Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator is correct, of course. There are a great many things that could happen. We have low-sulfur coal, which is very clean, but it is relatively low Btu. You can do some things to enrich the Btu's. One of the problems is transportation. We have this great coal now that costs us less than $5 a ton. That is what it is worth at the mouth of the mine. But if you take it then to Fort Worth, TX, it is $25 because of transportation. You could transport many more Btu's if you would do this enrichment. Fifty percent of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government. Some of it is set aside, of course, and should be, as wilderness. Some of it is set aside in forests and lands that need special protection. But much of the land is high plains lands, and so on, that can be used for multiple use, can be used for production. Frankly, it has been made so difficult. We have had such a hard time with royalty payments, these kinds of things that really are unnecessary. The Senator from Alaska is right. We can do a few things to encourage domestic production and really take us out of this kind of a proposition.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are here, of course, to talk about oil prices, high oil prices that affect each of us. Let me start by recalling that less than 2 years ago, in 1998, we had what was considered to be the largest oil collapse since 1900. The price of oil in my State, which is heavy oil and less expensive than some other places, was $5 or $6 a barrel. Now, of course, we are faced with oil prices that are in the neighborhood of $30 a barrel. I think we will hear a great deal of talk that we need to find a long-term answer to stabilize the production cost of energy so we have, in fact, an ample amount of energy. We need an incentive to produce energy on a continuing basis so the price is relatively stable. I have talked to a number of the producers in my State, and production is still not as high--there are not as many wells, not as many pumps--as it could be. We say the price is as high as it has ever been, but there is no assurance it will continue, so you are hesitant to invest the money you have--a great deal of money, as a matter of fact--when you do not know if that price is going to be back where it was before. So what we are talking about basically is some kind of policy that would bring about some stability in fuel prices. I thank Senator Murkowski, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for his interest and leadership in this matter. Why this has happened is no real surprise. There are a number of things, frankly, that have happened over time, and this administration cannot be surprised that we now have energy prices that are impacting truckers' diesel fuel prices, that are impacting seniors, that will have an impact on the tourism economy in my State of Wyoming and in agriculture, and certainly in many places in home heating. It is not a surprise this has happened. We need a long-term energy policy. We need tax relief for low-production wells. We need commonsense royalty collection. We need access to public lands for a multiple-use concept and to develop oil and gas and coal. By the way, the Senator from West Virginia spoke of coal. Certainly, that is very important as well. Wyoming is the largest coal producer in the Nation, low-sulfur coal. We are very pleased with that. There will be opportunities for quick fixes. Certainly we support the idea of Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Programs, for example. But the fact is, over time, we will need a policy that is not just short- but rather long-term so we can get away from this idea that we are going to be threatened in both our national security and our fiscal security from time to time because of this. Part of it is regulatory. EPA has tried to shut down coal-fired powerplants in the U.S. when all they were doing was routine maintenance. Coal supplies 55 percent of the Nation's electricity. A third of that is produced in Wyoming. There is an interchange between energy uses. Of course, you do not use coal in the car, but you can use coal in some places where you could then release the oil for transportation. Lots of things are occurring. The Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt, is talking about taking down hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest. We have had substantial limitations on the use of public lands in the West particularly. Vice President Gore has promised to prohibit future exploration for gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, places where we could do this and at the same time protect the environment. We are into this whole question of nonaccess to public lands. It is part of this administration's idea of the land legacy, where we have now 40 million roadless acres in the forest. We have BLM roadless areas that keep us from using the multiple resources. Interestingly enough, the access thing goes so far as national parks, where now there is a policy in winter use to keep people away from the access to Yellowstone Park but at the same time promote the burning of nuclear waste upwind from the park, and have no concern about its impact. Interesting. A failed domestic policy is certainly what we have. It has already been mentioned that, since 1992, U.S. production is down 17 percent; consumption is up 14 percent. In just 1 year of the Clinton-Gore operation, oil imports increased 7.6 percent. It is now at 56 percent and growing. It will be up as high as 65. The United States is spending $300 million a day importing crude oil, $100 billion a year. One-third of the trade deficit is based on the importation of oil. So these are the kinds of things with which we are faced. We certainly need a long-term policy. As I suggested, we need to take a look at the Rocky Mountain States. We need to take a look at Alaska. We need to take a look at offshore opportunities, tax incentives to help oil production get started, exploration costs. Yesterday, I cosponsored a bill introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas on marginal well credits. I think these are the kinds of steps we can take--incentives, of course, trying to make regulations that do not inhibit production moving forward. We have a lot of things to do. There are some real impacts, in addition to the costs. In 1990, U.S. jobs exploring and producing oil involved 405,000 people. In 1999, jobs exploring and producing oil and gas were down to 293,000--a 27-percent decline in the production of energy. I think there is a great deal we can do, but the overriding demand is to have a long-term policy which helps us to increase our domestic production so we are less reliant on overseas oil. American families should not have to bear the full cost of this failed energy policy. In the long term, I hope the administration will embrace Congress' efforts and we will move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. About 6 minutes, I believe.

