Craig Thomas

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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we will go to the Senator from Minnesota shortly and then the Senator from Texas and then the Senator from Idaho. In the meantime, while they are coming, let me say I have briefly listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle, interestingly enough, complaining about not getting anywhere. Let me talk a little bit about that. We have been here on the floor now for some time talking about the kinds of things people want to do in this country; for instance, education--elementary and secondary education. We had to pull that after a whole week of discussion and debate because our friends on the other side of the aisle didn't want to move forward. They wanted to bring up the same things they have brought up every time we have come into this Chamber, and they have done it over and over and over again. If you want to talk about getting something done, we ought to talk a little bit about education, a little bit about Social Security, a little bit about the military and doing some things for security that we ought to do for this country. Frankly, I think some of us get weary of the same litany every day and going back and forth on the same thing. We have already talked about gun control; we have gun control pending. We have talked about Patients' Bill of Rights; it is pending. It is out there in conference committee. What we need to do is address ourselves to some of the issues that are here. You can see that I get just a little bit excited about this. But we have an opportunity to do some things. We have to do some things on this floor, and we need to move forward and stop this business of holding up everything so we can talk about trying to make issues for the election instead of trying to find solutions. I yield to my friend, the Senator from Minnesota.

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 propose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the United States General Accounting Office March 2000 report entitled ``Need to Address Management Problems that Plague the Concessions Program''. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 15, 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, I wanted to talk a little bit about the things we have accomplished in this last session of the Congress, the first year, which is over. We are into the second year of this 106th Congress. We are having a little problem moving along, of course, and we are trying to find a way to avoid holding up progress after the filing of unrelated amendments that have turned out to be filibusters. I hope we can get around that and move forward with the 13 appropriations bills we have. We ought to recognize this has been a productive session. We have done a great deal. But there are a number of things I think are of particular importance to the American people. One, obviously, is to do something with the Social Security retirement system. We have done a great deal with that over the last year. Although there still needs to be some systematic changes made to the program, we can ensure that the program will be there over time. We have made a very significant movement by providing that the 12\1/ 2\ percent of our earnings paid into Social Security by everyone who works in this country is, in fact, used for Social Security. Historically, over a very long time, those dollars have been used for many non-Social Security programs. Because of this Republican Congress, because of the lockbox idea, we have put that money aside. It is not being spent for other items. That is very significant. I hope we can proceed and look at alternatives to ensure that the young people who are now just beginning to pay into the program will have a program of benefits when the time comes for them to be eligible for the benefits. Frankly, the program has changed in terms of the profile of people. When we began, there were some 20 people working for every one drawing benefits. Now it is less than 3 and will be down to 2. Obviously, things have to be changed. There are some options: We can raise taxes. I don't know of anyone excited about that. We can reduce benefits. The same is true with that. Or, indeed, we can take a portion of those dollars and make them individual accounts for each person--2 percent out of the 12 percent is what we are talking about--and let that money be invested in their behalf, invested in equities, let it be invested in bonds, let it be invested in a combination of their choice, for their retirement, or as part of their estate if they are not fortunate enough to live. The issue most talked about is education. Only about 7 percent of the finances of education in this country, elementary and secondary, are provided by the Federal Government. There is a great deal of discussion about how that is allocated and how it is made available. The big debate, and the reason we haven't gone further with elementary and secondary reauthorization, is there is a difference of view. My friends on the other side of the aisle believe if the Federal Government is providing the money, it ought to also provide the rules as to how it is used. We think that is not the most effective way to use the money. I come from Wyoming. We have some very small towns in our relatively small State. In Chugwater, WY, where I attended a graduation ceremony this week, with 12 graduates from high school, they have different needs than Pittsburgh, PA. We need to have the flexibility. We say let's help make education stronger, but let the local people decide how that is done. We have been working on that. Another area is economic opportunities for all Americans. We have done that in terms of tax relief. Unfortunately, the bill that was passed in this Congress was vetoed by the President, denying relief for hard-working Americans. However, we were successful in passing a Republican bill that eliminated the penalty on earnings in excess of Social Security income. Instead of having to pay taxes on $1 out of $3, we have removed that, to encourage people to continue to work and earn money. Another is national security. I suspect there is nothing more important. There is no more logical role for the Federal Government than defense. No one else can do that. Over the last several years, this administration has not adequately funded defense. Now we have to do that, particularly since we have a volunteer service. There has to be some attraction to that. There has to be an attraction to get men and women to go into the service and, maybe even more difficult, once they are trained to doing things, to work as pilots or mechanics or whatever, to keep them there. That is very difficult. So we have made some progress in that area. I think there are a lot of things that have been done. I mentioned Social Security and taking care of the surplus. I think that is a real plus for this Congress, that we have a budget surplus. For the first time in probably 40 years, we have a budget surplus. We are not spending Social Security money. Indeed, this time there will be, hopefully, more money than is necessary to conduct the business of the Federal Government. Of course, several things can happen with that money. One, we can make sure we start to pay down the debt. I mean pay down the debt with real dollars, not simply putting in Social Security dollars