John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to add my support for this bill and in particular for a provision, in the amendment providing permanent reauthorization of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, that addresses what I and others perceive to be the redundancy between the requirements of this act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA]. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act, in section 3(a) (5 U.S.C. 564(a)) mandates a specific procedure for public notification of the establishment of each negotiated rulemaking committee. This includes publication ``in the Federal Register and, as appropriate, in trade or other specialized publications'' of a notice of intent to form the committee, along with ``a description of the subject and scope of the rule to be developed, and the issues to be considered; a list of the interests likely to be significantly affected by the rule; a list of the persons proposed to represent such interests and the person or persons proposed to represent the agency; a proposed agenda and schedule for completing the work of the committee, including a target date for publication by the agency of a proposed rule for notice and comment; a description of the administrative support for the committee to be provided by the agency, including technical assistance; a solicitation for comments on the proposal to establish the committee, and the proposed membership of the negotiated rulemaking committee; and an explanation of how a person may apply or nominate another person for membership on the committee.'' After publication of this notice, there is a public comment period of at least 30 days. In addition to these statutory requirements, negotiated rulemaking committees are subject to regulatory review requirements of Presidential Executive orders. Section 3(e) of President Clinton's Executive Order No. 12866 defines ``regulatory action'' as ``any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking.'' The notice of intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee, required by 5 U.S.C. 564(a)(1), would appear to be completely within this definition, as it is analogous to an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, and certainly a more ``substantive action by an agency * * * expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule'' than a mere notice of inquiry. Thus, even a plan to publish such a notice, for a ``significant regulatory action,'' must be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] under section 6(a)(3)(A) of the Executive Order. Given the very broad definition of ``significant regulatory actions'' in the Executive order, OMB is effectively capable of capturing for review any negotiated rulemaking committee that it wants. Quite apart from these requirements and reviews, negotiated rulemaking committees must meet a second, parallel set of disclosure and review requirements contained in section 9 of FACA, because negotiated rulemaking committees are within the definition of an ``advisory committee'' under FACA. Thus, the FACA requirements in section 9 for ``consultation with the Administrator'' of the General Services Administration [GSA], ``timely notice in the Federal Register,'' and filing of a charter containing a list of specific topics that closely resembles the topics in section 3(a) of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, quoted above, also apply to the negotiated rulemaking committees. There is clearly duplication of effort here, without, in my opinion, much value added. First of all, if the President has put in place a mechanism, via Executive order, by which the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB must be apprised of a mere plan to form a negotiated rulemaking committee, what is the added value of a mandate for a separate consultation with the GSA under FACA? Surely the President's designee for Government- wide regulatory review and coordination, in OMB, is better situated to advise agencies on the need for such committees than the GSA. Second, a comparison of the typical advisory committee charter received in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with the typical Federal Register notice for a negotiated rulemaking committee over the past year shows that the latter is generally more detailed and informative than the former. Finally, is it really necessary to have two separate legal requirements for notice in the Federal Register of the same event? In addition to these overlapping requirements and processes, it is a fair question whether other specific requirements of FACA, for example, the automatic 2-year sunset of advisory committees, make sense in the context of negotiated rulemaking. It is envisioned by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act that negotiated rulemaking committees will routinely remain in existence until the publication of a final rule, which may take several years. In this specific context, the one-size-fits-all requirement of FACA for rechartering every 2 years, while sensible for advisory committees that have nonspecific oversight-type responsibilities, would seem somewhat arbitrary. I am not alone in questioning this apparent duplication. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of this statement a statement on the reauthorization of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act from the American Bar Association [ABA] and the formal ABA position statement on which it is based. The formal position of the ABA, jointly proposed by the ABA Standing Committee on Environmental Law, the Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, and the Section of Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law, and passed by the ABA House of Delegates, states that-- a federal agency should not be required to secure the permission of the Office of Management and Budget or the General Services Administration before it impanels a committee under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act or the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, and that such agencies must continue to comply with the substantive requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, including openness and balance on committees. These questions of duplication are important in the real world of how Federal agencies operate because there is already a considerable transaction cost to the formation and running of advisory committees under FACA. The formal chartering process under FACA, in practice, involves numerous levels of review within agencies and is often a time- consuming bureaucratic step. It is perhaps justifiable to impose such transaction costs to prevent the formation of generic advisory committees for which there is not a clear and compelling need. Perhaps, notwithstanding the current interest in having more, rather than less, stakeholder input into Federal agency processes and decisions, it is thought appropriate to view advisory committees generally as a problem to be contained. But the whole point of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act is to promote the use of one specific type of advisory committee. