Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for participating with us this morning in the discussion of the debate that, as I mentioned earlier, is beginning today in the House and will commence next week in the Senate, one of the most important debates, I think, any of us who are privileged to serve in this Chamber will engage in in the course of the next good many years. Let me now yield such time as he would desire to the Senator from Georgia for comments on the balanced budget amendment. A Great Issue Before the Nation

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me thank the Senator from South Carolina and once again recognize his early and continued leadership on this most critical issue. I thank him for making those opening comments this morning on this special order as we begin to debate the balanced budget amendment. As I mentioned in my opening comments, Madam President, the House begins debate on House Joint Resolution 1. Under the rule reported from the Rules Committee, six substitute amendments are in order from the following Members: Mr. Barton, Mr. Owens, Mr. Wise, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Gephardt, and Schaefer-Stenholm. In other words, the House is looking at a variety of approaches to offer an amendment through the resolution process to our American citizens. Of course, we must recognize that any one of those resolutions, as is true of the resolution here in the Senate, has to gain the necessary two-thirds vote for final passage. There will be about 3 hours of general debate and 1 hour of debate on each one of the substitutes. The reason I bring this up, Madam President, is because early next week we will begin debate on a very similar resolution to the Schaefer- Stenholm resolution. Already there is talk that that debate could go on for 2 weeks, 3 weeks. There could be 200 or 300 amendments, all dealing with different aspects of Federal spending that some Members of the Senate think ought to be exempt from the rule or the constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. Whatever time we take in the House and in the Senate, I believe the most significance to that time will be reflective on the importance of this debate and the attention the American people are giving it. There will be a good many arguments about whether we should or should not balance the Federal budget, whether we should exempt certain portions of the budget, whether we should clearly establish priorities of spending within the Constitution, or whether we ought to be sensible, as I think the Senate resolution is, to establish the ground rules of a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget and then to recognize, as I think all Americans recognize, that over the length and breadth and strength of a Constitution now having directed the Senate for over 208 years, that it is the Congress itself what must establish the spending priorities from one generation to another. It is clearly important that we establish the rule of a balanced budget and the dynamics of how we get to a balanced budget through a procedure. Certainly, it is the responsibility of the House and the Senate, of the Congress of the United States, to establish the spending priorities. That certainly is what the Senator from South Carolina was referring to this morning when he placed high on the list of priorities for the strength and stability of our Nation in a world of nations our national defense and a concern that that ought to be, as our Founding Fathers said, one of the primary responsibilities of a Federal central government: providing for our national defense and our human freedoms. That is a priority that the Senator from South Carolina would establish. It would be a priority similar to the one that I would want. It would list high on a number of items that I might place as priorities for spending. What is reality today is that there is no fiscal discipline within the bodies of the Congress of the United States, so there need not be the listing of priorities, there need not be the responsibility of turning to the American citizen and saying, ``Here is the money we have to spend; here is where we are going to spend it'' because we believe that is the best priority outline that we can offer to the American people at this time. Second, under our Constitution, we have clear obligations, and that is, of course, to provide for the common defense and, in the words of our Constitution or the preamble, to promote our Nation's welfare. I am pleased to be joined this morning with the Senator from Wyoming, and I ask at this time if he would like to participate in our special order. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming such time as he may consume. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have requested and gained an hour of morning business under a special order today to discuss the beginning of what I believe will be one of the most historic debates that the Congress of the United States will engage itself in and most certainly that the 104th Congress will become involved in. That debate will begin in the House today and will begin in the Senate early next week. What I am talking about is an issue that many of us for a good number of years have believed is the most important issue to bring our Government back on track and to focus it on the priorities that the American people want us to focus on and that, of course, is the issue of our fiscal matters and our spending under a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In November of this year, as for a good many years, the American people have spoken very loudly about their desire to see this Congress, and all past Congresses, move in a fiscally responsible way. Our failure to do so over the last good many decades has produced our Nation's largest Federal debt of now 4.6-plus trillions of dollars. It has produced an annualized deficit of nearly $200 billion and an interest on debt--now the second-largest payment in our Federal budget--of nearly $300 billion a year. I think the American people spoke with fright and alarm this year, that this Congress and its political leaders seem to be unsensitive to the continued mounting of a Federal debt and the potential impact that debt will have on future generations. Before the President pro tempore opened the Senate this morning, I asked him if he would address us on this issue briefly before he resumed his duties as chairman of a very important committee in the Senate. Certainly, for all of his political life, Senator Thurmond has led this issue, has offered the American people and the Congress of the United States the foresight to focus on the issue of balancing the Federal budget, and he was the first, some 30-plus years ago, to introduce the concept of a constitutional amendment for a federally balanced budget. At this time, I yield to Senator Thurmond such time as he might consume.