there as well. We stopped the raid on the Social Security fund and began to make some reduction in the debt that we have. The interest on that debt has been almost the second largest item in the Federal budget for a very long time. We can change that. Of course, if that is done, and done properly, we can move on to some tax relief, which I think is something we ought to do. I mentioned our efforts on elementary and secondary education. We also were able to take the first step in passing the Ed-Flex program which, again, provides more opportunities for local people to use those Federal dollars as they need them. Some schools need capital construction, some need computers, some need more teachers or smaller classrooms, but each school district has a little different need. We want to make sure they have an opportunity to make that decision. We also need to ensure the money is not spent by the bureaucracy in Washington but in fact finds its way to the schools on the local level. Overall tax relief is still something we need to do. We have done a great deal on that so far and can do substantially more. I mentioned what we did on Social Security, and we need to go further. On national defense, the Senator just before me was talking about missile defense. Certainly, we need to continue to explore that. We need to continue to have a strong military. In my view, that is our best chance for peace in the world--to continue to have a strong military. I had the good fortune a couple of weeks ago to visit the Space Command in Colorado Springs. I am impressed with what they are doing to find a way to have a missile defense program that will allow us a deterrent so we can move forward with other kinds of things. We were successful, and I believe we acted properly, not ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty so we could continue to test our weapons and make sure they are as they should be. We have made some real progress in trade. The African trade bill is out there. It was signed into law in May. We can do something with that. Yesterday, the Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China was passed by the House and will be over here now. I happen to be the chairman of the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific rim. I do believe certainly we have to verify the things happening in that area of the world, but there is good evidence we can make more progress bringing about change by being involved as opposed to isolating and seeking to stay away from that. So certainly there is a great deal to be gained there. We have made some progress in high tech. The Y2K bill was an important piece of legislation, and the Satellite Television Improvement Act, particularly for rural States where people do not have access to cable. It has not yet been completed, but we have made some real movement on that. We hope to have that completed so people all across the country can have the same opportunities, both in satellites and TV, and also, of course, in infrastructure for high-tech broadband coverage. We are moving forward on the opportunity to do that. We must move in that direction. Health care is an area on which we have to move forward. This Senate has passed a Patients' Bill of Rights that would provide for patients in HMOs to have some immediate referral, so if there is a question about the procedures, rather than having to go to court or having someone in an office far away decide what you can do, you have an appeal to a physician as to what that ought to be. Unfortunately, that bill is still in conference, but we think it will be out very soon. One of the things we have done in this Congress that was particularly important was the Welfare Reform Act--of 1996, actually. This Republican Congress passed that. We have helped people find jobs, helped people move into opportunity instead of dependency. That is something I think has been very useful to all Americans. We have a ways to go, of course. We constantly have things to do here, as we should. On the other hand, we have also moved forward and made a good deal of progress in this Congress. We have an opportunity to do more. As I mentioned, unfortunately, we have come to kind of a slowdown here, using the techniques, using the process to force issues. What it really does is slow down everything we do. There is clearly an opportunity for differences of view; that is what this place is for, to talk about differences, to disagree, if you please, as to the role of Government and what ought to be done. But the idea of using irrelevant issues to hold up progress on the things we all know we have to do--and I am particularly talking about the appropriations bills that obviously have to be passed. Frankly, we are anxious to get them done early so we do not run into the same problems we had several years ago where we could not get it done and had to put it all in one package at the end. The President then used that as leverage on the Congress. He threatened and, indeed, did shut down the Government to be able to force things through this Congress that the Congress did not want to do. We should not let ourselves get into that position again, certainly not this year. Mr. President, I am expecting other Senators to come for this time period. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be read for the first time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the ``Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2000,'' which specifically addresses the current payment inequities of the Medicare program. I am pleased to have worked with Mr. Harkin, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Feingold in crafting this bill for rural Medicare beneficiaries. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a payment system for Medicare's Part A and B fee- for-service programs that guarantees each state's average per beneficiary amount is within 95 percent and 105 percent of the national average. The reason for this seemingly drastic action is because the current payment disparities between states is unacceptable. According to 1998 data, Wyoming's per beneficiary spending is 36 percent below the national average of $5,000 while some other states receive almost 36 percent above the national average. Mr. President, I understand that there are some legitimate cost differences among states in providing health care services to our seniors, but I do not believe there is justification for an inequity of this size. Seniors in Wyoming and other rural states have paid the same Medicare tax over the years as beneficiaries residing in urban states. However, the current Medicare payment system does not reflect the equal contributions made by all seniors. The other section of this legislation requires the Secretary to make adjustments to the hospital wage index under the prospective payment system after developing and implementing improved methods for collecting the necessary hospital employee data. I believe this legislation is an important piece of the overall Medicare reform puzzle. I feel strongly that any final legislation approved by the Senate to ensure Medicare is financially stable for current and future generations must also ensure all beneficiaries are treated fairly and equitably. Mr. President, the current system is not only far from long-term solvency, it is far from fair, especially to seniors living in rural states such as Wyoming.''

