Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I rise in support of tabling this amendment. I have listened to my esteemed friend from Texas. I am not going back to Plato. I will start closer to the current situation. I am surprised, when we talk about giving the private sector an opportunity to compete for contracts put out by the Defense Department, that that is special interest. That is difficult for me to understand. This is defense authorization. It is absolutely the appropriate place to talk about how we do that, how we pay for it, and who does the work. It is also important we get moving with this program. This is not an amendment that came in; this language is in the committee bill. I have worked for several years, as many have, on a fair amendment designed to give the private sector an opportunity to bid on Government businesses. We have been successful. We have had many agencies look at what they are doing instead of doing it internally, instead of putting it out for contract. It seems reasonable. This is competition. The prisons will continue to have the opportunity to compete under a very unfair--for them, favorable--situation. They don't have to pay taxes; they don't have to pay minimum wage; they don't have to do any of the things they do in the private sector. This has been in place since 1934. Talk about a study. The study was not even made by the congressional group. The study did not come up with the real facts. It is time to do something. It is time to deal with this idea that the private sector ought to be able to participate, to compete. That is the bottom line. As to the notion that this does away with Federal Industries, only 18 percent of the Federal prisoners are involved. The other 82 percent are doing food service, plumbing, carpentry, other things. It is not a fact that this does away with the industry. As a matter of fact, as a good example, New Mexico, a State that had a mandatory source situation such as this, lifted it. The New Mexico Prison Industries operated under that until the State legislature reformed it. They are very happy with the result of that transformation which does, indeed, provide for competition, which is exactly what we want. The Senator from Texas, a proponent of the private sector for the most part, is calling the private sector private interest. That is peculiar. We have a Government monopoly and we are saying this is an opportunity for people to compete. This does not eliminate the prison production. It makes it competitive. As I mentioned, there are a number of opportunities for them. The competitive advantages are retained: Inmate wages, from $.23 to $1.15, compared to the private sector; factory space furnished by the host prison, with no cost to the actual production; equipment, utilities, taxes, insurance, workplace benefits--none of those things offered. Yet they will be able to compete. That is what it is, competition. We have had meetings about the private sector and trying to strengthen the economy. Yet we seem to be reluctant to allow the private sector to help the economy by moving into this area. It is very timely and appropriate to do it on this bill. The idea of setting it off I don't think makes much sense. There are many other products beyond defense, less vital to the time. We have had, for 45 years, a policy in this Government that we ought to go to the private sector to provide for governmental needs. That has been the policy. Yet we still have a monopoly to do it the other way. There are plenty of jobs prisoners can do. I, too, support the idea that there ought to be work for prisoners. But there are lots of jobs that can be done in the prison realm that would be outside of this competitiveness as to who can do the supplies and the necessary equipment for the defense. This idea is also supported as a special interest by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by the small business NFIB, by labor unions, which also favor all these opportunities for the private sector to supply the needs of Government. It is not a new idea. It makes sense to me. Also, we will find it is difficult for the Defense Department to have various contracts. They are not the ones that supervise the contract. They lose some control when it goes to this prison authority. It is difficult when we have a mandatory source for the needs that are required in defense. I don't know that we need to go into a great deal of detail. The facts are that prison workers can still continue. Most support the idea that we ought to have competition for these expenditures. Most support the idea the private sector ought to have an opportunity to compete with Government in any circumstance where the private sector can do that. That is what strengthens it. We are in a time that anything we can do to increase the activity of the private sector is good for the economy. We are fighting on two fronts: terrorism on one side and strengthening the economy on the other. These are the things we need to do. The policy for doing this is 46 years old. We have strengthened that in the last several years to get more emphasis on the idea that there needs to be competition, there needs to be private sector involvement. In my view, the more the private sector can do in terms of the Government realm, the better off we are. What the Government ought to do is strengthen their ability to let contracts and review the contracts and make sure it is done that way. Prison Industries has been in place since 1934. I think it has not been improved. This is not going to change it. Only 18 percent are involved out of 22,000. So we are going to find ourselves with an opportunity that they can find ways to continue to do it. We will find a way to put the private sector in, have more efficiency, less cost, and if they cannot compete, then the prisons will continue. I am not going to take an awful lot of time. It seems to me the issues here are fairly basic. Let me just review them again. This was not an amendment. This was part of the bill of the committee. This is a time when we ought to be looking for more opportunities for the private sector. This is a time when we ought to have competition. I think we have an opportunity to do that here and yet continue to have a program which works for the prisoners. