Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. I mean this most sincerely. We are about at the status quo between what Republicans were able to do and what Democrats were able to do for President Clinton and what the majority leader is now doing. But I must tell you because the gentlemen and/or ladies have languished in these committees since April and May and their paperwork was there, there is something amiss. That was my objection. Obviously, the majority leader has now expedited them. We have worked with the majority leader, and I compliment him for that. I think that is important. But if there is a problem, let us not suggest that the gentleman doesn't get heard before next year. Let's send the right message instead of that kind of a statement. If there is a problem, what is the problem? If this person is unacceptable, hold the hearing, vote on him, and move him out or move him down. That is my point. We need to get on with the business of allowing our President to have his people in place to govern. We made a major step, and I thank the majority leader for that.

Mr. CRAIG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. I appreciate the frustration just expressed by the chairman of the authorizing committee who is managing this supplemental. He has every right to be frustrated. This is an important issue, and I have expressed that. I must say when we got to dairy compacts yesterday, we all know that was a bipartisan issue. It was not driven by one political side or the other. Both sides wanted to debate that issue, and there was a period of time when it was talked about and then it was withdrawn, as the chairman said. It was withdrawn with the anticipation it would be reoffered today, or it would have been debated yesterday and probably debated long into the evening, and we might still well be debating that issue today. There is an outstanding issue that is yet to be resolved on both sides, even if we can agree to go to final passage, and that would be the dairy compact issue. That is, without question, a bipartisan issue. As a filler, yes, one of our colleagues came and offered a lockbox amendment. I agree that could fit anywhere. It does not necessarily find itself appropriately on an Ag supplemental appropriations bill or an emergency spending bill, but it can fit there. What is important is there is one large issue left unresolved, and that is the dairy compact extension, as I understand it, and that one writes itself very clearly as a bipartisan issue. If it has been resolved, I am unaware of it. I follow that issue closely because it is an important issue to me and my State. I do not believe we are ready to go to final passage on Agriculture unless those who are intent on offering amendments to deal with dairy compacts, either the Northeast or the opportunity to extend that authority to other areas of the Nation, have resolved their differences and plan not to offer the amendment. If that is the case, then I suggest that is resolved. I understand there are no dilatory tactics holding this bill from a third reading and final passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber this morning to express my frustration to my colleagues about where we are as a Senate in trying to resolve some very important issues for the American people: A Transportation appropriations bill on which I understand we will have a cloture vote at 11, and if cloture is successful, then we will be on that bill, I would guess, through its duration. That, therefore, replaces the current activity on the floor of dealing with the Supplemental Ag Emergency Act of 2001 that many of us believe is very important. What is most important about this particular legislation is the timeliness of needing to deal with it before the August recess. I also understand that the majority leader filed cloture on the Ag supplemental. That could ripen on Friday. If it does, and we are not on that debate until Friday, then we will work through the weekend. There is a complication in dealing with the Ag supplemental emergency legislation prior to the weekend. If we differ from the House-passed version--and it is very possible that we will --those differences will have to be worked out. We know that is called a conference. A conference committee will be convened, appointed by the leaders of both Houses, to work out our differences. And from that committee will come a report on which this body must act. The House plans to go out on late Thursday or early Friday for their August recess and may well not be here to act on a bill they acted on some time ago. In fact, they acted on it a number of weeks ago, recognizing the very critical nature of this emergency funding, and believed they would have it done in a timely fashion. The bill passed by the House 6 weeks ago, and here we are now in the late hour prior to the traditional August recess trying to resolve our differences on this issue. And those time lines create a very real problem. I have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that I requested yesterday from Dan Crippen. I asked a very simple question: If we fail to act, what happens to the $5.5 billion that is in the budget for this emergency spending purpose? Basically, he said that it goes away. In other words, the scoring necessary to fall within the budget resolution would not be gained because the amount of money--the $5.5 billion-- could not be expended before the September 30 deadline. Therefore, it would fall into next year. And what would happen to the money? Well, it would go to pay down debt. That is not all bad, but I think those of us who are concerned about the plight of production agriculture in this country--and farmers have really had it very tough--recognize that the chairman of the authorizing committee, who is in the Chamber, and the ranking member, have tried to resolve this issue and bring some relief. There is a difference, though, in the House version of that relief and the Senate version of that relief. That difference may not get worked out. Yesterday, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, our ranking member on the authorizing committee, offered the House version; it was narrowly defeated. If we had passed it, it would be on its way to the President's desk possibly today or tomorrow. It could well be signed into law before we even leave for the August recess. If that were true, there is no question that the Department of Agriculture would have time to cut the checks, and