Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce ``The Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 2001'' with Senators Conrad, Daschle, Roberts and Johnson. As with all rural health legislation I have worked on, I am proud of the bipartisan effort behind this bill. ``The Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 2001'' will provide assistance to rural providers to maintain access to important emergency medical services, EMS. This legislation is necessary because rural EMS providers are primarily volunteers who have difficulty recruiting, retaining and educating EMS personnel. Rural EMS providers also have less capital to buy and upgrade essential, life- saving equipment. The first section of this legislation is the authorization of an annual $50 million competitive grant program. Grantees can use these funds for recruiting volunteers, training emergency personnel, using new technologies to educate providers, acquiring EMS vehicles such as ambulances and acquiring emergency medical equipment. I think it is important to note that all of the above eligible uses of funds were priority concerns of State EMS Directors in a recently conducted Rural EMS Survey with recruitment and retention ranking as number one. The second part of this legislation applies the prudent layperson standard for emergency services currently used in hospital emergency rooms to ambulance services. This provision will assist ambulance providers in collecting payments for transporting patients to the hospital after answering a 911 call regardless of the final diagnosis. This is a common sense approach and ensures that all aspects of emergency care are operating under the same definition of emergency. I believe this legislation is an important part of ensuring rural residents have access to emergency services. It is also flexible so communities can decide for themselves what is their most imminent EMS need. Our bill is supported by the National Association of State EMS Directors, the National Rural Health Association and the American Ambulance Association. I strongly urge all my colleagues interested in rural health to consider cosponsoring ``The Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 2001.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the chairman of the Energy Committee, the Senator from Alaska, for the work he has done on the energy problem. Clearly, we have one; there is no question. The question is, How do we best resolve it? We are in desperate need of a national energy policy. We have not had one for a number of years. We need to have some direction with respect to domestic production--how much we want to let ourselves become dependent on OPEC and other such issues. It seems there are a number of issues about which the chairman has talked. We need to talk about diversity. We have all kinds of things we can go on: We can go on oil, on gas, on coal--which is one of our largest reserves. We need to make it more clean. Of course, we can do that. We can take another look at nuclear, look again at our storage problems. It is one of the cleanest sources we have. Hydro needs to be maintained and perhaps improved. We need to go to renewables, where we can use wind and sunlight and some of the other natural sources. I will always remember listening to someone back in Casper, WY, a number of years ago, saying we have never run out of a source of fuel; what we have done is found something that worked a little better. So we need to continue research to find ways to do that. We need to have access to public lands. That doesn't mean for a minute we are not going to take care of those public lands and preserve the resources and the environment. But we can do both. We have done that in Wyoming for a number of years. We have been very active in energy production, and at the same time we have been able to preserve the lands. That is not the choice, either preserve it or ruin it. That is not the choice we have. We also need to do some more research on clean coal, one of our best energy sources. I was just in Wyoming talking to some folks who indicated we need to find ways to get easements and move energy. If it is in the form of electricity, it has to be moved by wholesale transmission. We need a nationwide grid to do that, particularly if we are going to deregulate the transmission and the generation side, which we are planning to do. We have to have gas pipelines. California has become the great example. They wanted to have more power. Their demand increased and production went down. Then they said: We will deregulate. So they deregulated the wholesale cost and put a cap on resale cost. Those things clearly don't work. We have to have some incentives to produce--tax incentives, probably, for low-production wells. We need to eliminate the boom-and-bust factor so small towns are not living high one day and in debt the next. Finally, we need to take a look at conservation, of course. You and I need to decide how we can use less of that energy and still maintain our kind of economy and way of life. I again thank the chairman of the Energy Committee for all he is doing and urge him to continue so we can set the right direction for this country in order to have the energy we need and save our national resources as well. I am persuaded we can do both. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have 5 minutes remaining in our time; is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to review the National Park Service's implementation of management policies and procedures to comply with the provisions of Titles I, II, III, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 29, 2001, at 10 a.m., in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SRC-2, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Shane Perkins of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act. There will be three stacked votes at approximately 10:45 a.m. on the Carnahan amendment No. 40, the Smith of Oregon amendment No. 95, and the Wyden amendment No. 78. Following the votes, the Senate will resume consideration of the Wellstone amendment regarding debt collection. As a reminder, the cloture vote on the bankruptcy bill will occur at 4 p.m. today. Pursuant to rule XXII, the filing deadline for second- degree amendments is 3 p.m. Senators should be prepared for votes throughout the day and into the evening. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the issue the Senate is debating is bankruptcy. We will also be dealing with education, and we will be dealing with the budget. Somewhat overlying all these issues is the idea of tax relief, of doing something with the tax burden of American citizens, coming to some agreement on how that can indeed be done with some of our associates to come to the conclusion that, in fact, taxpayers are entitled to some relief in their taxes, if indeed those taxes exceed the needs of the Federal Government. It has been, of course, the highest priority for this administration, the highest priority for President Bush, as he has outlined his plan in his campaign and has brought it forth as a specific proposal to the Congress. The House has acted on a portion of it at this point. I happen to believe it is reasonable for the Senate to hold off a bit in terms of acting on it until we have seen our budget. That is appropriate. We need to try as much as we can to get people to understand what is out there. There are all kinds of notions being thrown about. What we need to do is to try to get it as accurate as we can so people can, indeed, make their decisions. Some are concerned about the idea that you have to project revenues into the future. Of course, there is some uncertainty. We don't know exactly what will happen. In anything you do, whether it is an organization, whether it is a business, whether, indeed, it is your family, as you take into account longer term expenditures, one has to reach out and make an estimate as to what they think the revenues are going to be. That is not unusual. We have the best people who have made prognostications in the past doing that. Under the budget, receipts grow from $2.1 trillion in 2001 to $3.2 trillion in 2011, an increase of 51 percent. Overall, the budget projection totals collections of almost $30 trillion over the next 10 years. Despite the fact that to all of us, I assume, $1.6 trillion is an almost unimaginable amount, it is, indeed, a little less than 6 percent of the total projected revenues. When you put it into the context of what we are talking about, it becomes a reasonable proposal. I imagine probably more important than anything is that we have to take a look at the fact that we do have a surplus. Frankly, when we do have a surplus, we find, if we ask people, how much more involvement of the Federal Government, how much growth of the Federal Government do you want over here, they would say: We have about enough growth. We have about enough Government. But then over here you have a surplus so every expenditure that anyone has ever had in mind suddenly becomes a possibility, and we find ourselves then with growth beyond what most people would want to have. The American people are paying a record level of taxation, over 20.5 percent of the gross domestic product. That is the highest it has been since World War II. The individual burden has doubled since the Clinton tax increases of 1993. All this points toward doing something meaningful in terms of tax reduction. The cut would be $1.6 trillion; that would be left in the pockets of taxpayers. We hear all kinds of notions that it is actually going to be $2.2 trillion or whatever. That is not the case. It is aimed towards being $1.6 trillion, and that is where it would be. There is tax relief for all taxpayers. We can get into, obviously, a discussion of the fact that there are people who don't pay income taxes who will not have relief from income tax reduction. That is fairly reasonable. Everyone who pays taxes will get some relief. A typical family of four will see their tax liabilities reduced by $1,600, which is a sizable amount. The other part of the equation is that there are moneys to strengthen education. There are moneys to help with defense and security. Those are a couple of the top priorities we have. We will do more with Medicare. Those dollars will be there for Medicare. Those dollars will be there for Social Security. I hope people understand the whole package. It sometimes is made to sound as though, if we give those taxpayers a break, we will not be able to do the things we should. Not true. There will be dollars to do the things the Federal Government has as priorities. There will be dollars to reduce the debt, and, in fact, all of the reducible debt will be done by 2010. That will not be all of it because much of it is long term and, frankly, people who hold the certificates are not ready to do that. It is something on which we need to continue to work. I think it is a good thing for the country. It is a good thing for the taxpayers. Certainly, it is something I support, and I hope others support. I see my friend from Missouri. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to review the National Park Service's implementation of management policies and procedures to comply with the provisions of title IV of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 22, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-192 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SRC-2, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Clark of the committee staff at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am going to be joined shortly by my friend from Texas. In the meantime, I want to comment for a moment on the statement of the Senator from New Mexico on energy. We need to take a long look at where we are with respect to energy. The Vice President with his working group is putting together a national policy on energy, as are many groups. We have an oil and gas forum, which I cochair. We will be taking a look at where we want to be on energy and energy production in this country over a period of time. We have not had an energy policy in the United States, I am sorry to say, for the last 8 years. As a result, we did not look at what the demand was going to be, where the supply was going to be, and, indeed, have found ourselves depending almost 60 percent on imported oil, depending on foreign countries and OPEC to manage that. So we need to take a long look. I was pleased with what the Senator from New Mexico had to say about diversity. We need not only to take a look at our need to increase domestic production in oil and gas, but we also need to look at diversity, to where we can continue to use coal. You may have noticed on his chart that coal now produces over 50 percent of our electric energy. We need to do some research with respect to air quality so coal becomes even more useful. We need also to look at coal and its enrichment, getting the Btu's out of low-sulfur coal so transportation costs will not be so high. Nuclear, I am sure, has a role in our future as a very clean and very economical source of electric energy. However, before we do that, we are going to have to solve the question of the storage of nuclear waste, or begin to use it differently, as they do in some other countries, recycling the waste that is there. We have great opportunities to do these things. We also need, along with this, of course, to take a look at conservation to make sure we are using all the conservation methods available to us. Certainly we are not now. We have to be careful about doing the kinds of things that were done in California, to seek to deregulate part of an industry--in this case electric energy--however keeping caps on the retail part. Obviously, you are going to have increased usage and reduced production, which is the case they have now. It is really a test for us at this time. One of the issues is going to be the accessibility to public lands. Most of the States where gas and oil is produced in any volume are public land States, where 50 percent to 87 percent of the State belongs to the Federal Government. Much of those lands have been unavailable for exploration and production. We need to get away from the idea that the multiple use of lands means you are going to ruin the environment or, on the other hand, that we need to do whatever we need to do and we do not care about the environment. Those are not the two choices. The choice we have is to have multiple use of our lands, to preserve the environment and to have access to those lands as well. We can do that, and we have proven that it can, indeed, be done. That is one of the real challenges before us during this Congress, although, of course, Congress only has a portion of involvement--it is really the private sector that will do most of it. One of the most encouraging things is Vice President Cheney and his working group have brought in the other agencies. Too often we think about the Department of Energy being the sole source of involvement with respect to energy, and that is not the case. The Department of the Interior is certainly just as important, in many cases more important regarding where we go, as well as the EPA--all these are a real part of it. One of the difficulties, of course, in addition to the supply, is the transportation. Whether we have an opportunity to have pipelines to move natural gas from Wyoming to California--a tough job, of course-- whether we have a pipeline that economically can move gas from Alaska down to the continental United States, those are some of the things with which we are faced. In the case of California, people were not excited about having electric transmission lines and therefore it was very difficult and time consuming to get the rights-of-way to do these things. We have to take a look at all of those issues to bring back domestic production and be able to support our economy with electric and other kinds of energy. It is going to be one of the challenges. The Senator from Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has introduced a rather broad bill that deals with many parts of the energy problem. I am pleased to be a sponsor of that bill. Obviously, it will create a great deal of debate and discussion because it has all those items in it, but we need to move. We need to have a policy that will encourage production. But I say again, not only should we be looking at production but we should be looking at opportunities to, indeed, conserve and find efficient ways to use it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. We are going to debate lots of issues. We went on an issue yesterday which was passed. We are going to go to bankruptcy today. We will talk about a lot of issues. But the real issue we need to work towards and keep in mind, it seems to me, is the budget and the tax relief issue we have and that the President has promised and that we, I hope, will be able to support. We will be looking at spending, budgets, taxes, and the size of tax relief. It is going to be one of the most important things we do. One important aspect of it is the American people are suffering under a record level of taxation, which is 20.6 percent of the gross national product. They deserve some relief. The individual tax burden has doubled from where it was. We really need to take a long look and encourage the private sector that has people who are paying excessive amounts of taxes to have those taxes returned and at the same time pay down the debt and be able to have a budget that pays for the increases we are looking for in education and national security with the military, as well as have some reserves. The President's plan does all of those things. It puts a limit on spending, which we very badly need. It takes care of paying down the debt. That can be paid down between now and 2011. It has a reserve for the kinds of things that come up unexpectedly and at the same time returns $1.6 trillion in overpaid taxes to those people who in fact have paid the dollars. We have a lot of important things to look forward to in this Congress. I am glad we are now beginning to get to where we are able to deal with these issues. I think yesterday was an example of that. I am certain we will move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 1, 2001. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the statutes of conservation programs in the current farm bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday March 1, 2001, at 10 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., to hold two hearings.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 1, 2001, beginning at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to hold a forum entitled ``Encouraging and Expanding Entrepreneurship: Examining the Federal Role.''

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veteran's Affairs be authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing with the House Committee on Veteran's Affairs to receive the legislative presentations of the Retired Enlisted Association, Gold Star Wives of America, the Fleet Reserve Association, and the Air Force Sergeants Association. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 1, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 1, 2001, to conduct a markup of S. 143, the Competitive Market Supervision Act of 2001; the Banking Committee funding resolution for the 107th Congress; and other committee organizational matters.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 1, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. on digital TV.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 1, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., in closed session to receive a briefing from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on current military operations.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 1, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on current and future worldwide threats to the national security of the United States.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 1, 2001, 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``The Role of U.S. Correspondent Banking In International Money Laundering.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Nevada for their conversation. Certainly we have a lot of things in common with Nevada, mostly public lands. We don't have the gambling revenue, however. I rise to speak a few moments today on energy and energy policy. Certainly, this is one of the issues President Bush has talked about, and we have talked about it for some time in the Congress, the lack of a policy on energy. The President has asked Vice President Cheney to come up with some ideas with regard to energy and an energy policy. I believe he is going to do that within the next month. I look forward to that. One of the important and interesting aspects of this working group Vice President Cheney has put together is that it involves the directors of several agencies. That is extremely important. What we thought is, we have an agency called the Department of Energy, which is fine, but much of what is done with respect to energy is done in some other agencies, such as Interior, EPA, and Agriculture. It is extremely important that we have a high level group such as this that will bring together the differences that have evolved out of the various agencies. We also are seeking to reactivate and continually activate an oil and gas forum in the Senate for those States that have particular interests in the production aspect of oil and gas and fuel. Obviously, everyone has an interest in it. No one pays much attention to it when gas is $1 or $1.10 a gallon. When it gets to be $1.90, there is suddenly a lot of interest in it. I understand that. Even in our State of Wyoming, where we are maybe the energy center of the country our natural gas prices have gone up, for heating, of course, in the wintertime. And then the California situation certainly has brought attention to it as well. So I think even though we have sought to do this over the last several years, it is time we really focused in on having a national energy policy. That will give some vision to what we expect and want to do with regard to energy and, indeed, how we would do that. It is interesting; I guess I wasn't aware of the impact high-tech has had on the electricity consumption in California. You don't think of this computer sitting in front of you, Mr. President, which is using a lot of energy. But there are so many that are turned on that it has, indeed, had an impact. What do we need to do with the energy policy? I guess we ought to begin by saying, what do we want, expect, and need in terms of energy for our economy, our families, our communities, to have the kind of life we want to have? I think then we look at that demand situation. Of course, we have to take a look at how we are going to supply those needs. We are currently about 56-percent dependent on foreign sources for our Nation's supply of oil. It cost more than $100 billion last year to bring those things here. Our dependence has increased over the years. It was about 36 percent in 1973 during the Arab oil embargo and 46 percent during Desert Storm. Now DOE projects that it will be about 65 percent by the year 2020--our dependency on foreign