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to have some debate, so I will, at the appropriate time, move to table the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. I move to table the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we have a minute before we recess. I feel so strongly about this notion that we favor private enterprise, that we favor the opportunity for competition, and that we have worked at this problem for a number of years and now to pick out a portion of it and say somehow private competition should not work surprises me a great deal. I understand the number of Federal prisons in Texas. Talk about special interests. It is there. What we ought to do is follow the policy we have had for a very long time and see if we can move as much activity to the private sector as possible when they can compete, when they can make the best product, and that is the case here. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am little unsure where we are. I am not sure about my position on this issue. However, I and many of us here worked very hard to pass a fair bill last year to allow for the private sector to bid and compete for Government business rather than doing it by outsourcing. I think that applies here. Certainly there are many other things that prisoners can do to continue to work. This is matter of competition. I ask the Senator from Michigan: Did the Senator from Texas agree to pull his amendment? What is the agreement?

Mr. THOMAS. We are prepared to talk about that.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina. We all have very strong feelings at this time, and most of all those feelings have been expressed, eloquently I might say, and now we have time for the real challenge. Yesterday was a very sad day. The sadness, of course, continues for those who were injured and the families of those who were lost. Acts of war have been committed against our Nation. Forces of evil have struck at the center of our Government, our families, and our communities. There are no words that can possibly explain the devastation or convey sufficient sympathy for the men and women who lost their lives, nor even do words exist to describe our collective anger. It is a somber day, but our sadness will lead to resolve. Powerful symbols of our democracy have been destroyed, but the root of our strength--our personal commitment to our country and our families--is even stronger. Our focus now must be on the victims, of course, and those who still face the challenge of life and rescue. America will take care of its own. Let me assure people today that the functions of Government will continue. As you can see, Congress is meeting and most Federal agencies in Washington are open and doing their jobs. There is no amount of terror that can be committed that will throw us off our course to protect and serve democracy today. The next great test for the Government and for every American will be the challenge to move forward--and that is a necessary part--to comfort those who have lost everything in their lives and rebuild the physical structures that have been lost. Our democracy will continue to exist uninhibited and unintimidated. Next we must strive to devise updated security and intelligence measures to serve us better in the future so this will not happen again. Next, and at the appropriate time with the intelligence information that is required, the United States will exact a supreme measure of justice against the criminals who have perpetrated terror on this country, and they are not long for this world. Those terrorists should understand well we are coming for them and nothing will deter us from seeing that they are eliminated, as well as other terrorists around the world, even though they may not be specifically involved with this terrorism. We all offer our condolences and prayers to the families of the missing. I offer my hopes for those who are working these tragedies today and rescue efforts. God bless them. God bless America.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield the first 15 minutes to my friend, the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we enter into our second week of this fall's session after the recess, and we are faced with much to do. I think that is not unusual. It is often the case things pile up towards the end of the session, of course, but it seems to me we have a great many items to consider. There are 13 appropriations bills to be passed in order to have this Government operate in the next fiscal year. The fiscal year begins October 1, which is only 3 weeks away. In the course of those 3 weeks, there are several days which, for various reasons--the Jewish holidays, and so on--there will not be votes. So we have really a relatively short time. Obviously, what we will be doing is passing a continuing resolution before this is over, but nevertheless we have a great deal to do. None of these bills has yet gone to the President. Some of them have been passed in both Houses and are waiting