the money would be expended before the September 30 end of fiscal year timing that would cause this money to disappear, to go away, or in other words, be applied to the debt. I must tell you, Mr. President, that I don't agree totally with the House version. There are provisions in the Senate bill that I would like to see us work our differences out on with the House. But that may not be possible at this moment. If we strive for the perfect, we may end up not serving the need of American farmers and ranchers in a way that I think this Senate intends to and wants to, and we should. So it is a question of timing. It is a question of how we deal with this issue on the floor and the give and take that is going to be necessary over the last days before the August recess to resolve this, to comply with the wishes of the majority leader to get Transportation done, get the Agriculture supplemental done and, I believe, VA-HUD. I and others have insisted that we try to respond in an appropriate way to the President and the nominees he has sent to the Senate to be confirmed so that he can run the Government--at least the executive branch of Government, which he is charged with doing and which the American people elected him to do. There are 25 or 30 nominees who should have been confirmed weeks ago, who could be in place now making decisions at agency levels and district or regional levels of agencies, and they are not in place today. The human side of that little story and that equation is that many of these nominees have young families and they need to have them in place before the end of August because kids are going back to school. And these are not wealthy people. They need to sell their home where they live to buy a home here in the Washington, DC, area. They can't do that largely because the Senate has not responded in a timely and appropriate fashion in some instances. That is too bad. I hope we can--at least for those who have had hearings and have been dealt with in the appropriate fashion before the authorizing committees and the committees of jurisdiction--we ought to get them confirmed before we adjourn for the August recess. There are others I wish we had hearings on. Obviously, there is foot dragging--I believe that--on the part of some chairmen who have philosophical differences. I guess my point is that there is a lot of work to get done, and that work is going to depend on our willingness to come together on some of these issues as to cloture now. And to move to Transportation when we have not resolved the Mexican trucking issue is really amazing to me. We have a very simple compromise to be worked out on that. If we haven't worked that out, my guess is that we run the limit of the Transportation timing of cloture, and then we go to Agriculture and, my goodness, that puts us into next week. That is not going to make for a lot of happy campers in the Senate. But then again, let us stay and let us do our work appropriately. That is necessary and appropriate. That is the choice of the majority leader to bring us to that point. I guess that is the burden of leadership. At the same time, there is one most time-sensitive issue of all that we are talking about, and that is this Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001. Oh, we can muscle up and say: House, stay in place, do your work before you leave town. The only problem is, they did their work 6 weeks ago and we are now just doing our work. So it is not really, shall I say, kosher to suggest that they ought to stay in town beyond their time for adjournment. Maybe we ought to say: Get it done Senate, and get it done now. Let's agree on something that we can come together quickly on and not deprive the American food producers of a little bit of relief from some very difficult price squeezes and now some difficult input costs of energy and other requirements. Those are the issues before us. The Congressional Budget Office, in the letter I have, makes it very clear: Get it done, get it signed, and the Department of Agriculture cuts the checks before September 30, or this money, in fact, goes away and we have lost the opportunity to expend $5.5 billion for the American agricultural producers. Of course, Mr. President, as you know, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, dollars are short and needs are great. As we move now into September and October, with new fiscal reports out about a recession and a waning total surplus, our flexibility gets limited. So I urge Senators to come to like mind and deal with that which we can deal with now before we move on to other issues because at 11 o'clock, I assume cloture will be gained and our window of opportunity to work and help the American farmer begins to close. We should not allow that to happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to provide some additional materials to be printed in the Record regarding the debate over the drinking water standard for arsenic. These materials will inform our understanding of issues associated with the process used in developing a new arsenic drinking water standard and the science behind that process. The first item is a letter sent by me, along with Senators Domenici, Kyl, Hatch and Bennett, to Administrator Whitman, dated June 21, 2001. I also ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement from the National Rural Water Users Association on this same matter.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding. I will be brief, for I have sat here most of the morning listening to both the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Iowa discuss what is now pending. There is no question in my mind--and any Senator from an agricultural State--that we are in a state of emergency with production agriculture in this country. I certainly respect all of the work that the chairman of the Senate Ag Committee has done, the authorizing committee. I no longer serve on that committee, but my former chairman and ranking member of the Ag Appropriations Committee is in this Chamber, and I serve on that committee. So I have the opportunity to look at both the authorizing side and the appropriating side of this issue. Clearly, I would like to hold us at or near where we were a year ago. At the same time, I do not believe, as we struggle to write a new farm bill, that we should write massive or substantially new farm policy into an appropriations bill that is known as an Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act. There