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act creates no new authorities for agencies. If it were to expire on November 29, of this year, as it is currently scheduled to do under current law, agencies could still form such committees and use them in the promulgation of rules. Since, then, the whole point of the act is to underscore Congress' intent that negotiated rulemaking be more widely used, we should look carefully at the question of administrative transaction costs in Federal agencies, to see if we have unwittingly put in place duplicative steps that make forming such committees seem to be more trouble than they are worth. There is evidence that this is now the case. In the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce, a proposal to form a negotiated rulemaking committee to resolve issues between commercial and sport fishing interests regarding tuna fishing in the mid-Atlantic, published in the Federal Register on February 1, has languished precisely because the Department of Commerce, like other agencies such as the Department of Energy, has a process for reviewing proposals to form advisory committees under FACA that involves sending the proposal to numerous offices dispersed through the agency structure for checkoffs on issues such as--in the case of Commerce--national security concerns. Transiting this sort of administrative gauntlet is a daunting task, even for hardened bureaucrats. Meanwhile, the underlying dispute that prompted the proposal to form this committee has escalated, perhaps to the point where getting to a consensus result has been imperiled by the delay resulting from administrative inefficiency. If the administrative duplication occasioned by the overlaps in these two laws did not exist, the negotiated rulemaking committee could have started to meet in March of this year. How representative is this case? It is hard to say. The permanent reauthorization of Negotiated Rulemaking Act was not covered in the hearings on this bill, so this problem was not explored on the record. Given this, I appreciate the willingness of the sponsors of this bill to address my concerns that a far greater problem may exist. Subsection (e) of the amendment provides for study, in the Office of Management and Budget, of this question, so that a complete picture of the problem can be obtained, and so that recommendations can be formulated. I would hope that the OMB review, in the spirit of reinventing Government, will take a careful look at such barriers and proposed best practices to agencies to facilitate the expeditious formation of advisory committees generally. I thank the sponsors of the bill, again, for their assistance and willingness to address this issue. I hope that if, in the course of the OMB study, the administration identifies solutions to some of these issues that require legislative action by Congress, that the sponsors will be willing to act on such suggestions. I ask unanimous consent that the material I earlier referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, over the past 6 months, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has, under the able direction of Senator Thomas, conducted an investigation into the management and cost of class action lawsuits against the contractors that operated the Department of Energy's nuclear weapon plants. Senator Thomas' investigation uncovered a serious abuse of the legal system that is costing the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in lawyer's fees each year and could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments or settlements even though there is no evidence and, in most cases, no claim that anyone was physically harmed by the operation of these plants. The problem results from the peculiar legal circumstances under which these cases are brought. Normally, people suing the government for injury must bring their suits under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which affords the taxpayers certain protections. Courts cannot award punitive damages against the Government. Suits must be grounded on specific claims of wrongdoing, not generalized grievances. The Government cannot be subjected to a jury trial or held liable for actions stemming from discretionary policy decisions made by Congress or Executive Branch officials. None of the protections of the Federal Tort Claims Act applies in these cases because the suits are not brought against the Government itself, but against its contractors. Yet, under the Price-Anderson Act, the Government indemnifies the contractors against any liability or legal costs arising out of the operation of the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex. The contractors defend the suits, without the benefit of the Government's normal protections, but the Government pays all the bills. In sum, we have divorced the power to defend these suits, which rests with the contractors, from the obligation to pay, which remains with the Government. The Government is the real party in interest in these cases, but it has been stripped of all of the legal protections it has in other cases. Today, I am introducing legislation to correct this problem. My bill is quite simple. It does three things. First, it prevents lawyers maintaining class action lawsuits against the nuclear weapons contractors for nonphysical injuries. Individual claims for nonphysical injuring could still be pursued. Class action suits could still be maintained for physical injuries. But class actions could not be maintained for nonphysical injuries. Second, the bill makes the medical monitoring regime established under Superfund the exclusive source of medical monitoring for these cases. The pending cases ask the courts to set up medical monitoring programs costing tens of millions of dollars for tens of thousands of people near these plants. The bill would require the courts to make use of the existing institution instead of creating multiple and redundant new ones. Third, it bars punitive damages where the government would have to pay them. The Federal Tort Claims Act does this already for suits against the government itself. We thought we were doing this under the Price-Anderson Act when we amended it in 1988, but the 1988 amendments only applied to incidents occurring on or after August 20, 1988, and the pending cases are based on occurrences prior to that date. This amendment extends the 1988 prohibition to apply to incidents occurring before 1988. These three reforms are the minimum that is needed to address the current problem. Indeed, some might say they do not go far enough. These reforms strike a fair balance that will ensure that anyone who is in fact injured by the operation of the nation's nuclear weapons complex will be compensated. At the same time, they close the loophole in the current law that has allowed a few lawyers to raid the U.S. Treasury on the flimsiest of claims. I urge all Senators to join me in supporting this measure and ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, over the past 6 months, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has, under the able direction of Senator Thomas, conducted an investigation into the management and cost of class action lawsuits against the contractors that operated the Department of Energy's nuclear weapon plants. Senator Thomas' investigation uncovered a serious abuse of the legal system that is costing the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in lawyer's fees each year and could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments or settlements even though there is no evidence and, in