now on the conference committees. To be sure, it is difficult. It is always difficult. This year we are seeing some more difficulties because of the change in conditions with regard to the surplus, because of the difficulty I think we are finding now in staying within the budget we passed some time ago. Nevertheless, those are the items before us. It does not seem to me perhaps that we are moving ahead quite as rapidly as we might. It does not seem to me we have a very well designed plan to accomplish these things within a certain period of time. I understand it is very difficult to bring together a group of this kind with different views and properly argue those views. On the other hand, the role of leadership is to have a plan. It is the role of leadership to cause things to happen. Even though they are difficult issues, they must be done. Unfortunately, as I noticed particularly this weekend on public media, and so on, rather than seeking to find a plan to move forward, we seem to be spending more time blaming one another, particularly the President and the administration, for the difficulties in which we find ourselves. We can have different points of view about whether that is valid or whether it is not, but even if it is, the fact is we have things to do and we should be moving ahead with the plan to do them. Instead of that, we seem to be spending more of our time complaining about the administration's plan. The fact is, we do have indeed the second largest surplus in our history. We also have a budget that we passed that is about a 4-percent increase, which is a fairly low increase, which is what we need compared to what we have spent in the past several years. Our challenge is to stay within the budget we passed and to continue to move forward in doing that. We hear a great deal of complaint about tax relief--too much tax relief. As a matter of fact, we are in the process of passing that relief back to the people who own the money, and that is as it should be, I believe, particularly as we find ourselves in a time with a very slowing economy. What else is more important than to return more money to the taxpayers if we indeed have a surplus? And we are doing that. The question, of course, is one of not reaching into Social Security, which I happen to agree with, although we have done that for how many years and those dollars are accounted for in the Social Security fund, even though for years they have been spent for other things without a great deal of complaint, I might add. However, I do not think that is really the issue. The issue is holding down spending to comply with the budget that we passed. It seems to me that ought to be our challenge. There is, of course, in my view, no real threat to the beneficiaries of Social Security. Those obligations are there. They are going to be there. We have paid down more debt because of the surpluses over the last several years than in years past. So what we really need to do is address ourselves to the issues we have before us. The turndown in the economy, of course, is the thing most of us are very concerned about, all of us, whether we are here, whether we are in Casper, WY, or wherever, and to do what we can to seek to play the Government's role in doing what we can to change that. A reduction in taxes, the return of taxes, is designed to help do that. Hopefully, it will. We are not through with that yet. We are in the process with, I believe, seven reductions in the last year in interest rates designed hopefully to stimulate the economy. We need to do that. Limiting our spending in the budget is another aspect we are seeking to help pick up and strengthen the economy. There are some other things we ought to be doing. We ought to be doing something with giving the President the opportunity to have trade agreements that are then brought to the Senate for approval. They are all brought to the Senate for approval, but the world economy and our involvement in trade, particularly in agriculture, in which I am involved, was the difficulty in the Asian currency a year ago which brought a good deal of problems to our economy. So we are a part of that, of course. There are a number of things we can do, and I cannot think of anything more important for us to talk about collectively than what is appropriate for the Government in helping to strengthen this economy. Yesterday, again on the TV, there were some questions about that: Oh, no, it is up to the President to do that. I do not agree with that. Of course, the President is the one who brings up the suggestions to the Senate. The President is not in control of the Senate, and the Senate has some responsibilities to take leadership as well. The idea of saying it all began since this President became President is not true. It has been here for a year, and then to say it is up to the President, I do not agree with that. Each of us in this body has some responsibility to give thought to what we can do to help strengthen this economy, which everyone in this country wants us to do. In addition to that, of course, it seems to me we ought to be moving on an energy bill. This is very important to us, not only to the economy, but we are going to see some more impacts of it, of course, in the winter. We can do that. We started to work on pharmaceuticals. The budget contains opportunity for that. We can do that. Education has been passed by both Houses of Congress and still remains in conference. I know many in the leadership on both sides are very anxious to work together and show evidence of working together and want to work together. I certainly encourage that be done so we can do what we are here