Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I am excited that we are launching ourselves into what may be a week or more of debate and discussion and, hopefully, success in the area of education and educational funding. Looking back over time, I think there is probably no other issue we have talked more about than education. I think polls and discussions in town meetings would indicate that education is probably the highest priority issue in the country. Everybody knows the future of our children--and of the country-- depends on education. We will be talking about that during debate of this bill, and I hope we can agree on some positive results. Unfortunately, I think it is fair to say that when we enter into a year of this kind, particularly with the Presidential election, we find ourselves faced with more emphasis on creating issues than creating solutions. I hope that is not the case during this education debate. I am sure there is nothing to which we have more commitment or in which we have more intense beliefs than our schools--by ``we'' I mean all of us: Parents, communities, people all over the country. We are all involved in educating our children. It is a most important part of our lives. This weekend, I met with the alumni association of the University of Wyoming. It caused me to reflect on the things that were basic to my life and reminded me of changes that need to be made. I think most of us are proud of our schools. I am especially proud of the schools in my State of Wyoming. They are rural schools, generally, that are relatively small. The population in our State is low. But when those kids come here to visit, through programs such as Close Up or others, when they come here to serve as interns or come here to serve in the Senate, I am very proud. Our education system must be doing well for these young people to be here. Can we make it better? Of course. That is what we are challenged to do, to make an even better opportunity for our children. We need to be able to help our schools to be flexible enough to change, as the world changes, as our economy changes. Again, going back to this weekend, we were talking about the relatively small number of young people who have graduated from the University, or even from our high schools, who are equipped with the kind of technological expertise they'll need as we enter this new economy. We need to make sure they're ready to answer the call. As the Presiding Officer has said so eloquently, we are coming forth this week with an educational agenda. I think it is a very strong agenda. It is the product of much work on the part of the committee that is bringing it forth. It tends to emphasize moving controls to parents. After all, that has really been the controversial issue we have addressed in all of our conversations; that is: Where should the decisions be made? Who really should fit the educational program to the community and their needs? By all means, we need to reflect on it and measure it against the rest of the country, especially since our population is becoming much more transient. For example, a person living in Cody, WY, as I did, may not live there forever. We have to have some relative comparison between schools, which we do have. But we need to tailor those programs, particularly Federal assistance, to fit our specific needs. Educational needs in Meeteetse, WY, are much different from those in Pittsburgh, PA. We need to make sure the Federal dollars--and it has already been pointed out it is a relatively small amount, about 7 or 8 percent of the total--are used in the classroom and not set aside for the bureaucracy. We need to give families more of a role in education with greater educational choice. This morning, we had a visit from a RespectTeen group. I brought them onto the floor. There was one student from each State. A young man who had been chosen to come here had done a study and a paper on education. His paper focused on the importance of family involvement in schools. I was very impressed with the ideas about ways to get parents more directly involved with the education of their children. We need, of course, to support exceptional teachers. We need to help teachers be prepared to teach. We need to encourage people to come into that profession. We need to provide attractive opportunities for them to stay in that profession. I guess I am especially interested in that since my wife is a teacher. But it is very important to focus on basic academics. That is what we aim to do. We have an opportunity to make some changes, to set some goals and some objectives. I am afraid that, too often perhaps, individually, and certainly institutionally, we become wrapped up in doing the things we are doing and, as a result, do not sit down regularly and ask ourselves: Where are we? Where do we want to go? What are our objectives? What do we need to do to get there? I think we can fairly easily define the goals we want to accomplish in education. But I am not sure we define very well how to make the process of achieving them more effective. We also need to address the issue of accountability. We spend a great deal of money in education, which we need to do. However, frankly, money alone does not ensure a good education for our children. We have seen the results of simply throwing out money and not having some system of accountability. What we have had in this administration is a commitment to a whole series of Federal mandates and programs--for example, 100,000 Federally funded teachers. It has already been pointed out this morning that there are school districts in which providing additional teachers to reduce class size is unnecessary. The needs are in other places. That is why priorities need to be decided locally. Sometimes the mandate is for Federal construction. Again, that need may exist in one place but not in another. So what we are really talking about is having some accountability, having some local flexibility, helping disadvantaged children meet higher standards, improving teacher quality, enriching the incentives for students to be prepared for a life of success, having safe and drug-free schools--we can do more in these areas. Increasing educational opportunities is what this bill is all about. This is not a proposal for private school vouchers, but it does give an opportunity for mobility. If these kids are in a school that is not adequate, they can go to another public school and possibly improve. I think it is exciting that we are moving ahead. I hope we can do so with the objective of passing a bill that will strengthen education in this country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue in morning business.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 2, the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act. It is expected that this legislation will consume most of the week. However, by previous consent, on Tuesday morning the Senate will begin debate on overriding the President's veto of the nuclear waste bill. As a reminder, the vote on the veto override has been scheduled for 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, that will be fine.