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 final rules and regulations issued by the National Park Service relating to Title IV of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 8 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) 244-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the ``Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2000,'' which specifically addresses the current payment inequities of the Medicare program. I am pleased to have worked with Mr. Harkin, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Feingold in crafting this bill for rural Medicare beneficiaries. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a payment system for Medicare's Part A and B fee- for-service programs that guarantees each state's average per beneficiary amount is within 95 percent and 105 percent of the national average. The reason for this seemingly drastic action is because the current payment disparities between states is unacceptable. According to 1998 data, Wyoming's per beneficiary spending is 36 percent below the national average of $5,000 while some other states receive almost 36 percent above the national average. Mr. President, I understand that there are some legitimate cost differences among states in providing health care services to our seniors, but I do not believe there is justification for an inequity of this size. Seniors in Wyoming and other rural states have paid the same Medicare tax over the years as beneficiaries residing in urban states. However, the current Medicare payment system does not reflect the equal contributions made by all seniors. The other section of this legislation requires the Secretary to make adjustments to the hospital wage index under the prospective payment system after developing and implementing improved methods for collecting the necessary hospital employee data. I believe this legislation is an important piece of the overall Medicare reform puzzle. I feel strongly that any final legislation approved by the Senate to ensure Medicare is financially stable for current and future generations must also ensure all beneficiaries are treated fairly and equitably. Mr. President, the current system is not only far from long-term solvency, it is far from fair, especially to seniors living in rural states such as Wyoming.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I rise along with Senator Enzi to submit a concurrent resolution allowing for the placement of Wyoming's second statue in Statuary Hall. As many individuals from Wyoming know, Chief Washakie was a true warrior and statesman. Chief Washakie was born in 1798 and actively participated in the cultural and historic events that shaped the West before passing away in 1900. The value of his life experiences--which span three separate centuries--still resonate in my home state today. Chief Washakie, a skilled orator and charismatic figure, was widely known for his ability to foresee what the future held for his people. As Chief of the Shoshone tribe for fifty years, Washakie was successful in protecting the interests of his people in the face of westward expansion. In 1868, Chief Washakie was instrumental in the signing of the Fort Bridger treaty--which granted the Shoshone more than three million acres of land in the Warm Valley of the Wind on the Wind River reservation. His legacy lives on today as many of his descendants continue to be involved in tribal matters throughout Wyoming. It is fitting that Wyoming has chosen Chief Washakie to be honored in our Nation's Capitol. This resolution not only speaks to his achievements but also commemorates the very spirit on which our great country was founded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning I listened to my friend, the Senator from North Dakota, talk about what we ought to be doing in the Senate. I must tell you I couldn't agree more that we need to be moving forward. I also must tell you I have a totally different view as to why we are not. We have actually been seeking to move forward for some time. The Republicans have had a number of critical issues out here that the American people are interested in--marriage tax penalty relief, tax relief in other areas, farming, education, and critical needs of the men and women in the armed services. But, unfortunately, as each of these things has come up, we found ourselves being stopped from moving forward either by unrelated amendments or objections to moving forward. I really think we should analyze where we are and what we are seeking to do. In my view, in general terms, what is happening is that there is more of an interest, particularly on that side of the aisle, in simply trying to create issues rather than create solutions. Each time we bring up a basic bill, we come back to amendments that have already been dealt with, and they insist on dealing with them again. The majority leader is trying to deal with a number of issues. One of them, of course, is education. We are dealing with the whole question of elementary and secondary education. We are blocked by that side of the aisle from meaningful educational reform. We are trying to deal with the idea of moving forward with the kind of funding the Federal Government can provide for elementary and secondary education. There is a difference of view. Yes, indeed, we have a difference of view. The basic difference of view is to the extent the Federal Government is involved in the funding of local schools. Those local schools, their leaders, the school boards, and the counties and States ought to have the basic right to make the decisions as to how that money is used. I think it is pretty clear that the needs are quite different. Yesterday, I spoke at the commencement of a small school in Chugwater, WY. The sign on Main Street said ``Population 197.'' There were 12 graduates at this school. They come from, of course, the surrounding agricultural area. I can tell you that the educatioonal needs in Chugwater, WY, are likely to be quite different from those in Pittsburgh. The notion that in Washington you set down the rules for expending the funds that are made available in Federal programs we do not think is useful. I understand