to do, which is to solve the problems before the country, the legitimate problems for the Federal Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, all of us are pleased to be back, able to go on and finish the business we have yet to do. There is a lot of it, of course. I have read from time to time that we have been on vacation. I have to tell you, it is scarcely a vacation. All of us spend this time, as we should, traveling in our States and visiting with the people we represent. Frankly, it is a real pleasure and honor to travel about Wyoming this time of year. It is important that we reflect on what we have heard, some of the issues laid before us, some of the notions of the people at home. After all, it is our responsibility to be here to represent those people. There are a number of things we all hear about and hear about repeatedly while we are in our States. One of them is the tax issue, the idea of tax reduction, and specifically the returns that have been made during this period of time. Many people have received their $600 or $300. I heard a great deal about that. I heard a great deal of praise and support for tax relief, having an opportunity to receive those dollars that were deemed to be surplus. They were not dollars that belonged to Washington; they were dollars that belonged to the taxpayers. I heard that quite often. Frankly, I was very pleased to hear that and also to share the belief that the return of tax dollars certainly is appropriate in a time of a slowing-down economy. We also hear a great deal about budgets. Most people do understand that, depending on your point of view about the size of government and the involvement of government, sticking to budgets is a very important issue. Of course, it is very significant now as we enter into this last month. We are supposed to pass all the appropriations bills and come up with next year's spending outline during these next several weeks. That is a relatively short time to do that. The majority of people I spoke with said: You passed a budget; stay with the budget and a 4 percent increase, which is a reasonable increase; stay with it. Of course, that is not what we have done over the last number of years. I think that shows a good deal of knowledge about what is happening. In Wyoming, where we are involved in the production of energy, whether it be gas or oil or coal, there is a great deal of interest in energy policy. That is something we have not had for a very long time. The President set one forth and, as a matter of fact, the House has passed an energy bill. We have not. It is one of the issues that ought to be a priority. The folks at home indicated to me it ought to be a priority. When we first started talking about energy 6 or 8 months ago, California was undergoing an energy shortage. It certainly seemed that it was a crisis. Then we got over that a little bit; some of the gas prices began to go down some, although they are coming back up again now, but the problem still remains. We have not resolved the energy problem at all. I hope that will be a high priority for us during these closing weeks. Some of us had hoped it would have been a priority before now, but it has not been. Now I think it is clear it needs to be. One of the other things I heard a great deal about, which I suppose is a little different in a State such as Wyoming where 50 percent of the State belongs to the Federal Government, is that this administration has indicated and is beginning to demonstrate that they are willing and anxious to have more local input into the decisions that affect public land and affect the people who live by and depend on public land. That is not saying it is going to protect the environment. It says that each area, each park, and each forest is unique, and to try to set nationwide standards from Washington, as has been done in the recent past, is not a workable situation. Our folks are very pleased about that. Finally, I will take a moment to say, as someone who feels some responsibility, that I like the idea that we are paying down the debt. That is good. We have a number of things to do. Certainly this whole business of appropriations needs to be done. I have already mentioned energy. I hope we are able to work some more on simplifying and making Medicare a little more workable and putting pharmaceuticals into it. We are working on that, of course, in the Finance Committee, and we will continue to do so. There are dollars in the budget to do those things. Education: We need to complete our work on education, of course. Sometimes it seems the only solution to education is the dollars. Dollars are necessary, but dollars alone do not work. We need to have some accountability. We need to have some local control. In any event, I think we have some real challenges before us and an opportunity to accomplish them. Frankly, I am a little discouraged about what I read and hear--that we are entering into a time when many people, particularly I think on the other side of the aisle, are more interested in developing issues for their upcoming campaigns than they are in solving the problems. I hope that is not the case. We are trying to, of course, work towards midterm, which becomes very political, a little more than a year from now. Politicking is fine, issues are fine, but when a political issue becomes more important than resolving the problem before us, I think that is a mistake. I think we are going to see some of that. Certainly, there are different views about how we go forward. There is no question about that. Some in this body, of course, want more government. Some want more spending. Some are very sorry about tax