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 Tuesday, March 28, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been rescheduled for Thursday, April 6, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is 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. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Clark of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969. committee on energy and natural resources

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 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. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 28 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. subcommittee on forests and public land management

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 status of monuments and memorials in and around Washington, D.C. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 23 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. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to improve the implementation of legislation that Congress passed in 1998, the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act. It has been 45 years, since President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued Bureau of the Budget Bulletin 55-4, proclaiming, ``It is the policy of the Government to rely on the private sector to supply the products and services the Government needs.'' Why is it, then, the Federal government has identified some one million positions on its payroll that are commercial in nature? As the author of the FAIR Act, I had hoped that my legislation would have put into place a process, albeit 45 years later, to substantively implement Ike's policy. Despite almost a half-century of policy that ``the Federal government should not start or carry on any activity to provide a commercial product or service if the product or service can be procured from the private sector'' more than 100 agencies have released FAIR Act inventories identifying some one million commercial Federal positions. Of these, 440,000 are in civilian agencies and more than 65 percent have been exempted from potential outsourcing. In the Department of Defense, 504,000 non-uniformed positions are considered commercial, but 196,000 or 39 percent are exempt from outsourcing. The first year experience with the FAIR Act raises fundamental questions. If it has been the Federal Government's policy for 45 years to rely on the private sector for commercially available goods and services, how did we get to the point where despite claims of ``reinventing government,'' ``the smallest Federal workforce since the Kennedy Administration'' and other political rhetoric, we have one million Federal employees engaged in commercial activities? How is it that of those one million positions, roughly half will not even be studied to determine if government or private sector performance provides the best value to the taxpayers? The FAIR Act was intended to shed sunshine on the Federal Government's commercial activities. Its purpose was to tell the American people what its government does and put in place a process to determine how to best get the job done. Unfortunately, implementation of the law has fallen short of these expectations. The law requires agencies to inventory activities and positions that are not inherently governmental. Inventories are published so that interested parties, both public and private, can challenge inclusions or omissions from the list. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has overstepped its authority by creating a series of ``reason codes'' that enable agencies to declare activities commercial but exempt from potential outsourcing, and then declaring such reason code designations outside the challenge process. As a result, 482,000 positions, roughly half the government's entire FAIR inventory, has been declared commercial, but exempt from potential outsourcing, public-private competition, or challenge. That is wrong, inconsistent with the law and down right un-FAIR. Manipulation of the process has also cast a long shadow on the sunshine Congress was seeking. Take for example the Department of Energy. Of 11,765 commercial positions on its inventory, just 618 are ``commercial competitive.'' Within the agency's Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), 1,263 of the agency's 2,267 commercial positions were classified as ``management'' and of these 1,259 were considered ``commercial, in-house core,'' exempt from further review. Unfortunately, DoE is not alone in gaming the system. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has 4,500 employees, has inventoried all its positions in just two categories. These practices, too, are un-FAIR, particularly for federal employees. How can BPA or Corps of Engineers' employees tell if their positions are slated for potential outsourcing? How is the private sector to determine if the positions the Corps has on its inventory involve management of campgrounds, integration of their computer systems, designing a dam, mapping a flood plain, or painting the walls of an office building if all these activities are aggregated into two broad categories? These actions fail to shed sunshine and render the FAIR Act challenge process moot. The FAIR Act also requires a ``review'' of commercial activities that survive the inventory and challenge process ``within a reasonable time.'' The Act's legislative history clearly demonstrates Congress intended for such a review to be either direct outsourcing or a public- private competition similar to that envisioned in OMB Circular A-76. To date, OMB has not issued guidance on how it will implement such reviews, nor has it established a timetable. Due to OMB's dismal performance thus far, it is clear that Congress will have to pass a package of FAIR Act amendments to make sure the job is done right. Today I introduce legislation to do just that. This legislation is largely technical in nature but the major provisions would improve the accuracy and usefulness of the inventories, make sure Federal employees are notified when their jobs appear on the inventories, fortify the review process, require a report on the portability of federal employees' pension benefits, ban federal agencies from performing any commercial activity for other federal agencies or state and local governments unless a cost comparison is conducted and prohibits the conversion of any activity on a FAIR Act inventory to Federal Prison Industries. I look forward to working with Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Lieberman of the Government Affairs Committee to see that this common sense legislation is enacted into law this year.