Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. I insist on the point of order and insist on a ruling.

Mr. THOMAS. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. I raise a point of order it is not germane to what we are talking about. It is not germane to what this discussion is about.

Mr. THOMAS. Campaign finance reform----

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order. Could I have a determination?

Mr. THOMAS. I object.

Mr. THOMAS. I raise a point of order. Would the Senator please explain the question exchange? I am sorry, I don't understand this.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order again, that campaign finance is not the issue we are talking on, and I raise a point of order on it.

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator from California does not make precedent.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending appeal be laid aside to be called up by the majority leader.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Regular order. I renew my objection that the debate is not germane.

Mr. THOMAS. I have no objection.

Mr. THOMAS. I object. I at least would like to have some limit as to the amount of time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the subject matter is not germane.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Has the Senator from Virginia concluded his comments?

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire as much time as he needs.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent the remaining votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes in length.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for sharing the results of the hearing he had this morning. It is one of the real serious issues before the Senate, as is the case with the Senator from Oklahoma when he talks about the military problems in Puerto Rico. We have a lot of things with which to deal. Most importantly, of course, is finishing our appropriations work. The end of the fiscal year occurs within 2 weeks. We will have at that time all the appropriations bills to the President. We intend to do that. It is difficult, of course, to go through the appropriations process and stay within those boundaries we have given ourselves, to stay within the boundaries of the caps, to stay within the boundaries of available funds and, maybe most important, to stay within spending limits without reaching into Social Security funds, which I think everyone is committed not to do. There is a great difference of philosophy about how we do this. It seems to me we need to continue to think. There are those who legitimately want to see more government, more Federal Government, more involvement, more programs, and others who believe there ought to be a limited Federal Government--that, indeed, the role of the Federal Government is limited. I had the opportunity yesterday to celebrate with four junior highs in my hometown of Casper, WY, the 212th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. These were 9th graders. It was great fun. Some of them had on Uncle Sam suits in red, white, and blue. They all signed their own copy of the Constitution. One of the issues talked about by these 9th graders was the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment says the Federal Government's duties are spelled out in the Constitution. If they are not, they are left to the States or the people. It was interesting to talk about that. These young people who read that say: What are some of the things that our Government is doing? Of course, there is a legitimate debate about that. Each year, as we come into the appropriations process, it seems to me we miss an opportunity to have evaluated where we want to go, what we legitimately want to do, and then fund it. Unfortunately, we get into the funding proposition before we have decided what it is we want to do; maybe more importantly, before we have had the opportunity to measure the effectiveness of what is in place. That is one of the reasons many Members are seeking to have a biennial budget--so that the appropriations process only takes place every other year. In that case, agencies have a longer time to know what their budget is. The key is that the Congress has oversight responsibility. Indeed, it should be looking at the expenditures; it should be looking at programs and setting priorities; it should be decided how effective they are and what the expenditures have been. We had a little example this morning. About a year ago, three Members asked the GAO to do an examination of the cost of Presidential travel. They came in with their primary report yesterday. Even though there are a great many trips to be made, this President has made more trips than any other President in recent history. We asked that three trips be examined--a trip to Chile, a trip to China, and a trip to Africa--to see what it cost taxpayers. The trip to Chile. Chile is not too far. There were a couple of stops. It cost $10.5 million; 592 people traveled with the President, 109 from the White House. That was the least expensive trip. The trip to China last year was almost $19 million; 510 people traveled, 123 from the White House. These are the type of things at which we need to look. I think it is perfectly legitimate for the President to travel. Is it legitimate to have these costs? Africa. There was contact with six countries. It cost nearly $43 million to visit Africa. Mr. President, 1,300 people traveled with the President, 205 from the White House. These are the kind of expenses we should evaluate. These are the things at which we ought to look. These are the areas we ought to say: Yes, there ought to be trips, but $43 million for a trip to Africa is a bit expensive and a little extensive. That is what the oversight is all about. I think we need to be sure we evaluate those things. We need to see if programs now in place, programs that are now being funded, are still as necessary as they were when they began, or do they need to be changed. There is a constituency that builds up around programs. Any change is resisted. That is not how to run any other business. We have to take a look to see if it is still effective, see what the mission is, see if that mission is being carried out, see if the dollars could be spent more efficiently somewhere else. That is what the budget process is about. Now we are faced with having put together a budget some time back, about 3 or 4 years ago, and finding ourselves being pushed hard to break through the budget caps put in place at that time, largely through emergency spending. It is legitimate when we have emergencies such as we have had this year with weather. We are committed not to go into Social Security money. The President has been saying for 4 years: Save Social Security. But he doesn't have a plan. We have a plan to save Social Security. We are going to do our work towards implementing