most cases, no claim that anyone was physically harmed by the operation of these plants. The problem results from the peculiar legal circumstances under which these cases are brought. Normally, people suing the government for injury must bring their suits under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which affords the taxpayers certain protections. Courts cannot award punitive damages against the Government. Suits must be grounded on specific claims of wrongdoing, not generalized grievances. The Government cannot be subjected to a jury trial or held liable for actions stemming from discretionary policy decisions made by Congress or Executive Branch officials. None of the protections of the Federal Tort Claims Act applies in these cases because the suits are not brought against the Government itself, but against its contractors. Yet, under the Price-Anderson Act, the Government indemnifies the contractors against any liability or legal costs arising out of the operation of the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex. The contractors defend the suits, without the benefit of the Government's normal protections, but the Government pays all the bills. In sum, we have divorced the power to defend these suits, which rests with the contractors, from the obligation to pay, which remains with the Government. The Government is the real party in interest in these cases, but it has been stripped of all of the legal protections it has in other cases. Today, I am introducing legislation to correct this problem. My bill is quite simple. It does three things. First, it prevents lawyers maintaining class action lawsuits against the nuclear weapons contractors for nonphysical injuries. Individual claims for nonphysical injuring could still be pursued. Class action suits could still be maintained for physical injuries. But class actions could not be maintained for nonphysical injuries. Second, the bill makes the medical monitoring regime established under Superfund the exclusive source of medical monitoring for these cases. The pending cases ask the courts to set up medical monitoring programs costing tens of millions of dollars for tens of thousands of people near these plants. The bill would require the courts to make use of the existing institution instead of creating multiple and redundant new ones. Third, it bars punitive damages where the government would have to pay them. The Federal Tort Claims Act does this already for suits against the government itself. We thought we were doing this under the Price-Anderson Act when we amended it in 1988, but the 1988 amendments only applied to incidents occurring on or after August 20, 1988, and the pending cases are based on occurrences prior to that date. This amendment extends the 1988 prohibition to apply to incidents occurring before 1988. These three reforms are the minimum that is needed to address the current problem. Indeed, some might say they do not go far enough. These reforms strike a fair balance that will ensure that anyone who is in fact injured by the operation of the nation's nuclear weapons complex will be compensated. At the same time, they close the loophole in the current law that has allowed a few lawyers to raid the U.S. Treasury on the flimsiest of claims. I urge all Senators to join me in supporting this measure and ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes out of the time of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon].

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this balanced budget amendment, recognizing that some of the people in this Chamber, for whom I have the most respect, are for it. But I oppose it to a large extent because of what I call the dilemma of enforceability. My colleagues will recall that when this amendment was up earlier in this Congress, we had tremendous amounts of debates on whether the courts ought to be able to enforce this amendment. I made speeches against the difficulties that courts would have, the constitutional crisis that it would put this country in, and how terrible it would be in a democracy to have nonelected, appointed-for-life judges who are not available to the public making decisions about increasing taxes or cutting Social Security or cutting Medicare or cutting programs across the board, judges who have no feel for these programs, who have no background in the programs, no staff to understand the programs coming in and making an order and saying, ``We're going to increase your income tax,'' or ``We're going to cut your Social Security,'' or cut your Medicare programs, or name a thousand other different Federal programs. I think it would be terrible, Mr. President. I think it would just be terrible. I think it would be the stuff of revolution, as people would say, ``How did we get in this situation?'' Indeed, as we outlined these difficulties of this bill earlier when it was being discussed, finally the sponsors of the resolution agreed, at least they agreed to the extent they accepted an amendment. Some would say they accepted the amendment just to get the necessary votes; others would say they accepted the amendment because they knew it was the right thing. But in any event, the amendment, as I understand it-- the Nunn amendment which is now part of this--states as follows: The judicial power of the United States shall not extend to any case or controversy arising under this article, except as may be specifically authorized by legislation adopted pursuant to this section. I suppose that is the present state of the amendment. What does that mean, Mr. President? It means this whole thing is a sham. It is either enforceable, and enforceable by the courts, so that the Supreme Court tells you what the size of your taxes are or what the amount of your Social Security payment is, or else it is not enforceable, and it is a sham. People say, ``Well, make your choice, Senator. You can't argue on the one hand against the courts enforcing it and on the other hand argue that if they don't enforce it, it's a sham.'' The fact of the matter is, that is the truth. Either horn of that dilemma is not breachable by this amendment. There is really only one way to balance this budget and to do so in a way that makes sense to the American people, and that is for the Congress to do it. That is because the Congress, in every district in America, has an elected Representative who can come and represent the people, go back home in town meetings and communicate with the people, be on television, receive letters, respond to letters, communicate with the public and, in fact, represent the people in the most fundamental decisions that this country is made of; that is, what is the size of your taxes, what are the amounts of your benefits, and what are the functions of Government. That is central to a democracy, that is central to our country, Mr. President, and the public ought to be entitled to be heard on that. That is why I think to try to get this automatic pilot, this constitutional amendment just will not work. We tried it before. We tried it with Gramm-Rudman. I voted against the Gramm-Rudman because there is no magic automatic pilot. There is no substitute for elected Representatives making decisions in the interest of the public. I remember when we passed Gramm-Rudman.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, may I be allowed 3 additional minutes?

