Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment, not only because I favor the concept of a balanced budget amendment but because, it seems to me, it is one of the building blocks of the kind of change that American voters asked for in November; a procedural change that not only will change the specifics of what is done but, over time, will change the character of this Federal Government and will deal with the basic question, How do we achieve less Government and a less expensive Government? It is one of the procedural changes I think is necessary, one of the procedural changes that will have to be dealt with--some of which we have already dealt with. We need a balanced budget amendment to put some honesty and truth back into our budgeting, too, to deal with the question of whether or not it is morally right to spend more than we take in. The answer, of course, is it is not. The other, of course, is unfunded mandates, which this body has dealt with, as has the House. We will soon be reconciled in conference committee. I think a line-item veto is another of these building blocks, along with congressional accountability, which has also been passed here. So we are making real progress toward fundamental change, the kind of change that will have long-range impacts on this Government, that will have a long-range impact on the transfer of power to local and State governments, that will have a long-range impact on transferring power to individuals as this Government was set up to do. So I rise in favor of this as one of the building blocks. It is not a new idea. It is something many of us have favored for a very long time. It is basic to change. We can talk a lot about the details, as the Senator from Tennessee pointed out. The real question, of course, is should we balance the budget? Should we be fiscally responsible? Should we pass along debts to our children and our grandchildren? Or should we be responsible for them ourselves? Should we take account of the fact that our credit card is maxed out and be responsible for the decisions we make? Should we be forced to have a cost-benefit ratio on the issues we talk about? If they are worth having, they are worth paying for. If we are only willing to put them on the credit card, then we cannot do that. That is what balanced budget amendments are all about, to bring about the fundamental change. However, and I take a little from Bill Bennett when he said: We, now, in this new Congress, are allowed to consider the concept that everything that is worthwhile, everything that is good has to be controlled and funded by the Federal Government. That is a concept that has slipped into our society that does not need to be there. So I rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment. We hear, of course, it is not needed. The evidence is that it is. We hear, of course, there are tools there to accomplish that without a balanced budget amendment. There is no evidence of that, even in the President's budget, which was made public today. There is no evidence of that. One of the things we seem to lose sight of as we talk about the deficit--and talk about it we should--is the fact that spending has increased each year. Spending increases to $1.6-plus trillion under the President's budget. The President talks about the administrative efforts to reduce the deficit, which have been useful. Nevertheless, spending has continued to increase all throughout that. We seldom hear the reduction in deficit is generally a one-time proposition, where there was a revision of some projected spending that gave us most of the deficit reduction. So people ask for change. People want less Government, less spending, and lower taxes. This will help do that. We hear we need more time. This is not a new idea. This is one we have talked about for years. Most people have known this has been necessary for years. I have no objection to full discussions. I begin to wonder whether this is full discussion or simply delaying. Nevertheless we are here, prepared to do that. We hear occasionally if we have an amendment, judges will be setting the budget. There is no evidence of that. I think 49 States have balanced budget amendments. My State of Wyoming has a balanced budget amendment. It has a balanced budget amendment in the constitution. It is very simple. In section 1 of article 16 it says: The State of Wyoming shall not in any manner, create any indebtedness exceeding 1 per centum on the assessed value of the taxable property in the State * * * except to suppress insurrection or to provide for the public defense. It has been very satisfactory. The legislature knows this is your income, this is your expenditure. You have to make it fit. The balanced budget, I believe, was one of the primary reforms we were sent here to consider, that we were sent here to pass. We are not moving toward it without the balanced budget amendment--$1.6 trillion in spending next year more than last year, with a projected deficit of approximately $200 billion until the year 2002 with no appreciable change of where we have been. This is not the kind of change that people asked us for when we were sent here in November. Those of us who just ran this year I think have a particularly clear picture of what voters were talking about. There are 11 new freshmen in this body, all 11 of whom support the balanced budget amendment. I think that says something about it. Mr. President, I hope we continue to work on this issue. I hope we come to a resolution before long. I think there is a limit to the productive discussion and debate. We need to consider those things that are real. We do not need to spend a great deal of time simply postponing a decision that needs to be made, and which needs to be made for the good of this country. There are additional Senators on the floor. I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, over the weekend the administration announced its decision to impose trade sanctions beginning on February 26 on the People's Republic of China in retaliation for the latter's dismal failure in safeguarding U.S. intellectual property rights. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I fully support that decision. Since 1992, the PRC has failed to live up to its obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding on Intellectual Property Rights. Factories throughout China, especially in the southern and eastern provinces, continue to mass-produce pirated versions of American computer software, compact discs, CD-ROM's, and video and audio cassettes mostly for sale abroad. The USTR estimates that piracy of audio-visual works runs close to 100 percent, while piracy of other technological items such as computer software runs around 94 to 100 percent. In addition, piracy of trademarks is rampant. This piracy is much more than a minor nuisance. The sale of these pirated items has cost U.S. businesses more than $1 billion, a sum which threatens to increase exponentially as the number of pirated products swells. It endangers American jobs, as well as our primacy in software innovation. What makes the manufacture of these illegal goods even more galling, however, is the fact that their production is tolerated, if not actively encouraged in some instances, by Chinese municipal and provincial governments as well as the central authorities in Beijing. The USTR has complained repeatedly about the problem and United States- China negotiators have been meeting for more than a year and a half in an effort to resolve it. Still, the Chinese refuse to stem the flow of these goods out of the PRC. Certainly, the Government cannot claim ignorance of the problem. Even if the USTR had not been so thorough in documenting the problem, this is hardly a case of a few small ``mom-and-pop'' concerns operating covertly in an open, unregulated economy. Rather, these are large factories--some, enterprises run by governmental entities such as the People's Liberation Army--operating in a Communist country with an economy that is still largely command-based. The likelihood that, for example, the estimated 75 million compact discs produced illegally in China each year--of which 70 million are exported--could escape the attention of the government is about nil. sensitive time in Sino-American relations, and that this is not the only thorny issue with which we are presently grappling. Human rights issues, trade barriers, Taiwan, the proliferation of weapons to such rogue nations as Iran all complicate our relationship. What's more, with an ailing Deng Xiaoping apparently no longer in complete control of the party or the government, and the hold of Jiang Zemin and Li Peng on the reins of power less than firm, we face a possibility that taking a strong stand on any of these issues with the Chinese could aid in bringing in power reactionary hardliners inimical to a beneficial relationship between our two countries. Despite this concern, I believe that the time has come to take a firm stand with the PRC on this issue. In the 1960's, Mao Zedong was fond of referring to the United States as a ``paper tiger,'' a fierce countenance but no substance to back it up. In Wyoming we'd say ``all bark and no bite.'' In my view we have, unfortunately, all too often lived up to that assessment. It is hardly in our own interest to be perceived as a paper tiger on this issue. Intellectual property is one of the fastest growing areas of the world economy. The PRC is not the only country we are having this problem with: Brazil, India, and others are sources for concern with the USTR. By taking a firm position now with the Chinese, I believe we help head off similar problems elsewhere in the future. While I will be the first to acknowledge the importance and desirability of a strong relationship--both diplomatically and economically--with the PRC, such a relationship should not be built at the expense of America's businesses, or America's reputation for resolve. This administration, I believe, has been too quick to hold us hostage in the present in favor of the mere expectancy of an economic benefit in the future. Later this week, I will be meeting with Ambassador Li Daoyu. While I intend to reaffirm with him our desire to maintain a strong relationship with Beijing, I also hope to discuss the importance of resolving this issue before advances can be made on other fronts. I support free trade, as long as it is fair trade. In my view, a failure on the part of the PRC to do so would indicate to me they do not desire a level playing field. Consequently, I would be hard pressed to continue to support the present trade relationship with the PRC. Mr. President, the Chinese have a saying: ``Either the East Wind prevails over the West Wind, or the West Wind prevails over the East Wind.'' It seems to me, though, that we should both strive for that preferred state where neither wind blows: Calm. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today as a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs--and a former ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs--to introduce legislation to make certain technical amendments to laws relating to native Americans. Congress typically considers legislation like this once or twice a year. It affords us the opportunity to address a series of technical corrections or minor amendments to Indian bills in one fell swoop, without having to introduce several separate bills. Sections 1 and 2 deal with two bills that were passed last year which extended Federal recognition to three Indian groups in Michigan: the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi, and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. The bills, passed in September, failed to include a usual provision requiring the newly recognized groups to submit membership rolls to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These rolls are important because they allow the BIA to know exactly who is a member of the band and thus entitled to Federal benefits available to members of recognized tribes. To correct this oversight, in October--as part of another technical corrections bill--we amended both the September bills to include the membership roll requirements. Unfortunately, in the crush of legislation of the final days of the session, the two amendments were transposed. The Pokagon bill, which deals with only one band, was amended in the plural; concomitantly, the Odawa/Ottawa bill, which deals with several bands, had an amendment worded in the singular. This bill would simply retranspose the October amendments. Section 3 of the bill repeals the Trading With the Indians Act. Enacted in the early 1800's, the act prohibits Federal employees from trading with Indians. At the time, the act was seen as a way to protect the unsophisticated tribes from unscrupulous War Department employees who might have used their positions over the tribes to enter into business deals with them on terms less than advantageous to the Indians. Today, though, the act has become both an anachronism and a nuisance. Not only are the tribes no longer in need of the paternalistic protections the act affords; but it makes criminal such simple everyday acts as the sale of a used car by the wife of a BIA employee to an Indian neighbor. Both the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior agree that the act is unnecessary, and should be repealed. My good friends Senators McCain and Kyl worked diligently on this issue in the last Congress, but time constraints prevented its passage by both Houses before adjournment sine die. Mr. President, I look forward to working closely with my chairman, Senator McCain, in securing swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the