is adequate time to debate critical issues as to how we adjust and change agricultural policy in our country to fit new or changing needs within production agriculture. I have been listening to, and I have read in detail, what the Senator, the chairman of the Ag Committee, has brought. You have heard the ranking member, the Senator from Indiana, say he is not pleased with what he is doing today. In fact, the amendment that he offered in the committee--one that I could support probably more easily than I could support the amendment he has offered in this Chamber today--is not being offered for a very simple reason; it is a question of timing. The chairman of the authorizing committee but a few moments ago said: If we pass this bill today, we can conference tomorrow. We can go out and have it back to the floor by Thursday or Friday of this week. I would think you could make a statement like that if the House and the Senate were but a mile apart. We are not. We are 2,500 to 3,000 miles apart at this moment. We are $2 billion apart on money. The chairman of the authorizing committee has just, in a few moments, discussed the substantial policy differences on which we are apart. And I am quite confident--I know this chairman; I have served on conferences with him; he is a tough negotiator; he is not going to give up easily, as will the House not give up easily on their positions, largely because we are writing a farm bill separate from appropriations, as we should. But both sides have spilled into the question of policy as it relates to these vehicles. What we are really talking about now, and what we should be talking about now, are the dollars and cents that we can get to production agriculture before September 30 of this fiscal year. I happen to be privileged to serve on leadership, and we are scratching our heads at this moment trying to figure out how we get this done. How do we get the House and the Senate to conference, and the conference report back to the House and the Senate to be voted on before we go into adjournment, and to the President's desk in a form that he will sign? I do not think the President is threatening at all. I think he is making a very matter-of-fact statement about keeping the Congress inside their budget so that we do not spill off on to Medicare money. We have heard a great deal from the other side about the fact that we are spending the Medicare trust fund. But this morning we have not heard a peep about that as we spend about $2 billion more than the budget allocates in the area of agriculture. So for anyone to assume that getting these two vehicles--the House and the Senate bills--to conference, and creating a dynamic situation in which we can conference overnight and have this back before we adjourn on Friday or Saturday, to be passed by us and signed by the President, is, at best, wishful thinking. We are going to have a letter from OMB in a few moments that very clearly states that this has to get done and has to get scored before the end of the fiscal year or we lose the money. The ranking member of the Ag Appropriations Committee, who is in this Chamber, and certainly the chairman of the authorizing committee, do not want that to happen, and neither does this Senator. In fact, I will make extraordinary efforts not to have it happen because that truly complicates our budget situation well beyond what we would want it to be, and it would restrict dramatically our ability to meet the needs of production agriculture across this country as we speak. I am amazed that we are this far apart. The House acted a month ago. We have been slow to act in the Senate. And now it is hurry up and catch up at the very last minute prior to an adjournment for what has always been a very important recess for the Congress. I will come back to this Chamber this afternoon to talk about the policy differences, but I think it is very important this morning to spell out the dynamics of just getting us where we need to get before we adjourn, I hope, Friday evening late. And I am not sure we get there because we are so far apart. The chairman talks about passing the bill this afternoon, assuming that we would table the amendment of the Senator from Indiana; then this would pass, forgetting there are other Senators in the Cloakrooms waiting to come out and talk about an issue called dairy compacts, and the Northeast Dairy Compact legislation or policy authority ending at the end of September, with no train leaving town between now and then that gets that out. And to assume that is going to be a simple debate that will take but a few hours, I would suggest: How about a day or 2 to resolve what is a very contentious issue? I know I want to speak on it. I know a good many other Senators do. We do not want to see our Nation divided up into marketing territories that you cannot enter and leave easily, as our commerce clause in the Constitution would suggest. So those are some of the issues that are before us today and tomorrow and the next day. That means as long as we are in this Chamber debating this bill on these very critical issues, it will not be in conference. And those very difficult policy issues and that $2 billion worth of spending authority will not get resolved where the differences lie. So let us think reasonably and practically about our situation. The clock is ticking very loudly as it relates to our plan for adjournment and our need to get our work done, and done so in a timely fashion. I do not criticize; I only observe because much of what the Senator from Iowa has talked about I would support. But I would support it in a new farm bill properly worked out with the dynamics between the House and the Senate, not in appropriating legislation done in the last minute, to be conferenced in an all-night session, or two or three, to find our differences, and to work them out. I am not sure we can get there. If we can't, we lose $5.5 billion to production agriculture. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I know you had referenced some slowing down of the process. This process must not slow down. We have decisions that need to be made in the field. We have citizens waiting for decisions to be made by agencies of our Government who now are not making them or are making them not with Bush appointees but with former Clinton appointees. I don't think that is the way either of us want that to happen. I hope that clearly we can confirm a substantial number before the August recess. We are going to pursue this and work certainly with you, and I and my colleague from Arizona will work with our leadership and with the assistant Republican leader. Time lines are critical. I must tell the Senator that if what I am told is true, that when a nominee engages the staff of one of the committees to ask when he might be scheduled--and he has been there since May 22--and he is told, in essence, when we get around to it in November or December, that sounds to me like something other than timely scheduling. That sounds to me like a great deal of foot dragging on the part of the Judiciary Committee, its chairman, and its staff. If that is the case, and that can be determined, my guess is, there will be less work done here than might otherwise be done in the course of the next number of weeks, if we can't determine to move these folks ahead with some reasonable timeframe both for hearing and for an understanding of when they can come to the floor for a vote. With that, I do not object.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the assistant majority leader. Mr. President, as I have said, I will not object. It is important that we move these nominees along. I understand that the new Ambassador headed to Australia must get there for the ASEAN conference that is about to convene in the Asian, sub-Asian area which is critical to us and to our country as it relates to climate change and that whole debate, along with the trade debate and the relationships we have with Australia and New Zealand and other nations within that area. I must also say to the assistant majority leader, clearly the debate on Mexican trucks and the Transportation bill, in my opinion, are an issue separate from the nominees.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would like to engage the assistant majority leader. I am extremely pleased to see that one of our nominees is moving this evening, Mr. Schieffer, to become Ambassador to Australia. I do know that the assistant Republican leader and the assistant majority leader have been working for the last several days to get us to a point of a definable number of nominees that might be considered before we go out today and before we go out for the August recess and some time line as it relates to the consideration of others that are before us. The Senator from Nevada understands some of our frustration. I am looking at a gentleman now before the Judiciary Committee who has not been given a time for hearing and consideration. He has been there since May 22, Assistant Attorney General for Natural Resources of the Environment. Yet I am told that he has been told that maybe sometime in November or December the Judiciary Committee might find time to get to his nomination. Clearly the Senator from Nevada, as I understand, is working on this issue. Although he and the assistant Republican leader have attempted to refine it and define it, that is not a way to treat our President and the people he needs to run the executive branch of Government. My question to the assistant majority leader is, To his knowledge, where are we now in the possibility of numbers as it relates to what we would finish before the August recess and some time line as to others that we could expect to deal with, let's say when we got back in early September, following the Labor Day period and on into October?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I am forcing it as someone who has stood on this floor for the last 4 years and fought for nearly $8 billion a year for family farmers such as you have. We have stood arm in arm in that. But the bill that is coming to the floor is $2 billion over the budget that you have talked about and that slot in the budget that we prepared. I must tell you that this Senator is going to vote for emergency funding for farmers in agriculture, but we are not going to go above a very generous budget to do so. I thought it was most important. Yes, the House has moved. I believe the chairman of the authorizing committee is here, and he can speak for himself. But it is my understanding that this bill will come to the floor about $2 billion ahead of where the House was. The House complied with the budget resolution. We are rapping on that door of spending that surplus in Medicare. I don't care how you use the argument. The reality is very simple. The majority leader is moving us--and he is right--to a very important debate. But it was important for some of us who support farmers but also support fiscal integrity and the budget to stand up and say, Mr. Leader, we are out of budget, we are out of line, and we are $2 billion beyond where we ought to be. That is why I objected.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleagues for all of those considerations and I wish I did serve on the authorizing committee of agriculture. I serve on the appropriating subcommittee for agriculture, the appropriations, so I watch Agriculture budgets closely. What the Senator from Iowa said is absolutely right. It is forward- funding; it is reaching into 2002 and pulling money out for 2001. I understand that. I know it will be spent in 2002 in a 2001 supplemental. I understand what is being done. I also understand that is not necessarily the way it is done. But it is OK if you can get the votes on the floor to do it. It is not necessarily how we work budgets around here. I will also say, whether I am holding this up or not, we will be on the Agriculture bill come Monday, and Monday evening you will get cloture and we will be there and probably move it quite quickly, depending on the amendments that come. The leaders know this. There are several amendments that may be very protracted in their debate. The reality is, last year somebody made us file cloture on the Agriculture appropriations conference report. I don't believe that was talked about in such dramatic terms, but that is exactly what happened last year. I have it in front of me, Agriculture appropriations, 106th Congress. After all the work was done, the bill was ready to be sent to the President and be signed so the money could go out and somebody had to file cloture to move the bill. I don't know that this is so unprecedented. Thou doth protest a bit too much. We will be on the Agriculture bill come Monday. I do appreciate the work the Senator has done. He has worked thoroughly.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, will the leader yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), would vote ``yea.''

