Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to fully support the remarks of my colleague from Colorado. The wool fiber industry in my state is critical to our overall state economy,

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Idaho. Certainly, this is one of the issues that is contentious and will, I suppose, be debated some more. I agree with the notion we need to do something more than passing more laws. It has no evidence of success.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, one of the bills currently being considered, and is very important to the West particularly, is the Interior funding bill, the bill that funds the Interior Department, national parks, the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and others. It is relatively small compared to others. It is around $13 billion, $14 billion. I never thought I would suggest that is small, but compared to $360 billion it is relatively small. It has been tied up for a number of reasons. It has to do with the so-called land legacy the administration has been pushing recently, the idea of purchasing a great amount of land that has something to do with S. 25 that will bring in dollars from the Outer Continental Shelf royalties to be used in this area. The controversy is over the purchase of additional lands. There are some good things about S. 25--taking some more money from oil royalties and using them for parks. I am chairman of the Parks Subcommittee, and I met this morning with the new advisory committee that will be focusing on concessions. The parks are more and more in demand, more and more people are coming to them, and more and more people are taking advantage of the parks, one of the legacies of this country. We are having problems with the upkeep of the infrastructure that must be done to preserve historic and natural values. I support that. The park system, of course, has to be part of another section of parks, and that is local and State parks. National parks are not designed to provide all the services that people need. In communities, these are local responsibilities. Ball parks, for example, are put in by State and local parks. So they, too, need additional funding. One of the interesting areas, particularly those in the West where they do a great deal of wild game hunting, is a thing called teaming for wildlife. In our State, for example, the funds that go to the game and fish department come from the purchase of licenses for game animals. They spend a great deal of their time dealing with animals that are not game animals that are threatened, endangered. The problem, however, is the administration insists on having $1 billion a year to spend as they choose to buy land. This week, we had a hearing on the Forest Service setting aside 40 million acres by fiat, by administrative decree, to be used for de facto wilderness, if they choose, when under the law clearly to set aside land of that kind is the responsibility of the Congress. We are having increasing difficulty with that. I do not know whether it is driven by the President's desire to have a legacy, to be a latter century Theodore Roosevelt, or whether it is the environmental aspect of the Gore campaign. The fact is, the White House is not a monarchy; it does not decide to do these things individually. There has to be a cooperative arrangement with the Congress, whether it is purchasing or whether it is assigning different designations to land. That is the way it is, and it needs to be preserved in that fashion, in my judgment. We need to move forward with the Interior bill. It is one of about three bills that remains out of the 13, which is kind of surprising because it is one upon which most people here agree. There are a couple of things in it that are being used which I think are not realistic. One has to do with permits for grazing on Forest Service lands. Ranchers in the West--they have their base lands, of course--use grazing so we can have multiple use of public lands and forests, have grazing leases. In order to renew those leases, there needs to be a study. No one argues with the idea there needs to be a study. Unfortunately, they have not been able to keep up with the number of studies that need to be made, and so the study is not made before the permit expires and the Federal Government says: That's too bad, you're out of luck; take your cows and go home--when it has nothing to do with the permittee having not gotten the job done. What this amendment to the Interior bill says is the permit will be renewed for a period of time until this study can be made. If the study is made and there have to be changes, then there can be changes. That is held up somehow by the White House, and they are making a big thing and separating that out. The other is on oil royalties. We worked a long time trying to get fairness in oil royalties, taking out some of the charges and costs before the Government takes over, and percentage of royalties. We have not come to an agreement. This simply says, let's set it aside until the Congress and the executive department can come together. Again, not a willingness to work in a team fashion. I am hopeful we can get by those kinds of things this week. We are aiming to get out of here in 3 days, in fact. The fact is, it is possible. There are really only about three bills that need to be determined. Everyone knows what changes need to be focused on, what kind of concessions need to be made on both sides to make this happen. Usually, as we come down to the end, it is amazing how quickly some things can be done as opposed to when they just stretch out in the future. So our goals are to have no Government shutdown--certainly that is the Republican position for the rest of this year--we are settled on not having any new taxes to finance this year's new programs--we certainly have an adequate amount of money--and we are committed to paying down the publicly held debt and to protecting the Social Security surplus. These are the kinds of things I think everyone can agree upon if we can get to it this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I have to imagine how different the needs of the school district in Wyoming are compared to Philadelphia. I certainly subscribe to the idea we ought to help with the resources, but let the local school districts decide for themselves what it is they need. The basic class size in Wyoming happens to be less than 18. I am very pleased to have on the floor of the Senate the Senator from Idaho, another western Senator, who is also chairman of our policy committee. I yield as much time as he desires.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me first thank my friend from New Hampshire for coming down. We have morning business now for 2 hours, and we intend to talk about some of the issues before us during this first hour. I am going to at some point--and I hope the Senator will also--talk a little bit about some of the things we have accomplished this year. I understand the media is always interested in the conflicts and where we have controversy. And that is fine. But they do not always talk about the things we have accomplished, the things we have done with the budget, the fact we have spent less in growth this year than we have for a number of years, the fact that we are setting aside Social Security and have proposals out there to strengthen Social Security. We have done a lot for education; indeed, authorized more money to be spent than the administration asked for and allowed for it to be spent on the local level. These are things that are terribly important. Defense is probably the singular most important thing the Federal Government has to assume. The expenditures of defense have gone down ever since the gulf war. This year we have raised them because in order to fill out the mission the military has, there must be more resources to be able to encourage people to come into the military and to stay there. We have talked about tax relief, and, indeed, sent to the President a bill which would have given tax relief to all citizens of this country in various ways rather than spending it. Unfortunately, it was vetoed. We will be back with tax relief. When we have an excess amount of money, that is where it ought to go, back to the people who have paid it. In health care, we have done some things and intend to do more before the week is over; and bankruptcy. I wish to say I hope before we finish we can put some emphasis on the positive things that we have done for the good of this country. I yield to my good friend from New Hampshire, who has done a superb job on the appropriations bills, and continues to do so, whatever time he may consume.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Today, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the bankruptcy reform legislation. By a previous consent agreement, the minority leader, or his designee, will be recognized at 3 p.m. to offer an amendment relative to minimum wage, which will then be set aside so that the majority leader, or his designee, can be recognized to offer an amendment relative to business costs. Votes on these amendments have been set to occur at 10:30 on Tuesday. The leader has announced there will be at least one vote at 5:30 p.m. today in relation to the bankruptcy bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, under rule XXII, I yield my hour to the majority manager of the bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. What is the order of business, Mr. President?