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are lots of things we can talk about and, indeed, should talk about. The Senator from Alaska talked about the problem of fuel, the problem of petroleum costs. That is a very real issue for us, of course, and one we need to deal with. We talk about the marriage tax penalty. There are all kinds of things we must talk about. There are some basic issues--and I have talked about them before-- that I believe strongly in, issues that clearly are the responsibility of this body and the responsibility of the Federal Government to deal with. Frankly, sometimes it is very difficult to do that. Unfortunately, I suspect that Presidential election years make it even harder than usual to do some of the things that clearly need to be done. One of the reasons, of course, is that there is a great tendency to talk about the things that can be used as campaign issues as opposed to seeking solutions. Unfortunately, that does happen. The majority party, this side of the aisle, does have an agenda. I think we have a strong agenda that reflects, at least in my State, the majority of voters. I have been back home in my State every weekend this year. We talk about those issues all the time. I am hopeful we can focus on those issues. I know sometimes it is difficult to get those issues on the floor. It is difficult to get them out and to find some sort of solution. I believe we have a responsibility to do that. I think we have a responsibility to do that as the majority party. There are times, of course, when, if we could pass something, the President would veto it. That is his choice. Let him veto it. I think it is our responsibility to bring those issues forward and to resolve them in a way that best fits our philosophy of what we think is good for this country. Certainly, there are a number of things that are very high on the agenda, such as the budget, such as the spending level and for what, in fact, the taxes are spent. Social Security, I am sure, is an issue that almost everyone is concerned about. Frankly, the younger you are, the more concerned about it you ought to be. Another issue is doing something about the debt that we still have, a substantial debt that we have incurred over the last number of years and now, apparently, are expecting somebody else to pay. Another issue is tax relief. These are the things we really ought to focus on; and I wish we would. We talk about the budget. It seems to me, there is probably nothing more important, in terms of gauging where we go with the Federal Government, than the budget, because the budget, after all, is sort of the limitation as to where we go. The limitation is the thing that causes us to have to establish spending priorities. Of course, if you had an endless amount of money, you would not need to have priorities; you would just spend money. I do not think many people would want to do that; certainly, most taxpayers would not. In the budget we have to find an amount. I think one of the things we are dedicated to, as Republicans, and, hopefully, all of us in the Senate this year, is to complete the budget and, subsequently, the appropriations, at the time set forth in the law and the time set forth in our operation here. Last year, for example, we waited too long. We were here at the very end of the session trying to complete the budget. Of course, there is always controversy at the end of the session. There are always decisions to be made when you are at the end of the session. It is even more difficult at the end of a session because the administration--particularly with this President--has used the end of the session as a very effective leveraging tool for the President to get what he wants; otherwise, he threatens to shut down the Government. Even though the President shut the Government down in the last experience, the Congress got the blame for doing that. We need to get this thing done. We need to get it done before the first of September, and certainly before the end of September which is the end of the fiscal year. We need to set the amounts so that they somewhat control growth. If you believe, as many of us do, that there ought to be some limitation to the size of the Federal Government, it ought to be constitutionally limited to those things that the Constitution provides. If you believe that most of the governing ought to take place at the local level, closer to the people, in the States and in the counties, then there ought to be some limit in growth. Last year, unfortunately--and I voted against the bill--we ended up with something like 7\1/2\ or 8 percent growth in the budget--too much, I think. That is too much. Hopefully, we can hold it this year to no more than the growth due to inflation. Of course, there are new programs that have to be funded. But there also ought to be a termination to some of the programs that are there. It is very difficult to do that. Last year, we had sort of fancy footwork which allowed us to spend more than it really seemed as if we were spending. But now, finally, of course, it comes out that we spent more. In fairness, we also did some good things last year. For the second time in about 25 years we balanced the budget in operational dollars. For the second time in about 40 years, we did not spend Social Security money for the operations of Government. That is good. That is very good. Those are two things we ought to continue to do. One of the other things that ought to happen--there is a good opportunity this year--is to have a biennial budget so that, as is the case with most States, we can deal with the budget every other year, which then gives us a year to have oversight. One of the most important things that Congress ought to have is oversight of the agencies, oversight of the regulations, so that we can ensure that what we have done, what we have passed, what we have put into law, is, indeed, working; in fact, as the money is being spent, the accountability is there, and so on. We could do that. Hopefully we will be able to do that. It seems to me, the budget is key to managing the Government and is something we ought to be doing. Of course, the spending ought to be within the budget. We spend something like $1.7 trillion in our budget--almost an incomprehensible amount of money. Last year I think $586 billion of that was in discretionary spending. The rest of it was already set. This year we are dealing with the question of, if it was $586 billion last time, how much do we spend? Do we spend $600 billion? Do we spend $630 billion? It is hard. I think it is more difficult when you have the idea of a surplus than it is when you have