Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, Senator Hollings has a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 568, S. 2327.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Senator Snowe has an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 569, H.R. 1651.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committee amendment, as amended be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish to talk about a conversation I heard yesterday on the Sunday talk shows. It is too bad that on the Sunday talk shows the issues are not more clearly defined. This talk show was on Social Security and options, which are clearly legitimate options. The options separate the points of view of the parties and the candidates. I am talking about taking a portion of the Social Security program, as it now exists for an individual, and putting it into his or her private account and investing it in the private sector in equities or in bonds or a combination of the two. The return stays with this person because it is their account. Out of the 12.5 percent that each of us pay--and each of these young people will pay in the first job they have, and if something does not happen by the time they are ready for benefits, there will be none. We have to make some changes. One of the changes we can make, of course, is to increase taxes. There is not a lot of enthusiasm for that. For many people, Social Security is the highest tax: 12.5 percent right off the top. The second change is we could reduce benefits. Not many people are interested in reducing benefits. The third change is to take those dollars that are put into the so- called trust fund and invest them for a higher return. Under the law, those dollars can only be invested in Government securities which, in this case, is a very low return. We are talking about taking those same dollars that belong to you and to me and putting them in individual accounts. They can be invested, and the earnings would be part of that person's Social Security payment. Yesterday, the implication was that would be a part of it, and then we have to fix up Social Security and replace all the money that is put in these private accounts. That is not the fact. The fact is, they are still part of Social Security, but they are yours. You make a decision how they are invested, and then you get your 10 percent, as it always is, plus the return to the 2 percent on top of that, and that represents your benefits. The lady yesterday representing the Clinton administration indicated we would have to replace all those dollars and go ahead with Social Security as it is. That is just not the fact. This is an opportunity for us to increase the return, to ensure those dollars and those benefits will be there when the time comes for someone to receive them, and to do that without increasing taxes, without reducing benefits, but by simply taking advantage of the opportunity of a better return on the investment. A couple of Senators are going to be here shortly. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3903, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. Quite often we have difficulties, we have problems, and we really don't think about the policy that has created it--or in this case, the lack of policy. I think it is very important that as we have the great growth of energy use in this country, that we take a look at our policy and not let ourselves become captives of overseas production.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are focusing today on energy and energy costs, which is something of which each of us is certainly aware. I suspect there is more exposure to gasoline prices than any other particular price. As we drive down Main Street in our hometowns, on every block we see a big sign showing the price of gasoline, and it certainly changes. I wanted to go back a little, however. As the Senator from Arizona mentioned, there is a background here. I think there are several reasons, of course, why we have the price difficulties we have now. It is a complex story. It has to do with global supply and demand. It has to do with technological change and environmental consciousness, the shifting of consumer tastes, and social order. It also, of course, has a great deal to do with restrictions and regulations that have been imposed. But one of the other things it has to do with is the availability and access to public lands. About 54 percent of the surface of this country belongs to the Federal Government. Most of that, of course, lies in the West. The State ownership in my State of Wyoming is about 50 percent of the total. It goes up to as high as 90 percent of the total in Nevada and Alaska and other States. So the idea of multiple use and access to these lands becomes a very important factor, not only for resources such as oil and gas, but equally important and perhaps even more important, often, for recreation, access for hunting and fishing recreation. We have seen, in recent months, an even more focused effort on the part of this administration to reduce access to public lands, to make it more difficult for the people who own those public lands to have an opportunity to utilize them. After all, I happen to be the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks. The purpose of a national park, of course, is not only to preserve the resource, the national treasure, but to make it available for the people who own it to use it; that is, the taxpayers of this country. It is true, parks are quite different than BLM lands, quite different than Forest Service lands, but the principle is still there; that we ought to preserve that resource and at the same time have multiple use so its owners can enjoy it for recreation, can enjoy it for hunting or fishing, so the economy of this country and the economy of this particular State can be enhanced by the multiple use of those resources. As we move into different ways of prospecting for oil and different ways of mining, different ways of using snowmobiles and so on, we find we have a better opportunity, as time goes by, to use those resources without causing damage. Particularly towards the end of this administration, and it has been stated very clearly by the Secretary of Interior and Assistant Secretaries of Interior, they are going to make a mark here. The President has indicated he would like to change his legacy to be like that of Theodore Roosevelt, who did all these things for public lands. The Secretary himself said: If the Congress is not going to do this, we will go ahead and do it without them. That is a real challenge to one of the strong principles of this Government, the principle of divided government. We have it divided in the Constitution so we have the executive branch, we have the legislative branch, and we have the judicial branch. We have that separation for a very important reason. That is so none of those three branches is able to assume all the responsibility and all of the authority--and, frankly, very little of the accountability. What we have seen in the last few months is a