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes and talk about some of the things we are doing. Obviously, we are heading toward the end of this session. There is speculation as to when we will conclude our work. Of course, before that is done, clearly the most important thing before us is the appropriations process, funding the Government, and we will do that. I had the opportunity this weekend to spend some time in my home State. I can always pick up things about which people feel strongly. They want to see the budget signed. There are differences of view as to what that budget should contain--legitimately, of course. Most of the people in my State--and I certainly believe they are well informed because I agree with them--think we ought to hold down the size of the budget because that is how we really put some limits on Government. That does not mean we do not fund the things that are essential. Certainly we will not always have unanimity on what people perceive as being essential, and that is what it is all about. People do want the budget signed. They do not want the Government to shut down, nor does anyone here, and I hope not the President. He has indicated he does not. We have about five bills to complete and get signed. I am optimistic about it. We will conclude our work without a shutdown. We will conclude our work without spending Social Security dollars, which was the commitment we made. Out of the surplus this year--a surplus, frankly, for the second time in 25 years--we will only spend that money when it comes in the operational budget and not the budget of Social Security. More important, not only will we not spend Social Security money, but we also have a plan to strengthen Social Security for the future. To save Social Security is not enough. We must do that, of course. The other thing I have heard--and I already mentioned it--is hold down the size of Government; we do not want the Federal Government to continue to grow and to be the dominating factor in people's lives. Indeed, there are essential elements of the Federal Government, but the strength lies in the communities, States, and counties of this country. The more decisionmaking that takes place there, it seems to me the stronger we will be and the closer we will be to the governed making the decisions, and the better off we will be. We will do well. We will have to make some adjustments. One of them may well be an across-the-board cut of 1 percent. I happen to favor that idea. We are talking about a discretionary budget of about $595 billion. That is out of a total of about $1.7 trillion, the rest being mandatory. We are talking about actually below 1 percent, a .97-percent across-the-board cut, which is about $3.5 billion. That will bring us down to $592 billion. I cannot imagine that agencies with a budget of $15 billion or $260 billion are unable to find 1 percent that can be reduced. Generally, through things that are not terribly important or some even considered to be wasteful spending, they can find 1 percent. In any event, I am very confident that can be done. Some say it will require the military to lay off. The fact is, after 1 percent, it would still be a substantial increase over last year and over the President's request for the military budget. We are closing in on getting that job done. Certainly it is the compelling task before us. It reminds me of one of the things I believe we ought to consider, and that is a biennial budget, so we can do this business of budgeting and allocating resources every other year, which has the advantage of giving agencies and the Federal Government a better opportunity of knowing what they will be doing for a longer period of time. But more important, it provides an opportunity for 1 year to do budgeting and appropriations and 1 year for oversight which, in my view, is equally important. It is important for the Congress to have oversight of the expenditures and to ensure these expenditures are implementing policies that have been passed by the Congress. Most States do biennial budgeting and find it very useful, very satisfactory, and successful. I suspect there will be resistance, of course, from those involved in the appropriations process because it will eliminate 1 year in which they have perhaps extraordinary authority in the direction we will take. Nevertheless, I hope this idea is favored by the chairman of the Budget Committee and by the leader of the Senate majority. That is something we ought to consider. As we talk to people at home, we ought to talk a little bit about the accomplishments of this Congress. I believe it has been extraordinary. It is a little difficult to keep up with it through the media's description of what we do; they don't like to talk about anything unless it is sensational; and also opportunities to communicate are very difficult. One of them is the budget. We have a surplus--the first time in 42 years. Two years in a row, we have had a surplus. Part of that, obviously, is we have more revenue coming in and a strong economy. But equally as important--perhaps more important--is the balanced budget amendments that were passed 3 years ago that have kept down spending. At the end of the seventies and through the eighties, into the nineties, growth each year was in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 percent. In this year, it is just over 2 percent. Is it where we want to be? No. For many of us, it is not. Nevertheless, it is progress. We even have had, of course, a non-Social Security surplus. Instead of spending at 10 percent, which we did in the early eighties, we are spending at 2.8-percent growth. That is pretty good. Spending as a percent of gross national product has fallen during the nineties. Unfortunately, largely because of the President's tax bill in 1995, the percentage of taxes with respect to the gross national product has increased, the highest since World War II. Of course, we tried to do something about that. We passed a bill that would have been a reduction in taxes, but, unfortunately, the President vetoed it. I mentioned Social Security and that we have to do more than simply talk about it. We can do that. Two years ago, President Clinton urged us to save Social Security first. Unfortunately, he has done very little since then, but there have been a number of things done here. Republicans have worked hard in seeking passage of a Social Security lockbox. Unfortunately, it has been filibustered on the other side of the aisle. One of the most fundamental changes I hope will be considered next year and passed is the notion of having private accounts where people who are closer to the retirement benefit age will continue as they are. But people 25, 35, and 40 years old will have the opportunity to take the dollars they have contributed to Social Security and put them in a personal account, directly invested in equities, directed by the owner through an