relief because it may reduce the spending. I have to tell you that I think we really ought to stay within the budget we passed, which is about a 4-percent increase. I hope we don't go back to last year's history and increase it by 14 or 15 percent. I think that is a mistake. Certainly, things are a little different now when we are faced with this slowing of the economy. Speaking of the political issue, back in April, for example, there was a lot of talk about tax relief. There was a Democrat amendment to increase the amount of tax relief to $85 billion. It was defeated by 94 to 6. In July there was another Democrat amendment that would repeal the immediate tax rebate. It failed 91 to 3. The idea that there is now an effort to move some responsibility to the White House for added tax reduction and so on is just not the case. It is just a political kind of issue. We hear all kinds of political views in the Senate, and various Senators on the other side of the aisle have said it should have been larger and kicked in sooner. Some are using radio programs to say to their constituents that this was a great thing to do. Indeed, it was. We are going to have a lot of talk about the surplus, of course, and about the differences between OMB and the Congressional Budget Office. The fact is that both sets of figures show that this is the second largest surplus in history. It is. The new numbers, of course, really say that what is most important is that we do not have irresponsible spending. If we can follow the budget we passed and say that is what we want to do, then we will be in good shape. The President's budget protects Social Security and Medicare. Besides, the surplus, frankly, has no impact on those trust funds. The President's priorities are to protect Social Security and Medicare. We are going to improve Medicare to help seniors. We are going to work on that. We are paying down a good deal of publicly held debt. Sometimes we have to review what happens to a surplus. If we use it to pay down publicly held debt, then debts are created for the various programs under the trust funds. That is the way it works. It is the only place to put the money to have a return on the money that is there and meeting the needs that are set forth. I hope we can hold the political rhetoric to a minimum and deal with the real issues and the fact that we have the second largest surplus in history. Besides, the budget surplus really has no impact on the trust funds. It has been that way over the years. We have to pay down a historic amount of publicly held debt and work to foster economic growth. That is one of the ways to do that. I see my friend from Iowa is here. I urge setting those issues before us and moving to resolve them in a fashion that is best for this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to expand a little bit on the question of energy policy. As I mentioned before, there certainly have been some changes in the California situation. There have been some changes throughout the country in gas prices and other kinds of energy prices. They are not significant changes and, indeed, now we see them moving back again. The point we do not want to overlook is that when we had what we called an energy crisis 6 or 8 months ago, we had a problem; and the problem basically, of course, was that demand was growing but supply was not. We had a problem in terms of the amount of refining capacity in this country. It had not grown for a very long time. The same was true with electric generation. We overcame that problem largely, I suppose, because, among other things, winter was over and some of the refineries that had to make fuel oil for New England had changed their production. But the fact is, the problem is still there. We do need an energy policy. I urge that we do move forward. The President has put forth a policy--and much of it is incorporated in what has passed in the House--that I think makes a lot of sense. It includes conservation, having some opportunities for conservation in the usage of energy. There are many things we could do in that area. We can do it as individuals and we can do it as governments and still continue to be productive. Conservation should be part of our energy plan. There are many groups that believe conservation is very important. One of the other areas of energy policy has to do with renewable energy. We have renewables that are growing. We have wind energy, hydroenergy, and other kinds of energy that I suppose have potential for the future. Outside of hydro, renewables now represent about 1 percent of our total energy usage, but, nevertheless, we ought to be doing something in that area. To do that, of course, we need research and research dollars. Our committee has already dealt with research, but there needs to be a considerable amount of research in the whole area of conservation, of renewables, of how to have more efficient production with less impact on the environment. So that is a very real part of energy research. Then, of course, the real key is production. We have allowed ourselves in the energy production field to become dependent on OPEC. Nearly 60 percent of our energy resources now come from overseas. When they change their views, or when things happen over in those countries, it impacts our economy and our society. We need to have an opportunity to increase production and to do it with diversity so we can use various kinds of energy, which includes coal. Part of the research is to make coal even more clean in terms of the air. We need to have diversity in terms of using gas, coal, nuclear, oil, and renewables so we do not find ourselves becoming dependent