subject that is before the Senate this week, and I suppose next week and possibly the week after, the balanced budget amendment. I think we will have extended debate, probably longer than we need, some of which will be to talk about options, some of which will be to talk in real debate about differences in view, but much of it will simply be designed, I think, to delay action on what I think to be a very important issue. So, it will be difficult to focus on new information. It seems to me there is a very basic question that has to be asked first, before all the detail is entered into and that is, is it morally and fiscally responsible to spend more than we take in? I think that is the question that most Americans ask of their Government: Can we continue to spend more than we take in? Is it morally wrong to spend more than we take in, to transfer that debt to someone in the future? I think Americans ask, is it fiscally responsible to continue to spend more than we take in? The answer, obviously, ``is no,'' it is not morally responsible, it is not fiscally responsible. So, that is the basic question. And most everyone would answer that the same. Then we get into a great debate about how we do it. I support a balanced budget amendment. I believe very strongly that it needs to be done. I believe very strongly that it has worked in the States. What are the arguments against it? We hear them time and time again. One of them is it is not needed. The evidence is it is needed. This Congress has not balanced the budget. It has not balanced the budget in 26 years and only balanced it five times in 50 years. So the evidence is that, sure, we can balance the budget. The fact is that Congress does not. The fact is, it is a little easier to say we like the programs; if we can put it on the credit card, we will do it. If we have to pay for it, it is a different matter. Then it is a matter of setting up priorities. Then it is a matter of a cost-benefit ratio, and we hear, ``Here is what it costs. Here is the value.'' The decision may be different than saying ``Here is the value. We do not have to pay for it now.'' Some say it is not needed. I suggest that the evidence would indicate that it is. Some say we already have the tools; we can do it this year. Certainly, that is true. Again, the evidence shows that that has not happened. It is very difficult. I am persuaded that there needs to be a constitutional discipline to balance the budget on a continuing basis. Some say it is too strict, it is too confining. It does not need to be. There are arrangements that in case of emergencies--some say in case of war--it can be changed, of course. It can be changed by a vote or supermajority vote or written into the amendment that it is changed under certain circumstances. Again, I say to Members that almost all of the States in this country have balanced budget amendments. In my State of Wyoming it is in the constitution, and it is not troublesome for that reason. We heard an extended argument earlier this week on how courts and judges would be deciding. The evidence does not show that in the area where we have had a balanced budget amendment in the States. The courts do not do the budgeting. That is, I think, not a good reason for not moving forward. the several procedural changes that seem to me to be imperative. Several of the changes were clearly in the mind of voters in November, changes that will have a long-term impact, not just on this year's decisions in the Congress, but an impact on the way Congress behaves over time. That is the more important question. We keep expecting different results and continue to use the same process. There is really little reason to expect that results will be different if we continue to do the same thing. We need a forced discipline. We need an external constraint. I think that is true of most political bodies, frankly. Politicians love to be able to provide programs. Politicians love to be able to solve problems. Politicians sort of get to where they like to have problems to resolve for their constituents. A man with a hammer thinks every problem is a nail. We need some constraint, some constitutional discipline. The Federal debt is nearly $5 trillion, over $18,000 for every person in this country. We spend $800-plus million per day in the gross interest payments. So we have a moral imperative to balance the budget for people in Wyoming and people in every other State. Families have to balance, businesses have to balance, States, by and large, have to balance, and the Federal Government should have to balance as well and not pass off the debt on its children and grandchildren. Opponents say, ``We already have the tools.'' The evidence shows that we do not. The Federal Government has spent more than it has taken in for 55 of the last 63 years. Not a good record--not a good record--and not a good basis for saying we do not need to do anything. So, Mr. President, I am sure we will hear about draconian cuts. The fact is that what we have to do is slow the growth. We have been increasing spending at 5 percent. Say we increase it only at 2 percent. So I hope as we go forward, we can continue to make some points about the balanced budget, but the bottom line is, should we do it and, if so, what has to take place to require that the balanced budget be used in the Congress and be used for Federal spending. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today for a short tribute to a lady from Wyoming who passed away last week, a lady who certainly was a rare and wonderful gem, not only for Wyoming but for this country as well. She was someone that I had the great privilege of knowing and admiring, Lorna Kooi Simpson. My friend Al Simpson and the entire Simpson family lost a wonderful mother and caregiver last week. We all have lost one of the greatest ladies of Wyoming and the dearest of souls. Her devotion to her family, community, State and Nation are a legacy. Indeed she is part of the very fabric of Wyoming. Lorna Simpson began her long distinguished life on August 19, 1900-- the daughter of a Dutch immigrant. With her family Lorna Simpson moved West. In 1929 Lorna married an exceptional young man, a lawyer, from Cody, WY--Milward Simpson. He was a State legislator for Wyoming and a man destined to lead his State. Together they had two sons, Peter and Alan. In Lorna, Milward found an equally dedicated soul and a partner to do the work few of us have the means to accomplish. Lorna, like the rest of her family, went on to do great things. She was a stalwart of her community and State; active in community service, business, the war effort and of course politics. husband, made up one of the most successful and respected teams Wyoming has ever known. In 1954 Lorna became the First Lady of Wyoming after helping her husband become Wyoming's Governor. There in