investment program, that will have several benefits. One, it would belong to the taxpayer. If, unfortunately, you were not able to utilize it before you passed away, it would be part of your estate. The second is, the return on the investment would be more substantially invested in equities than it would be invested as it is now in Government securities. That is the real direction we need to take. Tax relief, of course, will be back again. It continues to be an issue. When you have taxpayers who are paying more into the Federal Government than is necessary to sustain the essential elements of the Government, then the money ought to be returned. It has been said--and it is probably true--that if dollars remain in Washington, they have a way of getting spent. So we ought to give some relief to taxpayers. I was out last summer, in August, talking about the tax relief bill, and people sort of rolled their eyes about it because they had heard that before. But when you talked about the elements of it, they became very interested and supportive of it. Estate taxes: For example, we have a lot of agriculture in Wyoming. Many agriculturists have almost all of their life's earnings in property, not in yearly income but in the estate they build up in that farm or ranch. Currently, they could lose nearly half of that through estate taxes. We would like to do away with those over a period of time. Capital gains: More and more people are investing money in the market and seeking to take care of themselves for their old age security or to supplement their Social Security. We need to encourage that. One way to do that is to reduce the tax on capital gains. The marriage penalty: Almost everyone would agree to the fact that a marriage penalty is very unfair, where two young people who are single at a certain wage level pay a certain amount of tax, but if they get married, they pay a higher amount of tax. That is not fair. We sought to change that. Unfortunately, as I said, that was vetoed. Nevertheless, I consider it to be an accomplishment for the Republican Senate because it sets the groundwork to move forward in another year. Education: This budget we are talking about contains more for education than the President requested. He is arguing about that. The big argument is not the amount of money. The argument is because the President wants to dictate, to stipulate where the money goes--in this case for 100,000 teachers. We think it makes much more sense to be more flexible. If you have the money, send it to the States, send it to the school districts, and let those folks decide where it is most efficient to invest the money. I have a strong belief that the needs in Greybull, WY, are quite different than they are in Pittsburgh. We ought to be able to adjust for that. I believe what we have done, in the case of education with Ed-Flex, is given local people more flexibility. So there is additional money in this budget for education. We had money in our tax bill to encourage education, as well. I am pretty pleased about that. National security: We have added $17 billion for the defense of this country. Probably, if you had to select the item and the issue that the National Government is most responsible for--the Federal Government--it is defense. No one else, of course, can participate as fully in the defense of our country as the Federal Government. Unfortunately, we have had more troop deployments over the last couple years than we have had in 50 years. But the administration has requested funds that would cause military readiness to go down. We have been in Haiti, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and a number of other places, which has been very expensive. We have found ourselves in the situation, with voluntary Armed Forces, where it is difficult to recruit people to come into the military. Probably the more difficult thing is to retain those people in the military who have been trained to be pilots or mechanics, or whatever, who can find, of course, much better jobs somewhere else. Health care: Clearly, health care is a vital interest to all of us. Again, folks in Wyoming are interested in that, in particular, because the changes that have been made over the last couple of years have affected rural areas probably to more of an extreme than nonrural areas. We are moving, of course, into an era where very small hospitals find it most difficult. We have some towns in our State with hospitals that have an average occupancy of one or two acute-care beds. That is very difficult. And there are shifts taking place. We have changed the definition of ``hospital'' so that HCFA, the funding agency, can fund hospitals that have less than full services, even emergency rooms, to move those patients off to somewhere else. We passed the Patients' Bill of Rights. I hope one of the things that will happen before we leave is some change in the balanced budget amendment on Medicare. That will probably be an additional $15 billion over 10 years, to take away what we think were the overcuts that have been made by the agency that pays it out. So we will be moving forward on that. Financial modernization: I think for the first time since the 1930s the whole financial picture has changed somewhat. That bill is prepared to come to the floor. We closed the deal last week. We have been trying for 10 years--and finally got that done--to change the regulations that were put in place during the Depression times to fit what is necessary now. So we have accomplished a great deal in the budget: Social Security, education, defense, tax relief, health care, and now a banking bill-- all things that are good for America--but yet without letting the Federal Government grow out of control. It is legitimate to have different views, and we ought to have an exchange of views. There are different views everywhere. One of the basic differences here has to do, frankly, with the size and involvement of the Federal Government; it has to do with spending. The liberals, of course, want to have more taxes, more spending, put the Federal Government into more things, override the States because they think that is a better way to do it. It is a legitimate point of view. I do not agree with it. We ought to try to limit those things that can best and must be done by the Federal Government. Do we raise money to do it? Of course. But after that we ought to let that be done closer to the people. Those are the real issues. Sometimes they do not show up. We get to talking about details, but the basic philosophy is there and it is legitimate and we need to work at it. I hope we can move forward. I think we have completed a good amount of work this year. We have some more to do. We have probably less than 2 weeks to do it. So I hope we move forward. I now yield whatever time he might consume to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho, the chairman of the majority policy committee.