that plan so the dollars that come in have a place to go so they, indeed, are kept for Social Security. I think the key is the idea of individual accounts, which is what we propose to do. People under a certain age would have an individual account crediting a portion of the money they paid into Social Security. It would be their account, their money, invested in the private sector to return a much higher yield, to ensure that benefits are available. In that way, the money would not be spent for other things, as has been in the past. It also deals with the fact that such changes have taken place. I mentioned we have to look at programs from time to time. When Social Security began, I think there were 150 people working for every beneficiary. It came down to 30. Now there are about three workers for every beneficiary and headed towards two. The choices in that program have become simple: We have to raise taxes, and most people don't want to do that; reduce benefits, and most people don't want to do that; or we can increase the return on revenue, increase the return on the money that is in the account--in this case, your individual account. These are the kinds of things that seem to me to be part of the appropriations process, part of the budgeting process. That is what we are facing. It will be difficult to complete that task, but we are dedicated to doing it. As I indicated, there is a legitimate difference of philosophy. I understand that. We see some of it every day. There are those who believe more spending, more government is better. There are those who believe in the 10th amendment, that more government ought to be closer to the people; that States and communities, and in the case of schools, school districts, have the best opportunity to make the decisions that affect their children. I believe in that strongly. I think most on this side of the aisle do. There was a long discussion about education today. Education is important to all Members. I think also there was an interesting set of polling done which indicated that for the most part, people do want to make the decisions at the local level, to make the decisions where the kids are, to make the decisions where the families are. There is quite a difference between what needs to be done in Jugwater, WY, or Philadelphia. So the one-size-fits-all kind of program does not fit. We want to have the flexibility to make the changes that are necessary to do that. Unfortunately, our bills will go to the President. The President has, of course, vowed to veto the tax relief bill that we have sent. I do not believe there will be much opportunity to negotiate the basis for that. That is too bad. As we project, there will be excesses. We think they ought to go back to the taxpayers. In fact, the President wants to spend more money, indeed, increase some taxes--for instance, 55 cents on cigarettes that would be there to offset more spending. So these are the kinds of things with which we must deal. We must do that soon. I believe we are headed in the right direction to have the budget that does reflect our needs, that does deal with patients' health care. We passed a bill. We will do that and we will move forward and complete our work by the end of September. Mr. President, I think we have taken nearly all of our time. I yield the remainder of our time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to visit a little bit about the remaining weeks in this session. I have a little different view of what has happened from that of my friends who are just leaving the floor, who suggest nothing has been done. They did not mention Ed-Flex, one of the most important education bills that has been passed in this Congress, which allows families and school boards and States to have more say in education. They didn't talk about the tax bill which provides an opportunity for families to invest and save their money so it can be used for education. They did not talk about standards and accountability, the fact we are going to take up these bills, the elementary school and secondary education bill, or Social Security, where we have done something about the proposal there, or the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It is interesting; when they talk about some of the things they would like to see happen, they somehow forget about the things we have done. I guess that indicates we do have a different view. It is proper. It is perfectly legitimate to have a different view about how we accomplish the things we are about. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma such time as he may consume.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I hope it could be limited to 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. No objection.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I move to reconsider the last vote.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we have used the time that has been allocated. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes. Since I am the only one present, the chances are probably pretty good.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I will take a very short while. I think the details, the information of this issue have been well discussed. But I rise in strong opposition to what is being proposed based simply on the health of forests. In Wyoming, of course, we have national forests, as they do in Pennsylvania and other places. These forests need to be managed. I just spent several days in August in Yelowstone National Park. We road for 2 days, and all of it was in burnt forests. I have to tell you, that burn was not even effective because the ground fuel is still there. The trees are dead, but the ground fuel is there. So all I am saying is, you have to manage this resource. Something will happen to the trees. They will either die or they will be harvested or they will be diseased. So if we are to have healthy forests, certainly they need to be managed. The proponents of the amendment have said the timber program is wasteful. It was never intended to operate as a commercial tree farm. We have some numbers as to the resources that are provided for communities and the Federal Government. They are substantial. I am not inclined to take a great deal of time. The chief of the Forest Service has stated there are 40 million acres of national forests which are at risk, either through fire or infestation. This amendment would cripple the Forest Service's ability to use the timber harvest to promote health. The amendment will crush a program that provides significant economic contributions to both the Federal Government and the communities. This amendment is wrong. It is shortsighted. I question why the Congress would continue to ask the agency to manage this land and then take away their ability to do that. So I will end by urging Members not to vote for this amendment. I yield back the time. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.