there are differences of view. But I guess my entire point is that we are always going to have different points of view and we should have an opportunity to discuss those and opportunities to offer alternatives. But we have to find solutions, and we have to move forward. That is why we vote. That is why there is a majority that has a vote on issues. But the idea that you have a difference of view and, because you don't get your view in, it is going to stop the process is not what we are talking about. Education, of course, is just one of the areas. There is the question of the marriage tax penalty and the question of tax relief and tax reform. But, quite frankly, more than anything, there is the question of fairness--where a man and woman can work at two jobs before they are married, earn a certain amount of money, and continue to work on those jobs and earn the same amount of money, but after they are married they pay more taxes. The penalty is approximately $1,500 a year. We have been fighting to change this for a very long time. President Clinton pledged in his State of the Union Address in January to reduce those taxes. It would be a very large tax reduction for American families. However, we still have the playing of politics on the floor and that bill has not yet passed. We will be seeking to do some things in agriculture. I agree with the Senator from North Dakota on some of the agricultural issues. We have been trying to deal with crop insurance. We have been trying to get that done. It is certainly something that ought to be done as we move forward towards more of the marketplace in agriculture. It has not been done because we have had objections on the floor. I have to tell you we have had, and continue to have, a record of obstructionism that I think really needs to be reviewed and resolved. It took five votes before we could break the Democrat filibuster and pass the Ed-Flexibility bill in 1999. Do you remember when the Republicans offered the lockbox idea where we were seeking to ensure that money which comes in for Social Security would be in the Social Security fund and not be expended on non-Social Security ideas? It was opposed six times by Senator Democrats, even after it had been passed in the House the year before by a vote of 416 12. In Roll Call, which is the House paper, in May of 2000, the Senator from Massachusetts promised to eventually work with his colleagues on the education plan. But then he was quoted as saying: We will do that when Al Gore is elected President. We will all sit down next year and have a consensus. I don't think we are here to seek to establish those kinds of issues for Presidential elections and ignore what we can do here. We are sent here to resolve problems, to deal with them, and come to solutions. They have been out there on the floor. But, unfortunately, the whole idea of obstructionist tactics seems to be where we are, and we need to change that. There are a number of issues, of course, that are of particular concern to people from the West, including myself. We have had a great deal of activity in the administration with regard to public land management. All of it seems to be oriented towards the effort on the part of this administration, on the part of the President, and on the part of the Secretary of the Interior to develop for themselves some kind of a legacy--a little like Theodore Roosevelt, apparently. There are a number of things that have to do with access to public lands. Here again, it is quite different, depending on where you live in this country. In Wyoming, for example, 50 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government and is managed by the BLM or by the Forest Service or by the Park Service, and it is a good operation. In some States federally-owned land is as high as 86 percent. It is quite different when we start to deal with the public land issue, of course. It is sometimes dealt with quite differently in the West than the East. That is proper. We have been faced with a number of things that make it very difficult to have access available for the people who own these public lands. We are dealing, for instance, with the operation of the Forest Service and 40 million acres of road lands. I have no particular objection to taking the road lands. We don't need roads everywhere, but we need to do it on an area-by-area basis to see what needs access. Sometimes the accusations suggest we help timber producers or grazers. The fact is, we have heard from veterans who can't walk 17 miles with a pack on their back. If we don't have road access, they are not able to use the forests. We have heard from children, as well. The administration puts out a block pronouncement that we will have 40 million acres of wilderness, without knowing what the plans are, without including Congress in the process, without holding hearings or providing an opportunity for people to respond. There was nothing there to respond to. Hopefully, that will be changed. The Antiquities Act provides an opportunity for the President to declare large amounts of land for different uses and restricts uses exercised readily by this administration over the past year and a half. The BLM has a plan not to allow off-road use of BLM lands. We have bills before the Congress setting aside a billion dollars a year for the additional purchase of Federal lands on a mandatory basis as opposed to going through the appropriations. These are all designed, it seems to some, to reduce access to lands which are not only there for recreation, not only there for the use of everyone, but certainly there is a large impact on the economic future of States in the west. We plan to have a hearing this week after a pronouncement from the Park Service that all parks will no longer allow the use of snow machines by winter visitors. Yellowstone Park and Grand Teton Park are in Wyoming. Many people in the winter enjoy these unique scenes on snowmobiles. The Park Service, without hearings, without input by the Congress or by anyone else, has announced there will be a total cancellation of the opportunity of people to visit their parks in the wintertime. Again, I have no objection to taking a look and changing some