Cheyenne her reputation only grew as a caring compassionate person who put so much of her time and spirit into the youth of Wyoming. Milward Simpson and his dear wife gave their unique talents and thoughtful style to Washington in 1962 when Milward served Wyoming until 1966 as a Member of this body. During her time here Lorna was named by the Senate to be the representative of the Women of the United States to the Organization of American States. In addition, she worked tirelessly to refurbish and extend the use of the Senate Chapel. Their sons, Pete and Al, have gone on to great things. Pete Simpson as the University of Wyoming's vice president for development and alumni and university relations, Al Simpson, like his father, of course, as one of the most respected Members of this body. As a wife, mother, First Lady, adviser, grandmother, and great- grandmother Lorna Simpson touched countless lives and helped so many people. Her accomplishments, the people she touched could never really be fully listed. Susan and I join so many in grieving the passage of a lady who was truly the very best of Wyoming. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in to talk about a balanced budget amendment. There has been a great deal of talk about it. There continues to be a great deal of talk about it. There is a great deal of interest in this matter, as there should be. I think most of all, as evidenced by the leadership of the Senator from Idaho, there is a great deal of dedication to getting this job done. Voters supported the idea in November. It is not a new idea. Somehow some of the discussion seems to center on what will we do with such a thing. The fact is that it is not a new idea. It is not a new idea for the Congress. It is not a new idea for the Nation. Indeed, it is used by 48 States now, and used successfully in my State of Wyoming. We have a constitutional balanced budget amendment. The legislature and the government live by that constitutional amendment without a great deal of problem, as a matter of fact. So, it seems to me that it is terribly important. It is important because it balanced budget that we all agree should happen. It is also a symbol of responsibility, both morally and fiscally. So it is something that we really ought to do. There are, of course, a couple of questions that are always asked. The first question and the basic question we ought to ask ourselves and voters ask themselves and citizens ought to ask themselves is: Should we, in fact, balance the budget? Should we in the Congress spend more than we take in? Should we live on the same basis as our families must? As our businesses must? As local governments must? And that is, that we have to have a balance between revenue and expenditures, a reasonable thing. That first question is: Should we do that? The answer is, I think, almost unanimous, not only among Members of the Congress, but among voters and among citizens: Yes, indeed, we should do that. So, a citizen in Greybull, WY, says: What is the discussion about? I do not quite understand this. Of course we ought to balance the budget. The fact is we have not balanced the budget and we need to do something about it. He says: Gosh, everyone says they are for a balanced budget. Do you know of anyone who says, no, we should not balance the budget? Of course not. Everyone wants to balance the budget. And yet we find more and more people who are saying, ``What is the hurry? Let us delay this. I am not sure about this. Let us talk about it,'' as if we had not talked about it before. They oppose the amendment saying we do not need an amendment; we have the tools. The Director of OMB was on TV the other day in sort of a debate about it and saying, ``Gosh, we do not need an amendment; we can balance the budget. We have the tools.'' The fact is, the evidence is, that that is not true. We have not balanced the budget. We have balanced the budget once, I think, in 26 years or something and just a few times out of the last 50 years. So the fact is that there does need to be some discipline. The idea that we want to balance the budget does not just make it happen. I understand why it does not happen. There is always a reluctance to raise revenues and there is always a willingness on the part of politicians to want to do things for their constituents. And I understand that. The result, of course, is that we spend much more than we take in. The result is that we have nearly a $5 trillion deficit that you and I and our children and our grandchildren must live with. So then some say, ``Well, what about the details? We want to know precisely how you are going to do this.'' Obviously, that is almost an impossibility. It is going to be done over a period of time and, I must tell you, I am not concerned about the fact that it is 5 years or 7 years or, personally, if it is 10 years. If we are in a course toward balancing the budget, moving without deviation to that, if it takes longer, let it take longer. But who knows what the economy will be in 5 years? Who knows? So the idea that you can lay out in detail how you are going to do it does not seem to be reasonable. It seems to me, rather, to be a way of saying, ``Yes, I am for a balanced budget, but unless you can give the details, then I am not for it.'' It is simply a way of saying I am for it and not for it, which is not a new technique in this place, by the way. It is done quite often. The other interesting thing about that is the same person will say, ``We can balance the budget without the amendment, but I want to know the details if you are going to have an amendment; tell me the details of how you are going to do it without an amendment.'' The cuts are going to have to be about the same. Then I heard someone this morning on TV say, ``We want to know about Social Security.'' We have clearly said Social Security is not to be a part of the reduction. We have clearly said that Social Security is an obligation that we have to Social Security recipients. We hear a great deal about cuts, as if there would be draconian cuts to do this. The fact of the matter is that what we are really talking about is a reduction in the growth. That is what it takes, the discipline to have a reduction in the growth. I noticed there are others on the floor who want to talk about this. I feel very strongly about the balanced budget amendment. As I indicated, as a member of the Wyoming Legislature, I was involved with this process. I think it works. I think it should work for us on the national level. I think we have a great opportunity to do that now. I think this is one of the procedural changes that we really need to have if you want to have a change in Government. Procedural changes are, in the long run, more important than are the specific changes that we will make in this year or any other year because they change the way