Mr. JOHNSTON. We had a provision in Gramm-Rudman called sequestration. My colleagues will remember that well. If the budget was not balanced, or if we did not meet the target provided in Gramm- Rudman, there was to be this automatic guillotine that fell. There was going to be a chopped-off spending by a prearranged formula, and it was all going to be arranged and that was going to substitute for the backbone of Congress. Of course, what happened, we got right up to look at that gleaming guillotine which was going to cut off spending, and the Congress, predictably, said, at least the opponents of Gramm-Rudman said, it was going to be this. We said, ``No, stay the guillotine, stay the sequestration, don't do it.'' Here we are with a different kind of guillotine. Either we are going to have a permanent block in the guillotine, which is what the Nunn amendment says, nonenforceability, or we are going to go back to the old guillotine. Mr. President, can you imagine what the American public would say if the Supreme Court made an order that said, ``We're going to increase your income tax by 50 percent?'' Why, there would be rioting in the streets. You say, ``Oh, the Supreme Court wouldn't do that.'' Oh, no? How is the Supreme Court supposed to balance this budget? You know, they have to do it quickly. Do you think they can go through every one of these little programs, thousands of programs, and snip each one? They cannot do that. They do not have that knowledge. Can they cut them across the board? You cannot cut programs across the board, Mr. President. There are contractual arrangements. You take one of the budgets I have something to do with, the Corps of Engineers, they go out and make contracts. You cannot come in and say, ``Well, we're going to pay you 95 percent or 80 percent of that which you're entitled to under the contract.'' You cannot do that constitutionally. You cannot do it in good sense. So you cannot cut things across the board. You have to have big amounts of money. So where do those big amounts of money come from? Two places--taxes or entitlements. You spell entitlements ``Social Security'' or ``Medicare.'' So, Mr. President, if anybody around here thinks that you can easily give the Supreme Court of the United States the power to raise your taxes and raise them big time, or to cut your Medicare and to cut your Medicare big time and raise these costs for our senior citizens, or do the same thing with Social Security, you have to be kidding, Mr. President. People have not thought this through if they think the American people would accept that or if they think that is sound Government or good policy. The other horn of the dilemma is, if you make it nonenforceable, it does not mean a thing except for a campaign speech. It is a good substitute for real policy, which means that you really frustrate the goal of the balanced budget. I mean, if you have this thing where you say, ``Look, don't ask me to cut these programs. I have already voted for the balanced budget amendment,'' then that is a good substitute for real policy. The only thing we need to do, Mr. President, is exercise real backbone, exercise real representation. I thank the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is the Senator aware of the huge amount of experience in the States where they have either constitutional provisions requiring a balanced budget or prohibiting the incurment of debt, or other constitutional provisions with respect to the raising of money under which legislatures, by clever schemes, get around these provisions? I cite, as one of those, legislation that I was involved in, I mean, both legislation and litigation--I hate to make this question too long--involving the dome stadium in Louisiana where the law said, ``No bond issued under this amendment may bear the faith or credit of the State,'' and where the legislature and the Governor came in with a clever artifice and got around that, and you ended up with bonds which bore the faith and credit of the State. Or, more recently, where the Louisiana Constitution said it takes a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, and they created a special taxing district by majority vote which raised the money and raised the taxes and got around the constitutional provision. I cite those two examples as being typical of what has happened all across this Nation in avoiding the effect of those. Is the Senator aware of those?

Mr. JOHNSTON. The last 4 years we have cut down the deficit by more than 50 percent.

Mr. JOHNSTON. No.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, if the Senator will further yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Should it be enforceable or not enforceable?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Of course, enforceable?

