Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in the last Congress, Members in the Senate and our colleagues in the other Chamber worked hard to reform the laws under which the U.S. mining industry operate on the vast Federal lands of the west. Members on both sides of the aisle, from all regions of the country, acknowledged that the mining law of 1872 needed change. While I was disappointed we did not pass legislation in the last Congress to reform mining law, I would have been more disappointed if Congress had accepted some of the reform proposals that were put forward at that time. The reason for my concern was the proposals offered at that time did not meet my primary test of fair legislation. That test is this country's mining industry that annually contributes approximately $53 billion to our economy will not be driven to economic ruin nor to operate only in other countries. Today, I am introducing, a bipartisan bill in conjunction with Chairman Murkowski, Senator Reid and 10 other of my colleagues. The Mining Law Reform Act of 1995, is a bill which will ensure continued mineral production in the United States. It provides for a fair economic return from minerals extracted on public lands, and will link mining practices on Federal lands to State and Federal environmental laws and land-use plans. This bill provides a balanced and equitable solution to concerns raised over the existing mining law. Mining in the United States is an important part of our Nation's economy. It serves the national interest by maintaining a steady and reliable supply of the materials that drive our industries. Revenue from mining fuels local economies by providing family income and preserving community tax bases. Mining has become an American success story. Fifteen years ago, U.S. manufacturers were forced to rely on foreign producers for 75 percent of the gold they needed. Today, the United States is more than self-sufficient. The domestic mining industry not only meets the demand, but produces a gold surplus of 36 percent, worth $1.5 billion in export balance of payments. Mining, however, is a business associated with enormous up-front costs and marginal profits. Excessive royalties discourage, and in other countries have discouraged, mineral exploration. Too large a royalty would undermine the competitiveness of the mining industry. The end result of excessive Government involvement would be the movement of mining operations overseas and the loss of American jobs. The legislation I am introducing today will keep U.S. mines competitive and prevent the movement of U.S. jobs to other countries. The general mining law is the cornerstone of U.S. mining practices. It establishes a useful relationship between industry and Government to promote the extraction of minerals from mineral rich Federal lands. Although the cornerstone of this law was originally enacted in 1872, it remains to function effectively today. The law has been amended and revised many times since its original passage. The legislation I am introducing today preserves the solid foundation provided by this law and makes some important revisions that address the concerns that have been paramount in this debate that I have been involved in for nearly a decade. Specifically, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1995 will insure revenue to the Federal Government by imposing fair and equitable net royalties. It requires payment of fair market value for lands to be mined. It assures lands will return to the public sector it they are not developed for mineral production, as is intended in this legislation. Furthermore, to prevent mining interests from using patented land for purposes other than mining, the bill limits residential occupancy to that which is only necessary to carry out mining activities. To ensure mining activities do not unnecessarily degrade Federal lands, the Mining Law Reform Act mandates compliance with all Federal State and local environmental laws with regard to land use and reclamation. To enforce these provisions, the bill includes civil penalties and the authority for compliance orders. Finally, this bill creates a program to address the environmental problems associated with abandoned mines. Working directly with the States, the Mining Law Reform Act directs one-third of the royalty receipts to abandoned mine cleanup programs; another one-third of those receipts could be used by States if they so decided. The legislation I am proposing today is in the best interest of the American people because it provides revenue from public resources, assures mines will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and that abandoned mines from earlier eras will be reclaimed. It is fair to mining interests because it imposes reasonable fees and royalties. It is good for the environment because it assures land use and reclamation activities. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation and look forward to hearings and Senate legislative action.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, over the last several days, the Senate has been engaged in a debate over the balanced budget amendment. It was during that period of time that those opposed to it chose to use the argument of Social Security, as somehow the amendment would throw in jeopardy that system of funding supplemental retirement for the elderly and the old age of our country, and the other benefits that go along with the system. They argued loudly that changes should be made, but most assuredly that the amendment ought to take Social Security out of the current budget process. There were several of us who at that time argued that the Social Security receipts were now a part of the unified Federal budget. They had been since 1969. They were part of what we budget today, and every Senator on this floor, at least more than once, had voted to include those by action of voting for the passage of a budget of our Federal Government. While it was argued loudly--and loudly ignored by the opposition-- that that was part of what we do today and it was clear that that is what we do, it was part of that effort to try to bring Members of the other side aboard in support of that amendment that an offer of good faith was made as a phasing out of the use of those funds as we moved toward a balanced budget beyond the year 2002. That offer was rejected. What I thought was interesting over the weekend and why I bring this issue once again before the Senate is that as many of our leaders are on talk shows during the weekends, I thought one that is worth mentioning appeared in an article in the Washington Times this morning which came from the White House itself. Let me read from that article. It said: yesterday that Social Security trust fund surpluses currently mask the size of the deficit, undermining the argument Senate Democrats had used to defend their opposition to the balanced budget amendment. White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta said the 1996 deficit is actually $50 billion higher than reported because the administration uses Social Security