Mr. THOMAS. How much time remains?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it has been an interesting morning to listen to the Senator from North Dakota talk a little bit about the economy and about spending. There are interesting figures in terms of growth. I do not happen to have one of the charts. I guess it is getting to be where you have to have a chart to speak, but I hope not. Let's go back to the second half of the 1970s, when we had a Democrat-controlled Government. All spending grew 12.2 percent annually; nondefense discretionary spending grew 15 percent. In the first half of the 1980s, all spending grew 10 percent, but nondefense discretionary spending was only 2.8 percent. Defense was where the money went--10 percent. Then we scoot on down to currently. All spending grew in the second half of the 1990s, with this Republican-controlled Congress, 2.8 percent totally; nondefense discretionary spending was 1.4 percent. If our goal over time is to control the size of Federal Government, if our goal is to be efficient, if our goal is to control spending, then these are the numbers; these are the figures. Really, spending is the key. Of course, our friend on the other side of the aisle talked about having the largest tax increase in the history of the United States-- which was true in 1993 with the Clinton tax increase. But what we really ought to talk about is the size of Government. There is a great deal of talk about going into Social Security. Let me read this short letter dated September 30 from the Congressional Budget Office. Dear Mr. Speaker: You requested that we estimate the impact of the fiscal 2000 Social Security surplus using CBO's economic and technical assumptions, based on a plan whereby net discretionary outlays for the year will be $592 billion. That is the cap we put there. CBO estimates this spending plan will not use any of the projected Social Security surplus for the year 2000. We keep talking about that differently. That is the way that is. So one of the things that is interesting--I will not take long today, but we have differences of view here. We have differences of view in the country. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what the political system is about: To bring together people who have different views about attaining goals, even, indeed, different views about goals. So we ought to have legitimate arguments. That is what this system is about. But we ought not to spin it off into things that we are not really able to document. We ought not to spin it off into motives and different kinds of political things. We ought to talk about the basic differences we have, and then decide whether we want more Federal Government or less; decide whether we want to spend more, send more of the decisions back to the State and local governments as opposed to one size fits all on the national level. These are the real issues. Mr. President, we ought to be talking about some of the positive things we have done this year. Surplus: 2 years in a row with no deficit, for the first time in 42 years. Pretty good stuff. We even have a non-Social Security surplus this year. We reduced Federal spending as a percentage of growth. Unfortunately, we still have taxes as the highest percentage of gross national product we have had since World War II. Those things are hard to reconcile. Growth now is a little over 2 percent, compared to 10 percent in the early 1980s. So these are the kinds of things we have done. We passed tax relief here. Unfortunately, the President chose to veto it. Our budget goals, of course, for the rest of the year are: No Government shutdown; no new taxes; pay down the debt; protect Social Security. We are going to do those things. We are going to do it in the next 10 days. Social Security: We talked a lot over the last few years about ``save Social Security first,'' but we have a plan to do that with individual accounts, taking the money off the table and letting it belong to the people who have paid it in, to earn additional money by having it invested in equities. Those are the things we are prepared to do and have done. Education: We have done a lot this year for education. We have increased spending for education, more than the President asked for. We have more flexibility in educational decisions so that parents and school boards and States can make those decisions. I can tell you what is needed in Greybull, WY, is quite different than what is needed in Pittsburgh. And that is the way it ought to be. We have done that. We have done a number of things. National security: For the first time, more money is going to defense than we have had before. We have had more deployments over the last few years in foreign countries than ever, and yet this administration has reduced the dollars that go there. We have changed that. Health care, the Patients' Bill of Rights: We passed it here. Hopefully, we will get it passed. A balanced budget on Medicare changes: We are working on that. Rural provisions in Medicare: We will get that done. Financial modernization is ready to come to the floor for the first time since the 1930s. We have a lot of things to talk about and be proud of in this session. I am very pleased we have done it. Despite the partisan rhetoric and the tactics, we have had achievements in the budget, in Social Security, in education, in defense, in tax relief, health care, and in finance and banking. I think we ought to move forward and make the most of those advantages that we have had. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of Wyoming's native sons, former Wyoming Governor and United States Senator Cliff Hansen. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Enzi is joining me in sponsoring legislation to name the federal courthouse in Jackson, Wyoming, as the ``Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse.'' Wyoming has enjoyed a long history of outstanding leaders and strong individuals. These men and women have sought the best for our small towns with big expectations and in turn have exemplified what it really means to be a leader in their communities. Senator Cliff Hansen stands with the other Wyoming statesmen that have helped make our state so special and her citizens proud. Today I join my colleagues and Wyoming people to honor him by designating the Jackson, Wyoming, federal courthouse in his name. Cliff Hansen's career is well known and he has been a fixture of public service in Wyoming and the United States for more than 40 years. Beginning with the local school board, to Teton County Commissioner, the statehouse in Cheyenne as Wyoming's 26th Governor, and finally here as a distinguished member of the U.S. Senate. Senator Cliff Hansen was so well regarded, his leadership so clear, that President Reagan asked him to be Secretary of the Interior not once, but twice. With his experience and expertise gained from working on issues involving public lands and the environment there is no doubt he would have done an excellent job had he chosen to accept. His has been a remarkable career with a distinguished record. Cliff Hansen and his wife Martha recently celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary. What an incredible accomplishment--one of many for this singular Wyoming family that continues to play a significant role in the Jackson Hole community in which they live. With their children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren--the Hansen family is a colorful part of the fabric that makes Jackson and the surrounding areas unique. Cliff Hansen resides and enjoys life in Jackson, Wyoming under the immense shadow of the famed Grand Tetons. Like the Grand, he stands tall in that close community--dignified, multifaceted and solid in his grounding. Our goal as fellow public servants should be to aspire to climb to the same personal heights. Senator Hansen is a man who embodies a mix of justice and compassion. That's a combination we need always to strive for. He is a leader, quick to care, astutely understanding and finding the best solutions to fit the need. Gracing the Federal Courthouse in his hometown with his name--considering that great legacy--is an appropriate symbol for what he has always worked for and achieved. I join other Wyoming people who consider Governor, Senator, Cliff Hansen a worthy citizen. An honorable gentleman who continues to live up to the special significance I hope this act will bestow.