the idea of a deficit. When you have a surplus, everybody has ideas as to where we ought to spend all that extra money. But it isn't extra money. It belongs to the taxpayers. When we have done those things we think are essential for good Government, then the surplus money ought to be used in other ways. It is my belief, and the belief of many, that we ought to limit the size of Government, we ought to limit the number of things we fund, and we need to have better Government. Certainly, we can do that. We can do that in our appropriations. Social Security. Almost everyone talks about Social Security. Almost everyone would agree that Social Security is one of the most important issues that we face. Social Security, of course, is not a retirement program. It is a supplement, but it is very important. When I talk, particularly to young people, most of them say: I will never see any benefits. They are probably right. Unless there are some changes, the program will not sustain itself. We have seen so many demographic changes. It started out at a time when almost 20 people were working for every one who was drawing benefits. Now it is about three. It will soon be two. Of course, it will be almost impossible then to provide those kinds of benefits over time. What do we do? We have to make some changes, pretty clearly. There are several options. One is to increase taxes. Social Security taxes are the highest taxes many people pay, about 12.5 percent of their earnings when we take into account what the employer pays--a very high percentage. So that is not a very popular option. We could reduce benefits. Benefits are not especially high now. That is not really a very attractive option either. So the third option is to increase the return on the money that is in the Social Security trust fund. There are billions of dollars there, of course. Under the law they can only be invested in Government securities. So they bring a relatively small return. And up until now, they haven't even done that because they have been replacing debt for other purposes. We have a plan that ought to be considered and put into place. The administration keeps talking about saving Social Security but doesn't have any plan to do so. I think there is a plan out there. There is a bill of which I am a cosponsor, along with others, that would, in fact, set up individual accounts and would take at least a portion, whatever portion we could decide upon, and that account would belong to you or to me. It would be there to be invested in your behalf. It could be invested in equities; it could be invested in bonds. The return would be substantially higher than it is now. Over a period of 40, 50 years, that would bring a really good return and fund the program. Furthermore, if one was unfortunate enough not to use the program, passed away before they had the chance to get the benefits, it would belong to them. It would be part of their estate. I think that is a reasonable way to do it, one we ought to fully consider. The other issue with which we need to deal, with regard to the budget and money, is the debt. We still have a substantial amount of debt. Part of it is privately held and part is held by Social Security dollars; part of it is publicly held. We talk all the time about reducing the debt. We did, indeed, last year put the Social Security money over there and replace publicly held debt. The fact is, when that is to be used for benefits, the taxpayers at that time will still have to bail out that money so it can be used in the trust funds. What we would like to do is, assuming we have paid what is substantially needed for programs, set aside Social Security money. If there is still some surplus there, I think we ought to dedicate a portion of that to paying off the debt and do it in a systematic way, not just say, well, we will pay it off when we get some money, whatever, but, in fact, say, we are going to set aside enough money each year, as you would on a mortgage on your home, and say, in 15 years we will pay off this $3 trillion of debt or whatever it happens to be, publicly owned debt. Each year the payment on that will be in the budget. It will be there. It will automatically be spent for that purpose. And over a period of time we would do away with that debt that is owned by the public and earns a substantial amount of interest. I think a couple of years ago we paid about $380 billion a year on interest out of this budget of ours to do that. I think that is one of the things we clearly could do. Finally, of course, assuming there is still some left, we could, as the Senator from Alabama has said, do something about returning these excesses to the taxpayers who paid them in in the first place and certainly deserve to have them. Obviously, there are different ideas about how that is done, whether it is marriage penalty, estate tax, whether it is an across-the-board tax. The fact is, that money should go back to the people who paid it in. It is really bad policy to keep extra money in Washington because it will be spent. Once we have met our obligations, hopefully that can be returned. These are the things that are clearly before us. There are many other items, of course, but these are the ones we have to do. These are the ones the American people want us to do. These are the ones people in Wyoming talk about when I am there. I have to mention one other area they talk about that is a not in this category, but it has to do with management of public lands. It has to do with the so-called land legacy this administration has been working on for some time. Apparently the President, wanting to leave some kind of a Teddy Roosevelt legacy, wants to change the legacy he has before he leaves in several months, to have it be some sort of a setting aside of public resources for singular uses. That doesn't mean a lot to people who live in States where Federal lands are not a big issue. My State of Wyoming is 50 percent owned by the Federal Government; Nevada is 85 percent owned by the Federal Government, and it varies in between. The things that happen in those States economically and other ways are affected greatly by the management of those lands. We have seen a number of designs to set aside lands for uses different than have been in the law. The law now provides there will be wilderness set aside, or, indeed, that they be set aside for multiple use, which means for recreation, for hunting, for scenery, for grazing, for minerals, for all kinds of things under the multiple use concept. When that is not available, then the economies of our States suffer greatly, as do the long-term upkeep and availability and accessibility of