trust fund surpluses to reduce the deficit. Previous administrations used the same accounting technique. And, of course, that is exactly what we referred to on the floor on the Senate time after time over the debate of the last several weeks when we talked about the unified budget and the need to correct that and the ability to correct that through the authorizing legislation and the implementing legislation that would occur following the passage of a balanced budget amendment. The article went on to say: Six Senate Democrats who voted for the amendment in 1994 reversed themselves last week saying they feared Republicans would use the trust fund to balance the budget. Many of us argued at that time that that argument was false and that, of course, those Democrats knew that they were now using the trust funds, like every other person serving in the U.S. Congress, to deal with the current budget because it was part of the unified budget. Mr. Panetta said on the ABC-TV show ``This Week'' that funds for the Social Security trust fund are indistinguishable from other revenues because funds flow into the same general Government account. ``When you look at the Federal budget, and even when you look at Social security, the reality is that those are funds that flow into a central trust for Social Security,'' Mr. Panetta said. ``Government basically operates that program, even though it flows into that trust. So it really ought to be considered part and parcel of the overall as we consider the budget.'' That is what Mr. Panetta said. That is what many of us have attempted to argue, and yet last week, for some reason, those who chose to be in opposition to the balanced budget amendment grabbed onto this very thin thread and, in my opinion, the thread broke when the White House agreed with us that current unified budgets use Social Security trust funds, and it was Republicans who had offered in good faith an alternative that would move us away from that process as we moved toward a balanced budget, and it was that offer that was rejected. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with the family, friends and over 9 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in grieving the death of Howard W. Hunter, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. President Hunter was born November 14, 1907, in Boise, ID, the son of John William and Nellie Marie Rasmussen Hunter. He had been President of the Latter-Day Saints church since June 5, 1994, when he succeeded another Idahoan, the late Ezra Taft Benson. He was known as a gentle, kind, and humble man. He will be remembered for his compassionate nature, which blended well with his thoughtful, orderly leadership style. Howard W. Hunter was a soft-spoken man who stressed love, forgiveness, and attendance at the temples of the church. During his long life, Howard W. Hunter was noted for his hard work and strength of character. President Hunter began working early in life in Boise, selling newspapers on street corners, delivering telegrams, and later working in a newspaper office. He excelled scholastically and was active in the Scouting Program, becoming the second Boy Scout in Idaho to attain the rank of Eagle Scout. He became interested in music as a young boy, won a marimba in a high school contest and became proficient with the saxophone, clarinet, violin, and drums. As a young man he organized a dance band and in 1927 the band, called Hunter's Croonaders, went on a 5-month Asian cruise abroad the S.S. President Jackson. He gave up a promising musical profession in favor of marriage, family life, church service, and his law career. Howard W. Hunter enjoyed a successful career as a corporate attorney and served as a director of a number corporations, including Beneficial Life Insurance Co., First Security Corp., and New World Archaeological Foundation. President Howard H. Hunter spent a life of service to others and will be missed by all those who came to know him and were the recipient of his many years of dedicated service. I would ask all Senators to join with me in a heartfelt thank you to Howard W. Hunter and an expression of comfort to his surviving wife, Inis Bernice Egan, his sons John J. Hunter and Richard A. Hunter, and his 18 grandchildren, and 23 great-grandchildren.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings at this time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today the time for the two leaders has been reserved, and there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. At 2 p.m. today, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction Act. For the information of all of my colleagues, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for that analysis. Of course, that was the issue yesterday as we debated and finally voted on House Joint Resolution 1. For over 5 weeks we had debated the issue of a balanced budget and why this Government and why the Congress of the United States ought to be held to the constraints of a constitutional amendment requiring us to balance the Federal budget. While there were many arguments from a variety of perspectives, there was one overriding influence that could not be ignored nor could it be denied, and that was, had this issue passed the Senate yesterday, it would have been sent to our 50 States to begin a ratification process that I believe would have moved very rapidly to gain the necessary 38 States to bring about ratification. In doing that, of course, the Congress knew that would begin a long and very difficult process to move us to a balanced budget by the year 2002, but one the American people now demand and expect from us, and one we know we can accomplish, if we can bring about the discipline but, more importantly, the pressure and the kind of control that a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution would result in. There are so many who wrung their hands in the argument that this could never be done. But I argue that those who argue that are the many of the past. They are the ones who still are stuck in the idea or the concept that the Federal Government and its programs must manage and control people and direct an economy of a country outside the marketplace. That, of course, is exactly what the Congress of the United States has done for over 30 years, and we have seen results. We have seen the results of a $34.8 trillion debt that remains totally out of control. We have seen the results of how interest on that debt eroded any ability to spend both in discretionary and entitlement programs and locks us into a straitjacket of program and time and spending. But something else that is also, I think, reflective of that debate is that those who argue it argue the status quo. They argue government as if it were something static, that it will never change, or that the Senators and the Members of the House who are involved in governing this country will always vote to have exactly the same programs, that we will not eliminate an agency, that we will not reduce or change a priority, and that we will not shift the intent of the governing of this country