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you very much. Following the 10:30 special order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill, and rollcall votes are to be expected throughout the day, and a late night session should be anticipated, according to our leader. (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Wednesday, January 25, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on the economic outlook for the Nation.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 25, 1995 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 25, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., to markup a resolution for Senate Committee Funding for 1995 and 1996.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, January 25, at 9:30 a.m. on the subject of Reinventing Government I: Welfare Reform.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 25, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on the North Korea Nuclear Agreement.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business for a period 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last Friday at about this hour I stood on the floor of this Senate to describe a crisis that my State of Idaho and its citizens were at the brink of, a crisis that had resulted from a Federal judge's order to immediately halt all economic activity on nearly 14 million acres of my State. At the time I spoke, Idaho families and communities stood on the brink of financial ruin, through, frankly, no fault of their own, but because the Federal Government had failed to perform its responsibilities in a framework that was required by the law. Since I spoke on Friday many of my colleagues have asked me about the situation in my State. I rise this afternoon to give Members a status report to the Senate and, frankly, to the Nation. I say to the Nation, because we will not find this story reported on the front page of any newspaper outside the State of Idaho, probably because nobody would believe the magnitude of the potential catastrophe that was at hand in my State. This action was taken in the name of saving an important Idaho resource--the salmon, three species of salmon--on the Snake and Columbia River systems of the Pacific Northwest, an anadromous fish that spawns in the headwaters of my State of Idaho and listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. But surely it was not necessary to shut down virtually all activities on six national forests with only 1 day's warning to save these species of fish. This action occurred because a Federal agency, National Marine Fisheries, had not finished its review of another Federal agency's work. The so-called consultation process was being mired down inside the bureaucracy, whether it was because of staff time or inadequate funding or simply they just had not gotten to it. The bottom line was that it had not been done and a Federal judge reacted. I received from local officials worried about a situation of nearly 2,000 people being put out of work, a population frightened that on Monday morning, this day, they would not have the jobs to go to that they had demanded immediate action. That injunction was to go through on Friday. Now our problem was to be, what would happen? So on Friday I got in touch with National Marine Fisheries, Rollie Schmitten at his agency and he assured me the work would be completed on January 31--that is a week from now--that it would satisfy National Marine Fisheries concerned about Forest Service activities and that it might well address the consultation process in its conclusion. What is important to remember is that the court injunction issued over a week ago was not issued because salmon were being endangered by folks at that moment in time. They were not being placed in jeopardy at that moment in time. But a judge reacted with an injunction that could have stopped jobs in the area and would have threatened thousands of families at this moment in time. In other words, the bureaucratic gridlock could have put my State of Idaho out of business and put thousands of people's jobs on the line. This brings to the forefront, I think, the most recent example of the balancing act we must pursue when saving a species of plant or animal. Unfortunately, I believe it is the Endangered Species Act that is out of balance, not the people of my State of Idaho, and not their actions, inside the law, inside the Federal rules and regulations of the Forest Service of course now being examined by the National Marine Fisheries. In the coming days and weeks I will be working with Members of the Senate, and the Idaho delegation will be working to try to resolve this issue. Here is what the problem is in the short-term: National Marine Fisheries must expedite that consultation, accepting the decision of the Forest Service on some of these areas. I have asked the Clinton administration to enact emergency regulations to resolve the problems between the two departments, the National Marine Fisheries and the Forest Service. Rollie Schmitten is going to live up to his Now, of course, in the long term, the legislation of reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act is what is critical and what has to be done. Well, did anybody lose their job today? The answer is no. In the last hour, the Justice Department asked for us a stay through the Forest Service, and it was granted by the judge. We have 1 week's breathing room. But the reason I bring this, of course, is just to give you an idea of the kind of crisis, the frustration, the anger, the depression that the citizens of my State went through. Men and women calling my office crying, frightened that their very jobs would be destroyed and taken away from them because of a bureaucratic boondoggle? Absolutely. It is going on in my State of Idaho right now, it has gone on in other States, and it will continue to go on as long as this Congress closes its eyes, turns its back, and walks away from the responsibility of reauthorizing the acts of Congress, the laws of the land, and in that process, reexamining whether they work or do not work, whether they comply or are out of compliance with the intent of Congress and whether, in fact, they truly address the needs of the American people and the wants, and that is to save plants and animals who are endangered. But we in the Senate know today that that is not the way the act is working. While for the short term, the Idaho congressional delegation has solved an immediate crisis in Idaho, the clock ticks. What happens on Friday or Saturday of this week if these deadlines are not met, if there is no reality to the human compassion that ought to be expressed by these agencies in carrying out the mandate of their laws or their regulations within the law? I will continue to report to the Senate as the Idaho congressional delegation and I continue to act to try to resolve this immediate crisis. Mr. President, we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate now to address the Endangered Species Act so that we can say once and for all, ``Yes, we're concerned about the protection of or the development of a mitigating plan to save a given species of plant or animal that may be endangered. But while we are doing it, let us not endanger the lives or well-being of thousands of citizens across this country who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on the tracks of a Federal law that is out of control and the train that rides on those tracks now bears down upon them with the risk of destroying them.'' I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, under the order entered last night, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, January 23, 1995. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate convenes on Monday, the time for the two leaders be reserved and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 10:30, with Senators permitted to speak for not to exceed 5 minutes each, with the exception of the following Senators: Senators Grassley and Pryor, for 15 minutes equally divided; Senator Conrad, for up to 30 minutes. I further ask that at the hour of 10:30 a.m. the Senate resume consideration of S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair for clarifying that. (Mr. INHOFE assumed the chair.)

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President and fellow Senators, I think the American public and even we here in the Congress recognize that the November elections was a profound statement on the part of this country to speak to change. Since that time, all eyes have been focused on Washington, as we saw the changing of the guard in the House after 40 years of single-party rule, and certainly the change that has occurred here that has resulted with Republicans being in the majority, leading the Senate and chairing the committees. That has also resulted in a very aggressive legislative agenda that has focused most of the attention of the American people on what is going on in Washington. Whether it was the rule changes in the House or the debate on the unfunded mandates bill that still is before this Senate, directed by my colleague from Idaho, Dirk Kempthorne, or whether it is the growing debate that will soon come to the floor on a balanced budget amendment, all eyes remain focused on Washington. But while that is going on, something very tragic is still happening across America. And that is that there still remains business as usual on the part of the Federal Government and our Federal agencies and our Federal regulators--as was going on and has been going on long before the elections of last November-- the treading on the private citizen, the taking away of rights, a Federal Government that is unconcerned, or demonstrating at least little concern, about the impact of their decisions and their activities on the economies of local communities. So for just a moment this afternoon, I thought I would once again focus on something that is now occurring in my State of Idaho and try to once again impress upon the Congress, and certainly those who might be watching, the magnitude of the job we have before us and the tragedy of this administration failing to be responsive and allowing their agencies to run amok in an unwillingness to be concerned about the human being--the citizen, the taxpayer--but to be all concerned about the Federal regulations and to make sure that every letter of the law is complied with, even laws that no longer work for the American people or Last Thursday, in Boise, ID, Judge David Ezra, with a sweep of his pen, Mr. President, shut down 14 million acres in the State of Idaho. What does that mean? That means that in an area the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut and Maryland combined, this judge said, ``Under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act, there will be no logging, no mining, no grazing, no road building or any human activity until the Forest Service can convince me and convince national marine fisheries that all of their activities fit within the confines of the Endangered Species Act,'' even if not one of those activities can scientifically be proven to harm a species of fish that is now listed as endangered within the watersheds of that region of the State of Idaho. As a result of that, 56 timber stations, 82 mining operations, 3 road construction projects, and 395 livestock grazing operations--better known as ranches--have been told to cease and desist. Thousands of miners will be out of work as of Monday morning, next Monday morning, not because the mine played out, not because the market for minerals dropped, but because the Federal Government said you can no longer mine, and a Federal judge, again, said last Thursday, with the sweep of his pen, ``Walk away. Pull your paycheck. We are not worried about your children and your homes and your families and your communities. We are worried that the law which is now clearly in question be complied with.'' Well, Mr. President, you can well imagine, chaos reigns supreme in my State of Idaho at this moment; that in six of the eight Federal forests in my State, amassing over 14 million acres, all human activity, which is a major part of the economic base of that region of my State, has just been told to shut down, awaiting the action of a Federal bureaucracy that is now days behind in what it should have been doing days ago. That is why it is so imperative that the Environment and Public Works Committee look at the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act now--not next year, not 3 years from now, but now--to make sure that these kinds of silly bureaucratic activities can no longer go on and put the average man and woman and small business people in my State or any other State arbitrarily out of business. We saw it go on in Oregon, with the spotted owl--30,000 loggers in the State of Oregon. Now, in my State of Idaho, thousands--yes, thousands--of people, small businesses that have existed in one family for over 100 years, are being threatened with their very existence. It is clearly a call to arms. And I think the people of my State recognize that. It is clearly the responsibility of this Congress to change the law, to make it more compatible, to make it more sensitive, to put the human species back into the blend of the Endangered Species Act so that we at least give some credence to the human species, that is the steward of the land, instead of arbitrarily saying to that human being--that mother, that father, that worker, that logger, that miner, that rancher, that small business person--``Step aside. You are no longer important. Step aside to a plant or an animal.'' Since when did this Government become so insensitive to the rights of the human being? Since we have ignored our responsibilities to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act, and do these kinds of things that the American people finally in November of last year rose up and said to the Congress of the United States: ``Become responsive to our needs or step aside and we will find somebody who will.'' Well, I certainly hope this Senate recognizes that call and will become increasingly sensitive to their responsibility to the taxpayer, to the citizens, the law-abiding citizens, of our country. Let us start with reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, so that what is going on in Idaho today and next week and throughout this coming year, and what has gone on in the State of Oregon and other places around our country will not be repeated again; that we, as Senators, who agree to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, will do that constitutional duty to put people back into the equation of being responsible for the stewards of our land. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, for yielding. First of all, let me recognize the effort that he has put in now for, I guess, over 3 days on the floor to push an issue that the American people have spoken so clearly to, and I congratulate him for this effort and the work that goes on here to fashion this most important piece of legislation toward final resolution. But I now speak specifically to the Lieberman-Kerry-Levin amendment of which, if you want to gut a good bill, here is where you start. This is the first substantive effort we have seen on the part of the other side to substantially change the course and the direction of this bill. Basically, the private sector has an opportunity to compete with any segment of the public sector, and vice versa. And if you start making all of these broad exceptions, you create gaping holes in this legislation that you can drive billions of dollars through. This amendment says that wherever there may be competition between the private and public sectors, S. 1 would not apply. If this amendment actually did anything to stop the Federal Government from imposing mandates on the private sector, I'd be the first in line to cosponsor it. This amendment would not stop unfunded mandates on the private sector. In fact, it would help Government go on imposing them. As I understand it, since the private sector might conceivably compete for virtually any public sector activity, this amendment would make S. 1 meaningless. It would gut the bill. As my colleague from Idaho has pointed out from his experience as a city mayor, the private sector competes with the public sector in a host of activities such as police services and fire services, planning services, prisons, education, recreation, civil engineering--to name only a few. Under this amendment, unfunded mandates relating to activities or services like these would not have to comply with S. 1. We are told that S. 1 would put the private sector at a disadvantage in competing with the public sector, because the private sector would have to pay for mandates it operates under, while the Federal Government would absorb the cost of any mandates on the public sector. This amendment is based on wrong assumptions about S. 1. S. 1 is a process reform that makes it harder to enact unfunded mandates on either the public or private sector and opens up the process to public scrutiny. This amendment does not try to stop the Government from imposing costly mandates on the private sector. Instead, the amendment just exempts a huge class of mandates. As a result, this amendment would remove the procedural speed bump that S. 1 puts in the path of those unfunded mandates. In other words, this amendment will hurt the private sector by keeping it easy for the Government to impose unfunded mandates on either the public or private sector. Exempting a long list of mandates from this bill just means making it easier for Congress and the Federal Government to continue putting the cost of mandates on somebody else's bill--and making it harder for Congress to find out ahead of time how much the mandate will cost the American people. The process today is broken. It is biased toward irresponsibility. It frustrates information gathering. It prevents the American people from having a clear view of what decisions are being made by Congress and the Federal regulators. S. 1 would end all that. S. 1 gives us a tool to determine the actual cost of Government mandates before we are asked to vote on them. For the first time in history, it will be standard operating procedure for CBO to analyze the cost of mandates on the private sector, and for Federal agencies to review the costs of mandates on the private sector. Without a CBO estimate, a bill imposing unfunded mandates on the private sector would be subject to a point of order. Most important, S. 1 changes the bias of the current system to make Congress and the Federal regulators accountable for the real outcome of their decisions, by giving the American people a clear view of the decisions being made. American business understands all this. We have heard the letters from business leaders who are in the best position to evaluate the bill's impact on competition. Those letters support S. 1. Exempting actions from S. 1 will not help any business in America. It will only keep a broken process in place. If you think unfunded mandates on American business are unfair, you should support S. 1 and oppose this amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Well, to my colleague from the other side, and one of the primary sponsors of the balanced budget amendment, it would not be unrealistic. But what is realistic to talk about is the very thing that all of us know who focus on the balanced budget amendment. And how we get there by the year 2002 is a simple matter--although complicated and very tough to do--of reducing the growth rate of Federal budgets from about 5 percent to about 3 percent. When the American public hears that, they say to a Senator Simon of Illinois or a Senator Craig of Idaho, that sounds immensely reasonable. While it may be tough to do, it is a heck of a lot more reasonable to understand that is the kind of approach we are talking about. Then, apparently, the game plan, or the threat, there is the impending damage that could come from that kind of language that would suggest we have to cut $1.3 trillion from budgets. What we could also say is that if we do not have a balanced budget amendment, by the year 2002 the Federal budget will be $1.3 trillion larger, or that the Federal deficit will be $500 or $600 billion annually, or that the Federal debt will be $6 or $7 trillion, or that interest on the debt will be $400 billion annualized. That is not at all what they are talking about. Instead of talking about the kind of positive things that can grow and emanate from a balanced budget, they are talking about all of the negatives. The American public knows exactly what we are saying and they are saying very clearly back to us: Do not get weak-kneed. Balance the Federal budget. Produce the mechanism that will result in that and give us a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that will force the kind of fiscal discipline that this Congress has failed to respond to for now over three decades. Mr. President, this 104th Congress is considering a historic and remarkable balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Some partisan sparring broke out over the last few days. That's unfortunate. Democrats have been asking Republicans, ``Where's your plan?'' specifically showing how to balance the budget by 2002? Let us stay focused on the central issue. Which do we want: Balanced budgets or the status quo? Which do we want: An issue? Or passage of the balanced budget amendment? We know which is better for the country. Let us remember what has brought us to this point: $4.7 trillion Federal debt; annual deficits now in the $160 billion range; and deficits projected to shoot toward $400 billion after the turn of the century. Let us stay above partisanship. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle sincerely support the balanced budget amendment but also are demanding to know specific budget cuts. I sympathize with your frustration; but don't be distracted. Do not be fooled by a partisan tactics on the part of balanced budget amendment opponents to simply kill this amendment at any cost. Do not fall into that some old trap of trying to score a partisan point today at the cost of our children's economic well-being tomorrow. That is exactly the kind of shortsighted trade-off we're trying to stop by passing the balanced budget amendment. The balanced budget amendment began as a bipartisan effort. Let us keep it that way. Where are the specific cuts? There are literally hundreds of plans out there; there's no one way to balance the budget. What's lacking is some mechanism to force a consensus. There may be 100 plans in the Senate for balancing the budget, but not one of them will get 51 votes until we remove the easy alternative of borrow-and-spend. Lessons of History: We have had the specific plans before us in the past. The way Congress has treated them demonstrates why we need to the balanced budget amendment. In the past, one/both Houses defeated numerous deficit-reduction plans full of specifics. Most recently, and in a bipartisan effort: Kerrey-Brown rescission/entitlement reform package (1994) (Penny-Kasich in the House, 1993). ``Draconian'' budget cuts required? Contrary to what's being said, we know the direction we have to go, and how to get there. For example: ``Glide Path'' Plan: Federal spending is increasing now at about 5 percent, or about $75 billion per year. Simply trimming that growth in spending to 3.1 percent would balance the budget in fiscal year 2002. For those concerned about Social Security: We can trim the growth of non-Social Security spending to 2.4 percent and still balance the budget by 2002. This will require discipline, but it is a far cry from the doom and gloom scenario being portrayed by many opponents. Name every budget cut in advance? Opponents of this proposal want it both ways. First they say, show them how we would cut the budget. Next they say balancing the budget by 2002 would be too painful. But this tactic proves our point: The budget won't be balanced without passing the BBA first. Democrats want our plan, but where has the Democrat plan been? President Clinton did not propose a path to a balanced budget--current projections show deficits going way up after 1995. Bad Policy, putting the cart before the horse: When people decide they want to be healthier and live longer, they don't plan every meal and every workout for the next year. First they commit to do whatever is necessary. Then they pick the specific diet and exercise plan. The high failure rate for dieters illustrates our point that external enforcement is necessary. Specifying all the cuts before we even commit to balancing the budget condemns us to failure before we start. Will the BBA work or won't it? Opponents cannot have it both ways: First, they say it is a fig leaf to cover budget failures in previous Congresses, that it's an empty promise; then they talk in terms of ``slash and burn'' to scare the interest groups into active opposition; I think they really do fear this amendment will work and are not willing to share the responsibilities. Mr. President, I yield back to the Senator from Texas, and I thank her for sharing with me some of her time.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding for a few moments. I appreciate a portion of her time. Let me congratulate the Senator from Tennessee for a very clear message about why he came to Washington, reflective of the expectations of his constituency to respond to the issue of unfunded mandates. We will begin debate on that issue tomorrow, and it is exciting that my colleague, Dirk Kempthorne, is the champion of that issue as we begin to address why the American public is so frustrated over what we do here, and this is one of the most effective ways of curbing it. I also recognize my colleague from Colorado in his reintroduction of grazing law reform. I will join with him, and I have pledged, with my chairmanship of the Public Lands Committee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that we will deal with this issue this year. I have also appreciated the cooperation of the Secretary of the Interior. We have had several discussions over the last couple of months as he brings forth new rules and regulations that he would not deal with grazing fees per se and that he would offer some flexibility so that the authorizing committee could respond to the grazing industry and other interests out there that are concerned about the management of our public grass lands and how they will be grazed and under what policy they will be grazed. For the balance of my brief time, let me suggest that there is a tactic underway, Mr. President, that while it may appear to be well directed, in my opinion, it is tremendously misguided. That is a tactic being used by the Democrat leadership at this moment to try to refocus the whole debate on a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. There is that old adage that when you are out in the swamp surrounded by alligators, you are forgetting your initial purpose to come to the swamp was to drain it. That is exactly the tactic being used at this moment by the Democratic leadership in both Houses, to say: ``For the next 7 years tell us every budget cut you are going to make. Let us be specific right down to the detail. What are you going to cut, and how are you going to cut the budget to arrive at a $1.3 billion reduction in the budget to get to a balanced budget by 2002?'' That is phony. It is just as phony as can be to play that kind of game. What we have to talk about here is what we want to do first and how we want to do it, and then let us proceed down a path that will yield a balanced budget by the year 2002.