those lands for Americans. I happen to be chair of the National Park Subcommittee. The purpose of a park is to maintain resources and to provide an opportunity for its owners, the American people, to enjoy it. Now we find ourselves faced with a number of things being proposed that would limit access, limit the enjoyment of these lands: 40-million acres roadless in the national parks, for example, which has never been fully explained as to what it means. The Antiquities Act is being used to set aside lands only by action of the President. The Congress is not involved. BLM has set out a roadless plan without details; nobody knows exactly what that means. Does it mean you are not accessible to it, that there are no roads to get to it? Forest regulation--instead of having multiple uses, one of the concepts of the plan goes totally to ecology. No one knows exactly what that means. We have proposals from the administration to put billions of dollars, over a $1 billion each year, directly to purchase more Federal land. In the West, we think there is a substantial amount now. We have a lot of things to do. I am confident we will get to them. I hope we do. I think we should. There is a philosophy, of course, that is different among Members of the Senate as to the role of the Federal Government, as to the size of the Federal Government, as to whether or not in an area of education, for example, there is flexibility to send the money, if you are going to support education, to the States and let them decide how it is used, or do you have the Federal Government bureaucracy in Washington tell people how it should be used. Frankly, whether it is schools or whether it is health care, whether it is highways, whatever, the needs in Wyoming are quite different than they are in New York and Pennsylvania. The school district in Meeteetse, WY has different needs than Pittsburgh. We ought to be able to recognize that and allow local people to be able to do that. That is one of the big differences we have on this floor. The minority whip this morning talked about coming together to do things, a perfectly great idea. But as long as there is opposition to those concepts of letting States and counties participate, then it is very difficult to do that. I am hopeful we will look forward. I am sure we will; that is the system. This is a great system. There are weaknesses and complaints, of course. But after all, this is the best system in the world. It is up to us to make it work. I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of the Senator from Alabama. We have lots of choices when we talk about tax relief, but this is one choice that is not only good for our country economically but certainly as a fairness issue is one that each of us, I think, supports.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that H.R. 1615, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to extend the designation of a portion of the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as a recreational river to include an additional river segment, has been added to the list of bills scheduled for a hearing by the Subcommittee on March 8, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 8 at 2.30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 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, what is the current status of business?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 28, at 2 p.m., to receive testimony on ballistic missile defense programs and issues in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2001 and the future years defense program.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 28, 2000, to conduct a hearing on the Competitive Market Supervision Act.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 28, 2000, at 4 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the national security implications of export controls and to examine S. 1712, the Export Administration Act of 1999.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Iowa for 15 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have seen in the last several months, and I suspect we will continue to see from now until the end of this administration, a considerable effort to implement programs that bypass the Congress, programs that, indeed, bypass public input into those programs. We have seen a great many Executive orders regarding regulations that have had limited, if any, public input. We have seen the use of the Antiquities Act and a number of other activities of this kind. It is important that we remember the constitutional requirements of this Government, that there is a division within Government. That is what the legislative, executive, and judicial branches were designed to do, and they were purposely put in place to ensure that none of the three branches developed a domineering position and became a czar of the Government. It is terribly important we take a look at this in Congress; that we ensure, to the extent we can, that this does not happen; that there is, indeed, as we move forward with various programs--whether they be regulatory, whether they be legislative--an opportunity for people to participate. The current regulatory system encompasses more than 50 Federal agencies, more than 126,000 workers, and annual spending of more than $14 billion in the area regulations. From April 1, 1996, until March 31, 1999, Federal agencies issued nearly 13,000 final rules. Of these, 188 were major final rules that each carried an annual cost of more than $100 million in our Nation's economy. The paperwork burden of these Federal regulations is approaching $190 billion annually. A recent study by the American Enterprise Institute concluded that all EPA rules promulgated between mid-1982 and mid-1996 under environmental statutes such as Superfund, the Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, have had negative net benefits; that is, they hurt more than they helped. When these regulations come into place, we hear that there is going to be a partnership, a partnership between the communities, a partnership between the State, a partnership with the Federal Government. Unfortunately, it has been our experience, particularly in the area of public lands, the partnership is a little one sided, a one- horse, one-dog arrangement, not an equal partnership. One example is the clean water action plan, an Executive order establishing 111 key actions designed to improve the Nation's remaining water impairment problems. Everyone wants to do that. Imagine putting into place in one move 111 different regulatory actions, done without the NEPA process, without the process of input, without the process