from one area to another. That is a very false and phony argument. Certainly it is to the American people because, if there is anything sure about our country, it is change, and it occurs on a constant and daily basis. It is the Government that finds itself incapable of changing. So simply to say we cannot balance the budget because we cannot get there is to clearly argue that it is going to be the same Government and the same kind of budget, and we are going to ramp it up to 3, 4, 5, to 6 percent a year on the average and heading as far as the eye can see in that direction. Why do I say that? Because that is exactly what President Clinton's budget demonstrated when he presented it here but a few weeks ago. Here is a President who came to town arguing that he must have the largest tax increase in history, and, if we gave it to him, that he would then begin a very progressive approach toward a budget that would bring us to a balanced budget that would bring down the deficit and continue to bring it down. That is what he campaigned on. That is what he promised the American people. That is what he, the President of the United States, promised this Senate and this Congress less than 2 years ago as he argued for and his party gave him the largest tax increase in history. Then in a most cavalier way, as he presented the budget just this year, he not only showed that he would not control the deficit, he said let the Republicans make the cuts. Let us see what they want to do. Let them make the cuts. Mr. President, that is why we need a balanced budget amendment so that the Executive of this country can be as responsible as the legislative branch of this country, that budgeting becomes a partnership of cooperation where the President, the executive branch, brings about a balanced budget just as much and just as responsibly as the legislative branch of Government must do. That is, of course, exactly what the constitutional amendment required as we looked at it the other day. That is why five of our colleagues from the other side who had once voted with us turned tail and ran away from their commitment and their pledge to their constituents. I am frustrated by that because they are honorable people. All of us in our pledge to our constituency attempt to honor it, and yet that did not happen yesterday on five very distinct votes. That is too bad. We hope as we work this issue and continue to work this issue that we can regain the support of those Senators who left us yesterday and left their constituency. We have several others who want to speak this morning. Before I yield, let me make one other point that I think budget amendment and as we continue to work on this issue and as we continue to assure the American people that we will do all within our power to bring down the deficits and to control our debt structure for now and for future generations. Article V of our Constitution--that is the article that speaks to how we amend the organic document--speaks very clearly about how it gets done. It says that the Congress shall propose an amendment. That is in the first part of article V. The second part of article V allows the States to petition for the formation of a constitutional convention. Many of us are concerned that a convention is not the right way to go and that the most responsible way is for the Congress of the United States to craft and propose an amendment. Yesterday, the vote that we cast here was not to pass a balanced budget amendment; it was to propose a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. And in so doing that, it then would allow the citizens of our country, the State legislatures, or, if they chose, the forming of a convention to debate and ratify the amendment. That action to propose was denied yesterday--not to pass but to propose--to send out to the States, to conform with article V of the Constitution. In essence, what Senators who opposed that process yesterday did was to say to their citizens, ``We will not give you the right to choose, we will not give you the right to look at this issue, to debate it, to understand the process, and to decide whether you want your Government to live under a constitutional requirement for a federally balanced budget.'' I find that an amazing testimony. I really would like those Senators to go home and hold a press conference and tell their electorate, ``We did not think you were responsible, we did not think you ought to have the right under the Constitution to decide,'' because that is exactly what they did. That in itself is a tragedy. But more importantly, what this is is a reaffirmation of something with which the American people have known for a long while, and they spoke so clearly about it last November. That was the arrogance of power that resides here on Capitol Hill, this all-knowing knowledge that somehow, if the wisdom does not emanate from Capitol Hill, it is unwise; that somehow the States and those who reside in the States cannot think for themselves, cannot make those judgments. That is absolutely the reverse philosophy from those who founded our country and who wrote the Constitution and who got it ratified. In fact, House Joint Resolution 1 that we voted on yesterday was very much a part of the style and the type of constitutional amendment that a Tom Jefferson would have put in the Constitution because it reflected that attitude of the power and the right of the individual citizen and the power to the States and the ability of the States to control their central government. Yesterday, the Senators who opposed this said very clearly under all of the smokescreen and all of the excuses that they gave for not voting for it--there were two fundamental things. They did not believe in the rights of the States to control their central government, and they would not give the citizens of those States the right to choose that option. I think that is profound, and it is sad. But that is the reality of what happened yesterday. It is very important that the American people understand that message in the coming days and weeks as we work to revisit this issue to gain the necessary 67 votes or the two-thirds votes of this body to propose it and to send it to the States for ratification. At this time, let me yield to my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, who has worked so closely with us on this issue, has worked on a team of Senators who met daily over the course of the last 5 weeks to develop the issue and work with Senator Orrin Hatch here on the floor, to build the debate. I think it was a remarkable task. I say that because for well over 100 hours and for 5 long weeks we debated this issue, and there was very little dead time, as we call it, or quorum calls because there truly was a message that came through loud and clear from this side of the aisle as to the purpose of a balanced budget amendment, and part of that message was crafted by the Senator from Georgia. I am pleased to yield to him at this time for such time as he might consume.