Mr. JOHNSTON. The Nunn amendment is part of it at this time.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I am advised it is part of this, which makes it nonenforceable, save for an act of Congress. Then you have the Supreme Court. I mean, should the Supreme Court be able to raise your taxes?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I will not prevail upon my friend to yield further. I thank him for yielding. I appreciate his courtesy.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Jamie Staub's civics class from L.W. Higgins High School in Marrero, LA, winners of the Louisiana competition of the We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution Program. These exceptional young people were participants in the national finals held in Washington, DC on April 27, through April 29, 1996. The distinguished members of the team are: Stephen Deffner, Khai T. Duong, Kim Evans, Mary Rose Hollywood, Liliane Thuy Huynh, Danielle S. James, Ashley Huong Kha, Julie Larue, Christina Magenta Lindsay, Lauren Elizabeth Mo, Cathy Thuy Nguyen, Michelle Thuy-Trang Nguyen, Traci Hong Pham, Shaun Adrian Posey, Hoai X. Tran, Mary M. Tran, Euriah Marie Walters, and Donald Alexander Winchester, Jr. I would also like to recognize Jamie Staub, their outstanding teacher, who can be credited with much of the team's success. The district coordinator, Jane Wilson, and the State coordinator, Catherine St. Amant, also devoted a great deal of time and were integral to the team's achievement. The We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution Program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate youth about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the ability to apply constitutional principles to both historical and contemporary issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People Program, now in its ninth academic year, has reached more than 70,400 teachers and 226,000 students nationwide. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers. This outstanding program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective on the significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in history and in our lives. I am very proud of the students of L.W. Higgins High School and look forward to their continued success in the future.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who will celebrate the 50th anniversary of his accession to the throne on June 9, 1996. This is indeed an auspicious occasion, as King Bhumibol is the first Thai king to have reigned for 50 years. King Bhumibol has been the overseer and benefactor of remarkable change and progress for his nation. From the beginning of his reign, he has tirelessly devoted his time and effort to the well-being and welfare of the Thai people. Under his stewardship, government has become an instrument of progress for people, as evident by the more than 1,800 royal development projects he has initiated in the areas of agriculture, environmental conservation, public health, occupational promotion, water resources development, communications, and social welfare. During his reign, Thailand has experienced a dramatic transformation in its industrial structure to become a leader among developing nations. Manufacturing accounts for over 31 percent of the nation's economy and exports are booming. Textiles have supplanted rice as Thailand's major export item, and Thailand is now a major exporter of sophisticated high-technology products. King Bhumibol's leadership in diversifying his nation's economy and encouraging foreign investment has opened new doors of opportunity and prosperity to his people and has propelled Thailand to a place of respected prominence among the nations of the Pacific rim. Not only are the industrial and technological advances significant, but King Bhumibol has achieved these gains while preserving the cultural integrity and national heritage of the Thai people. He is a much beloved leader and national patriarch, who has created a unique version of the modern monarchy. Firmly committed to the development of democratic principles, he has always been on the side of peace and prosperity and has responsibly guided his nation within the parameters of his constitutional authority. The United States and Thailand have enjoyed a longstanding friendship and economic partnership from which both nations have tremendously benefited. I have had the privilege of visiting Thailand on several occasions to promote opportunities for trade and investment and have been profoundly grateful for the assistance and hospitality I have received. It has been an honor and a pleasure to work with this remarkable nation for the continued peace and prosperity of both of our countries. I know that my colleagues in the U.S. Senate join me in congratulating King Bhumibol for his magnificent leadership and prosperous reign, as we look forward to many more years of friendship with his great nation.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Presidential years are referred to as the ``silly season'' and certainly this Presidential year is the silly season. The competition for the award for the most improvidently proposed bill is very keen in the Chamber, Mr. President, but surely the 4.3-cent gasoline tax decrease has got to take the cake for this year. Mr. President, all this Congress we have heard about the balanced budget. I endorse the balanced budget. I am part of that bipartisan group of Senators that is trying to get a balanced budget passed. But now that we finally propose it, it is not being accepted by my friend, the majority leader. On top of that, with budget deficits continuing, with no plan approved for the balanced budget, we now have a proposal to cut taxes. Surely, Mr. President, this has got to be in the category of bread and circuses of ancient Rome when proposals are put out not for the good of society but in order to please the voters. Now, the American voters may not be very smart on some issues, but they are not stupid, and they know that this is not good policy. At a time when we are trying to cut all kinds of programs, all across the board, to come in and then cut taxes on gasoline is surely not good policy. Gasoline in the United States is somewhere between one-half and one-fourth as expensive as it is in Europe. In France, in Germany, in Italy, in those countries you pay three and four times as much for gasoline as you do in the United States. But if the gasoline goes up a very small amount in the United States, it is used as a trigger to try to cut those taxes. Mr. President, let us look at the facts about gasoline. If you look at gasoline in real prices, in