of having public discussion. The administration has requested roughly $2 billion annually since 1998 for implementation. It has been an interesting process, particularly with EPA and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is taking a strong look at this and, in one instance, declared this agency had gone beyond its statutory authority. One of the difficulties is, first of all, the nonpoint source idea which was never authorized in the Clean Water Act. It was only point sources which were authorized. What is happening now is they have moved toward an implementation of the plan that is designed more to control the land use than, in fact, to control nonpoint source water. The Environmental Protection Agency structured the plan around data that the GAO, the Government auditing organization, has criticized. In 1999, GAO cautioned the methodology used in determining both impairment levels and impacts from nonpoint source was underfunded and, consequently, results were very possibly inaccurate. Specifically, GAO highlighted concerns relating to how the agency identified waters polluted by nonpoint sources, the need for more data to develop cost estimates, and the extent to which the Federal Government contributes to water pollution. Instead of pulling back, having found out this information, EPA is moving forward with the implementation of the program. States and impacted industries have complained to EPA through the Congress, through the committees, that EPA's plan places a financial burden and amounts to an unfunded mandate. This could be reasonable, if they went through the process of involving people before putting the regulations in place. But when the regulations are put there by fiat, certainly that is not something we expect to happen and should not allow to happen in our system of government. Even USDA wrote a letter, saying when they were doing these activities in the old Soil Conservation Service, they were much more efficient. When we questioned EPA about that, they got the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to change his mind and say: I really did not mean that at all. Of course, 2 weeks ago I was in Wyoming for a week. Half of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government. Much of our State is in public ownership. The use of those lands is vital to the economy. A multiple- use concept is what has made these lands useful, not only to preserve the environment, which can be done, but as well to be able to use them for hunting, recreation, grazing, mineral production--all the things that go together to make up an economy in the West. Now we are faced with some other propositions. In this case, the Forest Service has declared by regulatory fiat that there would be 40 million acres dedicated to roadless areas. Of course, we have roadless areas in the public lands. We have wilderness that has been set aside by congressional action. By the way, when it was set aside in Wyoming, the statute also said there would be no more wilderness set aside unless Congress made that proposal. It has been very difficult. We have had several hearings with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service to determine what ``roadless'' means, whether or not it is another way of having wilderness areas. The interesting part of it is, most of the lands that have been structured in this plan for roadless areas have roads on them; they are not roadless at all. But the Forest Service has done nothing to identify or solicit cooperating non-Federal agencies in the EIS. Several of our States have asked to be cooperating agencies, which is what the Environmental Quality Group in the White House has said they are going to implement in all these kinds of programs, but the Forest Service has said: No, we are not going to have the States; we are not going to have the counties; we are not going to have these non-Federal agencies participate. Hearings were held. Actually, they were not hearings; they were information systems. People were invited to come, but there was no information there. They were asked to respond to something without knowing what was being done. So there was really not public involvement of that kind. The other thing is that we already have forest plans in place. Each forest is required to have a forest plan. I have no objection to the idea of limited roads, but it ought to be done in a way in which people can participate, and it ought to be done in a way in which Congress can participate. We are finding more and more of that happening in this so- called land legacy that is being put forth by the administration. Last week, the Secretary of the Interior announced there would be literally millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands that would be set aside simply for their scenic value. That is very important to western public land States, where much of that land is part of our economy. It can be preserved for the environment. However, we also have to have multiple use. Those things will go together. The Antiquities Act is another. In 1996, we put into law the Congressional Review Act which requires regulations be submitted to the Congress. They are interpreted by OMB. Those that have over $100 million of value or cost are submitted to the Congress, with an opportunity to take a look--oversight--to see if those regulations are carrying out the spirit of the legislation which authorized them or, indeed, to see if in some cases they are being put into place without any statutory or regulatory authority. Unfortunately, it has not worked well. The idea was to have it come to the Congress. It has to go through OMB first to decide whether it has the $100 million impact. Then it comes to the Congress, but the Congress has not had an opportunity to deal with it. Unfortunately, from April 1 of 1996 until March 1 of 1999, Federal agencies issued, as I said before, 13,000 final rules. And 188 fell within this category of $100 million. Unfortunately, not one has been changed by the Congress because this bill is not workable. We have to make it work. We need to create a congressional regulatory analysis group that has the opportunity to look into these bills. Much like CBO, Congress needs an entity to take a look at them. Right now, unfortunately, it does not work. I think certainly we have to do something to keep this administration from running roughshod over my constituents' interests, the Presiding Officer's constituents' interests, and others. There needs to be this balance. I think the Congressional Review Act could be that balance, if it has some changes. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Utah for 15 minutes.