Mr. THOMAS. One and a half?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am sure we welcome everyone for ``Take Your Daughter to Work Day'' here in Washington. I will take a few minutes to talk about the marriage penalty tax bill that is before us. Speaking of daughters, this provision of the tax code makes it difficult for young families who have daughters to be treated fairly. Before addressing the specifics of the bill before us, I must say that I am a little disappointed in the lack of cooperation this year on the floor. Each time we address an issue with a solution that is generally acceptable to most people, we find ourselves faced with all kinds of amendments, many of which have nothing to do with the subject we are seeking to address, designed entirely to create political wedge issues rather than solutions. I suppose that is customary, perhaps, in a Presidential election year, but it is too bad. It is too bad that each time we begin to talk about an issue that should be addressed by this Congress, and indeed is generally agreed to by most Members of the Senate, we find it being used to bring up issues that are not relevant, not a part of what is being discussed, but simply are used to delay, used as leverage, used to make an issue. I hope we can get by this resistance. One of the items we will be addressing early next week is an education bill, a broad education bill, elementary and secondary education, one that most everyone in the country wants to see moved forward. Education is probably one of the principals issue with which all of us are concerned. Yet I predict that we will find next week all kinds of irrelevant amendments will be added to seek to confuse and delay the passage of legislation. I hope that is not the case. I hope it is not the case with what I think is a very important issue, the marriage penalty. All of us are concerned about our tax system, concerned about how complex the tax code is. Certainly right after April 15, we are all very aware of how excessively complicated this system has become, designed to affect behavior as much as it is to collect revenue. One of the things we ought to consider, as we seek to simplify taxes, is fairness. That is the situation we face today with regard to the marriage penalty. The Federal Government penalizes couples simply for being married. Two people earning this amount of money jointly, unmarried, become married and pay more taxes on the same amount of income. That is not fair. That is what we ought to be dealing with, the fairness issue. Last year, 43 percent of married taxpayers, 22 million couples, paid an average of $1,500 more in taxes than they would have paid had they not been a married couple. In my State of Wyoming, 45,000 couples were affected by this tax situation, a high percentage of our population. Marriage penalty relief is middle-class tax relief. We always hear it is for the rich. This isn't for the rich. This is for middle-class people who become married, as we urge people to do and then, indeed, they are assessed a penalty. Middle-income families are the hardest hit. What does marriage penalty relief mean to families? Fifteen hundred dollars for families would mean a semester of community college, 4 months of car payments, clothes for the kids, a family vacation, a home computer, several months of health insurance premiums, or contributions to an IRA or a savings program, which we encourage people to do. This country finds itself, thankfully, with more than adequate funding for Federal programs, even after we have ensured that Social Security is not used for operating funds. This prosperity is due in part to the Republican Congress' ability to control spending. Now, for the first time in over 40 years, we have an opportunity to begin to pay down the Federal debt, while also providing tax relief, because of the excess money coming into Washington. You, the people of this country, must decide if this is the appropriate course to take. Do you want to spend more money? Do you want to have more Government involvement, more Government regulation, or should we give this money back to the taxpayers who have paid it in? It is your money after all. This bill is an opportunity to do that. If your intention is to control the size of the Federal Government, tax relief is a very good idea. If you keep the money, I guarantee it will be spent on expanding the size of Government. An editorial that ran a while ago in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle called on Congress to do something about the marriage penalty. I will a small portion from it: While the tax system is unfair, Congress's lack of action is even more unjust. Members know there is a problem but refuse to act. That is shameful. I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. THOMAS. I could not agree more with that sentiment. It sums it up very well. This vote will clearly highlight those who want to do something about the marriage penalty, who want to do something about tax simplification, tax fairness, and those who do not. We will see those who want to use this legislation simply to introduce extraneous issues, knowing that those issues will not be resolved, but, rather, can be used as issues in the political campaign. Marriage should be a sacred event, not a taxable one. We have a bill that will do something about that penalty. I urge all my colleagues to support the cloture motion so we can move forward and implement this much needed tax relief. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Marriage penalty Will Congress finally correct this wrong? In 1996, 21 million American families paid an average of nearly $1,400 in marriage tax penalties. Congress would be remiss if it allows this assault on married couples' pocketbooks to continue. There are many members of Congress who say the country's complicated and progressive tax structure is the primary cause of the marriage penalty. Since marriage combines two tax units into one, a couple's combined income means their joint liability is higher that the sum of what their individual tax bills would be if they filed as single. While the tax system is unfair, Congress' lack of action is even more unjust. Members know there is a problem, but refuse to act. That is shameful. And in this case, their talk is not cheap. Throughout America's history, policymakers have attempted to discourage certain behaviors by taxing them. So-called ``sin taxes'' are levied on everything from cigarettes to gasoline. While people of good conscience may disagree on the morality and efficacy of using the tax code to discourage various behaviors, virtually no one disputes taxes are a disincentive. It is odd, then, that the federal income tax code effectively taxes marriage--and thereby discourages it. That's a shame. Some couples choose cohabitation over marriage because of this tax penalty; others postpone marriage until later tax years. Some have even divorced because of the penalty, and others speed up their divorces to save money. These practices denigrate marriage and normalize non-marital relationships. The marriage penalty continues to be one of the most discriminatory taxes. And while $1,400 a year may not sound like a lot to some, over the years it can add up. A couple married for 50 years would end up paying $70,000 in additional taxes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the average annual penalty of $1,400 could cover a few mortgage payments, a down payment on a car, a needed vacation or it could be invested or put into a savings and earn dividends and interest. Because of the way the tax code is structured, only eliminating the current system will end the marriage penalty. However, a stopgap method is needed. The most promising option is House Resolution 6. Under this proposal, the standard deduction and bracket breakpoints for married couples filing jointly would be made twice what they are for single filers. This proposal should be relatively simple to implement and would help toward the elimination of the marriage penalty. Equality under the law is fundamental to America. By treating married couples inequitably, Congress is allowing the tax code to make a mockery of this ideal.