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of Wyoming's native sons, former Wyoming Governor and United States Senator Cliff Hansen. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Enzi is joining me in sponsoring legislation to name the federal courthouse in Jackson, Wyoming, as the ``Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse.'' Wyoming has enjoyed a long history of outstanding leaders and strong individuals. These men and women have sought the best for our small towns with big expectations and in turn have exemplified what it really means to be a leader in their communities. Senator Cliff Hansen stands with the other Wyoming statesmen that have helped make our state so special and her citizens proud. Today I join my colleagues and Wyoming people to honor him by designating the Jackson, Wyoming, federal courthouse in his name. Cliff Hansen's career is well known and he has been a fixture of public service in Wyoming and the United States for more than 40 years. Beginning with the local school board, to Teton County Commissioner, the statehouse in Cheyenne as Wyoming's 26th Governor, and finally here as a distinguished member of the U.S. Senate. Senator Cliff Hansen was so well regarded, his leadership so clear, that President Reagan asked him to be Secretary of the Interior not once, but twice. With his experience and expertise gained from working on issues involving public lands and the environment there is no doubt he would have done an excellent job had he chosen to accept. His has been a remarkable career with a distinguished record. Cliff Hansen and his wife Martha recently celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary. What an incredible accomplishment--one of many for this singular Wyoming family that continues to play a significant role in the Jackson Hole community in which they live. With their children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren--the Hansen family is a colorful part of the fabric that makes Jackson and the surrounding areas unique. Cliff Hansen resides and enjoys life in Jackson, Wyoming under the immense shadow of the famed Grand Tetons. Like the Grand, he stands tall in that close community--dignified, multifaceted and solid in his grounding. Our goal as fellow public servants should be to aspire to climb to the same personal heights. Senator Hansen is a man who embodies a mix of justice and compassion. That's a combination we need always to strive for. He is a leader, quick to care, astutely understanding and finding the best solutions to fit the need. Gracing the Federal Courthouse in his hometown with his name--considering that great legacy--is an appropriate symbol for what he has always worked for and achieved. I join other Wyoming people who consider Governor, Senator, Cliff Hansen a worthy citizen. An honorable gentleman who continues to live up to the special significance I hope this act will bestow.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, several speakers were intending to be here to talk in morning business. With the untimely death of our friend John Chafee, I think this time is going to be reserved for Members who wish to talk about the Senator and his life. I would like to do that for a moment. I have had the opportunity, for my time in the Congress, to serve with John Chafee on the committee of which he has been chair. I had the opportunity to become acquainted with certainly one of the most outstanding Senators who has ever been in the Senate. I will not go back over all the things our friends have already said. But each of us, I suppose, has a little different memory, a little different feeling. John Chafee certainly epitomized the meaning of public service, from leaving college and going into the Marine Corps in World War II, to serving again in Korea, to serving his State as a legislator, as Governor, serving the country as Secretary of the Navy, and serving four terms in the Senate, devoting his life to public service and doing it in such a way that he will always be remembered. Senator Chafee was dedicated, of course, to this country. He cherished freedom and risked his life and sacrificed for the freedom you and I enjoy. So it is hard to lose a friend of that kind. John Chafee and I didn't always agree on the issues. He came from quite a different world than I--he was from Rhode Island, and I am from Wyoming--in terms of many of the issues, but we were always able to talk about them. John Chafee came to Wyoming at my request to take a look at endangered species, and he drove out into the wilderness to look. He rode around a ranch. He and a friend of mine got in a pickup, and he looked at a different world than he was accustomed to--because of his service, because of his friendship. So, certainly, no one personifies more that feeling. Nobody was more gentlemanly and more friendly than John Chafee. In terms of service on this floor and in terms of cooperation, we worked through a number of things, such as highway bills, endangered species bills, and EPA things, which are contentious. But John Chafee would always listen. John had wisdom to share and was willing to share it. So I am sure we all feel the tremendous loss of this Senate leader, one of the best in America. I am sure many of us will come to the floor to share their views and feelings. Senator Chafee represented the best of this country in many ways. His leadership, statesmanship, and abilities will be sorely missed, not only in Rhode Island but nationally. We all send our very best and our prayers to his family. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor this morning and talk a little bit about where we are in the Senate, at least in my view, and where we are going. We are, of course, nearing the end of this session. Nobody knows precisely or exactly when we will be out of here, but it won't be long. We have to take a strong look, in my view, at what we have to do, and the things that are necessary to do. There are, of course, certain things that are required. At this time of year, Congress maybe hasn't finished its annual ritual, but the fact is we have done a great deal. I am pleased with that. But we must, of course, finish the appropriations. The continuing resolution expires this week, but hopefully we will have the appropriations to the President. We will see what happens from there. In addition to that, of course, I am very hopeful that at least one other issue will be undertaken, and that is to do something about the balanced budget amendment and the Medicare restrictions that are in place. You might recall that Congress asked for some reduction in the cost of Medicare over a period of time to ensure a firming up in the fact that these dollars are being used as they should be. Unfortunately, the administration has reduced that spending almost twice what was anticipated and, therefore, I think it will be necessary for us to go back and do some things for all of Medicare and particularly, I might say, for rural areas and small hospitals in areas such as in Wyoming. I think we have allowed ourselves to become a little bit off track. We have gotten involved in lengthy discussions of issues that are probably not particularly timely nor, indeed, perhaps even particularly appropriate, issues that did not need to be or were not ready to be discussed and debated this year and could well have been put off until another year. But, nevertheless, they have been discussed, and we are, in fact, still involved in some of those--the nuclear test ban treaty of course, being one of them. Now we are on campaign finance. There have been extended debates brought about by the insistence of Members on the floor. We have also had a number of filibusters and threatened filibusters from the other side of the aisle in order to control what was occurring on the