that the Congress deals with problems. Procedural changes, like the one that we have already passed on making the Congress accountable, to live under the same rules that we expect everyone else to live under, changes like line-item veto are very important, it seems to me. It is almost impossible for Members of this body or the House to reach into bills and make changes on the floor. But the President is the only person who has the kind of political structure on which to stand to make those sorts of cuts in pork. The line-item veto is very important. I happen to believe that unfunded mandates is one that we have to pass. Procedurally, that will change the future of how this Congress behaves. I personally believe we ought to have term limits. These are the procedural changes that will impact the decisions we make. I am persuaded--I think most people in this country are persuaded--it is morally and fiscally correct to balance the budget. I am persuaded the evidence shows we have not and cannot do it without the discipline of an amendment. I am persuaded that the States and the people, through their legislatures, ought to have a chance to deal with it on a constitutional basis. I urge that we move forward and give the people of America an opportunity to deal with this issue through their legislatures. I yield the remainder of my time. (Mr. JEFFORDS assumed the chair.)

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I simply rise to express my concern about the lack of progress that we have made generally supported in this body, certainly is supported by me and I know is supported by almost all of the leaders in local governments throughout the country. I have watched the progress or, indeed, the lack of it on S. 1 for 7 or 8 days now. I have listened with a good deal of interest and watched the process, and I must tell you that it is an exasperating process. We have had, I think, more than 100 amendments, many of which were not germane to the issue that is before us. They certainly have to be considered as stalling tactics. I have heard Senators review endlessly the same kinds of issues on the floor which leads one to conclude that nothing more than stalling is happening. We have heard discussions about previous years and the things that have happened in previous bills that have little, if any, relevance to what we are doing here. I support the unfunded mandates bill. I think most people in the Senate support this bill, and I think the American people generally support this bill. I have come, as others have, from the House. I served in the Wyoming Legislature, and I have not seen a process which has no apparent purpose or goal be executed as has this one over the last several days. I do not fully understand yet all of the intricacies, of course, of the U.S. Senate, but I do understand that there is a need to have a process by which people can insist upon more detail, can insist upon more time being taken so that everyone does understand, so that everyone has an opportunity. But I must tell you that I have not been able to detect that there is any particular goal, that there is any particular purpose being served by the time we have taken here. I think it is very important that we come to this place after having been through an election recently in which people in this country expressed themselves, I think, very clearly, expressed themselves in terms of wanting this Government to proceed, wanting this Government to move forward, wanting this Government to deal with the issues that are there, that are so apparent. I think people are tired of unproductive maneuvers throughout the Congress, stalling tactics, and I think this is an example of that. Mr. President, it seems to me that this delay over unfunded mandates is ultimately useless. The bill will ultimately pass. This will not change the outcome. The bill is a flexible bill. It does not simply impose unfunded mandates on issues or on people, but it simply says there will be an accounting for what the impact of these proposals will be. It simply says that when there is an accounting that demonstrates an expenditure of over $50 million, that there will be cause for a point of order and a vote so that this Senate will take a look at it. Processwise, if the Senate continues to lag, action will be criticized. Again, make no mistake, the bill will eventually pass. Changing Washington and changing the way we do business has been called for. It is a long process, but it is happening and it is happening now. Indeed, it should happen. Procedural changes such as a balanced budget amendment, such as limiting unfunded mandates, such as line-item veto, and, indeed, term limits are the kinds of procedural changes that will have an impact over time on the way we govern. So we are witnessing the first protests of a huge change, and I understand that. Unfunded mandates will be banned. Washington will change. Some will not like it but the people in the country will. I urge us to move forward. I urge us to move forward and do the business of the people of this country. I thank the Chair. I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to comment this morning on an issue that I think is important to us and to this country, and that is the balanced budget amendment. Although we have been discussing over the past several days the unfunded mandates bill, the question of a balanced budget has come up. There is a relationship, and I understand the relationship. Certainly, if I were a local government official and we were talking about a balanced budget amendment I would want the protection of an unfunded mandate bill so that the Federal Government would not shift the responsibility of payment to local government. But the balanced budget amendment goes beyond that, it seems to me. It is one of the fundamental changes that needs to take place in the Federal Government so that decisions in the future will be different. If we are really talking about change, some of the procedural changes that are being discussed now need to happen and they need to happen soon. We have already done the accountability of the Congress. That is excellent. There is no reason why the people here should not live under the same rules that they apply to others. We need a balanced budget amendment to give us some discipline for fiscal responsibility. We need to do that. We need to have a line-item veto. I have had some experience in the House where you have an item that simply does not belong in a bill. It is in the highway bill and it is a museum for Lawrence Welk, but you cannot touch it because the rules do not allow for that to happen. So you need a line-item veto. We need term limitations. These are the kinds of fundamental changes, but I want to talk today about the balanced budget amendment. It has to do with shaping the form of the Federal Government over a