on one source. Unfortunately, the plans that were sort of underway for having additional generating plants almost all had to do with natural gas. Natural gas is a good source of energy, but our largest energy resource is coal. If we can continue to make coal even more clean, why, certainly that is a source of energy that ought to be used for generation. Also, we have not built generation plants for a very long time. Part of the reason for that is because of the uncertainty of some reregulation and ideas that are out there. In the past, when utilities served a particular area, they produced and generated the electricity. That was a pretty simple arrangement. Now we find more people looking at generation as a marketable commodity. It does not have to be tied to any particular area. But what is the secret to making that work? More transportation. More transmission. If you cannot move energy from the place it is developed and manufactured to where the markets are, of course, then that is part of the problem. The main source in the West for coal and gas has been the Mountain States area: Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico. But in order to get it to the market, you have to have transmission capacity, particularly if you have mine mouth which is very efficient. So these are issues that need to be dealt with in terms of an energy policy. One of the issues in terms of transmission capacity is to have a nationwide grid so electric power can be moved across the country and can be moved into the RTOs, the regional transmission organizations, and become an efficient transmitter of energy. We can, in fact, do that. I believe there needs to be an emphasis on this energy question between now and the time we adjourn so we can get into the field and begin to make some difference in terms of where our energy sources are coming from so we can continue to have reasonably priced energy in order to fuel an economy that we would like to have, which obviously is necessary in order to do that. So I am hopeful that as we set our priorities for where we go we will include that in the very near future. We have talked about it a great deal. I think actually in a lot of ways there isn't a lot of controversy. There has been controversy, of course, in relation to having access to public lands and the idea of protecting the environment which has to go with energy development. Some have used ANWR up in the north region as a poster child for not getting into public lands. The fact is, the House-passed provision is 2,000 acres out of 19 million that would be accessible for a footprint. So we are pretty close to some agreements on how we can set this country forward in terms of a source and an opportunity to have affordable energy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I request the opportunity to speak in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing a bill that will further my efforts to limit government competition with the private sector. Senator Levin and I propose to eliminate the mandatory contracting requirement that Federal agencies are subject to when it comes to products made by the Federal Prison Industries, FPI. Under law, all Federal agencies are required to purchase products made by the FPI. Simply put, this bill will require the FPI to compete with the private sector for Federal contracts. Currently, the FPI employs approximately 22,000 Federal prisoners or roughly 20 percent of all Federal prisoners. These prisoners are responsible for producing a diverse range of products for the FPI, ranging from office furniture to clothing. The remaining 80 percent of Federal prisoners, who work, do so in and around Federal prisons. While Senator Levin and I believe that it is important to keep prisoners working, we do not believe that this effort should unduly harm or conflict with law-abiding businesses. This bill seeks to minimize the unfair competition that private sector companies face with the FPI. The FPI's mandatory source requirement not only undercuts private business throughout America, but its mandatory source preference oftentimes costs American tax payers more money. I believe American taxpayers would be alarmed to learn of the preferential treatment that the FPI enjoys when it comes to Federal contracts. As I said before, Senator Levin and I support the goal of keeping prisoners busy while serving their time in prison. However, if we allow competition in Federal contracts, the FPI will be required to focus its efforts in product areas that don't unfairly compete with the private sector. Clearly, competitive bidding is a reasonable process that will ensure taxpayer's dollars are being spent justly. Of particular note, our bill allows contracting officers, within each Federal agency, the ability to select the FPI for contracts if he/she believes that the FPI can meet that particular agency's requirements and the product is offered at a fair and reasonable price. Currently, the FPI prohibits Federal agencies from conducting market research to determine whether the price and quality of its products is comparable to those available in the private sector. The above outlined provision in our bill seeks to place the control of government procurement in the hands of contracting officers, rather than in the hands of the FPI. In addition to establishing a competitive procedure for the procurement of products, we include a provision that allows the Attorney General to grant a waiver to this process if a particular contract is deemed essential to the safety and effective administration of a particular prison. I am confident that by allowing competition for government contracts our bill will save tax dollars. As Congress looks for additional cost saving practices, the elimination of the FPI's mandatory source preference will bring about numerous improvements, not just in cost savings, but also a streamlining of the FPI's products.