inflation adjusted prices, this chart represents what gasoline prices have been since 1950 through 1996, and it shows that in real inflation adjusted prices, the price of gasoline is close to the lowest it has been since 1950--almost 50 years. Now, to be sure, there is a small blip of, what, 20 cents a gallon in some places. But in terms of the actual purchasing price that you have to pay for gasoline, it is almost a historic low. The next question is: what is going to happen from here? Is this increase in gasoline prices permanent or is it likely to come down? It is clear it is going to come down. When you look at crude oil prices--these first two blocks on this chart are actual prices from April and May--you will note that they have come down from over $25 a barrel already to about $21 a barrel. Those are actual prices that are coming down very fast. These prices on this chart are futures prices, and futures prices, of course, are real prices. You can purchase the crude now for delivery in May or September or whatever these months are, so they are price reductions already realized. So we already have realized price reductions in the price of crude oil from over $25 a barrel to about $19 a barrel, or a decrease of $6 a barrel already realized in the price of crude oil. Now, Mr. President, this rather busy chart shows the relationship between crude oil and gasoline prices. On the bottom, we have crude oil prices, which shows a slight up-tick in crude oil for the month of April, and it already shows that crude oil is going down. With respect to wholesale regular gasoline prices--these are in real prices--we see that went up for the month of April and has already begun to go down. Wholesale California reformulated gasoline is already coming down rather precipitantly. California is the area of the country, of course, which has the greatest concern about this because you have the greatest runup in prices. But wholesale California reformulated gasoline prices are coming down very fast. Retail gasoline prices in the United States and retail in California have leveled off. They are not yet reflecting these downturns in prices of crude oil, wholesale regular gasoline and wholesale reformulated gasoline in California. But these prices will begin--already in retail it has come down slightly in California and leveled off in the United States generally. However, as night follows the day, it is inevitable that these prices will come down and come down precipitantly because wholesale prices are coming down. Mr. President, what caused the shortage and the runup? On this rather busy chart here, these hash lines show the historical range of gasoline stocks, and they go up and down every year because the summer driving season and the heating season call for greater or lesser supplies and usually the actual amount follows within those hash mark lines, and when that happens supply and demand are in balance. When we go to January and the spring of 1996, our supply line drops well below the traditional levels. And why was that? Well, it was, first of all, because the winter was much colder than usual. Second, because many refineries across the country, particularly in California, were down. Third, because there was an anticipation that the embargo on Iraqi oil was to be lifted, and that was not lifted as expected, so the influx of Iraqi oil was not as we expected, plus driving was up as well as the fuel efficiency of cars was down. That caused our stocks to be down. However, this is already being corrected. As you can see, the stocks have begun to come up. This chart shows gasoline imports, and gasoline imports are up precipitously. This is caused by two things. First of all, the market. When the price is high, then that extra refining capacity in Europe is used to export to the United States. Consequently, our imports are drastically up. With imports coming up, it is clear that this upswing in gasoline prices is soon to be over with. I mean it is not a problem to worry about in the first place, as I mentioned, because we are at almost historic lows in the price of gasoline--almost. We are up only slightly from historic lows for the last 50 years. But even that small upswing, about 20 cents a gallon, is soon to be over with because of these factors: Additional imported crude oil, the supply; imported gasoline; supply of crude oil coming up. Finally, there is this vexing problem of why is it? I mean, are we being ripped off? Is there price gouging by the oil companies? Oil companies, I know, are those we love to hate. People think this market does not work. The fact of the matter is, it is a highly competitive market and it does work, as those imports of gasoline show. This is evidence that that market is working. As the price goes up, the imports of gasoline go up. Let us deal with this question of profits. What this rather busy chart shows is the spread between gasoline prices and the price of crude oil, in this case west Texas intermediate, which is usually the marker for the price of crude oil. The gasoline is the New York harbor price of gasoline. This shows the spread, starting in January 1989 through April 1996. You will notice that there are ups and downs every year. There is a higher spread starting in the spring and that always ameliorates every single year as you get further, as the summer driving season is over with. What this shows is that there is an increase in price level, an increase in the spread in April 1996 compared to March 1996. However, if you go back to Aprils-- go back to April 1995, the spread was even greater. The spread was less in April 1994, slightly less in April 1993, but in April 1992 it was more, and in April 1991 it was much more, in April 1990 it was much more, and in April 1989 it was much more. What does this tell us? It tells us that, if you look at the last 7 years, the spread between the cost of crude oil and the price of gasoline is less now, on the average, than it has been in the past 7 years. It tells you that this is not an unusual spread compared to past years. It also tells us that April is one of the very highest months and that the spread comes down from April because of competitive pressures. I mention this because many people think--there have been these charges without one shred of evidence, without a whisper of evidence to support them--that there is a conspiracy to make that price go up. But as you can well see, profit margins are less than the average they have been in the last 7 years, even though slightly more than they were in 1994, but less than they were in 1995. Any legislation such as an amendment I have heard that would say, in