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. 1438, a bill to establish the National Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land in the District of Columbia; S. 1921, a bill to authorize the placement within the site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial of a plaque to honor Vietnam veterans who died after their service in the Vietnam war, but as a direct result of that service; S. 2231 and H.R. 2879, bills to provide for the placement at the Lincoln Memorial of a plaque commemorating the speech of Martin Luther King, Jr., known as the ``I Have A Dream'' speech; S. 2343, a bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act for purposes of establishing a national historic lighthouse preservation program; S. 2352, a bill to designate portions of the Wekiva River and associated tributaries as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: H.R. 1749, a bill to designate Wilson Creek in Avery and Caldwell Counties, North Carolina, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems; and H.R. 3201, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Carter G. Woodson Home in the District of Columbia as a national historic site, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 27, 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 the 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 rise in support of Senator Grassley's Sense of the Senate Resolution urging President Clinton to see to it that the Department of Justice reprogramms $10,000,000 in recovery funds within the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) so the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) can continue to reimburse state and local law enforcement officials in the proper removal and disposal of hazardous materials recovered from clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. Mr. President, Wyoming is one of a number of states that has experienced an astronomic increase in methamphetamine production, trafficking and use. In fact, during fiscal year 1998, of all cases prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office in Wyoming, 45% were drug cases and of that nearly 75% were methamphetamine related. When law enforcement officials bust a methamphetamine laboratory not only do they have to prosecute the individuals involved but they must also dispose of the highly toxic chemicals that were used to produce this illegal drug. It is estimated that it costs between $3,000 and $100,000 for the safe clean up of methamphetamine labs. It is very important to see to it that methamphetamine labs are properly handled because six pounds of toxic waste are produced for every pound of methamphetamine manufactured. Wyoming's law enforcement officials rely exclusively on the funds that the DEA provides to state and local law enforcement officials for the clean up of methamphetamine labs. Because of this growing problem, the allocated funds the DEA uses to reimburse state and local law enforcement officials ran out last month. As a result, numerous towns and communities across the country are no longer able to rely on the DEA for much needed funding. Mr. President, it is my hope that President Clinton will see to it that the Justice Department approves this reprogramming of funds so law enforcement officials across the country can continue to fight the growing problem of methamphetamine production.