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Of course.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I think I will object simply to talk with the others to see if they need more time. I hope they do not. But at this moment, I object.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I want to yield to my friend, the Senator from Idaho, but first I wish to make a couple of remarks. One is that if you came in here and you were listening to the difficulty that some talk about in getting this job done prior to the time the $5.5 billion disappears, then you would imagine the thing to do is to go ahead and have a bill similar to the House. Then it would be there, and we would come back with the other $2 billion, which is in the budget for next year. It isn't as if this is a long time off. It is right there, and it can be done. It isn't as if it isn't going to happen. It will happen. We are taking out next year's and putting it in this year. You can bet that there will be a request to replace that with new money next year. It is sort of an interesting debate. It is also interesting that the House version includes $4.6 billion in AMTA payments. There was mention by the Senator from Michigan that it didn't go beyond that. Actually, there is $424 million in economic assistance for oilseeds; $54 million in economic assistance for peanut producers; $129 million for tobacco; $17 million for wool and mohair; $85 million for cottonseeds; and $26 million for specialty crops, which is for the States to disperse. Over $3.5 million goes to Michigan which could go to apple growers. This idea that somehow the people have been left out is simply not the case. I now yield to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. THOMAS. I was going to say if you wanted to hear from the other side, a Senator is standing here. I wondered if you would give the Senator a chance to speak.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk about some of the bills that are coming up and what I see as a very important aspect of what we do here in the Congress. What we do, of course, is important. But let's have some reasoning about where we want to be over time so that the decisions we make as we go through our daily work will be implemented with a vision of where we want to go. Obviously, we have different views of what our role is here. I was listening to my friend from Nevada, who is concerned about balanced budgets because the Federal Government will not be able to spend enough. Others believe that maybe a balanced budget is where we ought to be and that there ought to be some limit on the size of government. The fact is that States and local governments are very important components. It makes a difference in where you see things down the road. I am specifically interested in what is happening in agriculture. We will have a bill before us today on supplemental funding for agriculture. Before long, we will have the 2002 appropriations for agriculture. More importantly, perhaps next year or even at the end of this year, we will have a new farm bill. That farm bill and the appropriations bills we are now dealing with will help us decide where we are going in agriculture. Those are the kinds of decisions in the longer term that we have to make. Of course, we have to deal with the necessary daily things, but we really ought to be asking where we want agriculture to be in 10 years or in 15 years. These appropriations bills will have a great deal to do with where we go. I think the same thing is true with health care. We are in the process right now of seeking some revision of Medicare. It is needed. We are talking about how we are going to handle pharmaceuticals. What is it we want? How do we want health care structured over time? What do we think is the best way to serve the people of this country? Those are the kinds of decisions that I think too often we don't really give enough consideration to--where we are tied up with how we are going to get funding for this for next year and how we are going to keep this program at this level. Hopefully, we can step back and see with some vision. Maybe you call it 20/20. Where do we want to be over a period of time? The Senator from Alaska talked about energy. We are doing some things with energy. Here again, I think we ought to be talking about where we are and some of the things we want to have happen over time, with less dependency on overseas and less dependency on OPEC. At the same time, I am sure we want to be certain we have an adequate supply so that we will have a strong economy and so we can do the things we want to do-- reasonably priced--over the long range. One of the things we experience in my State, an energy-producing State, is boom and bust. All of a sudden, natural gas is worth $9 when it was $1.5 or $2. Everything goes up all of a sudden. Then the price comes down, and the economy comes down. We want diversity of fuel; we don't want to be dependent on one thing. Conservation: Obviously, we need to decide what to do. What do you want over time? We want conservation. Is that too much of a sacrifice? Can we do research so that conservation will allow us to use less fuel and still have the same kind of services? I think so, with renewables and new uses. I remember someone talking at an energy meeting in Casper, WY--where I live--saying we have never run out of a fuel. I suspect that is