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a few moments ago, my staff came into the office and said, ``Quick, turn on the television. Senator Bennett Johnston is announcing that he will retire after this term.'' I did, and I caught the remaining words that the Senator spoke. I came immediately to the floor to express, on the part of the Idaho Senators who are serving and who have previously served in this body, the respect we have for Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana. Other than you, Mr. President, I am, at this moment in time, as I scan the floor, one of the more junior Senators serving, although I am privileged to be the senior Senator from Idaho. I say that in context to having arrived here 4 years ago, and to have asked the advice of the then retiring senior Senator from Idaho, Jim McClure, ``From whom might I seek counsel as it relates to certain issues that are near and dear to our State of Idaho and to the Nation?'' --I served on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that Bennett Johnston was chairing at that time and continued to chair through the 103d session of Congress--and without ever thinking of anything else, Jim McClure said, ``Chairman Bennett Johnston.'' I had just served 10 years in the House, and I was used to the dynamics of the House. I thought to myself immediately: But he is a Democrat; therefore, he is partisan. That was quite typical of the style of the House. There was not the comity nor the bipartisan nature of the Senate existing at that time in the House. I remember at that time Senator McClure said, ``On the issues that you will be dealing with, Larry, Bennett Johnston should always be your counsel. And when he cannot be bipartisan--and there were times when he could not be--he will be very straightforward because you will always know where he is.'' For those 4 years, following that advice, Bennett Johnston was true to the description of Jim McClure. Let me also speak briefly for Steve Symms, recently retired from the U.S. Senate who, again, spoke similar words. My exposure in working with Chairman Johnston over the last 4 years has certainly paid honor to both of those gentlemen and their respect for Bennett Johnston of Louisiana. Bennett, personally, I will miss you. I will miss you because of your talent and your energy and your willingness to be bipartisan and cooperative in the name of good public policy. And I oftentimes, Mr. President, marveled at the sharpness of mind and the detail with which Bennett Johnston engaged the issues of energy. Whether it was electrical energy generated by nuclear or hydro or coal power, he knew the details. He knew the phenomenal maze of law that is bound around all of that, whether it was with the utility companies, or whether it was with the Federal regulatory agencies. I was always amazed because I suggest that never in my service in the U.S. Senate would I expect to command that kind of knowledge or understanding as does Chairman Johnston. I will miss you, Bennett Johnston, because of these things and because you have become a friend, and I appreciate that. At the same time, let me say how much I respect your willingness to recognize that there was a time to say, ``I will do something different.'' I think that is important for all of us, because I have the privilege of serving in the U.S. Senate because a senior Senator, at the peak of his senatorial ability, announced his retirement, choosing to do something in the private sector of our country. So I do respect those kinds of decisions, recognizing that there is life after the Senate, and that expertise and talent and service can go on to serve in other ways and in other capacities. But for the coming 2 years, Bennett, you will remain a valuable and contributive member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Appropriation Committees on which you serve. While you now serve in the minority, that will never stop me from seeking your counsel and your advice because, while the title has changed, the respect has not. In 2 years time, I will miss you, as will in body. I yield back the remainder of my time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon, let me join with Senator Glenn in echoing his praise of Senator Kempthorne of Idaho and the effort they both have pursued in bringing S. 1 to the floor for its early consideration. I know of no other piece of legislation, except my balanced budget amendment, that I think is more critical to bring up in the 104th Congress. I say that, confident in telling the Governors and the mayors and those who direct local and State government that as we work to pass a balanced budget amendment and then bring the budget into balance, we will not pass on to them Federal responsibilities of taxing or governing. And that is why S. 1, or the unfunded Federal mandates legislation, is so important and that it go before us, to convince the American people and those local and State units of government that we are going to be responsible in our work with them, in our recognition of their priority and their place in the Constitution, that we do not keep shoving through to them the types of legislation or Federal regulation or mandates that is merely a way for us to pass through or force upon them the obligation of funding Federal programs when we did not have the willingness to fund them ourselves. Mr. President, what I come to the floor this afternoon to speak to is not S. 1, but I am a primary cosponsor of it and a strong supporter of it. I am here to speak about Senate Joint Resolution 1. That, of course, is the balanced budget amendment that Senator Dole has introduced before the 104th Congress and this Senate just a few hours ago. But in talking about that issue and my 12 years of championing that cause, both here in the Senate and the House, I would be remiss if I did not speak about the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Strom Thurmond, because you see it was Senator Thurmond more than 35 years ago who saw the wisdom of forcing this Government to balance its budget through a constitutional requirement, a constitutional amendment. So at my age and at my tenure here in the Senate, I am but a child in the support of this issue compared to those of seniority and especially those like Senator Strom Thurmond. So I honor him this afternoon for his allegiance and his farsightedness in dealing with this issue. It is also important that I recognize Senator Paul Simon of Illinois. And I recognize him in the true bipartisan spirit in which we must deal with a constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget. It is not a partisan issue. It takes two-thirds of the Senate present and voting or it takes 67 here in the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment and that means that both sides of the aisle, both Democrat and Republican, must agree, both in what we present in its image and in its wisdom to assure the passage of such a Senate joint resolution before it can go before the States for ratification. So I recognize both Senator Thurmond and certainly Senator Simon; also, now chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch of the State of Utah; Senator Howell Heflin, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, and Senator Hank Brown, the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, all of them very active in the Judiciary Committee. Those will be the Senators holding the hearing tomorrow before which I will testify on a version of that amendment