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. 972, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to improve the administration of the Lamprey River in the State of New Hampshire; S. 1705, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into land exchanges to acquire from the private owner and to convey to the State of Idaho approximately 1,240 acres of land near the City of Rocks National Reserve, Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 1727, a bill to authorize funding for the expansion annex of the historic Palace of the Governors, a public history museum located, and relating to the history of Hispanic and Native American culture, in the Southwest and for other purposes; S. 1849, a bill to designate segments and tributaries of White Clay Creek, Delaware and Pennsylvania, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and S. 1910, a bill to amend the Act establishing Women's Rights National Historical Park to permit the Secretary of the Interior to acquire title in fee simple to the Hunt House located in Waterloo, New York. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 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) 224-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield 5 minutes from our time to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield myself such time as I may utilize. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill. The time has come for the Congress and the Federal Government to step up to do something. This is not a new issue. It has been going on for a very long time. As a matter of fact, the basic legislation--the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982--required the Federal Government to build a storage facility for spent fuel, to accept nuclear waste by 1998, to develop a transportation system, and that the cost would be paid for by the electric utility customers. The Department of Energy has not done this. The administration has not lived up to its part of it. They have been required to have a plan, but they have done very little. The Federal Government has accepted the more than $16 billion collected from utility customers to do this. It has not shown results. The customers, of course, have been hit more than once in terms of paying the higher rates. The time has sort of expired to continue to debate this issue, to continue to have opposition, which does not surprise me because there has not been many positive options coming from the other side of the aisle. All we have is resistance. All we have is: No, we are not going to do that. This year I had the chance to go down to the nuclear storage site in New Mexico. We have spent billions of dollars there. We have moved only a very small amount into that storage spot. Idaho has not been able to use that at all. Currently over 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is being stored at 74 sites in 36 States. An additional 35,000 metric tons from weapons production and naval facilities increases the number of sites. I understand this legislation isn't what everybody would like to have, but the fact is that we need to do something. Passing this bill will start us moving in that direction. That is what we ought to do. The legislation drops interim storage, requires the Congress to approve increases in fees collected, sets a schedule for the development of a repository, authorizes backup storage for any spent fuels, and allows EPA to set radiation standards after June 1, 2001. It does a number of things on which we need to move further. It authorizes the settlement for outstanding litigation and sets an acceptance schedule for spent fuel. I know it is a difficult issue. I commend Chairman Murkowski and Senator Craig for all of their hard work. The Energy Committee, which has approached this several times, has done a number of things. Frankly, the time for delay is over. We are experiencing some of the same kind of resistance to doing something now in the INEEL situation in Idaho where we are looking very hard at some alternative to incineration. I have heard from the Vice President. He said he would look into it. I have heard from Mr. Frampton from the White House who said he would look into it. I have heard from the Secretary of Energy who promised to look into it, but nothing has happened. There is a limit to the amount of time we can continue to stall in making some decisions with regard to this nuclear issue. I urge support for this bill. I hope we can move forward with it today. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will begin debate on the nuclear waste disposal bill. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour remaining for debate to be equally divided between the two bill managers. Following that debate, the Senate will immediately vote on final passage of the bill. Therefore, Senators may expect the first vote at approximately 11 a.m. Following the vote, the Senate may begin consideration of any executive or legislative items cleared for action. Therefore, further votes may occur during today's session of the Senate. I thank the Chair.

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 review the President's proposed Fiscal Year 2001 Budget for the operation of the National Park Service system. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 29, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. 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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to comment a little. I suppose I might have a different view than what we heard in the last 35 minutes, about what a wonderful budget we have and that we can now return to the era of big government. Not everyone is happy about that, as we might have heard over the last few minutes. As we look realistically at these things, we have to look at a time that has been prosperous. It started in 1991, in fact. We moved forward. We have a surplus projected, largely because of the strong economy, of course. Also, it is a result, frankly, of a majority in this Congress that, since 1994, has held down spending. That is a little difficult for my friends to accept, of course, but we have now an opportunity to take a look at a relatively prosperous time. Certainly, we want to continue that. We want to take a look at the things that ought to be done for the people of the United States, using their tax money. We ought to take a look at how we strengthen education and return the opportunities to make the decisions about education to the local level rather than doing what the President wants to do, and that is to decide in Washington what each school district ought to have. We have quite a different philosophy on how we approach this, and that is reasonable. That is why we are here, to represent different views. The things we heard this morning would all represent the idea of more Government, more Government spending, more decisions made in Washington. That is a legitimate point of view. It is a point of view of many in the minority. It is not the point of view of most of us in the majority. So that is what we will be up to, over the next several months and, indeed, this year: deciding as best we can how to come together on these decisions. It was not long ago, you will recall, when President Clinton suggested in his State of the Union Address that the era of big government was over. That seems now not to be the issue at all. In fact, apparently the era of big government has returned. If this budget is put into place, that is exactly what we will see. Many think that is the greatest way to go. I think that is legitimate. So that is what the debates will be about. We have before us suggestions of substantial amounts of surplus. This is the first time in 25 years the budget has been balanced. That is largely because of some controls on spending. We have been increasing spending over the last couple of years, I think amply, but still in the level of about 3 percent. Prior to that time, in the early 1980s and the early 1990s, we were expanding as high as 12 