movement by the administration to go out on its own and make a bunch of regulations and do things, under the Antiquities Act, which reduce the availability of the lands for people who own them to enjoy them; for example, setting aside 40 million acres of forest lands as roadless. There are several problems with that. I don't particularly have any problem with some of that. We have lots of forest lands in my State, and I am glad we do. My parents' property, their ranch, where I grew up, was right next-door to a national forest. There is nothing I care more for. But the fact is, we ought to have a system for deciding how we handle these lands. Instead of using the forest plan which is what the system is supposed to be, for instance, in the Black Hills we spent 7 years and $7 million doing a forest plan, and now the bureaucrats here in Washington decide we are going to have a national roadless area, without accommodating the people with an opportunity to discuss it for each of the forests, and without coming to the Congress. Now there are a series of meetings going on which the Forest Service talks about a lot, but I have attended some of those and the fact is when you go, they are not able to tell you really what the plan is. So no one has a chance to react. So what we have, in effect, is the opportunity to avoid this. The people I have heard from, who feel very strongly about it--some happen to be disabled persons, some happen to be veterans--say: Wait a minute, we don't need a road everywhere. But we need enough roads to have access so people who cannot walk 17 miles with a pack on their back still have the opportunity to take advantage of that resource that is so important. So I think that is one of the things that is very difficult. The Bureau of Land Management also put out a ruling on off-road usage. I don't have any problem with that either. We ought not to have four-wheelers going everywhere. We ought not to have roads going everywhere. But we ought to have a plan so people can have access by at least having a road for access. You don't need five roads; I understand that. So there needs to be a plan. The Antiquities Act is a very important act. In fact, it was very important to my State of Wyoming with respect to the Devils Tower and the Grand Teton National Park; it gives the President the authority to set aside certain lands in special use. Relatively little of that has happened over the last few years, but this President in the last 6 months has set aside hundreds of thousands of acres, without the involvement of anyone. That is not the system. This is the same administration that wants to do an environmental impact statement on everything that is done, so you could have public input. I am for that. I pushed very hard to have the opportunity for local governments to be involved in the decisions that are made and impact their States. There are no such decisions here, just one made by this administration. Now we have what is called a CARE Act, to take $3.5 billion from offshore royalties and have it as mandatory spending, where the Congress has nothing to do with deciding how use of that money is planned, $1 billion a year to be used for the acquisition of more and more Federal lands. We feel very strongly about that in the West. It doesn't mean there are not pieces of land that need to be acquired, need to be set aside--no one opposes that. But the fact is, if you want to acquire more land in Wyoming, which is already 50 percent Federal owned, why not go ahead and acquire it and then release an equal value of Federal lands somewhere else so you don't have a net gain. That is a reasonable thing to do and we intend to pursue that, in terms of this CARE Act. The endangered species, again, who argues with endangered species, trying to protect the critters? The fact is, however, there has been no involvement in the listing of the animals; there has been very little opportunity to find a recovery plan. We have had grizzly bears listed now for 10 years around Yellowstone Park. The numbers have far exceeded the goal that was set. But you can talk about habitat forever and they continue to be there. We just have to manage this public land so it is available and useful. The Clean Water Act, nonpoint-source clean water, has also been used to manage land. That is where we are. Interestingly, the latest one has been the proposal to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone Park--in fact, from 27 parks. Again, I don't argue that there needs to be more management of these vehicles so you ought to do something about the noise, ought to do something about the air emissions, ought to do something about separating them so we have a snow team over here, we can have cross- country skiers over here, without interfering with each other. The fact is, the Park Service over 20 years has never done anything to manage this thing. Now all of a sudden they say: It is not going the way it ought to, so we are going to ban it for everyone. That is not a good way to manage a resource. We find an increasing bureaucratic self-declaration that they are going to do these things, and if the Congress does not like it, that is too bad. That is not the way this Government is designed to work. Quite frankly, we cannot let that happen. How does this tie into energy? As I mentioned before, almost 55 percent of public land in the West belongs to the Federal Government. Most of the opportunities for resource development have been on these Federal lands in the West. They have been a very important part of the State economies. They have been a very important part of the natural production. Over the last several years, it has become more and more difficult, because of regulations and rules, for people to go on these lands and produce resources, even though they very clearly, under the law, have to reclaim the land, whether it is mining or oil wells. We have an increased demand for energy on the one hand and a reduction in production on the other, and we are certainly a victim of overseas production. Americans consume over 130 billion gallons of gasoline, almost four times as much as 50 years ago. Consumption has grown at a rate of 1.5 percent. That translates to about 8.4 million barrels a day, which is 45 percent of the total oil production. There is increased usage, a reduction in domestic production, and we are at the mercy of OPEC. It is also interesting that in 1999, the tax component of gasoline was approximately 40 cents a gallon, or about 34 percent of the total cost. Interestingly enough, the price component of a gallon of gas, crude oil, and taxes is about equal: 18.5 cents is Federal and 20 cents is the average State tax that is levied on top. We also find ourselves with additional restrictions and regulations, put on this year, with making some changes in our policy if we are to deal with this increased demand. Obviously, there are a number of things that ought to be done over time. We ought to take a look at consumption and continue pushing for high- mileage vehicles and reduce demand. We need to take a look at