Mr. THOMAS

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

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is my understanding our focus this week will be on the budget, as it should be. One of the things, of course, that is very necessary is to address the budget each year, and one of the things we haven't done that we should do, and are doing this year, is to address the budget early so we don't find ourselves at the end of the session being sort of at the mercy of the President, who can kind of put the leverage on us to do what he wants us to do or else suspend Government operations and, of course, blame the Congress, which has happened before. In any event, when we are talking about budgets, it is easy to get off into the detail. That is what we will have to do. My friend from Nevada talked about the plans for spending, and that we will have the budget come up, and that we have fortunately, for the third time in 40 years, some extra money--a surplus--in the operating budget. So many, particularly on the other side of the aisle, are searching for ways to spend the money, which is fine. But it seems to me that the responsible approach we ought to take and the approach I believe most Americans want us to take is to evaluate where we are with respect to Government, what the role of the Federal Government is in these various policies, and to make a determination as to what expenditures ought to be made that are consistent with what we believe to be the legitimate role of the Federal Government. We need to talk about an analysis of that because what happens for the rest of the year is pretty much guided by what you do in terms of the budget--unless, of course, you simply ignore the budget later on. I hope that is not the case. So we ought to be talking in the areas that will be under consideration. What is the role of the Federal Government with respect to the private sector? What is the role of the Federal Government with respect to local and State government? What role should be played there? It seems to me that that is basically where we ought to begin having made that decision, of course, which won't be unanimous because there is a good deal of philosophical difference as to where we ought to go. There are those who believe the more money you can spend on behalf of the people by the Federal Government, the better off you are. There are those of us who don't agree with that. Some believe the role of the Federal Government should be limited, that we ought to do the things that encourage people to do things, give them the ability to do things for themselves, and leave many decisions with the people in local and State governments. I agree with that. We ought to be doing something specifically for Social Security. The President has been talking for several years about ``let's save Social Security.'' But he doesn't have a program at all to do that. Just to say ``let's save Social Security'' isn't the proper approach. Indeed, we have ideas on this side of the aisle as to what we ought to do. Clearly, there are three options as to what you do to make sure the young people now paying in from their first paycheck 12.5 percent will be able to have benefits when the time comes to do that. One is to raise taxes. Very few people are for that. Another, of course, is to reduce benefits. Very few are for that. The third option is to take that account and make it a personal account for the person who has paid in the money, and allow, on their behalf, for this money to be invested in the private sector in equities or bonds or stocks so that the return on that trust fund will be much higher than it is now and the benefits will be there. We talk about paying down the debt. It is a great idea. We have done very little of that over time. We have a $5 trillion debt. This generation and preceding generations have spent it, and we are going to leave it up to others to pay for it. We have paid down the debt some with respect to taking Social Security money and putting it over there in place of publicly held debt, which is a positive thing to do; the costs are less. Really, to pay it down, we ought to be taking some of the surplus out of the general fund and putting it over there. Frankly, we don't do that unless we have a plan to do it--something like a mortgage in which we say over 15 years, or whatever, we are going to pay that off. Then we can take so much every year to do that, and we are dedicated to doing it. That is not the approach taken by the administration. There is great concern about tax reduction. I certainly believe we ought to take care of adequate spending, protecting Social Security, paying down the debt, but then what is wrong with tax reduction? That is where the money came from. Just because there is more money coming in as a result of a stronger economy doesn't mean we necessarily have an obligation to spend it, which is what the other side often says we ought to do. Much of the tax reduction is just a fairness issue. For instance, the marriage tax. Why is it that two people who are making a certain amount of money as two single persons get married and they have to pay more taxes on the same amount of earnings? That is very unfair. Part of what we talk about in tax reduction is a matter of fairness. Part of it is also incentives to do other things. So we will be talking about the Republican budget that will be coming before this Congress, in which we safeguard Social Security, shield Medicare, pay down the national debt, and at the same time work on the fairness issue. We will be protecting that surplus by not spending it, which is unique, only happening in the last several years. It strengthens Medicare by increasing--as we did last year and again this year--some of the reductions that were made in the balanced budget amendment. We will reduce the national debt, hopefully, by using operational funds to do that, as well as Social Security dollars. We will provide tax fairness for families. We need to do that. We need to balance the budget again, as we have for about the third time in 40 years. So that is a very good thing. This budget, over time, reduces the debt by $177 billion, wipes it out over 13 years--if we stay with this budget. That is the kind of commitment we ought to make. We talked about tax reduction. Think about what it is. This budget would provide about $150 billion in 5 years in tax relief to American families--over $13 billion next year alone in the form of marriage penalty relief which, again, is a fairness tax. In the form of educational assistance now, is reducing taxes a bad thing if we are going to--increase the health care deductibility? I don't believe so. We are seeking to provide more coverage for people--without making a total government program out of it--by giving some kind of tax relief to do that. I think this is going to be a very important debate and an important discussion. I understand there will be differences of view. That is what this body is all about, talking about different philosophies. There will be different philosophies, such as saying the more spending we have, the better government is and the better off everyone is. That is a point of view. I don't happen to share it. I think there ought to be limitations on the size and role of government. We ought to be building opportunity instead of doing those sorts of things. I think we have a great opportunity to do some of the things we have talked about for years; that is, to reduce the debt, to secure Social Security, and to provide some incentives for people to do things for themselves. We have the opportunity, and we will be doing it this week. I think we ought to take into account not only the dollars that are there, and not only the specific expenditures, but how we envision the role of government over time. How does that fit into the idea of freedom and opportunity for all? What is the role of a government in that? Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending second- degree amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. First, I thank the Senator from Texas for his good work in getting this bill moved forward. We remember that this came up last year when we talked about the local-to-local broadcasting, and so on. The Senator--properly, I think--suggested it be sent back for more consideration by the Banking Committee. Indeed, it was. He promised us at that time that this bill would come forward. He has adhered to that promise and is out here with it now. The other thing on which I agree with the Senator from Texas is that he has divided this responsibility and there is an 80-percent guarantee. I agree with that. There needs to be someone who has some risk and promises that there will be more attention paid to it. I have agreed with all those things. What we are talking about is being able to include a not-for-profit financing organization that has been involved with rural telecommunications, that has been involved with rural electric, and, indeed, serves the rural area. Very appropriately, that should be considered. By the way, this is the Cooperative Finance Corporation, not the Commodity Finance Corporation that has been mentioned a time or two. It is not set up by the Feds. It is a private co-op without Federal support. CFC is adequately capitalized, so it has actually better ratings than most of those banks. Furthermore, as we talk about the requirement that might include increased costs to rural electrics--rural electrics, by the way, with which I am rather familiar, having worked in that area before I came to the Senate--they can get their financing other places; they are not captive borrowers from the CFC. I think this second-degree amendment is one that simply provides more opportunity for this unit, this nonprofit unit, owned by rural people, to participate in the financing of an effort to provide rural television, local-to-local television, the kinds of coverage we now do not have in Wyoming. If you want to see ABC, you have to get your program from California or from Chicago. We are saying we can provide that locally so you can get local news, local information. We think that is very important. Of course, that is what this bill is all about. The proposal that is before us and that we seek to second degree places the burden of proof to show that the lender's ratings will not decrease. Under the proposed amendment, this board would need to predict what the financial condition is going to be. That is a pretty unreasonable requirement for this governmental board composed of Cabinet officers or their designees. Secondly, of course, Wall Street rating agencies make these kinds of ratings, and they will be making it here. This, after all, is a market function. CFC raises its capital in the private capital markets through the sale of bonds, through the sale of equity securities, equity investments. So these things are all a function of the market and are tested by the market. We don't need to set up an artificial organizational effort to do that. CFC is over 31 years old. I think it has $600 million worth of capitalization. They have been in the energy and telecommunications markets. They are mature. What we are saying is that we appreciate very much the Senator's willingness to allow these kinds of nonprofits to participate, but our argument basically is there are restrictions and regulations here that are not needed. They are additional bureaucratic reviews that are not necessary in order to accomplish the purpose the Senator has set forth. I won't take longer. I am very much in favor of this bill. I hope we will move to pass it quickly. I thank Senator Johnson and Senator Grams for joining in this effort to make some changes. I do not think they changed the policy direction that the Senator from Texas takes, and I urge the support of the second-degree amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to come back this afternoon--I talked some this morning--to talk about this bill. It is a very important bill to us. It is one that provides an opportunity for us to have local television in rural areas. There is great support for this idea. We are trying to find a way to put it into the proper perspective in terms of the lending of money to guarantee loans that will cause this to happen--I agree with the chairman--where we have 80 percent of a loan guaranteed by the Federal Government, but that the remaining 20 percent be done in the private sector without further guarantees by the Federal Government, by the taxpayers, so there is that sharing of risk and that incentive to continue to be very careful with these kinds of expenditures. There is no question that this is a somewhat risky operation, something that is new and technically different. The conversation we are having currently, of course, is to provide an opportunity for CFC, the Cooperative Finance Corporation, to be a participant. CFC was formed in 1969 by the Rural Electric Cooperatives and provides private capital. I have worked with it a great deal, having been manager of a rural electric association in Wyoming for a number of years. CFC was not created by the Federal Government and does not receive Federal funds. This is a private corporation. CFC has 31 years of experience in lending to rural electric systems, and since 1987 has provided more than $3 billion to rural telecommunications projects. Our Wyoming rural electrics, starting 15 years ago, were involved in bringing satellite TV to rural consumers and have been doing that from a programming standpoint. Unfortunately, we could not get our local stations, and that is what this is all about. This is something the rural electrics have been involved in for some time. CFC is AA rated. It has $16 billion in loan assets. Over 31 years, CFC has had only $77 million in losses and has loss reserves of $235 million. This is a strong organization and one that is capable of doing this work. Furthermore, it is owned and operated by citizens, by rural people, by boards of directors of the rural electrics, by people who are elected to serve. What we want is to give an equal opportunity for this unit to give loans and to participate as well as others. CFC has backup lines of credit with 50 banks. These lines of credit amount to about $5 billion. This is a large group. We have heard some information about the allegation that a loan loss by CFC will result in rate increases to 25 million consumers. I think that is very farfetched. I do not believe it is accurate. If CFC incurs a loss, CFC, as a private corporation, will incur the loss, with no liability to the Federal Government. If CFC incurs a loss and its interest rates increase, rural utilities are free to borrow from other lenders, including banks and other finance companies. Co-ops are not responsible for repaying CFC losses or obligations. What we need to do, of course, is to ensure they are treated like others in the private sector. But this idea that they somehow have a special advantage in that any losses can be passed on to rural electric consumers in the electric business is not true. We have heard a great deal about that. The bottom line is, in the worst case scenario, CFC's rates could increase and co-ops would then borrow from other entities. CFC is a private cooperative. It is paternalistic to set up this private organization to have people governing under the rules of private sector and private enterprise and to suggest the Senate ought to design for them their rules. I reject that idea. I am happy to say we are seeking to find some language that will satisfy the need to move forward with this bill and also to provide an equal opportunity for CFC to participate without unwarranted supervision. I am hopeful we can find that arrangement. We ought to make that discipline work. I think we can, and I certainly look forward to working with others this afternoon so we can pass this bill and move toward rural communications and local-to-local communications. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coal Market Competition Act of 2000. The legislation would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to increase the acreage of coal leases. Companies need this assurance as they plan and finance their operations into the future. Now, more than ever, we need to diversify our Nation's resources. The current oil prices are a daily reminder of what occurs when we allow this country to be too dependent on foreign resources. It is time to focus on domestic energy production and this legislation will facilitate development of one of our Nation's abundant natural resources, coal. Most of the coal produced in our Nation comes from mines west of the Mississippi River and the vast majority of that coal is mined in western states with significant federal ownership of both the surface and mineral estates. In fact, my state of Wyoming is home to 11 of the top 12 coal mines based on tonnage. We produced approximately one third of the total U.S. coal in 1999, with production exceeding 330 million tons last year. Not surprisingly Wyoming is also the leader in federal coal lease acreage with approximately 145,000 federal acres under lease to 20 companies. The current federal coal lease limitation under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 is 46,080 acres per state. An amendment of the Mineral Leasing Act in 1976 maintained the per-state limit and added a 100,000- acre nationwide limit for any one company. The state coal lease limit has not been changed for 36 years. Coal, sodium, phosphate and oil and gas were all assigned identical or similar per state lease acreage limitations in the 1926 amendments to the MLA (2,560 acres per state for sodium, coal and phosphate, 2,560 acres per geologic structure and 7,680 acres per state for oil and gas). The acreage limitation for each of these minerals was increased in the 1946 and 1948 MLA amendments (coal, sodium and phosphate to 5,120 per state in 1948; oil and gas to 15,360 acres per state in 1946). The per state acreage limitation for oil and gas leases was increased twice more (to 46,080 acres in 1957 and 246,080 acres in 1960) and the per state acreage ceiling for coal (and phosphate) leases was increased once more to 46,080 acres (and 20,480 acres for phosphate) in 1964. In my view, it is time to address the coal acreage limitations both on a state and national level. The cap on coal needs to be raised to allow producers to remain competitive in the world-wide market. In Wyoming, the coal mine sizes will need to increase in order to maintain economic competitiveness. Our coal industry has grown and prospered because its economic competitiveness allowed Wyoming to be the location of choice for new low-sulfur coal capacity to serve much of the world. The scale of mining operations is much larger now. In order for this competitiveness to continue, we must raise the acreage cap to alleviate concern from several companies in both Wyoming and Utah about the effect of the limitation on their planning and production abilities. Larger lease acreage areas are required to justify the significant capital investment necessary for mine expansion. Under current leasing operations, the penalty for violation of the acreage limitation is lease cancellation. It is essential during a time like now--when oil prices are soaring--that we diversify and develop our Nation's energy sources rather than be dependent on foreign sources. Expanding lease acreage will allow coal to be competitive and it is essential we have choices for energy here at home.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will take a very short time. I speak in favor of the flag protection amendment to the Constitution. It is an honor for me to be a cosponsor of this constitutional amendment, 1 of 58. Most everything has been said, I suppose, that needs to be said about it. Of course, no one here is in favor of desecration of the flag. What we have is a difference of view as to how to deal with that issue. This constitutional amendment has been around for a very long time and has been considered several times. Certainly, this symbol of the flag is one that should be held in the highest regard. Most everyone agrees with that. This measure states: The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. That should be the case. It seems to me what that does is helps to define freedom of speech. We can do that. What we are saying is it is illegal to physically desecrate the flag of the United States. I cannot imagine how people can disagree with that. The Senate has voted on this matter in the past in 1989, 1990, and 1995, and each time a majority was in favor. The House passed an identical measure in June of 1999 by a vote of 305-124 with a sufficient majority. Each year we get a little closer to passing it. Why do we need a flag protection amendment? Forty-nine State legislatures have already passed resolutions urging this constitutional amendment. The flag, obviously, is a sacred symbol and deserves protection from desecration. It is a symbol of national unity and identification. We all know of the sacrifices that have been made, and this flag typifies that; this flag is symbolic of that. It is an inspiration for people. The attempts in the past have failed in terms of statutory issues. The Supreme Court struck down the Texas v. Johnson in 1989 in a 5-4 decision. In 1990, there was another 5-4 decision. This is a reasonable request to accommodate and I believe most Americans want to protect this flag. If this is the necessary way to do it, then I am for that. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor, and I urge this be passed in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, April 6, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, a hearing to receive testimony on the incinerator component at the proposed Advanced Waste Treatment Facility at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and its potential impact on the adjacent Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, has been cancelled. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Cark of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish to talk a little bit about oil prices. I guess most everyone wants to talk about oil prices and gas prices at the pump--those things that affect each of us. First of all, I have had the opportunity to meet in the Chamber this morning and hear a little discussion about taxes. So I will comment for a moment on that. We are now dealing with the budget, which of course is one of the basic responsibilities of Congress, and the question of how much money we spend in the Federal Government. That has to do with the whole philosophical question of how large a Government we want and the things we want the Federal Government to be involved in, how much involvement we want in all of those things--what is the division between the responsibility of the Federal Government, local government, and State government. I think these are obviously some of the most important issues with which we deal. These are broad issues. These are philosophical issues. The budget has a great deal to do with it. In fact, I suspect that the total amount of expenditures is probably the most important issue we deal with all year, depending on how you view the role of Government. Keep in mind this year we will spend about $1.8 trillion. That is $1,800 billion in the Federal budget. About a third of that will be so-called discretionary funding, which is determined by the Congress. The remainder, two-thirds of that, $1,800 billion, will be mandatory spending-- things such as Social Security, Medicare, and others. We are dealing with setting a budget that basically is an expenditure limit on that discretionary spending, which last year, as I recall, rose about 7.5 percent more, much more than inflation. This year I think there is an effort being made to see if we can control that level of spending. It has to do with the size of Government. Clearly, everyone has different views, of course, as to how to adequately fund programs we think are most important--the priorities the public sets through their representatives in terms of Government programs. One of the things it seems to me we haven't done as well as we might is to review programs that have been in place for a very long time. Some of them, obviously, are important programs that need to go on. Others were designed to do something for a relatively short time, but they are always there. They never go away because we do not have the opportunity to have the oversight to see if, in fact, those programs have accomplished the things they were designed to accomplish, and if, indeed, those dollars can be spent more productively in some other programs. We find ourselves in a situation of having these programs that have been in place forever and are almost automatically funded and the obvious need for new programs from time to time as time and needs change. It is simply an accumulation of programs. Those of us who occasionally say to ourselves that we ought to control the size of Government, have to take a look at those kinds of issues. I hear my friends talk about the evils of tax reduction. They ought to review that a little bit, it seems to me. First of all, we ought not spend Social Security dollars for operating funds. We have been doing that for 40 years, but we have not done that in the last 2 years. We hear our friends on the other side of the aisle and the administration and President Clinton saying: Save Social Security. Not one program has come from them as to how to do that. These young pages sitting here will pay out of their first paycheck 12.5 percent for Social Security. The likelihood is, if we don't do something, that they will not have benefits when they are eligible for them. We need to do something. We have a plan. We set aside at least a portion of that for individual retirement accounts. Let it belong to the persons who made it, and, indeed, let them invest in private sector equities or bonds so that the return is much higher. The choices we have are fairly simple. We can reduce benefits. Nobody wants to do that. We can increase taxes. I don't know of anybody who wants to do that. Social Security taxes are the highest that most people pay of any tax. Or we can increase the return for the trust funds. We are for that. The administration has no plan at all other than to say: Save Social Security. We need to do something about paying down the debt. Most everyone would agree with that. The debt that the President brags about paying down is taking Social Security money and putting it into debt. It would be replacing public debt. But it is still debt. It is debt to the Social Security trust fund. What I propose and what I think we ought to do is set money aside just like with a home mortgage, and each year we will take so much money. It will take this amount of money to pay this year's obligation to pay off the debt in real dollars. So instead of being replaced by Social Security dollars, that debt is being reduced. That is what we are for. The President has no plan. All we hear is this great talk about it but nothing is happening. Then, quite frankly, we talk about taxes. What we are talking about, at least to some extent, is not simply reducing debt. It is a fairness issue. The marriage penalty tax is a fairness issue. Why should two people who work independently and are married pay this amount of tax? That isn't fair. It is a fairness issue. It is not just tax reduction. There are ways to change the estate taxes. The