these lands to make their livelihoods. We have crafted a bill that addresses the numerous issues that have arisen on grazing on the public lands. This bill is a product of extensive discussions with members of the grazing and academic community. It addresses both rangeland reform and the fee issue. It is my intention to hold hearings in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee that I chair in the early summer and then to promptly move a bill. I am pleased that the other body has a similar schedule. It is my intention to resolve this long-standing issue in a way that strengthens the economic base of the rural ranching West. I will work with my colleagues to assure that such a bill is passed into law.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Utah for yielding in what is really one of the most important parts of the debate as we consider Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, and that is a portion of the debate that most of us would consider, and many would argue from the other side, is a portion of the Federal budget that is an investment in the future, an investment in the education of our young people. While the amendment of the Senator from Iowa and South Carolina would argue all of these very worthy issues and attempt to put them in perspective, what they are really arguing is against a balanced budget. They are largely arguing that at least there should be somewhere near a $40 billion to $50 billion deficit built into the budget as we are now having it proposed to us, at least to the future, the next 5 to 6 years, and the dividend that the chairman of the Budget Committee and that Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 embodies that we believe would go into potential reductions in taxes that would stimulate the economy simply is not what ought to be done or how it ought to be spent. So it really is important when you listen to the Senator from New Mexico argue about an investment in our young people's future. To begin to weigh just how important a balanced budget is, last year the Office of Management and Budget, I believe, proposed that young people in the very near future, at least in their earning lifetime if they were born last year, would have to start investing as much as 80 percent plus of their gross income into all forms of Government just to continue current services as they would be projected from last year into the future 30 to 40 years and into the peak of their earning capacity. That is talking about the future. If I have to turn to the young people in my family and say you are going to have to pay 65 to 75 to 80 percent of your gross pay to afford all levels of Government, I am awfully afraid they are going to say: ``Dad, I don't want to work that hard. What is the advantage in working hard to get ahead? I can't own a home or at least the kind of home that you and mom used to own. I am not sure I can afford to provide for my children the kind of education that you helped me get, because we cannot afford the Government that you left us.'' So the reason I am on the floor tonight and the reason a lot of Senators have come to the floor the last few days and will through tomorrow and Wednesday is because for the first time in this Senator's legislative life in Congress, I have a chance to vote for a balanced budget amendment. No longer is it just the idea or the concept that since 1982 I have come to the floor to debate, and that is a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, we are doing what the other side, the Democrats for over 5 weeks, challenged us to do: ``Don't put forth an amendment, put forth a balanced budget. Don't talk just rhetoric, do it.'' So the Budget Committee of the U.S. Senate and the Budget Committee in the House are doing it, and they are doing it in a way that absolutely begins to cause the American people to understand that this is not pie in the sky, this is reality. It can be done. So, Mr. President, for the next few minutes, let me give you the top 10 list of why we ought to have a balanced budget amendment and why Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 is or should be rated as No. 1, if you are listing top 10 lists. The first reason we ought to have it is the very reason I have been talking about, the very reason the Senator from Utah and New Mexico have talked about. It is our children, it is the future, it is providing them with an unburdened, debt-free opportunity to achieve. And when you strive to do that, you create an economic environment in which our colleges and universities can thrive in the very economy that supports them, and that is usually the State economy, and the local economies can also thrive. What is the second reason in the top 10 list? It is jobs. It is the fact that DRI McGraw-Hill, one of the leading economic forecasting firms, has projected that a balanced budget will create 2.5 million new jobs by the year 2002. That is exciting to think that if we get our economic house in order that the economy of this country will begin to respond by the generation of an additional 2.5 million jobs. That makes a world of sense. What is the third reason in the list of 10? It is the seniors, the seniors of our Nation, who I think really recognize what this debate is all about because they were born into a debt-free society. They were taught by their elders to live within their means, and it is awfully frustrating for them today to understand, or to try to understand, why we have a $4.8 trillion debt and why we are having to look at Government and attempt to downsize it and change it and shift the priorities today. And when we debate Social Security on the floor, they understand better than anybody else that the debt is the threat to Social Security, not the U.S. Congress. The reason Medicare is in trouble is the spending rate and the fact that it will be bankrupt, and President Clinton's own advisers said it. Yet, the other side ties their hands and walks away and uses the language of fear. The seniors understand that in this country. They know that the debt is the threat to Social Security, to the future of our young people, to the strength of our colleges and universities, and to Medicare. What is the fourth good reason? Well, it is lower taxes. It is the stimulation of an economy. It is what makes sense in America, that we do not overburden our society beyond their ability, or their will, or their enthusiasm to produce. The fifth reason is economic growth. It is not trickle down. It is called leaving money in society to generate an economic base that fuels an economy that creates jobs. It really means if we do what we say we are trying