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Texas for bringing this issue to the floor this morning and allowing time to talk about what is going on in the mailboxes of Americans today. The rebate checks are coming home. A week and a half ago I was in Idaho walking across a street in a small town. A lady yelled across the street at me: When am I getting my check? True story. It happened. I said: They will be mailed out in a week and a half. What are you going to do with your check? She says: I have four kids and we are going to Wal-Mart to buy school clothes. That is the message that is coming home to America today. President Bush recognized that hard-working Americans were being taxed at the highest level ever in our country's history. He worked with us, we supported him, and as a result, when someone says today ``the check is in the mail,'' literally it is happening. This week, America's taxpayers began to receive the rebate check we promised them, that President Bush promised them, that began to pull down the surplus and keep money out of the hands of Government and return tax dollars to the hard-working American families who sent them here in the first place. In Idaho households, over 380,000 checks will arrive between now and September 24. That represents $167 million to Idaho. That is a lot of money in our State. We are a small State. We have 1.2 million citizens. That is going to have a phenomenal impact on the Idaho economy. Nationally, that is 91.6 million taxpayers and about $39 billion. This time, I am proud of what we have done as a Congress. Congress did it right. Tax relief is reaching the people at the right time. It will boost their confidence in the economy and their Government. I think it will restore a little financial freedom when they need it. I think you must always recognize with hard-working families, mom and dad both working, if they have children, and of course they want children, that is a very important but very real expense. Just like that lady in Blackfoot the other day who said, ``I'm going to Wal-Mart and buy clothes for my kids,'' Americans will spend it; they will save it. I don't care about all the great speculation and debate that Americans are not going to save it and it isn't going to help the economy. Speculators, frankly, I don't care. It is the citizens' money that is being returned to them and they will do a little bit of both with it. I think it is important we recognize once the money is in the hands of the American working family, politicians can't direct it or, more importantly, misdirect it. The moms will go to Wal-Mart and buy clothes for their kids. It may pick up a good number of tankfuls of gas. It may well put food on the table or it might go into someone's savings account. That is what it is all about. I heard some critics try to disparage or make fun of the rebate, saying it is only $300 or $500 or $600. To some families, getting a $600 check in the mail can make all the difference in the world about some of the choices they will make this late summer or fall. It may well be the price they pay for a little additional vacation they had cut short because of the energy bills and the higher gas prices that they were going to be paying this year. That is what a tax rebate is all about. Anyone who ridicules the rebate, my guess is they have lost touch with the American people and the hard-working men and women who get up every day and go to work and spend 8 or 10 or 12 hours at work and pay their taxes because they think that is the way good Americans ought to function. Many do it, and thank goodness they do it. Now we are able to reward them just a little bit. My advice to the naysayer: If you don't need the rebate, give it back to the Treasury. Give it to a charity. Do something with it other than spend it on your family or save it because it is your money and we have guaranteed you the freedom to make that choice. By the way, the Treasury Department has always had a fund to receive contributions. So those who do not like the tax cut, give it back. Those who find it valuable, spend it and enjoy it. It is your money. The check is in the mail. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I talked about what could have happened in Idaho if, in fact, we had not been able to move the issue to Washington and those who had been left to administer at the regional level had won. What the Senator from Arizona and I just talked about is an international problem and clearly an image problem on the part of the United States. How does it look for the United States not to be able to act in a timely and responsible manner to put key diplomats in place to do the work of our country? What does it say to the rest of the world? What does it say to the United Nations as it relates to how we prioritize the value of the U.N. and these very important commissions, the question of drugs being trafficked internationally, the question of human rights that this Senate has spent a great deal of time on over the years--human rights in this country and human rights around the world--and we have now lost key positions because we did not have people in place to lobby effectively for the position of this country, to make sure we had a voice on these key commissions. It speaks volumes about not only our inability to operate but the cumbersome nature of the system we have allowed to be created.