Presiding Officer has a proposal that estate taxes ought to be paid when they pay taxes as a matter of capital gains. Good idea. Then there is money left, unless one continues to spend it. People talk about taxes and balancing the budget and the economy growing starting in 1993. I am sorry, it didn't start in 1993; it started in 1991. It has been going on for a good long time. I cannot imagine the President's tax increase has contributed a great deal to the economic growth. People have different views. That is what it is all about. We have different views of how we best serve this country. There are many views. We talk about energy. Thirteen leaders of the OPEC nations are meeting in Vienna to discuss boosting oil production. I appreciate the efforts of Secretary Richardson. I hope the answer is they will increase production. That is a good thing to have happen. We have to talk about how we got ourselves in a position of having to go over to OPEC, saying: We have real problems; will you help us out? And then we do not get much of a response from the very group we have contributed so much to, not only in dollars but in the gulf war. Then we find them deciding whether they will do us a favor by increasing oil production. How did we get where we are? I think we have had a lack of a policy regarding energy, not only in petroleum but in the whole sphere of energy. I come from the largest coal-producing State. This administration has made it increasingly difficult to produce energy as it has sought to close down energy powerplants because of maintenance. We find ourselves depending on others and that puts at risk not only our economy but also our security. We find ourselves now in the neighborhood of 57-percent dependent on foreign oil. We see consumption going up each year; domestic production is going down at the same time. What are some of the reasons? Some are what have happened in the last few months in terms of this administration which has set about to leave a ``land'' legacy--and I understand Presidents desire to have different legacies. This is called a land legacy where they will set aside more and more private lands and put them into public ownership to have a billion dollars a year they can spend at their own discretion without going through the process of Congress and appropriations to acquire more Federal lands. In my State of Wyoming, nearly 50 percent of our land belongs to the Federal Government. Selfishly, it makes a lot of difference if the land can be used as multiple-use public lands, if we can protect the resource, protect the environment, but also use those lands--whether for hunting, for recreation, for grazing, whether it be for coal and gas production. We can do these things in such a way that we have multiple use as well as protection of the environment. This administration has moved in a different direction. I have been on the Energy Committee since I came here in 1994. We have not had from the Energy Department a coherent policy on energy for a very long time. We had a meeting this morning on the Kyoto treaty, the meeting in Japan where we were supposed to sign a treaty which would reduce our energy by about 40 percent, while asking less of the rest of the world. Of course that has not been agreed to. As a matter of fact, this Senate voted 95-0 not to agree to it--not that we shouldn't be doing something about clean air, not that we shouldn't be doing something to reduce the effect of economic growth--but not to just sign a treaty that says we are going to put ourself at a disadvantage. This is part of where we are, including access to Federal lands, where we have 40 million acres, using the Antiquities Act, to set aside other lands for single purpose uses. We have had for some time offshore oil drilling, one of the great opportunities to provide domestic oil. We have tried from time to time to do something to give a tax advantage for marginal oil wells so they would produce, but the administration is opposed. We talked about looking at ANWR, to do something in Alaska, to provide more domestic oil so we are not totally dependent on foreign countries to provide that energy source. That is not only good for the economy and jobs, but it is a security measure. Since 1992, oil production is down 17 percent in the United States; consumption is up 14 percent. In just 1 year under this administration, oil imports increased almost 8 percent; they are now getting close to 60 percent. DOE predicts a 65-percent oil dependency on foreign oil by the year 2020. We have become even more dependent. The United States spends about $300 million each day on imported crude oil, $100 billion each year. We are concerned the trade deficit from oil amounts to about one-third of the trade deficit. Now we are looking at short-term issues when what we have to do is take a look at the longer term resolution to these problems. The policy that would change this, and one we look forward to, is increased access to public land, continuing to emphasize, however, the idea that we need also to protect the environment. We can do that. I mentioned tax incentives that would increase production. We need to look at the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act which is being used to reduce the use of lands as well. It has a real impact to a lot of people in my State which is largely a State that has mineral production. In 1990, U.S. jobs exploring and producing oil amounted to over 400,000; in 1999, these jobs are down to 293,000, a 27-percent reduction in the ability of America producing our own oil. In 1990, we had 657 working oil rigs; now it is down to 153, a 77-percent decline. I think we need to take a long look at where we are and where we want to go. Any government looking at energy has to recognize the stewardship responsibility that we have for the environment. We do that. At the same time, we have to be able to produce for ourselves so we have the freedom and opportunity to continue to have the strongest economy in the world, the greatest for jobs, while strengthening our security. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on these bills at this time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for their second reading.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1:30, with Senators Durbin and Thomas in control of the time. Following the morning business period, the Senate will begin consideration of S. Res. 14 regarding the desecration of the flag. Under a previous agreement, amendments by Senators McConnell and Hollings will be debated throughout the day. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes today, with any votes ordered in relation to the flag desecration measure scheduled to occur on Tuesday at 2:15 p.m. Any Senators interested in debating this important measure should be prepared to do so today or early tomorrow. I thank my colleagues for their attention.