to do, that we put $1,000 in every wage earner's pocket, that the Federal Government would have reached out and snatched away by 2002, if we pass this resolution and if this Congress becomes committed to a balanced budget amendment. Reason 6 in that top 10 list is investment. Over $200 billion a year in annual deficits drag the economy down, and we know--and economists are telling us--that if we balance the budget, we are going to see an economy begin to pick up at another 2 or 3 percent annually. That is jobs. That is exciting. Well, if you really look who is buying the debt, who is really taking advantage of a Government that is in perpetual debt and has to borrow a lot of money, it is an awful lot of overseas interest. We used to hear that argument from the other side. Somehow they are quiet today. They are not interested in the fact that we pay $75 billion or $80 billion interest that flows abroad when that money can stay here and be invested in our society and create jobs for our people. Of course, what we are doing with this resolution also empowers the U.S. Congress to begin to look at the priorities of what Government really ought to be doing and, most importantly, what Government should not be doing; what State government ought to be doing that the Federal Government now may be doing but that it should not be doing. That is the kind of shifting in priorities that I think is fundamentally important. When we talk about the Domenici dividend and the $170 billion that will be saved and, therefore, create an opportunity through taxation to--reductions to stimulate our economy, that is the kind of empowerment that our Congress is talking about. The ninth reason is a reasonable and responsible glidepath. Anybody who has served in Congress any length of time who is committed to balancing a Federal budget knows, and knows very clearly, that it cannot be done overnight. It probably should not, under any circumstance, be done overnight. But this Budget Committee, with the direction of this side of the aisle, has built a glidepath to take us to the year 2002 that makes a heck of a lot of sense. And that builds the kind of economic resurgence we need and says to the average worker: You are going to have less Government to pay for. And, in simple terms, that means you are going to have more money to spend on ought to be all about. In the end, the 10th and most important reason is the people of our country. Seventy-five to 80 percent of the American people, year after year, for well over a decade, have said: Congress, wake up, balance the budget, get your fiscal house in order. The debt is really the threat to our future and the future of this country, and they, as the average citizens, know it. The common sense of balancing your own checkbook has already said it. For years, we have labored under the burden that if we just spent a little more in every program, the world would be just a little better. We have put a lot of money into education, and our educational system today does not meet the test and standards that we want it to meet. Mr. President, those are the top 10 reasons that the Harkin amendment ought to be voted down and that we ought to stay with Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, the reasonable approach toward balancing the Federal budget and forcing this Congress into the kind of spending priorities that it must make and it never before has caused itself to do. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, the fiscal year 1996 congressional budget resolution, as reported by the Senate Budget Committee. What does this budget resolution do? More importantly than anything else, it provides for a balanced budget in 7 years. This is the first-ever 7-year budget resolution, with the first-ever 7-year reconciliation instructions. It will produce, when it occurs in fiscal year 2002, the first balanced budget in 33 years. The last two balanced budgets were in 1969 and 1960. In fiscal year 2002, under this budget, the accumulated national debt will be almost $1 trillion lower than under current law--or, less than $6 trillion, instead of more than $7 trillion. That last fact is sobering--it reminds us that this budget is a good start, not the final victory, against the staggering debt load crippling our economy and stealing our children's future. What does this budget resolution do? It reduces the rate of growth in Federal spending. Under this budget, 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. Under this budget, total Federal spending in fiscal year 2002 will be $382 billion more than this year--fiscal year 1995. Only in Washington, DC, does anyone claim that a $382 billion increase is really a $229 billion cut. What does this budget resolution do? It delivers on the promise of the balanced budget amendment and those of us who supported it. Back in January and February, some opponents--and a few supporters-- of the balanced budget amendment said they wanted to see a plan for exactly how to balance the budget. Well, here's our plan: Some of my colleagues may have a different plan, and I invite them to bring it forward. This may not be everyone's favorite plan, but 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. 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. We're going to hear moans and complaints about budget cuts, but the cruelest 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. The Concord Coalition estimated that, without the Federal deficits and debt run up to date, the average family's income would be $50,000, instead of the current $35,000. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed that America lost 5-percent growth in GNP and 3.75 million jobs from 1978-89 because of deficits and debt. 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. 