percent. That has been reduced some, and that is part of it. Certainly the President's tax increase, back in 1994-1995, had some effect. Also, the tax reduction brought on by the Republicans helped stimulate the economy. We will have a lot of basic things about which to talk. This is a huge budget, $1.8 trillion. What is that, 1,800 billion dollars? We will have to talk about each of the areas in which that spending will take place. Basically, there are some philosophical things. If we think about where we are going with our Government and the decisions we will be making in elections--that is what politics is about, to set the direction of Government, and we will be doing that. We start with some basic things. We start with putting priorities on the role of the Federal Government and then funding those priorities. Again, not everyone will agree, but that needs to be done, it seems to me. There is no end to the way we can spend money. There are many programs on which we can spend it. I believe we can start by saying to ourselves: What are the legitimate functions of the Federal Government? What should the taxpayers' money be used for, and what are the priorities? When we come to some agreement on that and, in fact, have begun to fund those priorities adequately--I just came from a breakfast with the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Having been in the Marine Corps, I was happy to be there. The defense of this country is one of the real priorities, and certainly we need to fund the military adequately. We need to fund education. We need to fund health care. There are a number of things, perhaps, at which we ought to take a long look. The President has proposed 43, I believe--in the neighborhood of 40-- new programs. There is a surplus, he says, so let's spend the money. Fine, but let's take a look at the priorities and see, with respect to local governments, if this is where it ought to be done. Social Security: I do not think there is anyone who does not agree that Social Security is an issue that is a high priority. As I said yesterday, these young people who are starting to pay into that program will pay the largest percentage of their income for a longer time than they will pay in any other tax. Are they going to have benefits at the end of 40 or 50 years? The answer should be, yes, they will. To do that, we have to make some changes. There are no proposals in this budget to make any significant changes in Social Security, other than to take something out of the general fund, which is not a long-range proposal. We have some ideas how we can do that. The other thing we have to recognize, even though certainly it is a step in the right direction, is the idea of reducing the deficit with Social Security funds. We have to take a long look at that. It is a good idea, and we should put that Social Security money there as opposed to spending it in the general budget, but the fact is that we are replacing publicly held debt with some other debt that has to be repaid by the taxpayers when that Social Security is drawn out. It is less expensive as well, so it is a good idea, and it does get it out of the grasp of the Congress. What we ought to be doing, if we are serious about the debt, is instead of spending more, we ought to be saying: Let's take a certain amount of that money out of the operating funds, decide over a period of time we are going to pay off this debt, and do it as one does with a home mortgage--we are going to pay so much every year for 15 years; not Social Security money, but regular operating money. That Social Security money also needs to be taken out of our grasp, and we are hoping we can do that by having individual accounts where Social Security money belongs to the older person who paid into it, where those dollars, as a way of ensuring there will be benefits, can be invested in equities or bonds and will produce a higher return. It will also belong to the person. If they are unfortunate enough not to live to get all the benefits, it will go into their estate. These are the things we ought to be talking about, not spending $400 billion on new programs, not going through a State of the Union Message in which there is $4 billion a minute proposed. That is, I believe, a reckless budget, and I do not think that budget is going to move in this Congress without a considerable amount of change. There are, hopefully, some things on which we want to agree with the President. He wants to talk about strengthening the military. We ought to do that. We ought to do something to encourage recruiting, to encourage retention, and to provide what is necessary to carry out the missions of the military. We certainly should do that. We want to do some more things for schools based on the idea that it be given to the districts, that they can make the decisions as to how that is done, so we can strengthen education. We ought to be doing something about Medicare prescriptions. We have a program that can be done that keeps it in the private sector generally and allows those who have supplemental programs to continue to have them, perhaps supplement them with a tax reduction but not to do an overall health program, as the President tried before. That is not what we want to do. It is interesting that, of course, we have this great surge of enthusiasm over the idea of spending all the money we possibly can, but we ought to be thinking about taking a minimum amount of money from the taxpayers of this country to run the Government. It has to be paid. Everybody understands that. But when we do have things like surpluses over time--certainly we do not want to be reckless--but to call every tax reduction reckless is distressing. That money belongs to the people who paid into it. If we do not have something to limit these kinds of surpluses, the very thing will happen the President is talking about now, and that is, we will find a way to spend it. What we are looking for is a way to adequately finance the Government, to deal with those things that are high priorities for America, to do something about the national debt, to secure Social Security, and then return this money to where it came from so that it is not here, so it has an opportunity to be in the communities, to be in the towns, to be in the States, and to strengthen this economy. That is what keeps the economy going is people having money to invest and create jobs and these are the directions most important to us. I wanted to let everyone know there are certainly more directions we will take. There are different ideas, all legitimate, as to where we should go. I hope as we proceed, we have an idea of where we want to end up. I was reading ``Alice in Wonderland'' the other night. Remember when Alice fell down and she did not quite know where she was going. She ran into various people. She talked to the rabbit who did not have any ideas, except to promote himself, and the mushroom, who was very unpleasant, and the queen who was going to cut off everybody's head. Finally, she came to a juncture in the road, and there was the Cheshire Cat sitting in a tree. She said: Mr. Cat, what road should I take? He said: Where do you want to go? Alice said: I don't know. The cat said: It doesn't make any difference then, you take whatever road you choose. We need to know where we want to be when we look at this budget, what it has to do with principles of government, the principles of smaller government, the principles of adequate government, and then try to avoid the idea that there are some bucks out there. So let's try to find a way to spend them. I suspect that is what we will hear a great deal about in this session. Unfortunately, I believe we will hear more about issues that can be used politically than we will about trying to solve problems. There are some we have identified and with which we agree. We need to come together and find some solutions to those particular issues. The country will be much better off. I thank the Chair for the time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.