period of time. It has to do with the question of whether we will have fiscal responsibility or whether we do not. There has been a good deal of dissent on an issue which most people say they are for, and now we find an increasing number of people who begin to find reasons why they are not for it. The local Hill paper says: ``Balanced Budget Amendment Is a Charade.'' I do not believe that. I think that is wrong. Let me talk about some of the issues. First of all, it is a fundamental question and the question should be divided. The question is: Do you think it is fiscally or morally irresponsible to spend more than you take in? Do you think it is fiscally irresponsible to spend more than you take in? Is it morally irresponsible to shift the debt to our children, grandchildren and their children? The answer is, yes, of course it is fiscally irresponsible; of course, it is morally irresponsible. That is the basic question. The answer is not, ``Yes, it is irresponsible if it doesn't hurt too much,'' or, ``Yes, I would like to do it if it doesn't pinch us a little bit.'' The answer is, ``Yes, it is irresponsible to continue to do what we have been doing for 40 years.'' That is the first question. The second question then is how do you do it? The second question is, over a period of time, how do you do it? It does not matter to me particularly whether it takes 5 years or 7 years or 10 years, if we are on a glide path that holds us toward a balanced budget. The second one we hear constantly is we do not need an amendment. We now have all the tools that are necessary to do it. The fact is, evidence does not support that. We have not had a balanced budget for 25 years. I think we have had two in 50 years. There is not evidence that this Congress can balance the budget, is willing to balance the budget or does balance the budget and, indeed, we need some discipline to cause that to happen. Talking about it does not cause it to happen. The Director of OMB on the TV said, ``Well, we have all the tools we need.'' Maybe so, but tell me how well it has worked. It has not worked. So we do need some discipline. We need some discipline to cause the Members of Congress to balance the budget. Should it have more discussion? I heard the other day, someone said, ``Well, it needs to be discussed.'' It has been discussed for at least 10 years. We voted on it several times. We voted on it in the House; we voted on it in the Senate. It is not a puzzle. It is not a difficult one to decide on the basic issue of whether a Government should be responsible enough to not spend more than it takes in. We have had lots of discussion. Some say it is a gimmick. Some say it is bumper-sticker politics. Let me tell you something, it works in 48 States. I served in the Wyoming legislature. It works there. We have a constitutional provision that you cannot spend more than you take in. It works. There is no question about whether it works. It is not a gimmick. It provides the kind of discipline to force the is what a legislature is all about. Without that kind of discipline, it does not happen. It is pretty simple. In the Wyoming legislature, and 48 others, when you get in the appropriations committee, of which I was a member, you say, ``Look, we are spending more than we have to spend.'' You have to make some changes and you do that. It is not mystic; it is not magic. It is just the discipline that causes that to happen. Some say, ``Well, judges will be setting it.'' Not so. It is not true in the States. The States do not have judges setting budgets. That will not happen. Some say, ``Well, we have to have an outline before we can be for it. We have to know what you are going to cut.'' There is no way that you know what you are going to cut in 7 years or 10 years. The first question is, Is it responsible to balance the budget? The second question is, How do you do it? And if you really believe that it needs to be done, you do it. Raise revenues? Of course. I am not for that, but that is possible. And if you are willing to pay for it, you put a cost-benefit ratio. You can do that. If you are committed to a balanced budget, however, you will find the way. Those who say, ``We do not need the tools, we already have them,'' they have to do the same thing if they are going to balance the budget. They say, ``We are going to balance the budget, we don't need a balanced budget amendment.'' You have to make the same cuts to do it either way. What is the problem with having discipline? What is the problem with going to the States and saying to the State legislatures, ``We have a balanced budget to the Constitution. You have a chance to vote.'' People want to be involved in government. The administration says we are already cutting the deficit; we do not need it. The fact is that most of the deficit cut in the last 2 years has been the bookkeeping deficit, and the only real change in policy that has reduced the deficit has been an increase in taxes. The fact is, we spent more last year than we spent the year before. But we raised taxes and we did reduce the deficit, and I am pleased with that. But most of it was a bookkeeping change from the S&L's and Medicaid. Some of it was an increase in taxes. We have not balanced the budget. The projection is the deficit is going back up. We hear a lot about the cuts that are needed. The fact is, we will be spending substantially more at the end of 7 years than we spend now. It is not a question of cuts. It is a matter of reducing the growth, and that is where we are. So a balanced budget amendment, it seems to me, is the responsible thing to do. Balancing the budget is the responsible thing to do. If I heard something in this election in 1994 in Wyoming it is, ``We want responsible government; we have too much government; it costs too much,'' and the balanced budget amendment is the discipline that we need to set priorities. You have to spend within your budget in your family. You have to spend within your budget in your business and, over time, you have to spend within your budget in your Government, and this will provide the discipline to do it. We answer the question: Is it morally and fiscally responsible to balance the budget? The answer is yes, and we ought to get on about it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is my pleasure, as I rise this morning, to join my colleagues in support of S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill that Senator Kempthorne and many others have done such great work on. In the recent election, of course, this country and the voters of this country voted for change, a change in the way that Washington operates, a change in the way that the Government operates. This bill provides us with one of the first opportunities to deliver that change. It seems to me that, although we will take up a great many specific issues throughout