effect, that it shall be unlawful for any person to fail to fully pass through a price reduction--it would be completely impossible, as you can see, to identify what the price reduction is, because every year there is wild fluctuation between the price of crude oil and the price of gasoline, the spread between those two prices. So if you say you have to pass through this price reduction--compared to what? What is your baseline? Is it the average of the last 7 years? Is it this month's price the day on which you price it? Suppose you had a big spread on the day on which this amendment passed; can you rely upon that? Could you up your prices at the pump on that particular day and thereby say, I am going to pass this on by giving you 4.3 cents less than the highest level we have charged in the last 7 years? I think any such amendment would be impossible to draw, impossible to enforce, and a very improvident thing for this Congress to do. It is always nice to be for a tax decrease. But at a time when we are trying to bring this deficit down, to decrease taxes, whether they be income taxes, whether they be taxes on beer or gasoline or anything else, I believe the American public has sense enough to be able to see through that kind of political pandering. That is all it is, to try to pander to the American public and give them a little bread and circuses. I do not know what the polls show. I have heard that the polls show that people like tax decreases, not surprisingly. But I believe that any blip in polls caused by giving a small amount of decrease in price, even if it was passed on--and who can possibly say whether it is passed on or not? How can you identify a 4.3-cent decrease against the background noise of swings, which are annual swings in the price? You could not identify that. So there is hardly anything that the driver in America can point to, to thank the Congress for reducing his price, because you are not going to be able to determine what that decrease is or, indeed, whether it is passed along at all. But whatever that recompense, whatever that thanks would be they would give would surely be short-lived because the American public would understand that the deficit, about which we have been preaching for 2 years solid, nonstop rhetoric about the deficit-- they would understand that that deficit is only to be higher because we reduced taxes in an election year. It is not a good thing to do. It is not good policy. Prices are lower than they have been at almost any time in the last 50 years in real terms in the United States. They are a third to a fourth what they are in Europe. They ought to be higher, from the standpoint of conservation. Whatever happened to conservation in this country? Don't we care about that anymore? Do we want to encourage gas guzzlers? Do we want to encourage bigger cars, more gas-guzzling cars? I guess so, because that is the direction in which this goes. It is not good policy, Mr. President. I hope we will not do it. If it is done, it will not be with my vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the distinguished minority leader for yielding. There has been some negotiation and talks on the floor about votes on these three different issues. I just want to ask the leader whether he has had any discussion about packaging the three, because I do not propose, myself, to allow that, except to the extent the rules allow it, for a vote to come up on this gasoline tax, because I think that is one of the wackiest ideas I have heard. To the extent that we can successfully filibuster, yes, filibuster. Call it gridlock, call it what you want. I am opposed to it. I am not willing to let that come up. I think there are a lot of people who feel like I do. I wonder if there has been any negotiation toward saying, ``Well, we'll let you have that on a majority vote as opposed to 60 votes, as long as you will allow a vote on minimum wage''?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding contributions of Robert Belous who, since January 1991, has served as the superintendent of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in Louisiana. Bob is retiring from the Park Service after more than 25 years of service and we in Louisiana will miss him very much. Bob Belous has been an outstanding park superintendent and public servant. He has enthusiastically embraced a number of innovative and creative projects and programs related to the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve. In addition, he has been very active and helpful in the creation and early beginnings of our newest park units in Louisiana, the New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park and the Cane River National Historical Park and Heritage Area. Mr. President, Jean Lafitte is a very unique park unit. It's like a wheel with many spokes. Jean Lafitte consists of a French Quarter unit; the Barataria marsh unit, Chalmette, the site of the Battle of New Orleans in 1815; and two Cajun cultural centers in Eunice and Thibodaux, LA, that interpret Cajun history. This type of park is very difficult to administer. It takes a dedicated person of many interests, skills, and talents to bring together these diverse elements and resources into a coherent whole. Not only has Bob managed to accomplish this difficult task, but he has done it with flair and good humor. Over the years, Bob Belous has always been available to provide assistance to me and my staff here in Washington as well as my offices in Louisiana, especially my New Orleans office. He has always provided us with sound professional advice and counsel. I know I speak for many people in Louisiana and all over the country when I wish Bob well in his retirement from the Park Service and thank him for his many contributions to our National Park System.