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Arizona for making those observations because those are the facts. That is the truth that is shown in survey after survey. The seniors of this country among any socioeconomic group understand the value of balancing budgets. They came through the Great Depression. They know how tough things can be out there when a country and a government is in trouble and an economy has collapsed, and they know that the future of their children and their grandchildren is at stake here. They do not want to see their offspring go through what many of them had to go through, on literally nothing through the course of a good many years because of a country that was in deep financial trouble as a result of a Great Depression. Now, I am not suggesting that a Great Depression is at hand, but I am telling you that a $4.8 trillion debt uncontrolled and continuing to mount moves us toward the edge of a day when there will be a phenomenal financial reckoning in our country that could spell difficulties like the kinds that we had in the thirties if we do not resolve the issue now. Let me yield to my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Georgia for those observations. I have had the privilege of knowing Senator Campbell all of his public life here in Washington. He is a man of tremendous principle, and that kind of comment just does not surprise me at all. He is tremendously dedicated to the issue of a balanced budget amendment, and I know he was terribly frustrated when he saw a good many of his former Democrat colleagues back away from their strong support over the past few years for this issue, and we had discussed this over the last good number of days as he continued in his strong support for a balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, this is an issue that now rests at the desk of the Senate, I am sure to be revisited again over the course of the next several months as we struggle to try to find a way, absent a balanced budget amendment, to resolve our spending difficulties and establish a course for the Congress in working with the executive branch of Government to bring down our deficits and move us toward a balanced budget. My guess is that if we do not do that and we do not demonstrate to the American people that we are capable of doing that, we are but a year away or months away from revisiting the balanced budget amendment and passing it and causing the States and the citizens of this country the opportunity to force us to do what we should have done yesterday, and that is to have the will and the resolve to allow the American people to choose whether they wanted a balanced budget amendment to become a part of the organic law of Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will not make that mistake again of referring to my colleague as the junior Senator from Colorado. I have had the privilege of serving with the Senator from Arizona for a good number of years, both in the House and now in the Senate, and I have always appreciated his leadership and his energy that he puts to the issues that he is dedicated to and certainly the spending limitation program that he has just proposed, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. We will work to prove to our colleagues on the other side that there is a way to balance the Federal budget style arguments or comments that oftentimes come from the other side of the aisle when they find that they are threatened with the concept of a balanced budget. We know that can be done, and we know that there will be tough choices to be made, but it must be done. I would like, Mr. President, to mention another issue that I guess the word disappointment comes to mind when I think of how it was used over the course of the last several weeks by several of my colleagues. And that was the issue of Social Security. I am disappointed that every time Social Security is brought up on the floor of the U.S. Senate, it is used as a scare tactic, it is used to frighten dedicated American citizens who believe that their Federal Government has an obligation to them to assist them after they have paid into a system of income assistance known as Social Security, and that somehow there is a devious scheme on the part of some politician in Washington to otherwise change that commitment that is clearly written into the Social Security law. Mr. President, you and I and the American people know there is no devious scheme, not at all; that you and I and others who serve in the U.S. Senate really serve as the board of directors of Social Security, Inc., if you will. We are the ones charged under the law with the responsibility of managing the Social Security system. Whether you can argue that it has been managed well or not, the bottom line is it has never failed to meet the obligation that it has to the citizens of this country who have paid into it and find themselves then eligible under the law to receive the benefits of it. Yet, somehow over the last several weeks, those who needed to create a smokescreen or a shield to back away from their previous support of a balanced budget amendment because of their President's pressure, or for whatever reason, begin to raise the ugly head and the old argument that somehow the other side was manipulating a way to change or destroy the Social Security system. For the last 3 years, as we have debated the issue of the balanced budget amendment, Senator Paul Simon, of Illinois, who has been one of the leaders and certainly the prime sponsor and then the prime cosponsor this year of the balanced budget amendment, we have worked with a fellow by the name of Robert Myers. Robert Myers for years was the chief actuary of the Social Security system of the Social Security Administration from 1947 to 1970 and then a deputy commissioner from 1981 to 1982 and 1982 to 1983. He served as executive director of the National Commission on Social Security Reform--I mean, this man is Mr. Social Security. I am quoting from a letter of February of this year that he sent to Paul Simon, when in essence he says the Federal debt is the threat to the Social Security system, not the balanced budget amendment. If you do not control the debt, you ruin the Social Security system and what is he saying in essence? He is recognizing the fact that if we bankrupt this country, Social Security checks are not going to go out. There will not be any money, whether it is in a trust fund or whether it is inside the general budget of our country. The bottom line is if you have a busted government and a busted country, nothing goes out; everybody is equally bankrupt or poor at that moment. The responsibility then of this Congress is to keep a budget under control to move it toward balance, to bring the debt down so we can always honor the commitment of the Social Security system. Well, it became the trust fund argument: Is it on, is it off? Is it in, is it out? We know from past experience that you manage the system. In 1983, Social Security needed reform and the Congress came together, Democrat and Republican alike, not in the kind of demagoguery that I felt I heard on this floor in the last several