sources of energy-- unless we change our situation. So coupled with producing the product, I think there are some other things that each of us would like to see. We have to do something with the costs, see if we can level out costs. That is particularly important to us, really, those of us who are in the production field. I think a year ago the wellhead price of natural gas was about $1.50, and of course that wasn't enough to even offset the costs. You had a little exploration, a little production, and really our economy in those areas was kind of down, and all of a sudden it was like $9. So now there is a rush. We tend to have energy boom-and-bust cycles--not only for consumers but for producers and for communities around the country. How can we level that out some? Diversity: I think we have to look at diversity. Certainly, there are a number of sources of energy. Some are used more than others. I think we need to have diversity. The environment: As we produce domestically, obviously, we need to take into account very seriously the protection of the environment. There are new ways being discovered all the time as to how to do it. There is horizontal drilling where you can reach out over thousands of square miles with a very small footprint. Conservation: As we look at that, there are ways in which we can use energy more efficiently than in the past. So I hope we can do that on domestic production. We can do it, of course, in a number of ways. One of the ways, I am sure, that is most important is access. We were just listening to the Senator from Nevada and 87 percent of Nevada belongs to the Federal Government. Fifty percent belongs to the Federal Government in my State of Wyoming. So many of the lands where there is access and there are designs for multiple use--we haven't had the access to be able to explore and produce in these natural resource areas. Access is something that is very important to be able to do that. I suspect we will have to take a look at some incentives, whether they be tax incentives or other kinds of incentives, to urge people to produce, of course. One of them that is always talked about that has a certain amount of merit is a tax reduction for small production wells. Wells get to the point that it is not profitable to produce them but there is a good deal of resource there. So to encourage them to do that would be useful, I am sure. I mentioned diversity. Gas is a great resource, and we are going to use a great deal of it. That is the problem we have, really, out in California. Of course, it is electricity, but to generate electricity, or want to, with gas. So you have to get gas there. But gas has a lot of opportunities to be used in many ways. I guess you could ask yourself, from a policy standpoint, should we be using gas almost exclusively in electricity generation when we could be using coal, for example, of which we have great reserves, and for stationary production; perhaps that is an alternative we ought to consider. We want to be certain that coal will be clean fuel; and it is clean now, but it can be even cleaner if we use some research and continue to work at doing CO2 and SO2 and doing some things that we can do there. Hydro: In the past several years, we have been in a situation where people were seeking to reduce the number of dams that were there and take away the production we have now. Hydro is a very efficient and, obviously, very clean fuel source. We can do that. I mentioned coal. Coal is one of our greatest resources, and we can do much with that as well. Nuclear: There is a good deal more interest in doing nuclear things. I think in Illinois, right now, nuclear plants produce 40 or 50 percent of the electricity. Now we have to find something to do with nuclear waste. We haven't yet finished our Yucca Mountain proposition or some other things. Nor do we use it as they do in Europe, where they recycle and a great deal of their generation is done by nuclear. It is the cleanest in terms of air quality, as I understand it. Renewables: We have some opportunities to increase the efficiency and make more competitive the cost of renewables, whether they be wind, air, sun, whatever. I think that is something we are looking forward to in the future. In addition to that, the markets for energy, of course, are not generally where the energy is produced, so you have to move it. Part of the problem is, in California, nobody really wanted to build transmission lines. They didn't want to provide rights of way to move fuel. Well, if you are going to have fuel, you have to move it there. Are there better ways perhaps to do it? Maybe so. I think one of the things we want to look at here, because it is interstate movement, is an electric transmission grid, so that there is an opportunity to move electricity perhaps even from Wyoming to California and that can be done. So there are a lot of things that need to be done. I think they need to be set out, and we need to balance protection of the environment. Obviously, nobody wants to overlook that. At the same time, you can make it so restrictive that it is impossible to even produce it efficiently, cost effectively. Those are the kinds of things that I think very certainly need to be considered. We have an act before us now. The chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, has put together a bill. I happen to be a cosponsor. It is a large bill that has to do with many of the things that are involved. I suspect there will be some changes in it before it is finally passed. I think it is a start, and I am very proud of what has been done there. It talks about protecting energy supplies, security for increasing efficiency, and the certification of pipelines. It has to do with technological research, advancing clean coal technology, alternative fuels, renewables, and conservation measures, just to name a few. It has to do with all kinds of things that would encourage us to have a clean, useful economic energy program in the United States to meet our needs. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have a few minutes remaining on the time allocated for us in morning business. I thank my friend from Texas. I certainly agree with her analysis of where these surplus dollars belong. That is the bottom line. Obviously, we have a responsibility to fund the programs that are there, programs that are important, the programs that genuinely belong as a responsibility of the Federal Government. We have a responsibility to ensure that Medicare and Social Security are there for people when they need it. We have a responsibility to pay down the debt. Those of us in my generation have spent the money, and we are going to let the younger generation pick up the bill. That is not what we want to do. We clearly have that responsibility. Not everyone agrees, of course, on how to do that. That is the purpose of this body, to debate the various options. Generally, the debate centers on the amount of expenditures in the Federal Government, the size of the Federal Government. There are those who believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to do most everything for everybody, to be the governance of the whole country. Others believe there is a constitutional limit on the kinds of things the Federal Government should involve itself in, that in fact the real issue ought to be to support local and State governments, the governments closest to the people, to do most of those things. So that debate goes on and will, I suppose, go on for a very long time. I was very impressed with the President's talk last night. Apparently, most people in the country were, according to the kinds of polling and questions that were asked in terms of his command of the issues. I think everyone was impressed with that. I don't think there is any question but that the President has strengthened his presentations as opposed to when he was a candidate. Somebody wrote that when he stepped into the Oval Office, he kind of transformed. That may be so. More important, of course, was the message that was sent, the things the President put out as priorities. Again, I was impressed that he is now seeking to implement those things he talked about and ran on in the election. That is neat. That is what you are supposed to do--put out the issues you are going to be for, and when you are elected, you do it. I think that is excellent. I also believe one of the refreshing things about this speech last evening was that it was a little different direction from what we have been talking about over the last 8 years--a little different direction in putting some priorities on things and funding things even more than perhaps they have been funded. At the same time, we are seeking to control the size of Government and put a 4-percent growth rate on discretionary spending. It was as high as 8 percent last year, and it was 16 percent in some agencies. That is too high. Again, that depends on your point of view. I was very impressed with the President's presentation. Obviously, it will be debated and discussed. We have already had a good deal of discussion about the size of it. That seems kind of interesting. We will talk about it some more. The size of the Bush tax cut is fairly modest, as a matter of fact, by historical standards. Going back to President Kennedy, he recommended a tax reduction that was 2 percent of the gross national product. President Reagan had a tax reduction that chose 3.3 percent of the gross national product. President Bush's proposal is 1.2 percent. That is less than either of the others in terms of the gross national product. All this stuff we hear about it being so out of size-- apparently, comparatively it is not. Also, I think it is kind of interesting to look at the next 10-year projection of total income, which is about $28 trillion. The tax relief over that same 10-year period is about $1.6 trillion. I never thought I would say $1.6 trillion isn't a lot because it is; but compared to the total, it is a small, or relatively small, percentage. I think that is something to keep in mind. Also, as you look at what happened in terms of having surpluses, in relation to spending here, there is a substantial difference. Average discretionary spending, during the time when we were without a surplus, was about 2 percent over the last couple years. With the surplus, it has been 6 to 8 percent. Now I don't argue the fact that some of the spending is the kind of spending we want to make. I am persuaded--and I have seen this in my own State legislature and here certainly--when there is a surplus, the growth of government goes up substantially. It goes up almost uncontrollably. So I think the idea of doing the three or four basic things the President set out last night is substantially right. One is to provide the money for those things that are key priorities in our Government activities. Two is to pay off the national debt under the proposition that it would be paid off in 10 years--all that can be paid off under the economic circumstances. And then we will have a tax return to the people who have paid the dollars. We are all interested, of course, in those issues, in those activities that are out there, such as education. I was home this weekend, and we talked a little about how we see our State, our communities, our public lands, and our families in Wyoming in 10, 15 years. Interestingly enough, the most common thing, actually, was education and the economy--jobs. Of course, we all want our kids to have the best education but there is quite a little interest in having job training and education. Everywhere you go, education is always there. This proposal has the Education