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding. Most importantly, let me thank him for coming to the floor this afternoon to talk about what, without question, is a critically important issue to our country. That is that a President, once elected and sworn in by a Nation, has the right to govern the executive branch of the Government. We all know that takes a good many hands at the tiller, talented people from all walks of life who can help a President in all of the agencies of the Government make the right determinations and decisions as they relate to how policy ultimately gets implemented into law. We have watched over the years as this has become a most cumbersome approach. It has become increasingly involved, a combination of legislative action on the part of the Congress--the Senate playing a role--executive orders on the part of the President, all coming together in a critical mass. That takes the process a very long while to work. I am talking about simply the selection of, the vetting of, the background checking of an individual whom a President is going to nominate prior to that individual getting to the Senate, and then for the committees of jurisdiction to hold the proper hearings that are necessary to look at all of the material and ultimately to pass judgment on this individual for recommendation before the full Senate. The reason I talk about that at the outset is that we are not talking about that today. We are talking about the second step--the Senate process, the responsibility we have as Senators to review, confirm, and/or reject these nominees, based on cause, whom a President sends before us. We are in a situation where the Senate has confirmed about 210 Bush nominees so far this year, including the 77 we have confirmed in the last 11 days. During the Fourth of July break, I was home in my State of Idaho and I was hearing from many constituents who were saying: Larry, when are we going to get this person? Senator, when are we going to get that person?'' Or they would say: Senator, do you realize that Clinton people are still in power at the regional levels of the National Marine Fisheries--or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the EPA--and those decisions are still being made, based on, if you will, the philosophy and attitude of that administration versus the one the American public has just elected to power? When are those things going to happen or change? We elected a new President; we want a new direction. We expect that. That is why we did what we did last November. It was during that time, in listening to my constituents and trying to explain, that I began to examine the second phase--this phase, the one we are in now as Senators, doing our responsible job and constitutionally mandated job to review and confirm or reject appointments, nominations made by a President. Coming back from the Fourth of July break, I began to examine the numbers involved to see what the problem was, why we had not moved more. Yes, there was a time when we had a change of power and that took time. I don't argue that. But clearly, if you examine the amount of time involved with all of the nominees who are before us, there were a good many languishing before committees who had not had hearings, nor were hearings scheduled. As a result of that, I began to look at it in the context of how do we make this system work to accelerate itself, to do what it should do responsibly, but to do so in a timely fashion, so that our President can have the people he sent forth to help govern our country at the executive level. It was at that time that my colleague from Arizona and I teamed up, using the rules of the Senate appropriately, to discuss this issue and to cause the Senate to work in a more expeditious fashion. Even with the recent progress we have made--those 11 days and 77 confirmations-- that is just 58 percent of all of the nominees President Bush has sent to us so far. How does that compare with past Presidents' transitions? As of July 20, the Senate had confirmed, as I say, about 58 percent of the Bush nominees. As of July 20, 1993, the Senate had confirmed, as the chart shows, about 74 percent of President Clinton's. As of July 20, 1981, the Republican-controlled Senate had confirmed 72 percent of President Ronald Reagan's nominations. So somewhere in the seventies is probably a figure that is right and reasonable--if there is a ``right and reasonable''. Or should the Senate operate clearly in a more expeditious fashion? To keep pace with the record we have shown by the chart this afternoon, we would have had to have confirmed 83 nominees last week to match the Clinton record, instead of the 23 for whom we fought hard to get the majority to work with us on, to ultimately get before the Senate in confirmation. The transition in power in the Senate, as I mentioned, caused some delays. I accept that, and I am willingly able to talk about that, and I should because that is right and that is fair. The uncertain outcome of a Presidential election stalled any President or President-elect out 36 days before they could begin to actually move in any fashion. Yet the Bush administration has recovered from its delays, and it had sent a record 365 nominations as of last week. I think the Senate now must step up the pace if we are going to deal with this matter in a timely fashion. As important as all of that is, as my colleague from Arizona knows so well, to allow this President to govern, to set the course in the policy direction that is set by these key people, and also to establish the kind of relationships and esprit de corps that occurs within an agency between administrators of that agency and the rank-and-file civil servant, our goal--the goal of the Senator from Arizona and myself, working with the leadership of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate--is to get the Bush administration fully staffed with qualified people as quickly as possible. A week and a half ago I told the majority leader, Tom Daschle, that our goal was, if you will, to cleanse the Senate of nominees by the August recess. Why? Because we are going to be gone for a month. If there is anyone languishing without cause simply because committee chairmen could not act or would not act, then shame on them, shame on the Senate, and shame on the leadership of the Senate for simply not moving the process along in the next 2 weeks to get the hearings done, to vet these people, to get them voted on, and get them to the floor. As we know, it is only in a rare case that a nominee actually brings about aggressive debate on the floor of the Senate. Why? Because, in a bipartisan manner, all of us believe that a President has the right to choose, to select. While