domestic production so we are not totally dependent on imported energy. We need to take a long look at the regulations and see if there are alternatives and whether they can be more economical, and whether, in fact, what we are doing has been thoroughly thought through. I am not sure that has been the case. I have no objection to taking a long look at the pricing of gasoline as well. It is interesting that there is such a great disparity in prices in different parts of the country. Perhaps there is a good, logical reason for that. If so, we should know about it. I hope our energy policy does not become totally political. The fact is, we have not had an energy policy in this administration. We have held hearings in our committee, not only with this Secretary of Energy, but the previous two Secretaries of Energy. One says: Yes, we are going to have a policy. The fact is, we do not. The fact is, we have not been able to fully utilize coal. We have not been able to take advantage of nuclear power by stalling in getting our nuclear waste stored. There are a lot of things we need to do and, indeed, should do. It is unfortunate we have not had the cooperation from this administration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the current unanimous consent agreement, Senator Hatch be recognized at 4 p.m. to offer his amendment regarding hate crimes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank particularly the Senator from Arizona for his very thorough and accurate description of where we are and where we have been in terms of our nuclear security, in terms specifically of the Los Alamos matter, and more importantly, of course, where we are in terms of overall security, which has to be one of the most important things this Government has to do. The Senator is probably one of the more knowledgeable Members in terms of the military, in terms of intelligence, so I appreciate that very much. Unfortunately, we have been through this now several times, the matter of having a system upon which we could rely for the security of our nuclear arsenal and secure military information. And even though this is a very trying thing we are involved in now, really the overall system is what is worrisome. If we are having these kinds of difficulties at Los Alamos--there are a number of places in this country where, of course, we are required to have security--and if we have that notion that there is no more security there than there has proven to be, then we have to wonder, of course, about the other facilities in this country which require the same kind of security. I believe, as the Senator mentioned, the real issue is that we went through this before, not very many months ago. I happen to be on the Energy Committee in which we listened to this a great many times; we listened to the Wen Ho Lee question, and we heard from the Secretary that now we were going to take care of this issue and now you could rest assured we would have security. The fact is we do not. The fact is that apparently there are some very simple kinds of things that could be done that would have alleviated this problem. It is difficult to understand that in a place such as Los Alamos, where you have secure storage for this kind of information, as someone said, you have less security than Wal-Mart in terms of checking in and out. That is really very scary. So my point is that we really have to take a long look at the system. As the Senator pointed out, Congress established a while back a semiautonomous unit that was to have responsibility for nuclear security. The Secretary did not approve of that. The President, despite the fact that he signed it, did not approve it either, and therefore it was never inaugurated; it was never put into place. That raises another issue, of course, that is equally troubling to me, and that is that this administration has sort of had the notion that, if we don't agree with what the Congress has done, we simply won't do it, or, if we want to do something the Congress doesn't agree with, we will go ahead and do it. That is really troublesome to me in that one of the real benefits of freedom, one of the real benefits of the operation of this country over the years, has been the division of power, the constitutional division among the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. It is so vital, and we need to retain it. We find increasing evidence of the fact that some of it, of course, is in the closing chapters of this administration, but they are determined that if they don't happen to like what the Congress has done or can do something that Congress will not accept, they go ahead and do it. This is not right. This is really very scary. We have, as you all know, a great many young people who come to visit the Senate, come to visit their Capitol, and I am delighted that they do. People want to see all the buildings, and they want to see the people who are currently filling these offices and in the White House. But the fact is that the Constitution is really the basis for our freedom. That is what other countries do not have, a Constitution and a rule of law to carry it out. So when we threaten the division of power, then it really is worrisome, and I think we have the great responsibility to make sure that that does not in fact happen. In this instance, I think we have had a pretty patent rejection of the things the Congress has done and put into law and that have not, indeed, been implemented. There are a number of important matters, of course, that are before us as we enter into what are almost the closing months of this Congress. We have accomplished a number of things that are very useful; we have some tax reform, some welfare reform; we have done some things for the military, to strengthen it. There are a number of items, of course, yet to be done. One of them, of course, that is imperative is the passage of appropriations, all of which have to be done before the end of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. One of the scary things for the Congress, I believe, again, with this sort of contest sometimes with the executive branch, is if we do not finish these things in time, the President would threaten, of course, as he did before, to shut down the Government and blame the Congress for doing that and use the leverage for the budget to be quite different from what the Congress would like it to be. Therefore, we need to move forward. I was in Wyoming this weekend, as I am nearly every weekend. There is a good deal of concern about regulatory reform, the idea that, first of all, we have probably excessive regulation in many places. One of the most current examples, I believe, might be in the area of the price of gasoline where, without much consideration of where we were going and its result, we have had more regulations to control diesel fuel and gasoline, which is at least a part of the reason that gas prices are as high as they are, the lack of a policy in energy. We have allowed ourselves to become overly dependent on OPEC and the rest of the world by limiting or restricting, through