weeks, but we came together united as a government to manage and stabilize the system, and we did. Yet day after day, hour after hour, amendment after amendment, it was the ghost of the Social Security system or the mismanagement of it or some devious scheme under a balanced budget amendment to do so, and, Mr. President, that is just false. It is not true and, most importantly, the American people know it is not true. The Senior Coalition, one of the largest organizations of senior citizens in this country, in a recent national survey--and I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Georgia for those extremely valuable words and astute observations to the problems we face as a country today as it relates to the issue of our Federal budget, our debt, and how that gets handled and what we intend to do here as a new Congress, as a new Senate, to try to resolve that issue for the American people. One of the sets of figures that I think comes to mind to me most often as we try to deal with a balanced budget and a resolution of this phenomenal debt structure that we have created over the last 30 years are figures that go like this: $829,444,000 a day additional debt-- additional debt. That is almost the size of my State's entire operating budget for 1 year. We are now just a little over $1 billion in the State of Idaho. And this is one day's debt for the Federal Government. That is $34,560,000 an hour. I mean, you and I, Mr. President, cannot envision that. We really cannot comprehend it. In fact, that is part of the problem we suffer from, that we cannot understand the magnitude of the problem that we are creating here on an hourly, daily, monthly basis. Now I have asked for this special order for 1 hour, so I know that costs $34 million. But 1 minute is $576,000, and 1 second is $9,600. It truly is beyond the ability of this country and our people to understand. Mr. President, oftentimes we reduce things that we understand to what we can see or envision. We know that a car costs somewhere in the $20,000 to $30,000 range today for a certain type, and that houses cost so much. You can drive down the street and say, ``Look at that house. That house is about a $200,000 home, or a $300,000 home.'' The average human can comprehend that. They can say, ``Boy, I cannot afford that,'' or ``I can,'' or ``That is within our budget.'' But can the average human comprehend $4.8 trillion, and what it takes to generate that or to pay for it? Or to begin to deal with it in a rational way? We cannot, as a country. Yet, every year here, first showing up on the budget sheets that we call the Federal Government, of $3.2. That is not $3.20, but that is $3.2 billion--but it is just $3.2, just a list of figures. It does not make a lot of sense. And yesterday, and for the last 5 weeks, we have tried to begin to turn that corner, to bring it under control, to begin to define it, to work with the American people to understand it, and to say to them that this debt structure of over $18,000 per American citizen is going to get under control because it does mean something and it does have impact. There has been a variety of approaches to control it. But my colleague, who has just joined me on the floor from Arizona, while he has been an outspoken supporter of the balanced budget amendment and has brought about a lot of the energy behind that in the House and now, of course, here in the Senate as one of our leaders with the team that worked to deal with this issue over the last several weeks, has also focused on spending reductions and spending controls, because that is really what it is all about. If we balance the Federal budget in 7 years, we have to set a course of spending controls. Stay within our limit, stay within the ability to control, and to meet the target 7 years out in 2002. At this moment, let me turn to the junior Senator from Colorado, or excuse me, from Arizona, for his comments on this issue and others that he might wish to address.

Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in a letter to me and others who fought this issue, they polled their constituents and of them a thousand registered voters. That survey showed a confidence level of 95 percent that the Senate was doing the right thing to pass the balanced budget amendment. When people were asked if they supported the Senate's passage, 79 percent overwhelmingly said yes, but the confidence level--and this was a Wirthlin poll, this was not just a few phone calls, this was a professionally nationally respected polling company--found out that the seniors of America do support a balanced budget amendment. They know of their future and the future of their grandchildren, and they want it to be bright. While they want their Social Security check, they do not want to bust the future of the country and the future of their children.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield with that? We will find a place to put that desk.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the whip of our party has just made an exciting announcement, that my friend and a friend of most of ours, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, is today announcing that he will become a Republican. For a good number of years I have had the privilege to work with this Senator, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and now here in the Senate, and I must tell you that he is a man of great integrity. We have worked on a variety of western issues that are common to both our States and a broad base of our constituency, become one of us. I feel very privileged that he has made that choice. I have asked for a special order this morning to do an analysis following the vote yesterday of the balanced budget amendment and where we stand as a Senate now on the threshold of making a decision as it relates to how we will deal with this issue. At this time I will yield to the Senator from Oklahoma--whom I know needs to preside in the chair and will in just a few moments--for his comments on this issue. Clearly, while in the House and now here in the Senate, he has been a leader on the issue of the balanced budget amendment, and I yield to the Senator for what time he may use.