floor. I haven't been here as long as have many Members of the Senate, but I can tell you I don't think that in the time I have been here I have seen such a contentious and combative situation. It is the most controversial session I believe--perhaps the most uncooperative--in terms of coming to terms with the things we need to do. Our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, of course, have brought issues to the floor, and we have had a number of filibusters and threatened filibusters. I guess the most interesting was the latest nuclear test ban treaty debate in which there was an insistence that we come on the floor with it, and then there was a cry of foul when it came up. That was a somewhat interesting and difficult issue. We have had Members forcing issues to the floor that have had little or no support, but yet under the rules of the Senate they are entitled to be discussed and discussed for a length of time. In fact, we have had the feeling we are becoming too oriented toward accomplishing things. But, again, that is one point of view. It seems to me we find the President now in the most political posture that I recall a President being in, criticizing the Senate for doing the things that we have a constitutional responsibility to do-- treaties. We have the advise and consent responsibility on all treaties. That is in the Constitution. The same is true regarding nominees. That is our responsibility. I believe we have the right to do the things that we believe are right without being criticized. At every opportunity, the President is calling everything a political vote. I find that paradoxical. There were allegations of racial voting on nominees for the Judiciary. I for one--and I know many others--did not even know the race of the person being voted upon. The White House, trying to use many of these votes to breathe some life into a lame-duck President, makes it very difficult. We still have a responsibility. We have things to do. We have things to complete. We find ourselves in a confrontation, with the President threatening to disapprove appropriations. He has that right, as well. However, we ought to come together. We ought to talk about it. We ought to decide what we are going to do. We know we will fund the Government. We know we will go forward. I don't think anyone genuinely wants to shut down the Government. However, we are faced with that possibility. It worked out so well politically for the President a couple of years ago; he shut down the Government and we got the blame. I hope we don't use that technique again. It is a fairly simple thing. It is very difficult, but we have a commitment to have a certain amount of spending--about $592 billion worth of spending--outside the mandatory appropriations. We have to make agreements to stay within that commitment. We are dedicated to the idea of not spending more than that because we have to go into Social Security. As difficult as it may be, that is the goal. That is the bottom line. We simply have to make the adjustments that are necessary to do that. I think that is reasonable and certainly not impossible. Aside from that, it seems to me we have had a good year. We started this year as the majority party saying we were committed to ensuring a sound Social Security retirement system. We said we were here to help improve educational opportunities for our children, to expand economic opportunities for all Americans, to provide a strengthening of our national security to protect our freedoms. Those were the four things we set about to do. I believe the leadership and the Members have called for that. Despite all the talk and concern about education in the appropriations, the Republican proposal has $537 million more than the President requested. We have passed a bill that increases flexibility and opportunity for the States, the local school boards, and the parents to make the necessary decisions in their school districts. The school districts in Basin, WY, have different needs than in Philadelphia, PA. To the extent the Federal Government has a role-- which represents, by the way, about 7 percent of total educational spending; not a huge amount --that money should be able to be spent the way the people wish to spend it. They, after all, are responsible for the education of their children. In our tax bill, which the President vetoed, there were several educational propositions, educational savings accounts, and student loan programs available, as well. Of course, the President vetoed those bills. We have done a great deal in education. I think it is something of which we should be proud. Everyone talks about Social Security. It is one of our most important issues. Everyone who has worked for a wage or worked in their own business has paid into Social Security. Our commitment is to have Social Security available not only for those who are now beneficiaries but, indeed, for those young people who have just begun to work. There has been a great deal of discussion. The President talked about saving Social Security, but, frankly, has put nothing forward. We have done a couple of things. One is to have a Social Security lockbox to ensure we will not spend the Social Security money, and that will be a test of this budget. The other is to propose that we have the kind of Social Security program so at least a portion of those funds can be put into an individual account that belongs to the person who has been putting in the money. It can be invested directly in equities in the private sector to increase the return. I am pleased with that. We have increased military spending by about $17 billion. It has gone down over the last several years despite the fact that the world is not safe. Tax relief: We spent a great deal of time working on opportunities for all Americans to save some of the money they pay to taxes through marriage penalties, through estate tax reduction, capital gains reduction, and general reductions in rates. The President vetoed that because he wants to spend more money. In health care, we have a Patients' Bill of Rights that I think is excellent. We also have committed ourselves to do something on the balanced budget. These are the things on which we have made a great deal of progress. In addition, we recently had the test ban on nuclear testing. In a press conference last week, the President tried to deflect criticism about the lack of leadership he provided and the fact that not even a majority of this Senate supported it on a final vote by blaming it all on partisan politics, accusing the Republicans of making the world a more dangerous place. Acting against the national interest? Nonsense. Let me give some canards. Neither the United States nor the Senate have changed their views on nuclear testing. I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and Japan. We are not going to start testing; we have not changed our position. We have no plan to test. Our policies in that regard are exactly the same as they were before the vote. All we were saying in the vote was, this is not the treaty at this time, with these shortcomings. The President tried to blame the Republicans for being in a partisan mode. The President should look at his own party. Democrats demanded we have a vote on this treaty or they would filibuster all action on the Senate floor. On September 18, the Senator from North Dakota said: I intend to plant myself on the floor like a potted plant and object. I intend to object to other routine business of the Senate until the majority leader brings this treaty to the floor for debate and vote. I don't run this place, but those who do should know this is going to be a rough place to run if you do not decide to bring this issue to a vote. We brought it to a vote and apparently they got exactly what they demanded--a debate and vote. Before the President blames the Republicans, he ought to take a look at the Congressional Record. The vote was not a vote against national security. In an attempt to frighten people, the President accused those who opposed it of threatening the national security, that no thinking person could possibly oppose it. Let