of the kind that I have worked on now for over 12 years to assure that there would come a day--and I believe that day will occur within the month--when this Senate will pass a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, as I believe the House will pass, then to send it forth to the States for their consideration and their ratification. I also want to note our new Senate colleagues who have shown leadership and enthusiasm on this legislation when they were in the other body, including the Senators from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], and from Maine [Ms. Snowe]. Why is this amendment so important? Well, in brief, it becomes obvious when you look at the number of years that our Government and this Senate has operated in deficit--34 deficits in the last 35 years, and 57 deficits in the last 65 years. Yes, this Government and this Congress is clearly out of the habit of even being able to deal with the concept of balancing the Federal budget on an annual basis and being fiscally responsible instead of mounting up the billions and billions of dollars of debt on which it now costs over $200 billion a year just to finance the net interest alone. The longer we wait to mandate a balanced budget, the more difficult it becomes. We cannot postpone this amendment any longer. That is why in the Contract With America with the new Members of Congress that were just put in place in the House, those who campaigned on it, the balanced budget amendment became the No. 1 issue. The American people understand. They understand the wisdom of balancing their own budgets, whether it is the budget of their family or the budget of their business. They know it is only good fiscal sense and now they demand it of their Government and I think this Congress can and will deliver. And so it is a proud moment when I will be able to stand on the floor with these other Senators and debate it and offer up an amendment that we think will be ratified by the States in very short order. And we will begin the very important march, the very important process, of then crafting a budget and a procedure that will bring us to a balanced budget that will demonstrate the kind of fiscal responsibility that our people have asked for for so long. Some folks tell us, ``If Congress would just do its job, you wouldn't need a constitutional amendment.'' But that's the point--too many Members of Congress--and too many Presidents--have not thought balancing the budget was in their job description. That's why we need to add balancing the budget to that part of our job description that can't be repealed, delayed, suspended, or ignored at will--the Constitution. When we pass this amendment, it will go to every State Capitol, and we will begin one of the great debates of our age. 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? This Senator does. 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. A constitution is a document that enumerates and limits the powers of the Government to protect the basic rights of the people. Within that framework, it sets 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, Senate Joint Resolution 1, fits squarely within that constitutional tradition. The case for the balanced budget amendment can be summed up 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 judgments 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. Actually, deficit spending is a form of taxation without representation. Americans are told that deficits are Uncle Sam's way of giving them a free lunch, providing $1.15 worth of Government for just $1 in taxes. In reality, interest on the gross debt adds another 20 cents in spending above and beyond every $1 the Government spends on benefits, goods, services, and overhead. Deficits are really the cruellest tax of all, since they never stop taking the taxpayers' money. Americans are paying now, with a sluggish economy, for the Government's past addiction to debt. Unless things change, the next generation will pay even more dearly. The President's own 1995 budget, in its ``Analytical Perspectives'' volume, projected that future generations will pay as much as 82 percent of their lifetime incomes in taxes, under the current policies of borrow-and-spend. Federal budget deficits are the single biggest threat to our economic security. The Federal debt now totals $4.7 trillion, or about $18,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, and is growing. As deficits grow, as the national debt mounts, so do the interest payments made to service that debt. Besides crowding out other fiscal priorities, these amount to a highly regressive transfer of wealth. In fact, interest payments to wealthy foreigners make up the largest foreign aid program in history. According to the President's budget, in 1993, the U.S. Government sent $41 billion overseas in interest payments. That's almost exactly twice as much as all spending on actual international programs, including foreign aid and operating our embassies abroad, which totaled less than $21 billion. Annual gross interest on the debt now runs about $300 billion, making it now the second largest item of Federal spending, and equal to about half of all personal income taxes. There are many issues relating to this amendment, which will be aired fully and fairly when the Senate considers Senate Joint Resolution 1 later this month. At that time, we will again recall our almost 4,000 pages of legislative history over the last 15 years. Every question has been answered, every objection has been dealt with. Senate Joint Resolution 1 has a history; it has a pedigree. It is the bipartisan, bicameral, consensus that has been looked at by constitutional scholars, economists, public interest groups, and members of both bodies. This amendment has been scrubbed and fine- tuned. It passes constitutional muster. It's often said that Congress underestimates the wisdom of the people. Well, the people have spoken once again, and it's time for Senators to realize that, today, as is usually the case, good policy is good politics. The American people understand the balanced budget amendment, they want Congress to pass it, and they are right.