this session of Congress, and we should, that probably most important are some of the structural changes that we are talking about--this being included as one of them. Some of the changes in procedure will result in the individual issues being changed and being about the change that voters asked for. Sometimes, I suppose, people at home get a little impatient with the idea that we work for procedural changes. But let me suggest that in order to bring about continuing change, fundamental change, these procedural changes are the most important thing that we can do-- procedural changes like the balanced-budget amendment, which will change our outlook on fiscal responsibility; changes like unfunded mandates, which will change the relationship between the Federal Government and the States; changes like accountability, which we passed yesterday, of course, which properly makes the Congress live under limits, I believe, are also a procedural change that needs to take place. Unfunded mandates affect State and local communities. They are hidden taxes that local communities, businesses, and citizens have to pay. These mandates force the States and localities to increase their taxes or shift their priorities of spending and shift their services in order to make those ends meet. National programs should not be financed by local property taxes, but that is exactly what happens when the Congress passes an unfunded mandate. Unfunded mandates infringe upon States' rights. Federal mandates take away State and local community opportunities to set their own priorities and make it difficult for State and local governments to plan for the future. I served in the Wyoming Legislature, and a good deal of our budget was committed, before we ever arrived in Cheyenne, to unfunded mandates. This bill will help restore States' rights and the Founding Fathers' concept of federalism and the relationship that should exist between the Federal Government and the States. We will give some recognition to the 10th amendment, that those things that are not expressly given to the Federal Government should rest with the people and with the States and communities. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, ``Were we directed by Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread.'' A simple rule should apply to Congress: If legislation is good enough to pass, it ought to be good enough to pay for. The cost of unfunded Federal mandates is well documented. Over the past two decades the Federal Government has enacted over 200 new laws containing thousands of regulations and assigned the costs to State and local government. For example, unfunded mandates eat up about 12 percent of locally raised revenue and will cost localities about $54 billion over the next 5 years. Unfunded mandates, of course, exist everywhere. There are examples in Wyoming. Wyoming's towns are generally small towns. Greybull, WY, for example, was mandated $1.3 million by EPA for a water treatment plant. That is nearly $3,000 per resident who lives there. Pinedale, WY, draws their water from the cleanest source anyone can imagine and the test results of that water are perfectly acceptable in quality. Nevertheless, they had to build a water treatment plant, not for the results but because of the unfunded mandates. The city of Cheyenne, $3 million in the last year alone, in the last fiscal year. I guess the thing I remember the most was going to the community college in Torrington, WY, where they had made arrangements to make their auditorium accessible to disabled people under the Americans With Disabilities Act--as they should. However, they had a way to make it accessible at very much less cost than what they finally had to do because of the regulations that were imposed under the mandate. To achieve the same goal they had to pay a great deal more. The Clinton administration has a poor record on unfunded mandates. President Clinton's health proposal, the Brady law, and last year's crime bill are just some examples of this administration's unfunded mandate agenda. We need this bill enacted quickly to put the brakes on that regulatory machine. The balanced-budget amendment, of course, will be before us soon. I support the balanced-budget amendment. I think it is morally and fiscally right to not be able to spend more than we take in. That should apply to the Federal Government as well. Local officials, of course, are concerned about a balanced-budget amendment unless they have the protection against unfunded mandates so that the result of a balanced-budget amendment will not simply be the shifting of costs to local governments. By requiring activities without paying for them, official Washington can go on a spending spree on somebody else's credit card. It is easy and dishonest, but it is a way around the Federal deficit. Congress takes the credit for legislation but sidesteps the costs. The combination of these two proposals, unfunded mandates and a balanced budget amendment, will be the answer. We need to pass unfunded mandates legislation before we tackle the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Last year, unfunded mandates legislation made it out of committee both in the House and in the Senate. I was a member of the Governmental Operations Committee in the House, and in the last days of the session we passed it. Unfortunately, it did not receive consideration on the floor. In this new Congress, we have a tremendous opportunity to change the way government operates. While this bill is not as strong as some would like it, it is a solid first step in restoring some accountability in Washington. The bottom line is that Washington must stop passing the buck and start taking the responsibility for the legislation it passes. It is vital that we take advantage of this opportunity to change the way Government functions. Mr. President, thank you for the time. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural Emergency Access Care Hospital Act, [REACH] to help small rural hospitals across the country serve their communities. It will provide the vital medical care rural Americans need in times of emergency. The outlook for many rural hospitals is grim. Many contemplate closure on a daily basis as Medicare reimbursement rates continue to drop the Federal Government enforces costly regulations, and low inpatient stays become the norm. Currently, if a hospital fails to meet all Medicare conditions of participation, they will lose certification. That means, facilities will not be reimbursed by HCFA for the medical services they provide. Closing hospitals in Wyoming is not an acceptable option. In my State, if a town loses its most important point of service--the emergency room--it is typical for patients to drive 100 miles or more to the closest territory care center. There is no doubt that excess capacity in our hospitals is a financial drain on the Nation's health care system. However, emergency medical care is not a fringe benefit. It must be available to all Americans--rural and urban alike. Mr. President, the REACH bill presents rural areas with a viable option. It accommodates different levels of medical care throughout the State while providing stabilization services needed in remote areas. Under my bill, rural facilities could convert to rural emergency access care hospitals, provided they meet the following qualifications: First, be able to transfer patients to a nearby, full-service hospital; second, be located in a rural area; third, keep a practitioner, who is certified by the State in advanced cardiac life support onsite 24-hours a day; and fourth, retain a physician on-call 24 hours a day. Hospital administrators view this as a solid solution to improve the rural health care delivery system. There are several distinctions between the REACH bill and other limited hospital service programs. Under my bill, facilities are not required to be an arbitrary 35 miles or more apart. What happens if they are 34 miles apart? It is still a long drive in a snowstorm. In addition, hospitals would not have to surrender their license and States would not be required to go through a lengthy application process, unlike current demonstration grant programs. Mr. President, the REACH bill has a history of wide bipartisan support. Last year it was folded into Majority Leader Bob Dole's alternative health care reform plan and Senator John Chafee's Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act. It was also included in the House GOP leadership's Affordable Health Care Now Act, Representative Jim Cooper's Managed Competition Act, and the House Rural Health Care Coalition's Rural Health Delivery System Development Act. As we search for affordable solutions to improve the health care delivery system, the REACH bill is one proposal that should be added to the list. The legislation is in lockstep with other reforms, such as portability, prohibition of preexisting conditions, malpractice reform, and administrative simplification. If there were two thresholds established by last year's debate on health care reform--flexibility and affordability--then you cannot go wrong with supporting the REACH bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back any remaining time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 210 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of pride and humility that I rise today as Wyoming's newest Senator. It is a great honor, of course, to be here. I take the floor to speak about a matter which is of great concern to me and all of us, and that is the future of this country. We have a historic opportunity to make real changes in the way the Federal Government operates and in how the American people perceive their Government. It seems to me that we either move boldly forward with the changes demanded by the electorate last November 8, or we squander the only real, true chance of restoring the American people's confidence in their Government. The true test of government, it seems to me, is how responsive it is to the will of the voters. Mr. President, as I traveled Wyoming these last few months and talked to the folks from Cheyenne to Cody, I heard a recurring theme from my constituents. Over and over, they told me to get Government out of their lives, to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, and above all else, to put an end to business as usual. Judging by the results of the last election, it was a common message throughout the country. There should be no doubt about the message sent to Washington last November, and that was we need less government, less expensive government. People are tired of the status quo, and they want changes in how Government operates. Unfortunately, as we all know, government in modern times has become increasingly resistant to change. As I read history, it is not unusual for voters to call for change. They did so about every generation in the 1800's up into the 1900's, until about 1930 when the Federal Government began to get much larger. As it has become a more and more pervasive part of our lives, to where it is now, with the size of the Federal Government plus the outside bureaucracies that have been built up through the decades, it becomes more and more difficult to change. These constituencies and the Government stubbornly fight to protect their piece of the Federal funding pie. Federal programs do not die; they do not even fade away. They grow and grow. As the Federal Government has grown, the American people have grown increasingly disenfranchised. Not only do Americans distrust their Government, but many do not even bother to vote because they do not believe their vote can help effect change. I suppose that is because in past elections, change has not come about and the direction the country has remained much the same. We cannot repeat that mistake. The first lesson we must learn is that we cannot continue to do the same things, to follow the same procedures, and expect different results. If we want to change the direction this country is moving, then we have to make procedural changes in the Government. Many argue that we do not need a balanced budget amendment, that we simply ought to balance the budget. Let me suggest to you that for 40 years that has not worked. Indeed, in my opinion, there does need to be a change in procedure and there does need to be some discipline that causes us to have a balanced budget. We have made a good start. We will pass a measure that causes Congress to live under the same laws that it mandated for others. Next week, we will move to eliminate unfunded Federal mandates. We need to pass a balanced budget amendment and give the President line-item-veto authority. As we demand a smaller Federal Government, we need to lead by example and reduce the congressional bureaucracy. The American people support these changes. They will go a long way toward building the base from which to bring fundamental change to every sector of the Government. Mr. President, there will be many important issues debated on the floor of the Senate over the next 2 years. Some of my priorities include health care reform, tax reduction, welfare reform, and reducing the growth of Federal ownership of public lands, to name just a few. But no issue is as important as the structural changes I mentioned earlier. Without significant change in the way the Congress and the Federal Government operates, other important changes in policy will be difficult. The American people will be watching closely to see if we respond to their cry for change. I certainly heard that message in Wyoming loud and clear. I hope that this time, Washington is listening, as well. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.