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Louisianian, my good friend, Dr. Robert A. Alost, who has announced his retirement as president of Northwestern State University after a long and distinguished career of service to NSU, the city of Natchitoches, and the State of Louisiana. During his 10-year presidency at NSU, Northwestern has been transformed from a regional university to an institution of statewide prominence. Dr. Alost's tireless efforts to widen and enrich the educational experience of his school have strengthened every aspect of the institution. Student enrollment has increased by over 71 percent and the average ACT score is up, the school's academic curriculum has expanded by leaps and bounds, and its financial status has never been stronger. While this progress merits commendation, Dr. Alost is even more deserving of recognition because he considers his accomplishments as simply part of his service to his alma mater, to a school he loves, and to a faculty and student body he considers his family. There are three words which come to mind when describing Robert Alost: service, leadership, and innovation. I know that countless other Louisianians would agree with this assessment, for his personal and professional history truly exemplify each of these qualities. Dr. Alost's dedication to Northwestern State University is rooted in his own experience as a student at NSU, where he received his undergraduate degree is 1957 and a masters degree in 1958. After receiving a doctoral degree from Louisiana State University in 1963, Dr. Alost had a wide range of aspirations, and of all the opportunities available to him, he decided to dedicate his career to the advancement of Northwestern State University. He has risen from a young faculty member to its president, and has left a lasting legacy which will be appreciated for generations. Under Dr. Alost's watch, the expansion of NSU's research and academic programs have placed it at the forefront of several innovative programs in higher education. Northwestern became America's first university selected to participate in the JointVenture [JOVE] Program with the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The results of this project, involving the analysis of data collected in space exploration, will have unlimited applications. Young people from across the United States will benefit from this cutting-edge program, and NSU's new space science curriculum and summer camp program will help support America's future scientists. Dr. Alost oversaw the development of the Louisiana Scholars College, which was designated by the State Board of Regents as the State's selective-admission college of the liberal arts and has elevated NSU's reputation to statewide prominence. Dr. Alost has overseen many other noteworthy additions to NSU. Northwestern began a program in intercollegiate debate which won the 1994 Cross Examination Debate Association National Championship and has been the top program in the country over the past 5 years. Dr. Alost supervised the establishment of a doctoral program in educational technology to instruct educators on the most effective methods of using technology in the classroom. Northwestern is working with the nationally recognized Duke University Talent Identification Program, which identifies verbally and mathematically gifted young people, and it offers regional residential courses to these special students. Dr. Alost has also overseen the establishment of Northwestern Abroad, which provides travel-study opportunities to students who wish to expand their knowledge of other cultures. I had the pleasure of working with Dr. Alost when we brought the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training to NSU, a national institution dedicated to historic preservation. This one-of-a- kind center was established by the National Park Service to train cultural resource professionals and serve as a clearinghouse for the transfer of historic preservation technology across the country. It is the innovate examples I have just cited which have designated Northwestern State University as a premier institution for higher learning. Dr. Alost's service has also touched those outside of the Northwestern community. Over the years, numerous civic, professional, and religious organizations have flourished under his leadership. He has served as president and on the board of directors of the Natchitoches Tourist Commission. As an administrator and educator, he served as president of the Louisiana Council for Deans of Education, the Louisiana Association for Colleges and Teacher Education, and the Louisiana Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. While Dr. Alost is a great source of pride for Northwestern State University, he has also been honored with many local, State, and national awards. In 1985, he was recognized by the Louisiana Association of School Executives as the State's Educator of the Year. In 1986, he received the Leadership Award from the Louisiana Association of Gifted and Talented Students. The citizens of Natchitoches proclaimed him Man of the Year in 1987. His achievements were heralded on a national level in 1989 when he was presented with the Phi Kappa Phi Distinguished Member Award. Dr. Robert Alost's lifetime of achievement is truly an inspiration, and he serves as an incredible role model for those who believe that the possibilities are limitless. It has been an honor and a privilege to know him. I congratulate Dr. Alost on his distinguished career and wish him well as he enjoys the well-earned rewards of retirement.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional group of students from my hometown of Shreveport, LA. The Caddo Magnet Orchestra, combined of 103 high school and middle school students from Caddo Parish in northwestern Louisiana, has for years been recognized as one of the most outstanding student orchestras in our State. Since its inception in 1980, the orchestra has consistently received superior performance ratings in all regional and State competitions and has won several prestigious awards from music festivals around the Nation. In light of its impressive reputation, this year the orchestra was invited to perform at Carnegie Hall, a rare privilege offered to very few young performers. After many months of intensive rehearsal and fundraising, the Caddo Magnet Orchestra traveled to New York City last month for its March 24 Carnegie Hall debut, where its performance was met by a standing ovation from the 1,000 audience members in attendance. The evening's performance, consisting of pieces by English composers Gustav Holst, John Ireland, Edward Elgar and John Rutter, was flawless and has earned this orchestra national recognition. Louisiana is enormously proud of these outstanding young people, not only for their individual talents, but also for their overall commitment to excellence and their spirit of community. The students worked together to make beautiful music, and the harmony they created represents all that can be achieved when we put forth our best efforts to reach a common goal. This is citizenship at its finest. The members of the orchestra have represented the State of Louisiana with great distinction. I congratulate these musicians and their director, Ms. Johnette Parker, as well as the parents and faculty of Caddo Magnet High School and Caddo Middle Magnet School for their marvelous collective effort in reaching this pinnacle and for setting an example of excellence from which we all can benefit.