regulation, our access to energy that could be produced in the United States so at least we were not 60- percent dependent, as we soon will be, on overseas production. Those are the things with which we ought to be dealing in terms of excessive regulation. One of the ways to fix that is to have a system whereby once the laws are passed by the legislature and are implemented by the executive branch through regulation, those regulations should come back to the legislative body to ensure the thrust of the legislation is reflected in the regulations. This happens in most States. Most State legislators have an opportunity to look at the regulations once they have been drafted to ensure it reflects the intent of the legislation. We passed a law in 1996 to do that. Unfortunately, it has not worked. We have had 12,000 regulations. Very few have come back because they have to go through OMB to be scanned out, first of all. I believe there has been some effort to change five of them, but none of have been changed because the system does not work. I introduced a bill 3 weeks ago that will give us an opportunity to look at the regulations and accept the responsibility that a legislature has to oversee the implementation of regulations to ensure the laws are carried out properly. We have a responsibility for energy policy. I mentioned that. This administration does not have an energy policy. We have not dealt with the question of how to encourage and, indeed, should we encourage the production of domestic petroleum. We have great petroleum reserves in the West and in ANWR. Better ways of exploring and producing resources that are more protective of the environment are being developed. Yet we do not have a policy to do that. We find ourselves at the mercy of OPEC. We have to deal with the question of coal production. There are ways in which we can use that resource and make it more environmentally friendly. We have to recognize that is a main source of electric production as we find ourselves using more and more electricity and our generating capacity is not growing, partly because of a lack of an energy policy. Interestingly enough, the problem we are having with security also is in the Energy Department. So the Senator's suggestion that perhaps we have some changes there may apply to some other issues as well. Many of us are very interested in public land management. In the West, in my State, 50 percent of the State belongs to the Federal Government. In most States in the West, it is even higher than that. Nevada is nearly 90 percent federally owned. The people who live there need a way with which to deal with the question of public land management. I happen to be chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks. Clearly, the goal is to maintain those resources. They are great natural resources. They are national treasures. At the same time, as we maintain those facilities and resources they ought to be available to their owners--the taxpayers--to visit. This administration is seeking to limit access in a number of ways, such as a nationwide rule automatically designating 40 million acres roadless. I have no objection to looking at roadless areas. We have roadless areas, and we ought to manage those. It ought to be done on the basis of forest plans for each individual forest instead of one plan. I see the Forest Service is proud of all the meetings they have been having to have input. I attended some of those meetings. The fact is, people have very little information available to them when they go to the meetings and cannot respond. Sometimes they are not asked to respond but only to listen to a broad description of where it is going. There was great discussion in the House about the Antiquities Act which is an old law. Theodore Roosevelt used it years ago. Most of us have no problem with the concept that the President can, through Executive order, change their lands and change their designation. This is limitless and has been used more over the last few months by this administration than at any time in memory without involvement of the local people. All these things go together. Now we are faced with a proposition to take $1 billion a year to acquire more Federal land without any recognition of the fact that the States in the West are already heavily federally owned. These are some issues about which we need to be talking. My friend on the other side of the aisle in the previous hour was talking about Social Security. He was very critical of the idea of allowing Social Security payers to take a portion of their Social Security and invest it in equities in the marketplace so that the return will be four or five times what it is now. Unfortunately, for young people, such as these pages, when they make their first dollars, 12.5 percent of it will be put into Social Security. If things do not change, there is very little chance they will have any benefits for them. How do we change that? Raise taxes? I do not think people are interested in that. We can reduce benefits; I do not think many are interested in that. One alternative is to take those dollars now invested under law in Government securities and return 1 percent on investment and allow 2 percent of the 12 percent to be invested in personal accounts. The account belongs to the payer and will be invested on their behalf as they direct, whether it is in equities, bonds, or a combination of the two. If they should be unfortunate enough to pass away before they ever get the benefits, it will go to their estate. There is great criticism about that on the other side of the aisle without a good alternative as to how we are going to provide benefits for young Social Security payers as they enter into the program. I should mention, one of the safety factors is that no one over 50 or 55 will be impacted or affected. Their Social Security will not change. These are a few of the things with which we ought to be dealing. Tax relief: We seem to be greatly concerned about what we do with excess money that will appear in this year's budget. Certainly, there are some things we ought to do. One of them, of course, is to adequately fund Government programs. I understand people have different ideas about that, but we can do that and there would still be substantial excess dollars available. The next priority is to make sure Social Security is there and those Social Security dollars are not spent for operations, which is something we have done over years, until the last couple of years. That ought to be set aside so it does not happen. We ought to be dealing with Medicare making sure those dollars are set aside as well and not spent for operations so those benefits will be available. Frankly--and I realize there are different views and that is what the Senate is about--but there are those generally on that side of the aisle whose idea--and it is legitimate--is that the Federal Government ought to be spending more, doing more; the Federal Government ought to undertake to solve all these problems. I do not happen to agree with that. I happen to think we ought