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. What does this budget resolution do? It fully protects Social Security. This budget makes absolutely no changes in the old age, survivors, and disability insurance [OASDI] trust funds, consistent with a number of current law protections, and consistent with the Dole motion passed during debate on the balanced budget amendment and the Kempthorne amendment adopted as part of S.1--the Unfunded Mandates Act. This budget in no way loots Social Security. It protects it by reducing the pressure of future debts, and it strengthens our ability to keep promises to seniors. It takes us two-thirds of the way to balancing the non-Social Security budget by fiscal year 2002. The Committee budget produces deficit reduction of $229 billion below current law in fiscal year 2002; the OASDI trustees project a $112 billion Social Security surplus for fiscal year 2002. Getting two-thirds of the way there is a lot better than the status quo. If we just stay on the glide path established by this budget, we can go on to balance the non-Social Security budget by about fiscal year 2005. That's exactly the timing and the glide path suggested by Senator Nunn and others back during debate on the balanced budget amendment. What does this budget resolution do? It reforms and rescues Medicare. Under this budget, Medicare increases an average of 7.1 percent a year--more than twice the rate of inflation. It defies common sense to call that a draconian cut. Under this budget, Medicare spending will be $105 billion more in fiscal year 2002 than in 1995. Where are the slash and burn cuts? Nothing here cuts services or drives up needy patients' costs. It calls for Medicare reform--that more choice and market competition and consumer information will slow down the runaway costs we see now. That's an appropriate goal to put in a budget resolution. A vote for this budget is a vote to rescue Medicare. Under the status quo, 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: The 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. Mr. President, I also rise in strong opposition to the Lautenberg- Rockefeller amendment that would raid Medicare. The amendment would take $100 billion of the $170 billion economic dividend created by lower interest rates resulting from deficit reduction and add that back to Medicare spending. Make no mistake, this amendment is the proposal that would raid Medicare. All it does is spend down the Medicare trust fund faster than the committee's budget. This amendment is another example of status quo tunnel vision. The committee's budget assumes that we fix Medicare, reform it. That means seniors who need Medicare won't be hurt, they'll participate in an improved system. This amendment assumes there is no alternative to the current policies that are rapidly driving Medicare bankrupt. The House's majority whip, Representative DeLay, said it well the other day: It's like one side is talking about a cure for cancer and the other side can't think about anything but chemotherapy. We want Medicare to continue to be there and to start working better for seniors today and tomorrow. If we do what's best for Medicare and for our seniors, the numbers will come out the way the committee's budget says. We still need the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The budget resolution currently before us provides for a balanced budget in 7 [[Page S7010]] years. 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. If future Congresses continue on the path set out in this resolution, the result still will be only one balanced budget in 33 years. Hitting a target once in 33 years that we ought to hit in all but the most extreme circumstances, is not an endorsement of life without 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 an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management to review the Forest Service's reinvention proposal and the proposed national forest planning regulations. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 8, 1995, at 2 p.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 Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Mark Rey at (202) 224- 6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I strongly support the call for hearings into the Federal Government's handling of standoffs in Naples, ID and Waco, TX. Some of my colleagues may remember I have been pushing for many months to get the Government to tell what it knows about the incident in my home State--often referred to as Ruby Ridge. I asked for an investigation of the incident, which was done; I pressed for release of the reports of that investigation, which is presently awaiting the consent of the local Idaho prosecutor; and in January, I asked for hearings in the Senate. Government agents have already been disciplined for acts and failures to act at Ruby Ridge. Just a few weeks ago, the Deputy Attorney General released a list of problems that she thinks occurred there and asked the heads of three agencies to report how they are addressing these problems. Yet there still has not been any public accounting as to what happened, nor answers to the questions that continue to multiply. Mr. President, the public has a right to know. The Senate should hold hearings into this matter and into the handling of the Waco standoff, as well. There are some who have suggested that now is not the time for these hearings. They say we should wait until Oklahoma City recovers, or until the polls show a more favorable political climate in the country, or some other goal is met. At the same time, we have been hearing a lot in the press and even in this Chamber about the public's so-called ``paranoia''--fear and mistrust of the Federal Government that is being labeled as irrational. I should not need to remind my colleagues: fear breeds in ignorance. Mistrust is fueled by rumor. The worst thing this Congress could do to improve the situation would be to put these issues on the shelf or try to drive public discussion underground. That is not the way a responsive, and responsible, representative body should operate. We depend upon our State and Federal authorities to maintain order and keep the peace, and we trust they will do so in a way that is consistent with the law and in keeping with the trust we have placed in them. Sometimes a line is crossed that runs the risk of breaking the trust and confidence Americans have place in our Federal law enforcement community. Many across America fear such a line was crossed at Waco and at Ruby Ridge. That fear has only increased, not decreased, as the days and months have passed without an adequate Congressional response. Surely everyone in this Congress would agree that it would be helpful to have answers to these questions before we respond to Federal law enforcement requests for greater powers and resources. Hearings in this area may well point out areas where additional help is needed; conversely, they may point out areas where additional powers may contribute to the potential for abuse. And if Congress deserves to know the answers to these questions before making such an important policy determination, surely the public also deserves it. Mr. President, it serves neither the law enforcement community nor the interests of civil liberties or delay addressing these incidents. We should hold hearings and seek answers to the legitimate questions that have been raised--and we should do it now, rather than allow the cancer of suspicion and mistrust to grow.