Department at an 11.5-percent increase--which is the most in a very long time--to go for young people in preschool and reading and those things. Of course, Social Security is to be protected; $1.6 trillion out of the surplus would be preserved there. Medicare, of course, comes out of the 2.5 percent on top of the Social Security. It would be there for a priority for doing some things. Pharmaceuticals: That is going to be a difficult thing, but it is something we are all dedicated to doing. Strengthening defense, of course. It is interesting. I have had a couple opportunities to go on bases. One is in my home State. It is a missile base, Warren Air Force Base. I asked: What are your highest priorities? First was housing, particularly enlisted and NCO housing. Some of it had been there 30, 40 years. I went down to Quantico, VA, where I served in the Marine Corps. The first priority was base housing. In this budget is a substantial amount of money for pay and housing for the military and also for health care. Then we will properly take a look at the military in general, the strategic aspects of it and weapons aspects of it. Times have changed, and the whole challenge of the military has changed. We used to go in with five divisions and tanks and artillery. Now we are more likely to have to move about a group by air and ship, and they have to sustain themselves for weeks. It is a totally different kind of thing. I think we have a great opportunity here to meet our obligations as the Federal Government, to meet our fairness obligations with the taxpayers and return the surplus to them, and to meet our obligations to young people by paying off the debt we have incurred. I am excited about the opportunities. If you want to look down the road, what do you see? How do you see the Federal Government? How do you see our country in 15 years? These are the kinds of things that will be important to us--to strengthen the economy with an energy policy and do these kinds of things. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are talking about the budget this morning, about the tax reductions that the President will speak of this evening, I think talking about the importance of how the budget is arranged, how it matches the needs of our people, of our country. It seems to me, as I think I mentioned before, it is one of the most important decisions we will make, and that is the allocation and indeed the priorities of what our program will be in the coming year. I want to just talk in more general terms perhaps about some parts of it. First of all, I think in most everything we do here, we ought to try to have a vision of what it is we are seeking to accomplish a little way down the road and, hopefully, sometimes quite a way down the road, 10 or 20 years. What do we want the country to look like in 10, 20 years? What is it we want to do during the next year? That has a great deal of impact on what we do with financing and with the budget. Of course, one of the priorities has been security and defense. I think, clearly, it is time to take a long look at that and make additional investments in our military and in our defense. One of the things that needs immediate attention is the welfare of our military men and women. I think all of us have taken the occasion to visit military bases--in some cases overseas--such as Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, WY. Last year, I had the opportunity to return to the base where I served in the military, Quantico, VA. The first place they took me, in terms of their needs, was housing for the military. The President has indicated his desire to immediately increase spending for salaries for the military, housing, and health care. There is no question that ought to be one of our priorities. Following that, there ought to be a substantial review of our military strategic needs, because changes have taken place in the world and changes have taken place in military structures. That is a wise thing to do in terms of further funding. It seems to me that priority is one that encompasses a notion that we want to take better care of those men and women who have volunteered to be in the service to protect their country, and then take a long look at our capacity to deal with today's threats and the threats we will see tomorrow. Education: Every time one takes a poll or asks questions of folks in my State or nationwide, education is generally the No. 1 issue. It is easy to be for education, but it is a little bit more difficult to figure out what to do about it. Nevertheless, I think all will agree education is a high priority, that education is something we have to look to down the road. What is more important than providing a good education for the young people who are going to be running this world? We find ourselves with some differences about how we do that. A strong feeling has existed that Washington ought to decide what the money is for; it ought to be sent from Washington with attached instructions as to how to use it. I believe strongly that the needs in Meeteetse, WY, are different from the needs in Pittsburgh. Local people in the States ought to have the opportunity to use those dollars as they see fit, with some accountability, so we can ensure ours kids are getting the best education and can have a successful life. Again, I hope we can see what we want for education. I am particularly interested in the third priority the President has laid out, and that is energy. We have some problems in energy. Hopefully, some of them are short term. We have some long-term opportunities to do the things in the field of energy that we want to happen. One of them is to improve and increase domestic production so we are not totally dependent on OPEC and overseas imports of foreign energy. That is not wrong necessarily, but we become a