rules. Some of the machines have been too noisy, some machines have excessive exhaust. But they can be changed. Rather than finding an alternative for people visiting the parks, which belong to them, this administration simply says we are not going to allow their use anymore and ignores alternative techniques. Also, it ignores the fact it has been going on for 20 years in most parks. We could separate cross-country skiers from snow machine operators and require through EPA that the machines be quieter and less polluting. Instead of seeking to manage them, we have been ignoring this for 20 years, and suddenly they abolish their use. I hope we have a hearing this week to take a look at how that might be resolved so people will still have the opportunity to visit facilities that belong to them, facilities that are unique, facilities that should be available to be used by whomever wishes to use them properly, hopefully, year round. My friend from North Dakota mentioned the sugar program, one that needs to be examined and discussed. We have had large newspapers, including editorials, that have not told the story fairly. They talk about a program that has caused consumers to pay more for sugar than they would otherwise. I don't believe that is factual. The fact is the world price for sugar is not a world price established by the market but is a dump price from countries that have subsidies for sugar. When they have an excess, it goes in at a lower price. If we are going to talk about the program, we ought to be discussing facts. That information ought to be mentioned. The sugar program has not been subsidized. The costs to consumers have not gone up but have gone down. The costs to producers have not gone up but, indeed, have gone down. We have a program that has worked. My point is it is necessary to understand the purpose of the program, what it is designed to accomplish, and then do what is necessary in the interim to ensure that purpose is nurtured. I think there are many issues we must cover. We have 13 appropriations bills with which to deal. We have approximately 60 legislative days remaining for the Senate to complete its work. We have 13 bills with which to deal. The appropriations, of course, are very much the basis for what we do in the Federal Government. There are all kinds of issues. But the amount of money provided and the way it is spent has a great deal to do with what we are doing in the Congress, what kinds of programs we are involved in, how much the programs cost, how much we want to invest in the programs. Right now, it has a great deal to do with what we do with overall revenues that come into the Federal Government. Indeed, as it appears, we have a surplus. We have to make some tough decisions as to how much government we want. How do we divide the government between the responsibilities accepted and taken on at the Federal level as opposed to those taken on at the local level. The fact that there is money certainly is an encouragement to again expand the role of the Federal Government. Many believe that is not the proper way to proceed; We ought to do the essential things. Clearly, there is a difference of view about that. There is a difference of philosophy. There are those who genuinely believe the more money that can be spent through the Federal Government, the more it helps people, and that is what we ought to do--continue to always increase the size and activity of the Government. Others, including myself, believe there are essential finances for the Federal Government to carry forth, but the best way to do it is to limit that Federal Government to allow local governments to participate more fully, to allow people to continue to have their own tax dollars. The longer I am in Washington, the more I am persuaded the real strength of this country does not lie with the Federal Government. Obviously, it is essential. Obviously, it is important. Functions such as defense can only be performed by the Federal Government. Communities are shaped by things people do through local government or voluntarily. These mean so much to the strength of communities. We have a program called the Congressional Award Program in which young people are urged to take on community activities. We give out medals. It is wonderful to see the activities in which the young people become involved. It is wonderful to see themselves in the future as doing volunteer things, as becoming leaders, taking the risk of leadership, and spending their personal time to strengthen that community. We do have real differences of opinion. That is why we are here. We have a system for resolving those differences. Not everybody wins these debates. Some lose and some win. It is not a winning proposition to obstruct progress. I think that is where we find ourselves. I hope the leaders and Members on both sides of the aisle will take a long look at our position. We need to have a system where everyone with different ideas gets to present their ideas, but we have to do it in an organized way, where the amendments are germane to the issue. Now we find ourselves with some amendments--gun control amendments, for example, as important as they may be--that come up on every issue. It stalls what we are doing in terms of the basic generic purpose of that discussion, invariably coming up with the same kinds of amendments over and over. I think we can find a way to resolve that. I think we should. We have a great opportunity to move forward on a number of things, whether it be education, whether it be Social Security, whether it be tax relief, whether it be strengthening the military. These are the kinds of things that are so important. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Levin amendment on the military construction appropriations bill. Of course, the Levin amendment is designed to strike the Byrd-Warner provision, which I support. I suspect that most of the things that could be said have been said. We find ourselves saying them again, perhaps in other ways, or simply committing ourselves to our views with regard to this issue. Clearly, it seems to me, there are two issues involved. One is the role of Congress. What is the responsibility? What is the obligation? What is the authority of the Congress in terms of committing troops for long terms in places around the world? The other, of course, is a policy question of an exit strategy for Kosovo. That has been a question in a number of places where we have been recently. It comes, I suppose, as no surprise to my colleagues that I view the Kosovo foreign policy as sort of an oxymoron--that it actually has not been a policy. We went in. Indeed, that was one of the things that concerned me the most in the beginning. There was not a strategy. We did not have a plan for where we would go. Indeed, that has proven to be the case. We didn't articulate the goals as to where we were, nor what the responsibilities would be among our allies, and, of course, the length of time to be there complicates that. We have seen an unbridled passion for involving the United States in peacekeeping operations around the world. I believe that has begun to overtax our military capacity. We have military people deployed in many places. There is no better or worse example of that than Bosnia and Kosovo. There we have not had a strategy as to when we complete our job and who, in fact, takes the leadership role. I agree with the Senator from Wisconsin. We had an example in East Timor where we shared the responsibility with others in the region. Indeed, in that case, Australia took the lead. We were very supportive, as we should be. The idea we need to have a major role both in the activity as well as the financing in each of these areas is one that needs some specific examination. Certainly the European Community has done some work there. They are very capable. It is not as if we are talking about Third World countries. We are talking about two of the world's most vibrant economies. Another reason I question the involvement, again, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, we asked questions when this first came up and we were told certainly we would not be in Bosnia more than 18 months. How many years have we been there? We were told we were not going to be in Kosovo. We have to come to some decision. The question arises, What is the role of the Senate? I believe the Senate is responsible in terms of spending the money, in terms of authorizing long-term commitments. We should step up to the post and express our views. We now have the opportunity to do that. We could also question, as I mentioned, the whole idea of our level of involvement in places where we are with allies. We would certainly have the capacity to do much. I am concerned about the constitutional implications of the President's actions. Clearly, the President should have, and does have, the authority to move when there is a case of an emergency. That is as it should be. But the fact is, in both Bosnia and Kosovo, we didn't have the opportunity. Did we vote? Yes, we voted after the troops were there. Certainly no one is going to vote against the support for troops who are already committed. I remember meetings held in Ohio and the original talk about Bosnia and Kosovo. We asked: What will we do? They said: We can't tell you yet; we have to go to Europe and have a meeting there. We asked: What is our commitment? Well, we can't tell you yet. Before the Congress had an opportunity to do anything, the troops were there. We were committed. Clearly, we were going to support them. This idea of an exit strategy, and certainly the idea that we have a role as Congress, as a responsibility to the people of the United States, to do that, is the question. I am not concerned that we are making a judgment ahead. That is not the case at all. We are setting guidelines. We say if those guidelines are not appropriate in that time, then the President can come--whomever the President might be--to the Congress and say there have been changes; here is what I am supporting, and with the support of Congress can go forward with something different. Byrd-Warner gives a clear plan to work with the European Community and, in fact, turn some of the full responsibility over to the European Community whenever it is appropriate. Byrd-Warner gives us that. We need to ensure that the community is not reneging on its promises regarding its share of reconstruction funds. That is important. That should be done. Finally, it puts us on a track, a flexible track, for exit and moving our troops out of that situation. That is what we ought to do. Certainly, it was mentioned on the floor that preserving peace in Kosovo is important. That is not the issue. The issue is how do we do that. Everyone knows it is important to have peace there. I think we can do that through this system. It will solve both the constitutional question and the question of direction. I urge my colleagues oppose the Levin amendment and support the Byrd- Warner amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to visit just a little bit, maybe express some frustration about what we are doing here on the floor and mostly what we are not doing here on the floor. It seems to me, we, of course, are here for a reason and that is to move bills forward. There is not going to be unanimous understanding or agreement on all these bills, but we have a system. We can have a reasonable debate and vote on them. But the idea that each time we bring up some issue that then we are going to bring back again, issues that are clearly raised for political purposes only and hold up the progress of this entire body, hour after hour and day after day, that begins to be a bit trite. It seems to me that is the direction we are taking. Our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be perfecting this procedure, and we move forward at our own risk, knowing we are going to have a blocking activity going on. Republicans are trying to move forward with some issues for the American people that are very important: marriage penalty, tax relief, farm assistance, education, critical needs of the men and women in the armed services, and all of the 13 bills we have on appropriations that are before us. What we have had and what we are continuing to have is Senate Democrats trying to tie up the Senate by changing the subject, by attaching irrelevant amendments