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 1, the bipartisan, bicameral, consensus balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. There are many individuals who deserve special recognition for their efforts on behalf of this amendment--more than it is possible to include here at one time. I want to begin by commending the former chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, the senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon]. He has toiled for many years in this vineyard. In this area, and in many others, Congress will miss his courage and leadership--and we all will miss his warmth--when he retires at the end of the 104th Congress. His staff, particularly Aaron Rappaport on the Judiciary Committee, have always been professional, hardworking, and invaluable to this effort. It would not have been a debate on the balanced budget amendment without the able leadership of the President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Thurmond of South Carolina. He has always been ahead of his time, as he was some 40 years ago when he first arrived in this body and became a principal sponsor of the balanced budget amendment. I also want to recognized the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch of Utah, and his skilled and helpful staff. Senator Hatch is an estimable constitutional lawyer, a skilled floor manager, and a long-time leader in this effort. On the committee, on the floor, and at every step, the Senators from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] and Illinois [Mrs. Moseley-Braun] have poured much time and dedication into this effort for years. Many more Senators deserve recognition. I think almost every one who votes ``aye'' today on final passage has done a lot of additional work on behalf of this amendment. I don't know when I've seen so many give so much for so worthy a cause. Finally, I must recognize our distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole of Kansas, the principal sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1, this measure as introduced and reported in this body. Without his guidance and leadership, the movement to pass this amendment would have faded long ago. I also appreciate the long hours and capable work put in by this staff over these recent, arduous weeks. This extraordinary accomplishment, a bicameral, bipartisan, consensus version of the most important legislation, never could have come this far without the leadership and courage of my former colleagues in the other body, Representatives Charlie Stenholm of Texas and Dan Schaefer of Colorado. When the House made history last month by passing this amendment for the first time in its history, it could not have happened without the blood, sweat, and dedication of these two statesmen. Representative Stenholm was my cofounder, 11 years ago, of CLUBB-- Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget, an informal bicameral group formed to keep this amendment alive after a decisive House defeat in 1982. Pete Wilson of California was our first Senate cochair. Former House CLUBB cochair Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma is now a Member of this body, as are other veteran House leaders, including Senators Snowe of Maine and Kyl of Arizona. In language as well as congressional support, the language before us today has a long and distinguished pedigree. Outside Congress, this amendment is supported by a great groundswell of public support and grass roots activism. Otherwise the balanced budget amendment would not have come back after losing in the House in 1982 and the Senate in 1986. Otherwise it would not have come to the floor of one Chamber or the other a combined total of seven times in the last 5 years--in 1990 in the House, in 1992 in both bodies, in 1994 in both bodies, and this year in both. While a great many citizens, taxpayer groups, public interest organizations, and trade associations have supported this movement over the years, particular emphasis should be given to the work of the National Taxpayers Union and, particularly, within that organization, to Mr. Al Cors, the chairman of the nationwide Balanced Budget Amendment Coalition. I ask unanimous consent that, Mr. President, that at the end of my statement I may include correspondence from that Coalition supporting House Joint Resolution 1, as well as from other organizations. this is the vote that counts; do we trust the people? Mr. President, when the 55 delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 convened at Independence Hall, they came with 55 perfect Constitutions for the young republic. They emerged with one version that, from any one of their points of view, was less than perfect. But more than 200 years of history have shown that imperfect version, full of compromise and an occasional complication, has been eminently workable, has endured, and has remained a model for the world. No matter how any of my colleagues may have voted on any amendment earlier, you now have a chance to pass an amendment that unites the underlying principle of virtually all versions of the balanced budget amendment. No matter what any one of my colleagues would have wanted in your perfect version of such an amendment, we now have just one balanced budget amendment remaining before us. The only effective balanced budget amendment is the one that passes. Your constituents will understand, and I know you understand: Vote no, and you kill the only chance for an amendment, here and now. Vote yes, and you will carry forward one of the great debates of our age. This amendment will go back to the House of Representatives, and from there to every State capital. That's what this vote is really about--engaging the American people in the most sweeping public debate about the appropriate size, scope, and role of the Federal Government since the original Bill of Rights was sent to the States by the First Congress. The question is clear: Do we trust the people with that debate? Do we trust the 80 percent of the people who demand this amendment? Do we trust the voters who demanded last November that the Federal Government change its ways? This Senator does trust the American People. That's why we have this process of amending the Constitution--because the Constitution is the people's law, not the government's law, and because the people have a right to take part in such a momentous debate. fundamental rights, limits on government Before I start responding to points made in debate over the last few days, I want to refocus us on why we are here considering this amendment, in the first place. A constitution is a document that enumerates and limits the powers of the government to protect the basic forth just enough procedures to safeguard its essential operations. It deals with the most fundamental responsibilities of the government and the broadest principles of governance. Our balanced budget amendment, House Joint Resolution 1, fits squarely within that constitutional tradition. The case for the balanced budget amendment can be summed up best as follows: The ability of the Federal Government to borrow money from future generations involves decisions of such magnitude that they should not be left to the judgements of transient majorities. The right at stake is the right of the people--today and in future generations--to be protected from the burdens and harms created when a profligate government amasses an intolerable debt. The Framers of the Constitution recognized that fundamental right. I return once more to the words of Thomas Jefferson, who explicitly elevated balanced budgets to this level of morality and fundamental rights when he said: 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. Woodrow Wilson said, ``Money being spent without new taxation . . . is as bad as taxation without representation.'' Mr. President, deficit spending is taxation without representation. Americans are told that deficit are Uncle Sam's way of giving them a free lunch, providing $1.18 worth of government for just $1.00 in taxes. In reality, taking gross interest into account, the government has to spend $1.19 for every $1.00 of benefits, goods, services, and overhead in the budget.