victim of imports. We need an energy policy. We have not had an energy policy over the last number of years. The policies are fairly broad, and they are implemented in more detail, but it is my view that we need a policy for energy. It ought to be one that encourages domestic production, and there are many ways to do that. Some, I suppose, will be by way of taxes. I am not as excited about that as I am the opportunity to encourage domestic production. I spent last week in Wyoming. Wyoming is one of the large energy producers in this country. We have an opportunity to increase our gas production--we are doing that now--and we have an opportunity to increase oil production. We are the largest producer of coal in the Nation. Coal is a basic resource but can even be better as we do research. Domestic production is one part of a basic policy. Research: We need to continue research. One area is to make coal cleaner and to enrich coal so we get more Btu's out of coal and bring the transportation costs down. We want to do more with air quality, and we can. In almost any instance, it is fair to say when you have large electric generators, up in the 1,500-megawatt area, coal is the most efficient producer of energy, and we need to research that. We need diversity of energy sources. I am a great supporter of natural gas, but we find ourselves overly dependent on natural gas. Natural gas is a flexible fuel that can be used not only for stationary generation but also can be used for many other things. I hope we will have some diversity, that we will have hydro, coal, and oil. We ought to also be working on diversity of renewable energy. We can do more in renewables than we have in the past, and that ought to be part of our basic policy. Transportation: Energy has to be moved. We see the problem in California. Part of the problem is the unwillingness or the inability, at least the absence of transmission lines and pipelines, to move energy. Some people don't like to see transmission lines. They won't see them because it will be dark. That is the choice we have to make. We need to do that. It is increasingly difficult to get the easements to do that. Conservation: Part of our policy ought to be the more efficient use of energy so that we can get more out of our energy and renewables, as I have mentioned. Of course, one of our goals, one of our missions, ought to be a reasonable price for the consumers. We have seen that change in the last several months. That is not something we want to continue. We ought to be looking at defense, education, and energy. Medicare is very important to health care. It needs to be revised. There have been a number of efforts to do that. We have not completed those efforts. We need to include some aspect of pharmaceuticals. What do we want to see in the future? I happen to be cochairman of the conference on rural health care in our caucus. Rural health care is a little different from health care in the large cities. Not every little town in every State is going to have all kinds of medical care. They are not going to have specialists. We need an outreach so that all people in this country have access to health care. It needs to be done differently. We need telemedicine. We need to do a number of things. That is another goal we need to pursue and envision where we want to be. Social Security: If we do not do something with Social Security, these young people here, who now have 12.5 percent of their salaries withdrawn when they work, will not have benefits. We can change that. We are going to be talking about individual accounts that can be invested in the private sector, that can be invested in equities or bonds and can offer a much higher return so they will have benefits. I hope, rather than seeking to find a political item to work on for the election of 2002, we can take a longer look at these issues and say here is where we want to be and here is what it takes to do that. We have a great opportunity in terms of tax relief, our budget, our spending, and we have that opportunity now. I hope we take full advantage of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. If the Senator would care to, I would be surprised but certainly happy about it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout the day. At 12:30, the Senate will recess for weekly party conferences to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, there will be an additional period of morning business to allow Senators to introduce legislation and to make statements. By previous consent, when the Senate completes its business this afternoon, it will recess until 8:30 tonight. Senators are reminded to be in the Senate Chamber by 8:30 to proceed as a body at 8:40 this evening to the Hall of the House of Representatives for the President's address.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, one of the most important things we do in the Senate throughout the year is to put together a budget. The budget, of course, on its face, is how we spend the money. However, it is much more than that. It sets the priorities of the Senate and the Congress and the Government, what the Government will do throughout the year, by adjudicating and allocating these expenditures to certain areas. In addition, of course, it has to do with the broader issue of what size Government we have, what is the role of the Government, and what is the role of the Federal Government vis-a-vis other governments. So it is one of the most important documents and one of the most important activities we engage in during the entire year. The President this evening will lay forth his priorities for budgeting, which, of course, will be very important. He will set out the expenditure level for this country. These things all become very important. We are going to hear more about it today. I yield the floor.