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I also wish to speak on S. 14 that has just been introduced by Budget Committee chairman Senator Domenici and also Senator Exon and myself. That is a new bill that will create a legislative line-item veto. We believe that is another important issue that the American people have been continually asking for for well over a decade now with calls the Congress refused to hear or to respond to. Now we think this new Congress will respond. While I remain a strong cosponsor of S. 4--S. 4 is the pure line-item veto that Senator McCain and Senator Coats have brought before this Senate year after year--I am also, in S. 14, offering an additional alternative. Make no confusion by my remarks. I will support the pure line-item veto S. 4. I think it is important that we give it a clean opportunity. But if that cannot be accomplished, I think it is important that the Budget Committee recognize, as they have with the introduction of S. 14 by Senator Pete Domenici, an alternative piece of legislation of this type similar to that I introduced last year which also clearly allows the President to exercise a line-item veto and the Congress, through a procedure both timely and responsive, to address those items singled out by the President. These are important issues. It is important to the American people who are watching today the most historic event in 40 years to see a House sworn in, to see a Republican Speaker by the name of Newt Gingrich take his seat, or to see 11 new Members, Republican Members, come to the U.S. Senate and see a historic change once again in the leadership of the Senate; for those who observe us to know that we will address the Contract With America, we will address mandates, we will vote on a line-item veto, we will vote on a balanced budget amendment. That is what the American people have asked for. I believe that is what the 104th Congress will produce for them. That is historic. I think it is clearly important that we now respond to the mandate the American people sent us to this new Congress to address. In September of last year, I, along with a dozen of our Senate colleagues, introduced a legislative line-item veto as a part of S. 2458, the Common Cents Budget Reform Act of 1994. This year, S. 14 incorporates all the essentials of title III of that legislation and makes improvements in the fine tuning. This bill is also similar to H.R. 4600 in the 103d Congress, as it passed the House last June 14, by a vote of 342 to 69, after a weaker version was rejected. I want to acknowledge and commend the thoughtfulness and cooperation of the other original sponsors of S. 14. These also include the Senators from Maine [Mr. Cohen] and New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], both of whom have had their own legislation in this area, and the distinguished majority leader. They, along with the chairman and ranking member [Mr. Exon] of the Budget Committee have worked hard to achieve a meeting of the minds. As I have noted, I am also an original cosponsor of S. 4. In brief, S. 4 is an enhanced rescission bill, which would allow a Presidential rescission of spending to stand unless a disapproval of that rescission was enacted into law, presumably over the President's veto, which would require a two-thirds vote. Under S. 14 which contains an expedited rescission process, a Presidential proposal to cancel budget items--whether appropriations, narrowly targeted tax benefits, or new direct spending--would be given mandatory consideration in Congress, with approval or disapproval by majority vote concluded on an expedited basis. I prefer the pure approach taken in S. 4. But both versions are second, effective reforms. Both would increase accountability, promote fiscal responsibility, and improve public confidence in the budget process. This Senator is committed, and I call on my colleagues to commit, to passing the strongest legislative line item veto possible. The most effective line item veto is the one that becomes law. There are three principal reasons for Congress to pass this kind of budget reform: First, it would promote fiscal responsibility. According to GAO, since 1974, Presidents have requested 1,019 individual rescissions of appropriations. Congress has approved 354-- 34.5 percent--of these, amounting to 30 percent of the dollar volume of proposed rescissions. Excluding 1981, Congress has approved less than 20 percent of the dollar volume of rescissions proposed by Presidents. Congress has simply ignored $48 billion in rescissions proposed under title X of the 1974 Budget Act, refusing to take a vote on the merits. Alone, a line-item veto is not going to be enough to balance the budget. However, it's routinely estimated that an additional $10 billion a year in discretionary spending could be saved this way. To quote the late Senator Everett Dirksen, and adjust him for inflation: ``$10 billion here, $10 billion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money.'' On the tax side, public cynicism regarding Congress has grown with increased attention to provisions, hidden away in large tax bills, which benefit narrow interests and special constituencies. For example, in H.R. 11, passed late in 1992--but vetoed, there were 50 special tax provisions that cost more than the enterprise zones that were supposed to be the centerpiece of the bill. We've all heard the horror stories about tax breaks that benefit one sports stadium, one wealthy family, one large corporation, Our constituents have heard those stories, too. They're demanding that things change. Second, it would improve legislative accountability and produce a more thoughtful legislative process. A line-item veto would cast an additional dose of sunlight on the legislative process. All too often, large bills include individual items that would never stand up to public scrutiny. We're all familiar with the rush to get the legislative trains out on time. That means bills and reports spanning hundreds of pages that virtually no one is able to read--much less digest--in the day or two that they are voted on. Moreover, any more, virtually every appropriations bill--even the 13 regular bills--and certainly every tax bill, is a huge bill. Knowing that any individual provision may have to return to Congress one more time to stand on its own merits will promote more responsible legislation in the first place. Third, it would improve executive accountability. There is always some concern that any form of line-item veto or expedited rescission process would transfer too much power from the Congress to the President. But there's another side to that coin. Many of us on both sides of the aisle have suggested, at different times, that Presidents aren't always serious about the rescission messages they send to Congress, or that the volume of rescissions they propose don't live up to their tough talk about what they would do if they had a line-item veto. mean every President, because this is a bipartisan issue. Already we are seeing groups like Citizens Against Government Waste and others come up with billions of dollars in long lists of pork items. Once we give the President expedited rescission authority, he or she will have to answer to the people if the use of that authority doesn't match the Presidential rhetoric. In particular, in S. 14, we give the President the chance to designate how much of his or her rescissions savings would be applied to the deficit through the use of a lockbox, or deficit reduction account. Under this expedited rescission procedure, Congress would not lose the power of the purse, but the power of the spotlight would be restored to the President. In conclusion: I commend to the attention of my colleagues both S. 4 and S. 14, and urge prompt consideration. This year, I believe, we will enact a line item veto law, and I look forward to this long overdue reform.