to have a limited Federal Government; that, indeed, we ought to do those things the Federal Government ought to be doing, but it should not be involved in all of our lives. That is what the private sector is for. That is what local governments are for. That is what State governments are for. Of course, that is the philosophical argument with which we are all faced. One of the elements of that is tax relief. We have passed one tax relief bill this year. We passed the marriage penalty tax which is more of a fairness issue than anything. It deals with the fact that a man and woman, earning a certain amount of money, unmarried pay a certain amount in taxes. These two same people get married, earning the same amount of money and pay more income taxes. It is wrong. We passed a bill in both Houses. Now we need to make sure the President signs it. The estate tax is another one that takes away over 50 percent of an estate above a certain level. We ought to make that more fair. Tax relief is certainly one of the things that we ought to be doing, that we ought to be talking about. Unfortunately, what we are faced with now is that we find ourselves in a position where I think many in the body are more interested in creating issues than they are in finding solutions. We find the same issues being brought up time after time after time. For example, my friend again talked about gun control this morning. He talked about additional laws, when the fact is, clearly, what is really important is the enforcement of the laws that we have now. In the Colorado incident, there were 22 laws broken. Do we need more laws? Probably not. What we need to do is enforce them. The General Accounting Office did an audit of the effectiveness of the national instant criminal background check. As of September of 1999, the ATF headquarters staff had screened 70,000 denials and concluded that only 22,000 had merit. Only 1 percent of those denials were ever pursued as to if the person trying to buy a gun was, in fact, legally allowed to. Clearly, that issue has been talked about here. It basically has been resolved. We keep talking about the Patients' Bill of Rights. We passed it in both Houses. The question now is whether, when you need an appeal from your HMO, you go to the court or physicians in an appeal position, whether you want to take a year and a half to go to court, or whether you want an automatic and quick response from professionals in the medical profession who say: Yes, do it. That is where we are. You hear in the media that the Senate defeated the Patients' Bill of Rights. That is not true. The Patients' Bill of Rights has been passed by this Congress in both Houses. We need now to put it together. Indeed, it is in conference. We find ourselves debating education. We find ourselves having to pull away from the elementary and secondary education bill in which the Federal Government participates--not heavily. The Federal Government's role in funding elementary and secondary education is about 7 percent of the total expenditure. But the argument is whether the decisions are made in Washington as to how that 7 percent is used before it is sent down to the school districts or whether we send down the 7 percent and let the States and the school districts decide, which is what our position is on this side. I spoke at a graduation a couple weeks ago in Chugwater, WY. The graduating class was 12. You can see that is a pretty small school. The things they need in Chugwater, WY, are quite different than what you need in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia or Washington, DC. So if you are going to really be able to help all different kinds of schools and have the flexibility to do that, clearly, you have to transport those decisions to State and local government. These are some of the things in which we find ourselves involved. I am hopeful we can move forward. I do not expect everyone to agree. Certainly, that is not why we are here. But we ought to have a system where, No. 1, after we have dealt with an issue, we can move on to the next issue, and not have it continuously brought up as nongermane amendments, which is happening all the time. We ought to be able to say, we have a system where we can participate. But we have a system that can hold everything up, which is being used now in not allowing us to move forward as we should. As you can imagine, it gets just a little bit nerve-racking from time to time when you think of all the things that we could be doing, and need to be doing, but find it difficult to do. Finally, there is something, it seems to me, that would be most helpful if we could do it a little more. We are talking now about the reregulation of electricity, trying to make it competitive so there would be better opportunity for people to choose their supplier, so there would be a better opportunity for people to invest in generation, and do all those things. But we really have not decided where we want to go and where we want to be. One of the things that seems to be difficult for us to do in governance is, first of all, to decide what we want to accomplish and then talk about how we get there. It sounds like a fairly simple routine, but it is not really happening. It would be good if we could do that, if we could say, for example, in terms of the Patients' Bill of Rights: All right, what do we want the result to be? What is our goal? What do we want to accomplish? and see if we could not define that, and then make the rules, make the regulations, pass the laws that would implement that decision. But instead, if we do not have that clearly defined, it seems that we continue to go around and around. I am sometimes reminded by children of Alice in Wonderland. She fell through the hole in the Earth and was lost, and she talked to people to try to get some directions. None of them were very useful. She finally came to the Cheshire cat who was sitting up in a tree at a fork in the road. She said: Mr. Cat, which road should I take? He said: Where do you want to go? She said: I don't know. He said: Then it doesn't make any difference which road you take. That is kind of where we are in some of the things we do. In any event, we are going to make some progress. I hope that we move forward and get our appropriations finished. I hope we can do something on national security. We need to have a system that works to decide what it is we want to accomplish, how we best accomplish that, and put it into place.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a 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 hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1643, a bill to authorize the addition of certain parcels to the Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa; S. 2547, a bill to provide for the establishment of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 22, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 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, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Clark of the Committee staff at (202) 224-6969. subcommittee on natural parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a 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 hearing is to receive testimony on S. 134, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study whether the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore should be protected as wilderness area; S. 2051, a bill to revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and for other purposes; S. 2279, a bill to authorize the addition of land to Sequoia National Park, and for other purposes; S. 2512, a bill to convey certain Federal properties on Governors Island, New York. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 29, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 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, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Clark of the Committee staff at (202) 224-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation, along with my colleagues Senators Shelby, Breaux, Conrad and Reid to make it easier for Americans to participate in the decision-making process in their state capitols. Current tax law denies main street business the ability to deduct legitimate expenses incurred while advocating their positions at the state level of government. This legislation will remove both the financial and administrative penalties imposed by this ``grassroots advocacy tax.'' As part of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Congress approved a proposal recommended by President Clinton to deny the deductibility of expenses incurred to lobby on legislative issues. As passed, the bill created an ``advocacy tax'' by denying a business tax deduction for expenses incurred to address legislation at both the state and federal levels. Expenses incurred regarding the legislative actions of local governments, however, are exempt from this tax. When the deductibility for lobbying expenses was partially repealed in 1993, the debate centered on activities at the federal level. The fact that lobbying at the local level is exempt indicates that the original authors of this proposal did not intend to cover all lobbying activities. Although lobbying at the state level was not part of the debate, it was included in the final legislation that was approved by Congress. This grassroots advocacy tax is an unwarranted intrusion of the federal government on the activity of state governments. We should not make it harder for Americans to participate in the decision making process in their state capitols. At the state level, there is more active outside participation in the legislative process. This is partly because state legislatures have smaller staffs and meet less frequently than the U.S. Congress. In most states, the job of state legislator is part-time. In addition, many governors appoint ``Blue Ribbon Commissions'' and other advisory groups to recommend legislative solutions to problems peculiar to a specific state. These advisory groups depend on input from members of the business, professional and agricultural community knowledgeable about particular issues. However, the record keeping requirements and penalties associated with this tax discourage and penalize participation in the legislative process by businesses in all fifty states. This is especially true for the many state trade associations, most of whom are small operations not equipped to comply with the pages and pages of confusing federal regulations implementing this law. Compliance is both time consuming and complicated, and detracts from the legitimate and necessary work and services they perform for their members, who are primarily small businesses that depend on these associations to look after their interests. This bill is very simple. It restores the deductibility of business expenses incurred for activities to deal with legislation at the state level, and gives them the same treatment that exists under current law for similar activities at the local level. This change will help ensure that the voices of citizen advocates and main street businesses will be heard in their state capitols. It is good legislation and it should be enacted into law.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio. I certainly could not agree more that when we have--as we do and will--a surplus, we need to decide where our priorities are in terms of spending those dollars. I can tell you, if they are just left here, they will be spent. If our priorities do lie in funding what our programs are, in ensuring that Social Security maintains itself, and that Medicare is there, and when we want to ensure that we keep a balanced budget and start to pay down our debt, then we have to commit ourselves to do those things. I think it is an excellent idea for those dollars, so that they won't be spent for something else. I also think we ought to pay down the debt, and we hopefully will have some opportunity to get some tax relief. It is tougher, interestingly enough, when you have a surplus to make sure that the money is used as beneficially as when you are dealing with a deficit. That is what I wanted to talk about this morning. That is how we might make Government more efficient. You know, we talk about that a lot. Most of us talk about less Federal Government and how do we make sure the dollars are spent as efficiently as they can be and, hopefully, how we can arrive at a situation where those people who earn the dollars can keep more of them. That ought to be part of our goal. I think there are some things that this Congress ought to consider, and they seem very important to me--ways in which we intend to ensure that the Government is more efficient, that the Federal Government indeed is limited in size, and that we make certain the Federal Government does those things that are defined in the Constitution and not those other things that are not and should be left to the States and the people. That is what the Constitution says. That is what most of us want. Particularly, I suppose, when you come from a State such as mine, Wyoming, where we have a relatively low population, where we have a lot of open space and not too many folks, then the way you have programs function is different than it is in Connecticut and different than it is in Pittsburgh. So you really need that flexibility and you need to be doing as much governance as can be done, in my opinion, as close to people as possible so that it fits. That is what we ought to be talking about--less bureaucracy and more responsiveness, and doing what we need to do. This budget process that we are going through now is quite important, not only with respect to spending the money, but we really define for ourselves what we think the priorities are in terms of the needs of the American people, and what the role of the Federal Government is to help satisfy those needs. It is difficult. I think it is fair to say that governments have less discipline than the private sector. There is really nothing to force the Government to have to behave in different ways, which is true in the private sector. I come from a business background. I