true. What do we do? We find new and better sources or we use them in a better way. I suspect that is what we ought to be thinking about in terms of applying our long-term efforts. What about agriculture? Obviously, we want sufficient food. Obviously, we would like to be able to supply food to foreign markets. We want clean food and safe food. I think most people would like to see family farmers remain on the farm so we don't become an entirely corporate body. Of course, we want to preserve open space. We want to preserve the lands that are being used--and farm communities. These are some of the things we really ought to measure against what we are talking about to see if they indeed have the best chance to produce those kinds of visions. Medicare: We want health care for everyone. We want to keep it in the private sector--at least some of us do. Sometimes that is a different point of view. We want to encourage research. We want to limit catastrophic costs so no one is saddled with unreasonable costs; and, of course, control utilization. How do you do that? Certainly, each of us has to have a little participation in the cost. We want top-quality care. My time has about expired. I want to make the point that we have some opportunities always, but particularly on those three bills. There will be others that will help shape the future. Education, of course, is another one. Where do we want to be over a period of time? I am hopeful that in addition to doing those things--obviously, in the short term--we will also measure what we do and how it will impact what we give when the time comes for us to deal with it in the future. I think my time has expired. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments of my friend from Alaska. Certainly that issue is important to all of us. We will be dealing with it soon.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank my friend, the Senator from Texas, for this time. It is important we talk a little bit about some of the things that have been done and the impact we will see immediately. This is unique. I cannot recall it ever happening this way before, where there were excessive dollars available that came in, and more taxes than were necessary to carry out the essential elements of Government. There was a need for an economic boost and there is. So we took this opportunity to return some of this excess money to the people who have paid it. That is a basic issue and one we deal with quite often. That is a difference of philosophy in terms of how we handle money. Obviously, everyone agrees there has to be a sufficient amount of money to take care of the necessary functioning of Government, although there is a difference in view of what the functions would be. There is also a philosophical difference among those who would say we have money, so let's increase the role of Government; let's spend more and have more programs. Others say, wait a minute, let's try to keep the role of Government limited and return this excess money to the people who paid it. That is what this is. It is a very basic issue, one that is philosophical but it is the right thing to do. I hear this business, from time to time, about millionaires are going to get $300 a day. How many people do you think, of all the taxpayers who are going to get a check in the mail, are millionaires? The people I have seen are not millionaires, the people who are going to get some of the money they paid. All taxpayers who have paid their dollars will reap some benefits from this distribution. That is what it is all about. Further, I think it is necessary at the same time to recognize that on June 7 of this year, this Republican Congress and the White House kept a commitment to the American people and delivered the most significant tax relief in 20 years. Not only will we have this distribution, of course, which is designed to give some immediate impact to it, both for the taxpayers themselves and for the economy--$300 for single filers, $500 for single moms, $600 for families, and that is very important--but following that, of course, is a new tax law that goes a long way to restore fairness in the Tax Code. It reduces the marriage penalty, which my friend from Texas was obviously almost the singular leader in causing that to happen, and we appreciate it, the death tax, doubles the child credit and child care enhancements. We need to recognize that over a period of time we are going to do a great deal to increase fairness and return dollars via the Tax Code, although that doesn't happen for several years. That is why this is very important, this immediate impact. I think it is one of the greatest things that can happen. And, in addition, it should happen. We now hear people talking about raising taxes, for heavens' sake, when we are facing difficulties in the economy. When we find ourselves with real surpluses, to talk about raising taxes --give me a break. I cannot imagine anything more unlikely to happen than that. I think we should feel very good about what has happened. I am hopeful all these checks will be out very soon. They are now in the mail. Beyond this, I want to emphasize again we have had a significant change in the tax culture and the Tax Code over time. This is the most important thing. I am happy to have had a chance to participate in it and recognize it today. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. We hear from the leader we will move forward. We have a lot of things to do. Yet we spend the whole day, frankly, accomplishing very little.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the chairman. I didn't want to object. Will this be the last vote today?