to every bill that comes to the Senate floor. It took five votes before Republicans could break the Democrat filibuster and pass the Ed-Flex bill in 1999. It took five votes in order to deal with an issue that said local school boards, local governments could have more flexibility in what they do with Federal money. Is that something to hold up? I don't think so. When Republicans offered the lockbox legislation in 1999 to protect the Social Security trust fund, Democrats opposed it six times. Senate Democrats even opposed a measure that passed the House last year by a vote of 416-12, when we were talking about taking Social Security money and insulating it from expenditures on non-Social Security matters. Tell me that is a reasonable thing to do. On April 13, Senate Democrats blocked a marriage penalty relief bill from continuing through the legislative process, a bill that is based largely on fairness. It is based on the notion that a man and woman, each working singly, earning a certain amount of money, when married earn the same amount of money and pay more taxes. This was a way to resolve that. However, Democrats were rejecting a discussion of the marriage penalty tax. In the House, the Democrats joined the Republicans 268-158 to pass relief. President Clinton pledged his support of the marriage tax penalty relief in his State of the Union. But still they block this because they want to bring up some amendments that are irrelevant to this issue, bring them up totally for political purposes. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position of being more interested in raising issues than seeking solutions. That is too bad. That is a shame. It is terribly frustrating, frankly. I just came from a meeting. We could not have a hearing this afternoon because our friends objected to having a hearing. We had people who came all the way from Alaska to testify. So I can tell you we went ahead and had a meeting and listened to what they had to say. I do not think that is the way we intended for this body to function. We disagree? Of course, we disagree. Different views? Of course, we have different views. On May 4, Rollcall recounted that one of our friends on the other side promised to work with his colleagues on an education bill if we could do it. Unfortunately, he decided to change in the middle of the stream and we did not go forward. Now we have 13 appropriations bills that must be passed. Really, our destination, our purpose, was to pass those before the August recess so we would have that out of the way and could deal with other things that are important. By the looks of it, we will not be able to move forward in that important area. It is very difficult. We just spent 2 days working on military construction. I do not think anybody would argue that we need to move forward on the military; we need to strengthen the military; we need to do something about strengthening the opportunity for people to belong to the military and at least not to be on food stamps. We could do that. But, no, we have to get off on something totally irrelevant, an issue--whether it is gun control or whatever--that we have already dealt with. It keeps coming up on every issue. I do not argue with the difference of view on it, but to use those things to keep us from moving forward and do the things we ought to be doing is disruptive and is not the intended purpose of what we do here. There are only 65 legislative days remaining for the Senate to finish its work. Yet we continue to find obstruction; we continue to find delay. Military construction finally got through. We spent all that time talking about something totally irrelevant to it. We had to get off on the thing. Yesterday we did nothing all afternoon, basically. We finally got it passed. I am pleased with that. I, frankly, voted against it. I voted against it because I did not agree with the process. I do not have any argument with what was in it. Education had to be pulled, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, probably the broadest issue with which we will deal. It touches almost everyone. Almost everyone agrees we need to do something with that. Could we finish it? No, we sure couldn't. Sure, there is a little different view. We wanted to let the local people have more flexibility. Our friends over there wanted the rules to come from here. OK, we have a difference. We have a difference in philosophy. I don't argue with that. We have an honest difference. Let's vote. But, no, that is not what happened. What we did was have introduced all kinds of irrelevant, nongermane amendments. I don't know how long we can do that. The marriage penalty--I have already mentioned it. That is something that certainly ought to be done. As far as I know, it is agreed to by nearly everyone, including the President. It is a fairness issue. We ought to be doing it. Agriculture, crop insurance, that is one of the things we need to strengthen, since we are moving away from the old farm program. Agriculture is out there; farmers are running some risks and crop insurance is part of it. We were not able to do that. Things that were not pertinent were there. The juvenile justice bill, we passed juvenile justice. It is still in the committee. We are trying to get some agreement. It is being held up by nongermane kinds of things. I respect fully the difference of view. I respect fully the differences in philosophy. That is why we are here. That is what elections are about. I understand that. But we simply have to find a way to put aside this business of stalling, just put aside this business of delay, put aside this business of constantly seeking to bring to the floor issues that are totally political and have nothing to do with the topic we are on and talk about them at the time to talk about them. But talk about them once. Don't talk about them every other day. That is what we do. That is wrong. We ought to change it. We have a chance to take a look at where we are and where we want to go. I have thought more recently, I don't know quite why, about the concept that each of us has goals for ourselves, whether they be personal goals, whether they be professional goals, whether they be spiritual goals, whether they be family goals, and seek to identify those and then decide what our goal is and what we have to do to reach it. Frankly, I wish it applied a little more to Government. As we enter into these, we ought to not only be looking at the daily issues with which we deal, but we should also be looking at, having set goals and identified where we want to be, whether what we are doing now is contributing to the attainment of those goals. It is my view we have not done enough of that. If we have a goal of accomplishment in the Senate, a goal of doing the things the people sent us here to do, and then find ourselves caught up in business which does not move toward the attainment of that goal, it is frustrating. I hope we can move forward. I believe we will. I appreciate the Presiding Officer's efforts. I look forward to next week to accomplish more than we did this week. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for the great job of expressing the feelings the teachers and students have with respect to what we are doing. We have had an interesting week of debate. A number of things, of course, have helped define where we are and the direction we will take. One of the quotes from the other side of the aisle is the reason we have title I is because we decided in 1965 the needs of disadvantaged children were not being addressed. Madam President, 35 years later, we find once again, the needs of poor kids are not being addressed--this time, by those who defend the status quo, the means of trapping another generation. A Wall Street Journal editorial indicates that this is an effort to restrict the States from making the decisions. Again, one of the comments made about it was the GOP plan allows a blank check for Governors who will see to it that the neediest and the poorest children will not benefit from the money. This defines rather well where we are in this debate. Some of the facts seem to be different than what is being talked about. So $120 billion later, poor kids still lag behind in reading. The percentage of those reading below basic level at the 12th grade is still 40 percent. The percentage of those writing below basic level in title I is 38 percent in the 12th grade after $120 billion and 35 years of expenditures under this program. We are talking about returning some of the decisionmaking to parents, to local leaders, sending dollars to the classroom rather than having them spent here, giving families greater educational choices, supporting and encouraging exceptional teachers, focusing on basic academics. I think, if nothing more, we have defined very clearly where our priorities lie in terms of this body. I think we have a great opportunity to make some changes to bring about the results in education that all Members seek.

Mr. THOMAS. How much time is left?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Arizona. He obviously believes very strongly in this issue and has defined very clearly where we are with two very definite points of view. One is that the Federal Government ought to make the rules, ought to set up the redtape, ought to make the decisions here to be implemented in the country; the other is to send the assistance from here to local schools so they can make the kinds of decisions that are necessary to make their schools successful. So I say to the Senator, thank you very much. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

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 hearing is to receive testimony on the potential ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the recent decision by the Department of the Interior to prohibit snowmobile activities in other units of the National Park System. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 25 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. 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. 1584, a bill to establish the Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Pennsylvania; S. 1685 and H.R. 2932, a bill to authorize the Golden Spike/Crossroads of the West National Heritage Area; S. 1998, a bill to establish the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area; S. 2247, a bill to establish the Wheeling National Heritage Area in the State of West Virginia, and for other purposes; S. 2421, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing an Upper Housatonic Valley Heritage Area in Connecticut and Massachusetts; and S. 2511, a bill to establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 18, 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 national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. What is the time status?

Mr. THOMAS. Let me first say how touching and impressive it was for the Senators to come to the floor and make these comments. All of us have Mike in our hearts and prayers. I yield to the Senator from Idaho as much time as he desires.

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. 1357, a bill to amend the Act which established the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, in the State of New Hampshire, by modifying the boundary and for other purposes; S. 1617, a bill to promote preservation and public awareness of the history of the Underground Railroad by providing financial assistance, to the Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio; S. 1670, a bill to revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for other purposes; S. 2020, a bill to adjust the boundary of the Natchez Trace Parkway, Mississippi, and for other purposes; S. 2478, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a theme study on the peopling of America, and for other purposes; and S. 2485, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in planning and constructing a regional heritage center in Calais, Maine. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 11, 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 water and power

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate begin a period of morning business until 1 p.m. today, with the time equally divided in the usual form, with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exception: Senator Thomas or his designee from 10:30 to 11 a.m.