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief because several other Senators want to speak this afternoon. I did want to comment and thank a variety of people who have worked so closely with myself and Senator Hatch of Utah and Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, in attempting to pass this important amendment, so that we can propose it to the citizens of our country for their consideration. Let me, first of all, recognize Damon Tobias on my staff, who literally has become ``Mr. Constitutional Amendment on the Balanced Budget'' as he has worked for me over a good number of years and is recognized for his authority and expertise in the area. Throughout all of these efforts for the last good number of months, he has been assisted by Alan Kay on my staff, and recently by a legislative fellow Roy Fairchild, and an intern, Dean Sorensen, who have done a tremendously masterful job in cooperation with all the rest of my staff, in being able to supply to the Senate a vast array of information and facts that deal with this most important issue, and to assemble them in a way that was readily usable so we could debate this, now for nearly 5 full weeks, without breaks in the debate and with ample material to supply the Record and to hopefully have given the citizens of our country ample information in making a choice that I had hoped we would have the wisdom to give them. But the vote turned out otherwise today. So we will be back again to revisit this issue--next week or next month or next year. And we will, for a very simple reason, Mr. President: There is not a Senator on this floor who has the right to deny the American people an opportunity to change their law--not our law but their law--the Constitution, the organic act that governs our country and, most importantly, Mr. President, the very law that governs us. I will have to admit there has been a display of knowledge here that verges on all knowledge and all knowing, that this is the seat of wisdom, and from this seat, all decisions for America and Americans will be made. I suggest to those who serve here that that will be denied. There will come a day--and it will be very soon--when Americans will speak again to those who deny them the opportunity it, to protect the Social Security system, to assure that the Government governs properly but, most importantly, to look to the future and to honor the future. Today we saw a Senate that looked backward. We saw a Senate that said that the past is better than the future. Are we going to be guardians of the past, or are we truly going to be the visionaries of the future? I suggest that the American people, in November, were talking of our future. They were most assuredly not talking of our past--for the past is $4.8 trillion of debt. This body--all of us, all Senators alike--has to take the responsibility for that debt. And today and for the last 5 weeks, we have struggled to give one moment of time in history to the American people. So they could choose how we would handle that debt. Yet, the central power and the central wisdom prevailed today. I suggest that it is not the wisdom of the American people, nor was it their wish. So Orrin Hatch, Larry Craig and, hopefully, Paul Simon, before he retires, will have an opportunity to come to the floor of the Senate again, once the American people have recognized that President Clinton denied them that opportunity today, that he once again backtracked away from his pledge to the American people that he would progressively and in a positive sense bring down the deficit. This year, in his budget resolution, he walked away and denied what was once a promise and a pledge. I suggest that the American people will not be denied, and they will have the opportunity to change the organic law like other Congresses in the past have seen the wisdom to allow them that choice. I am amazed, Mr. President; I am absolutely amazed that even one Senator would not allow the citizens of his or her State the right to make a choice. But that was denied today--falsely denied, wrongly denied. I suggest that those citizens, in the long-term, will not be denied. It has been a tremendous opportunity for me and for all of those colleagues who have joined with me in this issue and in this debate. And I would agree with the Senator from West Virginia, it has been a positive debate. It has been most constructive, and all ramifications of the issue have been thoroughly brought to this floor, some falsely, some under improper clothing or dress, some presented in ways that were illusionary and not fact. But the reality is that in the end this is an issue that will not go away and it will ultimately prevail. Mr. President, I want to thank all of those who have joined with me, and most assuredly my staff, for their tremendous dedication as we brought this issue to the floor. And I wish to thank the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Bob Dole, for offering the tremendous leadership and taking the kinds of risks that must be taken as a leader to allow the American people their right to govern us. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are now down to final passage of House Joint Resolution 1, the BBA. earlier, your constituents will understand: Vote no, and you kill any form of BBA, here and now. Vote yes, and you continue one of the great debates of our age. This vote is really about engaging the American people in the most important public debate about the appropriate role of the Federal Government since the Bill of Rights was sent to the States by the First Congress. Do we trust the people with that debate? Do we trust the 80 percent of the people who demand this amendment? Do we trust the American people who voted for change last November? This Senator trusts the people. fundamental rights, limits on government A constitution-- Protects the basic rights of the people; Outlines the fundamental responsibilities of the Government and broad principles of governance; Sets forth just the essential procedures to do these things. House Joint Resolution 1 fits squarely within that constitutional tradition: The American people have a right to be protected from the burdens of an intolerable public debt. The Framers thought that the limited and enumerated powers of government, a gold standard, and a moral imperative would make an explicit balanced budget requirement redundant. For 150 years, they were right. But times have changed. We are having this debate today because the American people are demanding that Congress change, as well. the debt is the threat Even as we speak, we are adding to the Federal debt: $829,440,000 a day; $34,560,000 an hour; $576,000 a minute; and $9,600 a second. Americans are paying now, with a sluggish economy. Under current trends, our children will pay even more dearly. For each year with a $200 billion deficit, a child born today