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 receive testimony on the property line disputes within the Nez Perce Indian Reservation in Idaho. The hearing will take place on May 25, 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 which 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 Andrew Lundquist at (202) 224-6170. committee on finance

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, 50 years ago, U.S. forces, along with those of our valiant and embattled allies, formally ended the victorious struggle to contain a horrific evil that had spread across the European continent. For those Americans who attended the ceremonies that marked the Nazi surrender, it was a solemn moment, for the struggle had been long and bloody, and the price to defend freedom had come at a very high cost. For the world there was joy, renewed hope of lasting peace, and resolve to protect the freedom for which so many had offered up their lives. Today many of those hopes which are held deeply in the hearts of [[Page S6239]] the veterans who served, their families, and a generation of Americans who lived through the war, have become a reality. For Americans too young to remember the war and those born into this world in its aftermath, we have a special obligation this day to our parents, our grandparents, and to our children and future generations of Americans; 50 years from today most of those who remember the war will no longer be with us. It is, therefore, our responsibility to learn about what happened, and why it happened. We must ask those who fought in World War II what it was all about. We must remember the sufferings and the sacrifice, lest we become complacent with our freedom and suffer the consequences. We must all, every one of us, learn from our own history. Now, 50 years later, we must redouble our efforts to understand by talking to those who were there, those who remember it. Americans who lived through this time and made the sacrifices, have one last talk. It is now your duty to pass on to those of us who weren't on the battlefields of Europe, or fighting on the ``homefront'' what happened during the war, so that we can learn from your experiences and pass along to future generations from the lesson's of the power of hatred and the price of protecting freedom for all. This day I encourage parents and grandparents to take some time to talk to your children and grandchildren about World War II. You heroic veterans, tell them about the terrifying face of battle. Do not try to protect them from the brutal images that you have carried with you for all these years. Those of you who fought on the homefront, tell them about the hardships of home, the fears, the rationing; the friends, loved ones, and neighbors who never came home. Tell them why it all happened. Tell them about the price of acquiescence, isolation, and complacency. You children and grandchildren, the future of the world, go to your grandparents and parents, call them on the phone, and ask them what it was like. And, take the time to read about it, and understand that they bought you the freedom that we now enjoy. Ask them how they felt when its future was uncertain. They remember, they will be glad to tell you. Listen hard, as if your life depends on it, because it does. And thank them for what they have done for you. Your job is never to forget the stories they have to tell you. Your job is to learn those lessons now so that your children will never again be called upon to smite such evil from the Earth. This is also a day when all of us should turn, particularly to those veterans who live among us, and offer to them our humble and loving thanks. The great State of Idaho sent thousands of men off to war in Europe. Many, many of them never again laid their eyes on the mountains, deserts, the forest, of Idaho, and lay buried in foreign graves. The veterans who still walk among us, might have suffered the same fate, if God had not chosen for them a different path. They risked their young lives for us, and suffered unimaginable horrors, so that we might not have to. The people of Idaho, the Nation, and the world, owe them everything. Once in a while, as we live our busy lives with all of the challenges and trials that accompany them, we get the chance to stop and think about why we are able to live in this, the greatest Nation on Earth, in such freedom. Today is such a day. When envisioning the drama and pain of that conflict become difficult to imagine, draw upon those who lived through it, and learn from them. And as we pay solemn tribute to the memories of the victims, and the survivors, the brave, and the victorious, let us be mindful of what led to this terrible war and thankful to those who fought it. Let us not forget the cost of freedom. And let us pray that God give us peace.