it is our responsibility to confirm, very seldom does the Senate actually reject. So why should there be delay, as long as the process is thorough, responsible--and it should be timely. Based on the workload of the Senate today, there is really no reason for a lack of timeliness. There are 499 positions in the executive branch requiring Senate confirmation, not counting judicial nominees. As the Senator from Arizona knows, while he was tackling the judicial nominees, I looked at all the other agencies as my target, believing that those were the ones we could get out to the administration most quickly. Of those, according to the Brookings Institution, there are 313 positions currently vacant. That is 6 out of 10 positions in Government today. In other words, 6 out of 10 people are not ``on the ground,'' not working with the President and the Vice President to govern our country. That is what we are talking about--making critical decisions about how policy gets implemented. For those who are the victims of the lack of people being in place, it is the rank-and-file citizens out there in Arizona or in Idaho who find themselves in contests with or in conflict with a given rule or regulation and having someone outside the system make a judgment, or someone who has a given philosophical bent, instead of this administration. That is why what we do here and what the Senate does in the next 2 weeks is so absolutely critical to the American people.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes, I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me give an example. I thank my colleague. I will reclaim my time and give an example. Some weeks ago, an acting regional administrator of National Marine Fisheries told the largest utility in Idaho, which is a hydro-based utility, that they had to dump their water; they could not generate with it. It just so happens that Idaho and the Pacific Northwest are in a drought at this moment. The 320,000 acre feet of water impounded for the purpose of generating power for Boise, ID, and the surrounding area was being ordered to be dumped in the name of fish and fish recovery. The power company thought it was inappropriate to do and unnecessary under the law, even recognizing the need to protect the fish. When they refused, that acting agent sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission asking they order the water be dumped. At that time, I and other members of the Idaho congressional delegation got involved. We began to examine it. Frankly, we found an individual who was operating and making decisions in a manner that we thought inconsistent with the law, much more consistent with their philosophical bent than the legal responsibility and the right administration of the law. We asked for a conference. We asked that all the parties be brought to Washington to solve this problem. Under the law, it was decided that the utility could continue to operate normally, and in so flowing the water through its pin stocks and turbines, it could not only generate power--and we know what has happened in the Pacific Northwest, with a real absence of power. To make a long story short, but a very dramatic example for Idaho, instead of following the edicts of someone whom I felt was philosophically driven by a past administration's attitudes of how that agency ought to operate, under a negotiated settlement and within the law, this utility was allowed to operate, manage the water accordingly so there would be no blackouts in Boise, ID, and the surrounding area this year, save the fish, and solve the problem. I do believe that if the regional director for National Marine Fisheries had been in place, the request to spill or dump water would never have occurred. That problem could have been solved at the regional level through reasonable negotiation. That is an example, and there are a myriad of others going on out there at this moment. Let me give another example, and while this one cannot be blamed on the Senate at this moment, it is a perfect example of not having people in place at the right time. It really cannot be blamed on the administration, either. I am talking about our Ambassador to the United Nations, Negroponte, and the stalled nomination and the unwieldy system that impacts this. With no permanent Ambassador, the United States mission at the United Nations has had to rely on a career diplomat, Mr. Cunningham, who was the acting Ambassador in January when Richard Holbrooke resigned. What happened in the meantime? The problem became a public one because of the unwillingness, in my opinion, to be aggressive in holding the Nation's position as it relates to our role in the United Nations and in the General Assembly. The problem became public on May 3 when the United Nations lost two influential U.S. Commissioners: one for human rights and one for narcotics control. According to a source close to the U.S. Commission, diplomats were unaware that positions on either panel were in jeopardy until the final hour. In other words, somebody was not doing their homework and somebody was not watching and dealing with it. It appeared that a last- minute campaign effort would have secured the United States one of the three open Western seats in the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The U.S. diplomat had expected to get a 43-53 vote in favor. They did not get it, and we know the rest of that story. For the first time since the Commission's inception in 1947, the United States has lost positions. That speaks to the problems and complications of the system. I cannot lay the blame at the feet of the Senate on that issue, but the reason I bring it up, I tell the Senator from Arizona, is to express the dramatic consequences that can occur when we do not act timely to get the right people in the right place to make the decisions and to administer the role of Government as we would want it done. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Arizona. (Mr. REED assumed the chair.)

Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to respond.