will pay $5,000 in additional taxes over his or her lifetime. Last year, the President's budget projected that future generations face a lifetime net tax rate of 82 percent in order to pay the bills left by this generation. Total Federal debt is now $4.8 trillion--$18,500 for every many, woman, and child in America. Gross interest on that debt is $300 billion--the second largest item of Federal spending; Growing interest payments threaten to squeeze out every other budget and economic priority--including Social Security. the bba is the best hope for economic security A 1992 GAO report shows gains in standard of living of between 7 percent and 36 percent in 2020 resulting from balanced Federal budgets. According to the economic forecasting firm DRI/McGraw-Hill: Balancing the budget can create 2.5 million new jobs by 2002. Lower interest rates from balancing the budget could increase nonresidential investment 4 percent to 5 percent by 2002. Balancing the budget could produce an additional $1,000 in per- household GDP in 2002, in today's dollars. We can balance the budget by simply holding the growth of spending to 3 percent a year until 2002. Spending would still grow from $1.53 trillion this year to $1.88 trillion in 2002--a $350 billion increase in 2002 alone. CBO and the Treasury Department say a balanced budget saves $64 to $74 billion in 2002, in interest costs. DRI says lower interest rates and economic growth would save even more. conclusion It's been suggested that we don't need a BBA--we already have the power to balance the budget. We also have the power to protect freedom of speech and religion, protect property rights, and ensure equal protection under the law. That didn't stop previous Congresses from including those protections in the Constitution. Today, it is clear from bitter experience that the American people need one additional protection, from a profligate, borrow-and-spent government. This is not a short-term problem; the Federal Government has run deficits for: 57 of the last 63 years; 34 of the last 35 years; the last 26 years in a row. Washington, Franklin, Madison, and others learned from experience and determined that certain protections were inadequate unless provided for in the Constitution. We should do the same. Jefferson said: I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. * * * We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. If you want to ignore the lessons of the last 35 years of excessive debt, vote no on this amendment. If you are willing to leave our children a stagnant or declining standard of living, vote no on this amendment. If you want to continue the failed status quo, vote no on this amendment. If you agree with Jefferson that, ``as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered, * * * institutions must advance also,'' then vote yes on the balanced budget amendment. If you trust the American people, and understand their demand that government change its ways, then vote yes on the balanced budget amendment. If you want today to be the first day of new hope and opportunity for our Nation, our economy, and our children, then vote yes on the balanced budget amendment. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, thank you. Let me thank the Senator from Utah for yielding. There are so many people that I would like to thank this evening who have been direct participants in what I believe to have been one of the most important debates that the Senate of the United States has engaged in--at least in my tenure and in the tenure of many of our Senators. I certainly would like to thank the Senator from Utah for his leadership on this issue and a good many others who have been directly responsible for bringing this most important issue and statement to the floor. I also thank the Senator from Illinois, Paul Simon, for his stalwart leadership in pursuit of the fiscal responsibility that most of us aspire to, which the Constitutional amendment would allow. But tonight, let me talk to my colleagues here in the Chamber, for I believe we suffer the wrong idea. Somehow tonight, those who plan to vote against this amendment believe that their vote against it is like the passage of the vote for or against a bill that oftentimes comes to the floor. It is not that kind of vote. Article V of our Constitution--the very organic document that we attempt to offer out an amendment to tonight--says this very clearly: ``The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose an amendment.'' So tonight we are not voting on an amendment to pass it or to fail it. We are voting on an amendment to propose it to the citizens of this country, to allow them to decide what the organic law of this land will be about. And anyone who suggests tonight that they will stand in opposition to this amendment stands in opposition to the right of the people of their State to say, ``Yes, we support it,'' or ``No, we don't.'' And that is the fundamental issue. So I ask you to search your soul tonight and decide whether you, as a Senator of the U.S. Senate, are going to stand in the way of the citizens of your State, if you know better than they, if you really have a better vision than the average citizen of this country that supports you and elects you and sends you to this Congress to represent their interest. But in this instance, you are not allowed to do that. You are not allowed to say, ``I know better.'' What you can say is, ``I propose.'' Let us allow tonight the right of the citizens to decide. The Constitution is a basic document. It protects the people's right. Tonight we want to protect the people's right against an overburdening debt structure that has denied this country the kind of economic freedom that all Americans are entitled to. I ask all of you to join with us tonight in proposing to the citizens of this great Nation a constitutional amendment for their decision.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing on Forest Service appeals has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 8, 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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-2878. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. That $3 trillion indebtedness is going to be out there in any scenario. Will it not be easier for the Federal Government to be able to deal with it if it does not have extra hundreds of millions or trillions of dollars that it has borrowed from the public? In other words, if you will turn your chart that causes you problems upside down, it is the same chart as the one you are showing me. The reality is based on the law of Social Security. The Federal Government is going to borrow the reserves of the trust fund and it must pay them back starting dramatically in the year 2020 through the year 2035. Under either scenario, that is reality because it is not this amendment that is causing it. It is the law of the Social Security System that is doing it.

Mr. CRAIG. Then where is the money going at this point?

Mr. CRAIG. I am sorry?

Mr. CRAIG. All sources of expenditures and income. Is that correct?