tell you, you have to make changes from time to time because the economy makes it imperative that you do that, or you go broke. You are forced to change. That is not so with the Government. There is no competition there, so you are not forced to do things. I am not totally critical of the Government, by any means. I am only saying that there is a difference between how you run the Government and how you run the private sector. I believe there are a number of factors in the private sector that would help make the Federal Government much more effective. You have to force change. Change doesn't come about easily in a bureaucracy. Governments tend to go on as they have in the past. They tend to say that is what we have done before and what we will continue to do. It is resistant to change. So seldom are they forced to reorganize. Agencies are insulated, to some extent, by the Congress. If we don't do some things to bring about change, then change doesn't come about. I think it is our responsibility to do some of those things. There are a number of ideas that I believe will help strengthen the system--ideas that are adapted from the private sector, to a large extent. They have to be initiated by the Congress, and there has to be a system in which the Congress exercises its responsibility for oversight to make sure that does not happen. There has to be a way that things are audited, that things are reviewed to see if, in fact, we are accomplishing the things that are set out to do. The first would be, of course, to establish goals. I have recently been involved in electric deregulation. We have had great battles over it. I am not sure what is going to happen or whether it will be done this year. We are seeking, however, to make some changes in the electric generating and distribution system. It has been a regulated utility for years. We want to see if we can't do it a little better in other ways. Do you know what else we should do, in my opinion? We haven't really defined what we want. We get all wrapped up in what is going on. We are going to do this, or that, or this, when we haven't really clearly defined what we want the end result to be. It seems to me it would be very productive if this Congress--maybe when we start to deal with campaign finance--knew what it wanted in the end. I think we could do that. If you are not certain where you are going--remember the old story of Alice in Wonderland. She fell through the hole and talked to all of the different people, and didn't get any advice. Finally, she saw the Cheshire cat up in the tree, and she was right at the junction of the road. She said: Cat, which road should I take? The cat said: Where do you want to go? She said: I don't know. The cat said: Then it doesn't make any difference what road you take. That is kind of where we are sometimes. If we don't know what we want to accomplish, then how do we get there? I think instead of emphasizing the process, which we often do, we then need to measure results. That is really what it ought to be about. That is where you have the flexibility by saying you worry so much about how you get there but you measure the results at the end. There are things we can do. Congress needs to first define where we are going, define how we get there, and then measure the results; give some flexibility so that things can be done differently in different places. The health care system delivery is much different in Wyoming from what it is in California. You have to have some flexibility to do that. Congressional oversight is something that, unfortunately, we probably don't do as much as we should. That is what committee meetings are for. That is what audits are for. When you pass a law and say here is where we want to go, then you have to say: How are we getting there? We don't do that well. The Republicans and the majority party have been putting emphasis on oversight. I think that is a great thing to do. That is why I like biennial appropriations--so you don't have to spend 2 years doing appropriations. We ought to do them every other year, and spend the interim year seeing if the money we are spending is doing the things we intended. The Constitution divides the responsibilities in the Federal Government for a reason; that is, so that no one segment of Government controls everything. We have an executive branch; we have a legislative branch; we have a judicial branch. It is for good reason: To divide and strengthen the responsibilities and power so there is balance. We, frankly, find that particularly this administration, as their time expires, is moving far beyond what the legislature has authorized and doing many things by regulation without talking at all with the Congress or, indeed, to the people. I think we have to really make sure that what the law intends is carried out. Congress passed a bill in 1998, which I authored, which defines the various activities of Congress: Listing those activities that are inherently governmental, listing those that are not, and listing those that could better be done by contract in the private sector. We passed that bill. We have had some progress. There has been a listing, generally. By the way, the Defense Department, in my opinion, does a better job of contracting than any other agency. That ought to be the role of an agency, to strengthen their ability to manage contracts, but to let those contracts go out to the private sector and people who do that professionally and more efficiently all of the time. I think that is something we really ought to be able to do. We also need, of course, to find a way to terminate programs. I mentioned in the beginning that Government tends to perpetuate itself. It seems to go on. I understand that. There ought to be a way to have some kind of sunset mechanism. After a period of time, hopefully, a job is finished. Not in every case, but in some cases the work is completed, and the mission is accomplished. Then we ought to do away with that agency or activity that was developed for a particular job. Unfortunately, in the political system, as you start a program of that kind, it builds its own constituency and seems never to go away. But we need to have a way to do that. I think the sunset idea is an interesting one. We have been talking about these for some time. I am really delighted to see in the news today what Gov. George Bush suggested. One is opening positions to commercial activities, and another one is result oriented and talking about doing the very things we are talking about here. If we could have an administration that agrees with Congress to move that way, we could do it. I close by saying I introduced last week the Congressional Regulatory Review Reform Act of 2000. In 1993, a bill was passed that said regulations needed to be sent back to Congress for some kind of oversight. We found increasingly, particularly in this administration, that there was an effort and an agenda to move regulation by Executive orders that could not get through the legislative process--to sort of go around it. Unfortunately, Congress has allowed this