me list for the Senate some of the people whom the President dismissed: Henry Kissinger, six former Secretaries of Defense, four former CIA Chiefs, former Federal weapons lab Directors, two former Chiefs of Staff, the President's own head of Strategic Command at the time the treaty was negotiated, three former National Security Advisers. It goes on and on. This idea of isolationism is ridiculous. The idea of maintaining the U.S. military strength is not. That, in the view of many, gives the best opportunity for security. Now we are involved, of course, in this question of campaign finance. It is a legitimate issue, a good issue. We have been into it before. We passed bills in the 1970s. We passed bills in the 1980s. It has not changed an awful lot. Some people suggest it has been blown completely out of hand. I suggest it is probably not true. The expenditures in the average congressional district have gone up about 3.6 percent a year since 1986. That is hardly runaway. It amounts to about $1 per voter in most congressional districts. But I believe--and, for myself, I think there is some consensus in the Senate--it is an important issue. I have said, and I continue to say, I support some changes. I would like to see more disclosure. It seems to me that is the most important thing. If there is going to be money--and, indeed, there has to be money--if people are to understand the issues and have a chance to speak out, to have the freedom of speech, to have the opportunity to participate, it has to be open. But I think there should be disclosure. There should be disclosure right up until the end of the election, and we can do that. We should enforce the laws already on the books, as is the case with many other matters of enforcement. I think we have to protect the constitutional rights of individuals to participate. I would support some limit on soft money. I do not know how, constitutionally, that would be accepted by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, I would set some limit and support that. But I would not support doing away with it. I would not support eliminating it. I would not support the bill as it is proposed now. We can contribute to the integrity of the process and help return more confidence to it. I have thought about this a lot. People who support Members, or people who are running, do so because of what they believe. They do not change their beliefs because they received some support. As you look around for whom you are going to support in the election, you support the person whose beliefs are similar to yours. I support things in my State--I suppose some people call them special interests--because they are important to my State. Those are the industries at which most people in my State work. Those are the kinds of industries that we need to have a vibrant economy. Of course I support those, not because of some contribution. In summary, I wish we were in a little different situation in our relationship on both sides of this aisle and in our relationship with the White House, so we could really look at some issues, come out with what seems best to us as a group, and move forward. On the other hand, I am very pleased with many of the things we have done. I can tell you, most people in my State, when we talk about doing all these things, have a limit in their minds as to what the Congress ought to be doing, what is the role of the Federal Government. It is not up to the Congress to solve every problem. On the contrary, we are better off to push more and more of that government closer to the people, where they can make the decisions, not the one-size-fits-all kind of thing some people here would like to have. We are ready to move on and finish up. I look forward to it. I hope we can conclude our work and do the best things for the country. 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 Tuesday, October 19, 1999 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, October 21, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Cassie Sheldon of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969. committee on indian affairs

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues Senator Johnson, Senator Grassley and Senator Kerrey in introducing the ``Rural America Needs Competition to Help Every Rancher Act of 1999'' (RANCHER). Additional regulation of meat packing companies has become necessary because of a loophole my colleagues and I have long been concerned about: the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 does not clearly and definitively address meat packers owning livestock for slaughter. This legislation will prohibit meat packing companies from owning and feeding livestock, with the exception of producer-owned cooperatives defined by the majority of ownership interest in the cooperative being held by co-cop members that own, feed, or control livestock and provide those livestock to the co-op. An exemption for cooperatives is included as recognition and reward to those producers who have invested the resources necessary to enhance their market edge. In placing a prohibition on meat packing companies, our efforts today will be branded as anti-competitive and in support of ``big government,'' versus the ``free market.'' However, our intentions are precisely the opposite--we are introducing this legislation with goal of restoring competition to our livestock markets. In fact, this legislation is long overdue. In recent years, livestock markets have become increasingly more concentrated, leaving individual producers with fewer options for selling their products. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the four top meat packing firms control roughly 80 percent of today's slaughter market, while less than 20 years ago, the top four firms controlled only 36 percent of the market. Over the last year we have watched the on-farm price of commodities plummet, while at the same time, retail prices have remained constant or even increased. The problem of price disparity, I believe is in part, attributable to growing market concentration. Since it is evident that market concentration exists, this legislation is a first step in working to restore fair market prices to our producers. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation--it is an admirable initiative that seeks to strengthen financial solvency for our family producers. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will recognize the benefits this effort will generate for producers and rural communities across the United States and will join us in restoring true market competition.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues Senator Johnson, Senator Grassley and Senator Kerrey in introducing the ``Rural America Needs Competition to Help Every Rancher Act of 1999'' (RANCHER). Additional regulation of meat packing companies has become necessary because of a loophole my colleagues and I have long been concerned about: the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 does not clearly and definitively address meat packers owning livestock for slaughter. This legislation will prohibit meat packing companies from owning and feeding livestock, with the exception of producer-owned cooperatives defined by the majority of ownership interest in the cooperative being held by co-cop members that own, feed, or control livestock and provide those livestock to the co-op. An exemption for cooperatives is included as recognition and reward to those producers who have invested the resources necessary to enhance their market edge. In placing a prohibition on meat packing companies, our efforts today will be branded as anti-competitive and in support of ``big government,'' versus the ``free market.'' However, our intentions are precisely the opposite--we are introducing this legislation with goal of restoring competition to our livestock markets. In fact, this legislation is long overdue. In recent years, livestock markets have become increasingly more concentrated, leaving individual producers with fewer options for selling their products. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the four top meat packing firms control roughly 80 percent of today's slaughter market, while less than 20 years ago, the top four firms controlled only 36 percent of the market. Over the last year we have watched the on-farm price of commodities plummet, while at the same time, retail prices have remained constant or even increased. The problem of price disparity, I believe is in part, attributable to growing market concentration. Since it is evident that market concentration exists, this legislation is a first step in working to restore fair market prices to our producers. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation--it is an admirable initiative that seeks to strengthen financial solvency for our family producers. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will recognize the benefits this effort will generate for producers and rural communities across the United States and will join us in restoring true market competition.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which revises an outdated and constricting statute for the number of federal sodium leases which can be held by any single producer within a state. This limitation is damaging the economic viability of an environmental responsible and critical mining industry for our country. The soda ash industry has been operating under the present acreage limitation for five decades. This cap for lease holdings is the oldest acreage limitation under the Mineral Leasing Act. In fact, sodium is the only mineral subject to the Act which has not had an increase since the law was amended in 1948. It is out of date with the competitive and technological advances in the industry and needs to be changed as we move into the next century. Specifically this legislation provides the Secretary of the Interior with discretion to increase the federally held acreage of individual sodium producers; the same additional discretionary authority he has had for some time for other mineral categories affected by this law. It would increase the current limitation from 15,360 acres per producer, to 30,720 acres. The Mineral Leasing Act set forth these limits to ensure that no single entity can control too much of any single mineral reserve. This remains an important objective. A lease limitation ensures that there is sufficient competition, while providing an incentive for development of these reserves and ensures a reasonable rate of return to the Federal Treasury. My bill is consistent with these objectives and seeks only to conform the present limitation to current economic and international conditions. Indeed I am pleased that this bill has the full support of the Wyoming Mining Association, including smaller sodium lease holders, who have traditionally been concerned increasing acreage. Mr President, I offer this bill after carefully reviewing the need for it in light of current conditions affecting the soda ash industry in my state. In my examination, I have been reminded that U.S. soda ash producers, four (of five) of which are in our state, are extremely competitive with one another for a relatively flat domestic market. And, they are also faced with stiff international competition. I believe this legislation is necessary to sustain the global competitiveness of the U.S. soda ash industry. Since our state is blessed with the largest known deposits of trona in the world, I am proud to say that the United States sodium industry is also the world's low cost supplier of soda ash. U.S. produced soda ash, critical to glass manufacture, is accountable for a $400 million positive contribution to our balance of trade. Today, the U.S. soda ash industry comprises five active producers--four in my home state--generating some 12 million tons of soda ash per year, or approximately a third of the world's demand. But I have learned we cannot take these producers for granted. Like so many other industries basic to our economy such as steel, paper, aluminum, copper, and so on, the soda ash mines must take the measures necessary to stay competitive. I know, as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, that many countries have make it difficult to export U.S. soda ash. They have erected tariff and non-tariff barriers to support their own less efficient domestic producers. For this season, U.S. producers have formed the American Natural Soda Ash Corporation (ANSAC), in recognition that the growth of U.S. soda ash is dependent on its ability to effectively export. ANSAC is the sole authorized exporter of soda ash and is wholly owned by the six U.S. sodium producers. It accounts for the employment of some 20,000 people in the U.S. and exports more than $400 million in soda ash to 45 different countries. This is but one example of how our domestic industry has taken the steps necessary to compete effectively abroad. In addition, the producers in my state are making major investments in moderizing their facilities and sustaining the level of capital investment necessary to continue to be competitive both at home and abroad. The start-up cost for a new soda ash operation is estimated to be at least $350 million, and to develop a world class mine, $150 million. This is largely due to the fact that soda ash is mined underground and thus requires a sophisticated processing plant to turn raw ore into the finished products. This is simply the reality of what is required to stay competitive. At this cost a new entrant, as well as existing producers, must have a predictable ``mine plan.'' A primary component of such a plan is a predictable level of reserves that will last several decades. The legislation I am introducing today would help provide this predictability by giving the Secretary the discretion to raise lease limits on a case-by-case basis if the producer can show it is in need of additional reserves to maintain its operations. Producers need to know of mine expansion is possible in order to develop structural design plans which are safe, efficient and maximize the large economic outlays. This is the predictability that any manufacturer needs when contemplating a major capital investment. And in the end, it is the capital required, rather than the acreage available, the must be weighed by new entrants. I would like to note that despite consolidated in the Wyoming trona patch, there is an anticipated new entrant to the soda ash business in our neighboring state of Colorado. Moreover, in Wyoming, six other leaseholders have substantial holdings that could be translated into active production. This bill does not discourage their entry. In fact, by raising the current cap on acreage holdings, it creates an incentive for additional purchase by these holders, one of whom already exceeds the existing limitation. Raising the acreage limitation for trona is also consistent with good environmental and safety practices followed by this industry. Much of the currently mined out acreage is essential to proper ventilation of ongoing operations and therefore critical mine safety. In addition, the mechanically mined out sections are also available for proper tailings disposal, thus avoiding environmental degradation elsewhere. This is a practice encouraged by our Wyoming State Department of Environmental Quality. In summary, Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today provides critical changes in existing statutes in order to sustain the economic viability of an environmental responsible and critical mining industry in our country. The current sodium lease limitation is approximately one-third of the per state Federal lease cap for coal potassium, and one-sixteenth the lease acreage cap for oil and gas. After passing the Mineral Leasing Act in 1948, Congress and the Bureau of Land Management have revised acreage limits for other minerals to meet the needs of these industries consistent with good mining and environmental practices. In light of the conditions I have described, I believe it is time we recognize the need to update the lease limitation for the trona industry as well. I thank you for the time and opportunity to discuss this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.