Mr. CRAIG. Certainly, I agree with the Senator from Arizona. There is nothing more important to our country; now that these men and women have gone through their background checks and have been thoroughly vetted and sent to us, we ought to act in the most timely fashion. Where there are objections--there happen to be a few on our side and some on the other side. Let's solve those, bring them to the floor. If a Senator objects, let he or she come to the floor and defend their position. There is nothing wrong with that. I say that for Republicans and Democrats alike. They can express their opposition; they can vote no. There is nothing wrong if you feel passionately about one of the nominees, in telling the President, who happens to be your President: Mr. President, I vote no. Why openly and aggressively deny the President the right to select the people he thinks are necessary to work with him in the governance of this country? I know the Senator went through the list of those key and important individuals still languishing in committee. I understand there are a total of 127 nominees who have had no hearings and no markups, as close as we can determine. There were 48 who came up this month; 46 came up in June; 27 came up in May; 6 came up in April. That is the time that these names have been before the appropriate committees. The question is, where is that chairman? And why can't we hold hearings and give these people an opportunity to testify? Hector Barreto was nominated to head the SBA on May 1, just Friday. He was placed on the Senate's Executive Calendar. The Executive Calendar is at the desk. It is the calendar that nominations reside on before they are considered by the Senate as a whole. He was reported out of committee by a unanimous vote. This is the head of the Small Business Administration. He got a unanimous vote out of committee, but he came there May 1. The most modern phrase I can come up with is, ``duh.'' It is kind of a ``duh'' issue to the chairman of the committee why this man has been before them since May 1, and got a unanimous vote coming out of committee. We will now, I trust, take up Hector Barreto this week. Certainly the Senate, I hope, can act timely. This is the man who will run the Small Business Administration of our country, which we rely on heavily in dealing with the small businesses of our State, those starting up, the problems they might have in trying to create start-up businesses. The Senator from Arizona and I know first hand, as his is a border State, and border States by definition are oftentimes caught in the backlash of drug trafficking that flows across their borders and into the United States, John Walters was nominated on June 5 to be the Nation's drug czar. We know that problem. We are extremely pleased the Bush Administration is reemphasizing the drug problem as an enforcement problem for the citizens of our country. The Judiciary Committee has neither held hearings nor reported out this Cabinet-level appointee. They have had him since June 5. I don't know if it meets the ``duh'' test. I am not sure what it meets. The Judiciary Committee does not appear to be functioning well. We have had changes in chairmanships, but the new chairman has had plenty of time. Just send out a notice, bring down the gavel, listen to this man and question this man about what he will do as the new drug czar for our country at a time when drug use is high, lives are being destroyed, and we as a country want to put special emphasis on control and detection and certainly all of the counseling, and the remediation efforts involved in helping our citizens cope. I hope the Judiciary Committee gets the message that they need to act expeditiously to allow this man the right to begin to administer the antidrug programs of this country. I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding. There are other points that can be made. We will continue to make the points as we work with Democrat and Republican leadership to recognize and deal in a timely fashion with all of these nominees. My test, the test of my colleague from Arizona, is to move as many as possible before the August recess so we do not then wait clear until September to see the men and women on the ground managing and doing what they have been asked to do on behalf of this administration. There is a lot of work to be done. But there are 2 weeks left. In 2 weeks' time, these committees can clearly convene and hold the hearings, make their recommendations, and allow the men and women nominated by President Bush to get to the floor for the purpose of our consideration and our constitutional responsibility of confirming or denying these nominations. I thank my colleague for the effort he has put forth in the last several weeks. We have worked together as a team to assure that many of the nominees have been moved in a timely manner. In all fairness, I think part of our message and concern is getting out. I have had two chairmen this week in Agriculture and in Veterans' tell me they will attempt to move expeditiously. Hearings are being scheduled. When I see 127 nominees who have not had hearings, and there are 2 weeks left, that says there is an awful lot of work to be done in the next 2 weeks. I hope our chairmen are up to it. I think the committees and the committee staffs have had adequate time to do the necessary work to prepare for appropriate and necessary hearings. I thank my colleague from Arizona for securing the time and yielding to me on this issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield? I am pleased he is mentioning this one because at times I have been at odds with the Consumer Product Safety Commission as it relates to some of the work they have done. One of the most significant findings they made, and one of the largest recall/replacement efforts was just mentioned by the Senator from Arizona and that was the sprinkler head that you see in new code buildings around the country that fire professionals will tell you is the single greatest way to put out a fire. What they found was that over a period of time a rubber gasket that controlled the release of water would simply rot away. This company that makes them, because of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's oversight and review, is voluntarily replacing these faulty sprinkler heads all across the Nation. Why can't we hold a hearing in Judiciary to get the head of this Commission in place? How long has that person been before the committee?

Mr. CRAIG. May, June, July--3 months now--that person has languished before the committee. Both the Senator from Arizona and I have openly discussed the time we lost through the transition when we had one of our colleagues become Independent and the leadership of the Senate changed. At the same time there is no excuse, because staffs didn't change dramatically. We really just passed the gavel over and the total number of members on the committee changed. Yes, we had to wait for an administrative process that allowed a new regulation to be written-- a resolution of the Senate, what we call an organizational resolution-- but still, that committee could have gone on, and many did, to hold hearings. They could have voted them out immediately, then, after the hearing record was established because none of us were calling for votes on key committees. But some committees did function. And here, now, we have this critical position languishing because of failure to act. I thank my colleague for bringing that point forward.