to happen and has delegated much of its legislative responsibility to the bureaucracy in terms of the regulations that are written to implement the law. Clearly, Congress can't go into huge detail, nor should it. But the important thing is that the regulations designed to implement the law need to carry out the intent. In my subcommittee last week we had a meeting on national parks. We have a very good national park bill that was passed in 1998. Now we are implementing that bill. We are having discussions as to how we ensure the regulations that are developed in fact bring about the change intended in the legislation and that regulations don't simply keep it as it was. The system we passed in 1996 has not worked as well as it should. Over 12,000 nonmajor rules and 186 major rules have been submitted to Congress--major rules being ones that have more than $100 million in impact on the private sector. Out of 12,000, only 7 resolutions of disapproval have been introduced pertaining to 5 bills. None has passed either House. So it isn't working as it should. We are trying to make some changes and say, rather than just going to the Office of Management and Budget, it ought to go to GAO, which is the general auditing organization. Then it should come to Congress so Congress has an opportunity to take a look at it. If indeed it doesn't reflect the intent, Congress should have a chance to change it. Those are some of the things that I think would help implement the things we are doing. It would help to have a smaller and more efficient Government. It would help us, Mr. President, as you pointed out, to set aside some of the dollars that ought to be used to pay down the debt and go back to the taxpayers. I think we have a great opportunity to do that. I hope we focus on that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe we have about 15 minutes left in morning business, is that correct?

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on May 6-8, 2000, more than 1200 students from across the United States came to Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Green River High School in Green River, Wyoming, represented my state in this national event. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The participating students were Richard Baxter, Natalie Binder, Katharine Bracken, Cameron Kelsey, Sandra Newton, Jacque Owen, Jeremy Pitts, Benjamin Potmesil, Meagan Reese, Rachel Ryckman, Ryan Stewart, and Steven Ujvary. I also want to recognize their teacher, Dennis Johnson, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress, during which a panel of judges from a variety of appropriate professional fields probes the students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The class from Green River represented the state of Wyoming well during the finals, and I wish these ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck as they continue to cultivate their interest in the principles upon which our great country was founded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to curb Federal over-regulation by the executive branch of Government and to restore congressional accountability for the regulatory process. The annual regulatory costs of the Federal Government on the private sector have been estimated to be $200-$800 billion annually. The pace and scope of over-regulation has accelerated under the Clinton Administration. For example, the IRS has tried to raise taxes administratively, the EPA has exceeded its authority with the Clean Water Action Plan and the National Park Service is trying to eliminate snowmobile use in our national parks, all without congressional authorization. Increasingly, we have found that this administration tries to advance through regulation and executive order an agenda it cannot get done through the normal legislative process. In fact, there are currently 137 major regulations in the works that will each have at least a $100 million cost. That means these new regulations will impose at least a $13.7 billion yearly impact on the economy. Unfortunately, Congress has allowed this to happen. For years Congress has delegated its most fundamental responsibility--the creation of laws--to the executive branch. Consequently, rather than just enforce laws, these unelected bureaucrats now also write the laws. These regulatory bureaucracies have often been called the fourth branch of Government. This fourth branch has misinterpreted, undercut and directly contradicted the will of Congress time and time again. It is well past time to end this ``regulation without representation.'' As many of my colleagues know, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act in 1996 in an attempt to slow the executive regulatory machine. For the first time, this law established a process by which Congress can review and disapprove virtually all federal agency rules. Unfortunately, the promise of the Act has not been fulfilled. Between 1996 and 1999, 12,269 non-major rules and 186 major rules were submitted to Congress by federal agencies. Only seven joint resolutions of disapproval were introduced, pertaining to five rules. None passed either House. In fact, none have even been debated on the floor of either House. The legislation I introduce today will address the flaws in the Congressional Review Act and restore the proper balance between the congressional and executive branches when it comes to rule-making. The Congressional Regulatory Review Reform Act will require all major rules (those with a $100 million annual impact as defined by the Office of Management in consultation with GAO) to be approved by Congress before they take effect. If Congress disapproves a rule, an agency will be precluded from proposing the same or similar rule for a period of 6 months. A rule may be given interim effectiveness if the President determines and certifies that a rule should take effect because of an imminent threat to health and safety or emergency (this decision is not judicially reviewable). Finally, the president is authorized to establish, by executive order a program for the systematic review of agency rules. I believe that congressional review and accountability for federal regulations will improve efficiency and lessen federal government intervention in the daily lives of the American people. Congress cannot allow the Executive Branch to continue to legislate through rules and regulations. Congress must be responsible. Congress must take back its constitutionally granted authority over the rule-making process. This is not a partisan issue. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested this idea as long ago as 1984. Nor is the purpose of this legislation to overturn a great number of rules submitted by agencies. It is intended to increase incentives regulators have to respond to the views of the general public, rather than narrow interests and to make Congress and the president more politically accountable for the resulting rules. Mr. President, I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in supporting this commonsense, good government reform.